Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study  or
     What it is about and misconceptions regarding clarified
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“This cancellation is contemporary with the justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person.
        
 
The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
 
 
It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)  

This page will give you the details about this infamous Fair Game Law as it was in use within the Scientology organization, and various other matters relating to this.

 
Index:

     Foreword
    
Beginnings of ‘fair game’
  Events leading up to the term coming into being
  The matter of ‘fair game’ defined and clarified
 
Cancellation
  (1) The cancellation of the practice of ‘fair game’
             — HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” —
- “Penalties for Lower Conditions” & “Hat don't hit”
- A brief history of “Conditions, Awards & Penances”
- The matter of HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”
  (2) Cancellation of declaring people ‘fair game’
      — HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” —
- What does that mean?
             (Includes:  (a) “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”;  (b) The anti-Scientologist is saying: “A trick is being played!”)
      - The ‘old green volume’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in these volumes)
- The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in this dictionary)
- What happened with the policy letters making mention of ‘fair game’?
  
Final notices
  Questions raised
     
(proposal 1)  Does it carry any weight if lawyers representing the Church of Scientology state in court that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation?
- (proposal 2)  In what way are Flag Orders different from HCO PL's? Was ‘fair game’ ever cancelled through a Flag Order and does that bear any significance?
  Afterword



 
Back to Main Index Foreword

For sure this matter about this Fair Game Law is a rather charged subject. The Church of Scientology has been accused of still exercising such practices till this very day. My little write up is not aiming at defying that or justifying any of that. It is not my intention to forward an opinion as such concerning if this be true or not true. It is just not that which motivated me to compile this information and look into this matter. In all these matters regarding ‘fair game’ however it has generally been neglected to find out what the Scientology published writings actually say about these things. Or how the whole thing came into being. Various things are just being assumed, just too much has been assumed. Purposely also improper interpretations have been drawn which can not actually be defended when we check up on what the writings actually say and when we view its track in Scientology history. Not any of these things can be properly adjudicated if one has not properly studied and consulted these writings themselves.

There is also the matter of even if it may be true that the ‘practice of fair game’ in some form still would be exercised, and if this seems so, to then look into what the reason is for that? Is it advocated by Scientology writings? Are Scientology staff working from and consulting old now cancelled policy letters? Has a trick been played as some claim? Is it just plain misunderstanding of some person(s) within the Scientology organization? Is it intent? On this page I have attempted to collect various information about the matter. I have attempted to objectively force some logic on to this. You however have to decide for yourself what to think of it all.

Go to index

 
Beginnings of ‘fair game’

Back to Main Index Events leading up to the term coming into being

The early 60's were turbulent years. Apparently various individuals were creating troubles on the lines of the Scientology organization. Further there were indications of various security risks. Various of these matters are addressed in issues of the periodical Ability from that time. E-Meters were being confiscated, unfavourable propaganda about Scientology hit the media, and more such things.

        
“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.
        
 
To foil these, all staff members must be alert to attempts of this nature and it is their duty to inform the Technical Director, or above, of any doubts they may have and to see that the necessary action is taken.”          LRH     
(from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 I “Security Risks Infiltration”)
 

        
“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)
        

The periodical Ability recorded the following regarding the FDA raid in January 1963:
    ‘Ability 146’, Feb 63:
         “Legal Information”
“The DC Situation” by L. Ron Hubbard*
“Our Role in the World” by L. Ron Hubbard*
    ‘Ability 148’, Apr 63 “Documentary”:
         “Introduction” by the editors
“Washington Office Report on Congress of Quackery” by Harold Edwards
“Twenty Questions” (which the Food and Drug Administration is required to answer)
“The F.D.A. Letter” (The Thing Itself; Our Reply to the FDA Letter)
“What We Ask” (require return of seized property, and to dismiss the Libel of Information)
“The Present” by the editors
“Important Notice” (to Scientologists regarding the E-Meter) by John Fudge
* & * The Ability periodical does not mention it, however these particular articles have been first issued as follows:  (them being identical in text)
     HCO Information Letter 15 Jan 63 “The DC Situation”
     HCO Information Letter 16 Jan 63 “Our Role in the World”

Various of these happenings are also recorded and confirmed in Omar V. Garrison's ‘The Hidden Story of Scientology’ (1974). It was found at that time that certain measures had to be taken to counteract amongst other this.

Here under I give a selection from HCO PL [7] Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” (later reissued and more commonly known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”). It is this reference that actually introduced the term and the first to make mention of it. The publication history of this reference can be consulted here (separate window).

        
“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
        
 
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.
 
 
A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc* yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.
 
 
A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
 
 
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.
 
 
A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. ...
 
 
Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. ...
 
 
This policy letter gives the means and provides the policy for getting the above situation handled. ...
 
 
A Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game’.”          LRH
 

 
Back to Main Index The matter of ‘fair game’ defined and clarified

HCO PL [7] Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” says:
        
“By FAIR GAME is meant, without rights for self, possession or position, and no Scientologist may be brought for a Committee of Evidence* or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is ‘fair game’.”          LRH
        

In the revision 10 months later (issued as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”) the latter sentence changed to the more realistic and neutral:
        
“A Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game’. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist.”          LRH
        

Additional explanation of this you will find in HCO PL 17 Mar 65 II “Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source of the Fair Game Law”.
(Note:  The present version of this reference is HCO PL 17 Mar 65 IV “Organizational Suppressive Acts” (see 1991 edition of “Organization Executive Course” volumes). The instances where it said fair game had been removed. Do note that the reference does not carry the revision indication as per HCO PL 2 May 72RA* “Numbering of Mimeo Issues” (see more on this reference on page “LRH vs Dictionaries”, consult here, separate window).
        
“When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.
        
 
It does not make sense to extend the protection of the group to the person seeking to destroy the group. That's like encouraging a disease.
 
 
Hence we have a Fair Game Law.”          LRH
         (for more quotations from this HCO PL please click here (pop-up window))
 

The above quotations of these 2 references give us a basic layout of what it is actually about. There is a practicality involved with all this. More quotations are found here below.

HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology” comments:
        
“You see, none is fair game until he or she declares against us.”          LRH
        

And HCO PL 16 Oct 67 “Suppressives and the Administrator, How to Detect SPs as an Administrator”:
        
“Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90 percent of the population. So we get them aside for another day.
        
 
We get them off lines, out of orgs* and to one side.”          LRH
 

Practically it could mean:  (from HCO PL [7] Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”)
        
“..., no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.
        
 
The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.
 
 
A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.”          LRH       (the text added in the 23 Dec 65 revision of this policy letter are given in this typestyle)
 
(Note:  The first 2 paragraphs in the above had been deleted in a later revision of this policy letter!)

And HCO PL 16 Aug 65 II “Collection from SPs and PTSs” says:
        
“Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game.”          LRH
        
(Note:  This text was later added to the 23 Dec 65 revision of HCO PL “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”)

And HCO PL 7 Mar 65 II “HCO (Division 1), Ethics, Offenses and Penalties” adds in section “HIGH CRIMES”:
        
“Cancellation of Certificates, Classifications and Awards and becoming fair game ... .”          LRH
        

An often on the Internet quoted reference is HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. It says:
        
“ENEMY — 
SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”          LRH
        

The above conforms with the definition as found in ‘World Book Dictionary’ (1974 edition):
    ‘fair game’, “1. animals or birds that is lawful to hunt. 2. a suitable object of pursuit or attack.”

Now what does all the above mean practically? They could be seen as measures taken at a particular time to prevent an organization from going under. These persons that in these early days were declared fair game were not considered to be part of that group and so lines were set up to bar them from the premises, and more such things. The intend obviously was thus to effectively close the door to those persons that interfered in auditing and training from occurring. People however may always try to sneak in again through some back. And thus it was found necessary to put some heads on a pike. The alternate would be to inform the police and let them take care of it or you bring it into court where a judge may give its ruling. Some of the stipulations however were surely a bit brute. But as earlier explained, the time were hazardous within the organization and was under rather heavy attack. Does this justify all the measures taken? Well, probably not, but at least one can grant it some understanding for why certain measures were taken at that particular time period.
It should thus be seen as a practicality to protect a group at a particular time. If there are people being unfairly handled, it may very well be so that some individuals within the organization are being overzealous in regards to this, or they may have seriously misunderstood some things. If any persons were being unfairly treated, then they should find the applicable violated references and oppose. One should not agree with something one does disagree with at any time. You have various options such as writing an ‘Orders, Query of’ or report the matter. Things however may get rough, and one may be faced with very ignorant people. I have personally seen and experienced the exceeding unreasonableness one may encounter regarding corrections and these matters of justice. Mind though that you are on planet earth.
The prevailing factor remains being:
    “‘All ethics is for ...’”  (separate window)

 
Cancellation

Back to Main Index (1) The cancellation of the practice of ‘fair game’
— HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” —

 
Go back “Penalties for Lower Conditions” & “Hat don't hit”

It appears that HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was explicitly cancelled by HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (also issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, 21 Jul 68 “same title”). Its heading says:
“HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968 
  (Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV)”
Also note that this HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” is not found in ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes that were released during 1970-74, and that would actually mean that it was simply not in use.
Strictly taken is HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” a revised reissue of HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (also notice the same title of this reference!). The revising issue therefore should have become HCO PL 18 Oct 67R (Revised 21 Jul 68) IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”.
(Note:  There existed during the sixties a variety of reissues, that were given a new HCO PL date, even if the reissue was identical to the original issue, these particular reissues did state however that it was a reissue of HCO PL such and such; what happened to HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV was also the fate of HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”, which was a revised reissued as HCO PL 23 Dec 65“same title”. A new standard was since put to use in HCO PL 2 May 72 “Numbering of Mimeo Issues” that introduced the ‘R’, ‘RA’ system.)

It is hard to come by an actual copy of this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. In fact it appears only available as an original mimeo print-off, meaning it is not found in any book volume or compilation pack. In Scientology publications its existence can be verified in the “Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter Subject Index” (issued 1976). It is found in “Appendix A”, which is a chronological and “complete list of Policy Letters written by the Founder [L. Ron Hubbard] or ordered by him”. On page 215 we find the entry:
  
   “HCO POLICY LETTER                          21 July 1968
                                      (Cancels HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV)
    Penalties for Lower Conditions”
A full transcribed copy of the policy letter also appears in an official report: ‘Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology: Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971’. This is often referred to as the ‘Foster Report’.

With this replacement issue the condition of Enemy was rewritten and changed into:
        
ENEMY - Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”)
        

It can be seen here that this is not in accordance anymore with the fair game definition as given in the ‘World Book Dictionary’ (1974 edition). This practically would mean that a practice of fair game was cancelled with the issuance of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. The rule is: “HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters.”   LRH . This would mean that if certain data in earlier issued policy letters is contradicted in policy letters issued at a later data, that the data that is contradicted as found in any other earlier policy letter is not to be followed or put to use! In this particular instance the actual definition of the condition of Enemy was changed. Only a policy letter issued at a later date can then reinstate that and they have to specifically clarify what exactly is being reinstated.
Some however argue about “May be restrained or imprisoned.”. The question is if you would stop some person who is physically assaulting someone or is going berserk and starts throwing rocks through windows (or something). Security agencies also have the legal right to stop such persons, to actually physically restrain such a person, lock him up in a room for the time being where he can do no harm to anyone till the cops arrive to collect this person. Nonetheless it has been an argument from critics of Scientology out on the Internet that “restrained or imprisoned” is synonym to practicing fair game, they would then forward the claim that the revision made no difference.

Also this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” got replaced only a few years later by HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”. This time the message was indeed a very different one. It says:
        
“This cancellation is contemporary with the justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person.
        
 
The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
 
 
It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH
 
Note:  A full copy of this reference also appears in the earlier mentioned ‘Foster Report’. (‘Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology: Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971’).

It is also in concordance with what L. Ron Hubbard wrote in August 1970:
        
“The enemy attacks are yesterday's news. He's dead. Now you HAVE TO OPEN UP YOUR AREA AND GO GO GO!”          LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 120 Int’, 27 Aug 70 “Auditors Association Project In YOUR AREA for Class IV Orgs”)
        

The 3 main references about this can be consulted in full when clicking on respective links below, as they may clarify some things:  (all pop-up windows)
    HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
  HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  (revision of HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV)
  HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”   (cancels HCO PL 21 Jul 68)
As a side note one should however realize that this administrative technology at the time was still in development. Naturally if an organization is being under attack one need to figure out how to effectively handle that situation. At that time the organization endured various hazardous attacks, a handling for that was needed, and quick. Also as a result one of the most vital policies of them all was written and issued: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”. Various quotations from this HCO PL can be consulted here (separate window).

The story does not end here. This HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” in turn cancelled in 1971. Various more references replaced one after the other. A chronology of all of these are found in the here directly following section.

 
Go back A brief history of “Conditions, Awards & Penances”

In below table I have listed in chronological order the references that have been released about these Penalties for Lower Conditions and point out their relation and publication history:

    
  Reference:   Notes: 
 HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)”  [= Conditions ‘Normal’ and above]  Complemented by next ...
 HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  [= Conditions below ‘Normal’]  Replaced by next ...
 HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  Replaced by next ...
 HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”  Cancelled by next ...
 HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corr and Reiss 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated”  Replaced by next ...
 HCO PL 16 Nov 71 “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  Replaced by next ...
 HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Rev 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  Replaced by next ...
 BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Rev 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  Replaced by next ...
 HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”  Cancelled by next ...
 HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”   

Originally instated by HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, then to have it superseded by a total of 7 references, the final reference cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”. Meaning that the original 1967 reference had been superseded that many times! Realizing this it becomes rather silly to claim that the original reference would have been secretly in use as the common anti-Scientologist claims. It is just not how the policy letter system is set up. Whatever causes or resembles a practice of fair game after its cancellation would not have been because of that reference.
Each of these references in more detail explained here below.

 
Reference index:

HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)”
HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”
HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corrected and Reissued 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated”
HCO PL 16 Nov 71 “Conditions: Awards, Penances”
HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Revised 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”
BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”
HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”
HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”

  
Go back
HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)”  (complemented by next)
    
This policy letter was actually issued untitled, in parenthesis though was given the above text. Later policy letters may refer to this same policy letter as either HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “Conditions for Scn Orgs, Addition to Applying Formulas” or as HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “Conditions, Awards & Penalties”. These denote the exact same reference! The reference was quite short, all it did was listing a table that headed: “CONDITIONS    AWARDS AND PENALTIES”, listing the conditions Non-Existence to Power. The rules were not harsh, I guess they were just realistic for this time period. Danger Condition says amongst other: “No lunch hour and expected to work at night. Low pay and no bonuses.”. Power says: “New possessions and new insignia at Org expense. Pay and bonuses and pay raise.”. Each of these conditions were also given a ribbon and a star by which one could identify the condition one was in production wise.

  
Go back
HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  (replaced by next)
    
This one addresses the conditions below Non-Existence. From Liability to Enemy. This policy letter actually complements the previous HCO PL 26 Sept 67. Both together they then list all the conditions. Pretty crude rules are though found on this policy letter. (consult in full here, pop-up window)

  
Go back
HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  (replaced by next)
    
This cancelled and replaced in full HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (revised reissue of this policy letter!). The severity of the actions as given in the earlier reference changed dramatically (fair game abolished). (consult in full here, pop-up window)
This policy letter was also issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, same date “same title”)

  
Go back
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”  (cancelled by next)
    
This cancelled HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)” & HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” and 2 additional policy letters. This introduced an entirely different approach: “The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.”. (consult in full here, pop-up window)
Take notice here that simply because a reference gets cancelled that previously had cancelled another reference, that this does not mean that the original reference turns valid again. If it does it always has to be specifically noted! Thus, just because HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” got cancelled, this does not automatically reinstate HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. One should be very clear about this.

  
Go back
HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corrected and Reissued 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated”  (replaced by next)
    
For a short while these penalties were reinstated by this policy letter written by the “LRH Pers Comm [=LRH Personal Communicator] by order of L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER”. It spoke about a “serious flap” on the lines due to a person not being “confined”, but instead “let loose” enabling this person to create a situation that “threatened the security and safety of the organization”. “The reintroduction of penalties is done by demand of HCO to enable them to carry out their duties.”
It is listed in this policy letter as follows:
      “The following HCO PLs which the 6 Oct 70 Issue III PL cancelled are reinstated in full:      
    HCO PL 26 Sept ’67        
  HCO PL 21 Jul ’68
  HCO PL 20 Oct ’67 Issue II
  HCO PL 6 Oct ’67
Conditions for Scn Orgs Addition to Applying Formulas
Penalties for Lower Conditions
Conditions Penalties New Employees and Persons Newly on Post
Condition of Liability”
 
Particularly interesting here is the actual writer of this reference. Because this noted “LRH Pers Comm” goes under the name Ken Urquhart. He was the same person that had later in 1974 written that Flag Order that established the disreputed Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF). Various information that since have come forward about the person has made him look suspect. You can read more about this in the article I wrote about him entitled “The tale of Ken Urquhart ”, consult here (separate window).
Needless to say that suspicion arises here, as he reinstated that what L. Ron Hubbard one year earlier had cancelled! Even more because the reference that he wrote was already replaced with another one less than 4 weeks later. Unfortunately thus far I have not been able to locate a copy of this.
Of the 4 listed HCO PL's, all of them excepting only HCO PL 20 Oct 67 II, were confirmed cancelled (and remained cancelled) as per HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”.

  
Go back
HCO PL 16 Nov 71 “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  (replaced by next)
    
This policy letter adjusted HCO PL 19 Oct 71“Ethics Penalties Reinstated”, and is not listed as having been written by L. Ron Hubbard.
I do not have access to a copy of this, for which reason I am unable to give any specifics. Although they would be rather interesting! It is possible that it counteracted the reinstatement of these Ethics Penalties. Do you have a copy of this, please contact me!

  
Go back
HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Revised 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  (replaced by next)
    
Also not written by L. Ron Hubbard. I don't know what it directs. Do you have a copy of this, please contact me!

  
Go back
BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  (replaced by next)
    
The previous reference revised reissued on the BPL issue-type format as it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard. Do you have a copy of this, please contact me!

  
Go back
HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”  (cancelled by next)
    
This policy letter cancelled and replaced BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”. It says:
      “This policy letter is an update and streamlining of the awards and penances for conditions. It supersedes earlier BPLs on awards and penances, application of which has at times caused bad public relations.      
    Those issues which remain cancelled are:  
    HCO PL 26 Sept 67        
  HCO PL 21 Jul 68
  HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV
  HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III
  HCO PL 19 Oct 71
CONDITIONS, AWARDS & PENALTIES
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
ETHICS PENALTIES
ETHICS PENALTIES REINSTATED”
 
It lists here above references that remain cancelled” (underlining is mine), which would imply that they already at a previous date had been cancelled. HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corrected and Reissued 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated” had reinstated the previous 4 listed references (see in above table). Then per the guiding rule established in 1972 that “Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.”  LRH , it must then have been HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Revised 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances” that thus had retracted that.
This HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances” was quite extensive, it had turned into 5 pages of text. All the different conditions had rather gentle rules, it can not be compared with the 1967 rules. Then it added various lengthy explanations. It was attributed to “L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER” and “As assisted by Real Laplaine, Int HES [International HCO Executive Secretary]. Which actually meant that it was written/compiled by this “Real Laplaine” as per HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”: “If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by_____’”  LRH.

  
Go back
HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”
    
This HCO Administration Letter cancelled HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”. I have been unable to consult this particular reference, therefore I have it not confirmed why it was cancelled. It is assumed however that it was cancelled as it was not devised by L. Ron Hubbard, about all these HCO Admin Letters that were cancelling issues did that because of these not having been written or approved by L. Ron Hubbard.

 
Go back The matter of HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”

In 1980 a clarification of the phenomena fair game was written and issued by ‘THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY’. This was HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”. The reference is not easy to come by, and there has also been some speculation about what it supposedly discusses out there on this Internet. To put an end to rumours this reference has been quoted in full in link here below:  (pop-up window)
    HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”
The reference was already cancelled 3½ years later HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”, with the only reason given that it was “not written by the Founder”.

 
Back to Main Index (2) Cancellation of declaring people ‘fair game’
— HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” —

 
Go back What does that mean?

        
“The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
        
 
This P/L* does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP*.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” - full text of the policy letter is given)
 

 
Go back
(a) “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”

So it says: “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”. The word ‘declare’ according to ‘World Book Dictionary’ (1974) would mean: “to announce publicly or formally”. And so declare may not actually address the practice of fair game itself. It could be inferred from this that just the “practice of declaring” (like in not using the name fair game) would be cancelled, but still ‘allowing’ fair game itself being practiced. This conclusion is actually what a variety of critics to Scientology have been pounding on out on the Internet. This same policy letter also says at the bottom: “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.” Some have argued that fair game would have been such a treatment.
And indeed, they may have had a valid point if it was not for the existence of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. As this reference that already 3 months earlier cancelled the actual practice of fair game!  We can thus see here that there was in fact no need to cancel its practice anymore, as the practice was already cancelled!  Reason for nonetheless issuing HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” will probably have been because some individuals still using the term.
Either way claiming that this HCO PL was secretly advising to continue to practice fair game, but only to stop actual declaring has then become sort of absurd. One reason for this misconception would have been due to that this policy letter is not easy accessed at all. For example we do not find it included in ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. But why is it missing there?
Well, at the time of the first release of ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division 1’ near the end of 1970 this reference itself had been superseded by HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”, and this should then have been included in that volume. But that had been missed as it is not in there. It may not have arrived in time for inclusion into the volume. It may also have been thought that HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” would have been sufficient. As it appears man gets always wiser at a later date, and would one have been aware or guessed at that time how this would get miscited and the matter misinterpreted later on, it would have been included in these volumes, instead of rushing the publication of that book volume. We do however have it included in that official report: ‘Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology: Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971’.

Now, if some form of practice of fair game was being exercised it obviously can not be coming from these references. Critics however appear to want to hold on to their argument made and thus seem to reason that HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” somehow reinstates the practice of fair game. I have come across this argument out on the Internet. We can however infer that it does not do that. It seems rather being a reinforcement that fair game was over and done with as some may have continued to use the term, thus HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” was issued to take care of that part.
Why would there have been any need for reinforcement? The problem may have been that the message of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was not clear enough for some individuals. It simply changed the condition of ‘Enemy’ and moved the term fair game out of there. This is not as direct as saying: “The Practice of Fair Game Is Cancelled”, but it still implied that it was discontinued! Also note that HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was replaced in full by HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. This factually means that it obliterated the use of that which it advocates!

        
“The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.
        
 
Don't for heaven's sake mistake alter-is by somebody as evidence of a hidden line.
 
 
There is no hidden data line.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)
 

 
Go back
(b) The anti-Scientologist is saying: “A trick is being played!”

Out on the Internet this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” is as a rule not cited by the anti-Scientologist. They would say then that the actual practice of declaring someone fair game was still secretly in use. There are guidelines that point out how the policy letters system actually works and is to be dealt with, which the common anti-Scientologist is not at all familiar with. Anyhow the existence of this reference has been forwarded to these persons that still made that erroneous claim on their site, but the bulk of them still chose to ignore it.

The argumentation is then made on various anti-Scientology websites that in reality fair game as a practice is not cancelled but only the use of its name. Support for this argument is then provided for with HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” that says: “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.”. Interpreting then as if fair game was such a “treatment or handling”. The conclusion is then drawn that continued use of fair game is recommended, but to just call it something else. Overlooked is thus the existence of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” that already 3 months earlier obliterated its practice or rather this “treatment or handling of an SP”.
This argument also continues to rather arduously being defended on various discussion groups and newsgroups even when the existence of this cancelling policy letter is brought into the discussion. An argumentation that now lacks factual support simply is upheld nonetheless.
The webmasters of as many as 4 of the main anti-Scientology websites that forwarded this “playing a trick on” argument were repeatedly urged to include mention of the existence of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. Only one of these webmasters chose to answer to this and added a link saying “A Second Opinion”, although this is not actually a matter of opinion. This link directed you to a discussion on a newsgroup where this was addressed. The webmasters of the other 3 websites outright chose to fully ignore the information forwarded to them and maintained their argumentation that ruled out the actual existence of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. These sites till this day still say that L. Ron Hubbard was “just playing a trick on them”.
Either way one can not expect to find an honest or truthful presentation of the topic under these conditions. I do not provide for links to these 4 websites as I do not wish to promote them, but they can be found with little effort. There are a few anti-Scientology sites that do actually include listing of this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, but they remain to be a minority.

 
Go back The ‘old green volume’ argument  
(referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in these volumes)

Another argument of critics of Scientology is that the 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes (may be referred to as old green volumes), that they contained policy letters referencing to fair game. Now these books were first released between 1970-74, but were until the end of 1973 only available to Scientology staff. They became available for purchase by Scientology at such time that they were all reprinted in USA in 1974. Some minor updates to policy letters already present in these volumes appear to have been incorporated in this 1974 USA release (‘Volume 0’ contains a few updates from 1973). Virtually however they remained the same, no policy letters issued since the first staff release have been added to these volumes. In fact they have been reprinted until 1986 and were identical to the 1974 release. During all of this time these volumes still contained various references that referred to fair game. What the critics of Scientology usually do not mention is that any of these particular references as found in those volumes carried a notice clarifying matters at the bottom of the last page of each of these references. This notice referred to HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” (you can consult any of these notices for yourself here (pop-up window)).
It could also not refer to HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, simply because this issue itself was already replaced by another reference in 1970 and well by HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”. ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division 1’ (1970) contains policy letters dated as late as December ’70. This HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” could have been included in the original first release, but it may have arrived to late for inclusion in the volume. It can also be so that it was not deemed necessary to include it as it cancelled this penalties system and it was simply end of cycle. What we do know for sure is that neither HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” or HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” are included in that ‘HCO Division 1’ volume.

At the time of the issuance of this 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes these references mentioning fair game in them had not been revised yet, and have the fair game removed out of them. This should be understandable as new policy letters and revisions were frequently written and issued, matters were still under development, and you can't incorporate changes in any and all of these already existing references when something changed and reissue them immediately. It would be a confusing and also a very expensive affair. It also would have been a time craving matter. But it may have been a good decision if at least in the case of some of these policy letters making mention of this fair game that they would have been updated and reissued as soon as possible. Unfortunately this had been passed by. To inform the readers anyhow it was necessary to include these fair game is cancelled notices. This was also done in various course packs that listed these references on its course checksheet.

 
Go back The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument  
(referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in this dictionary)

        
FAIR GAME, by fair game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scn or the rights of a Scientologist. (HCO PL 23 Dec 65)”
        
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))   

We should not actually have found this entry in that dictionary that was issued as late as 1976. At such a time fair game as a practice and the use as a term had been cancelled already since 8 years. This cancellation dating to 1968 would have superseded all references issued at an earlier date that had given directions in regards to fair game. It may actually be considered a flaw that this HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” had not been revised reissued during these 8 years because of this reference being in very regular use. More seriously it was often quoted from when issuing these Ethics Orders. It was not for another 3 years before it finally was revised reissued and had removed any mention of fair game, including its title. This reissue was issued as HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 79) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”.
On the other hand we do find it revised in the 1970 revision of the publication ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1968). The passages in that publication that had been taken from this HCO PL were revised. Find details here (separate window).

So, the reason thus that we find this fair game entry in this dictionary is because at the time of it being issued (1976) this particular reference had not been revised as yet. One of the compilers of the dictionary thus recorded the term fair game from that reference. Mind here though that the definition that was recorded in this ‘Admin Dictionary’ is of a rather innocent nature. That which is a bother here is that it works confusing because it uses the term fair game. A term which use had been abandoned since 1968.
Add to this that this dictionary itself has never been revised but was simply reprinted at least until 1986 after which it had been in use at least until the early 2000's. But just because of all this it does not mean that a practice of fair game was in use because the term appear in this dictionary as the common anti-Scientologist does claim. Amongst Scientology staff it was well known that some fair game belonged to the past and was not something that was in use. Every time this subject came into discussion, this is what I got to hear.

 
Go back What happened with the policy letters making mention of ‘fair game’?

Below are listed in first release order all of the references that had made mention of the term fair game. The first 6 of these had not physically been revised at the time of the issuance of the first 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes and were therefore in need of additional explanation. This information was also required if these issues were included in course packs. Therefore notices were printed at the bottom of these particular references. An full index of these notices can be consulted here (pop-up window).
There were a total of 7 references that had made mention of the term fair game, they are listed here below with all available details given.

Reference index:

1.  HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”
2.  HCO PL 7 Mar 65 III “Offenses & Penalties”
3.  HCO PL 17 Mar 65 II “Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source of the Fair Game Law”
4.  HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology”
5.  HCO PL 5 Apr 65 “Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity”
6.  HCO PL 16 Aug 65 II “Collection from SPs and PTSs”
7.  HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
Annotations

  
Go back
1.  HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”
    
(Revision of ‘HCO PL 7 Mar 65, Issue I’ - originally misdated as 1 March 1965)
Fair game referencing removed:  31 December 1979  
Done by:  HCO PL 23 Dec 65R “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”
Revision notices:  None in regards to fair game  (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
Although the revision notes say nothing about fair game, nonetheless any and all referrals to fair game were in fact removed (including deleting it from its title). It in addition deleted the following paragraphs:
        
“..., no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.
        
 
  The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.”          LRH
 

  
Go back
2.  HCO PL 7 Mar 65, Issue III “Offenses & Penalties”
    
Fair game referencing removed:  24 October 1975  
Done by:  HCO PL 7 Mar 65R, Issue III “same title”
Revision notices:  ?  (I have been unable to consult this revision, however it is assumed that it did contain notices in regards to fair game being removed, it is however unverified as yet!)
Do you have a copy of this HCO PL 7 Mar 65R, Issue III “Offenses & Penalties”?  Please contact me!

  
Go back
3.  HCO PL 17 Mar 65, Issue II “Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source of the Fair Game Law”
    
Fair game referencing removed:   Late ’80's, probably ca 1990.
Done by:  HCO PL 17 Mar 65 (no reissue date found), Issue IV “Organizational Suppressive Acts”
Revision notices:  None  (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
My comments:  This is obviously the same reference, even it being switched to an Issue IV reference. The issue has been stripped from its fair game referencing (including from its title), and should therefore have turned into an ‘R’ issue.

  
Go back
4.  HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology”
    
Fair game referencing removed:  14 December 1980
Done by: HCO PL 2 Apr 65R “same title”
Revision notices:  “(Revised to delete references to ‘fair game’)” (taken from original mimeo print-off)

  
Go back
5.  HCO PL 5 Apr 65 “Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity”
    
Fair game referencing removed:  20 November 1987 (it was unrevised included in the PTS/SP Course Pack issued 2 Sept ’86)
Done by:  HCO PL 5 Apr 65 (Reissued 20 Nov 87), Issue I “same title”
Revision notices:  None  (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
My comments:  The issue has been stripped from its fair game referencing, and should therefore have turned into an ‘R’ issue.

  
Go back
6.  HCO PL 16 Aug 65, Issue II “Collection from SPs and PTSs”
    
Fair game referencing removed:  Between 8 January & 13 March 1991 (the year is deriving from a referencing made in the new version of the issue, it is also included in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, and must therefore have been revised in 1991. An additional note can be made about that an excerpt (without fair game and an additional paragraph) of this issue appeared in the PTS/SP Course Pack, issued Sept 2, 1986, at the bottom of the version found in that pack is mentioned that the full text of the Policy Letter is found in the 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, which then does contain a reference to fair game.
Done by:  HCO PL 16 Aug 65 (no reissue date found), Issue II “same title”
Revision notices:  None  (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
My comments:  The issue has been stripped from its fair game referencing, and should therefore have turned into an ‘R’ issue.

  
Go back
7.  HCO PL 18 Oct 67, Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
    
Fair game referencing removed:   21 July 1968
Done by:  HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “same title”  (available only as an original mimeo print-off); (also issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, 21 Jul 68 “same title”)
Revision notices:  None in regards to fair game directly, the condition of Enemy had been redefined and the fair game referencing was removed while doing that. But it did say: “(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV)”.
My comments:  Prior to 1972 it was the common practice that revised references (or unrevised reissues) received the date it was revised or reissued. A new standard was introduced in 1972 with HCO PL 2 May 72 “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”. If this standard had been used with this reference it would have been issued as HCO PL 18 Oct 67R (Revised 21 Jul 68), Issue IV “same title”.

  
Go back
Annotations
    
It has been noted that 3 issues in the above had been stripped from their fair game referencing, but they had not been turned into an ‘R’ issue. In addition of 2 of these we are unable to find the exact reissue date. It seems that some quietly wanted to remove the fair game referencing out of them without drawing any attention to it. In any case it is not following the rules as laid out in HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”:
        
“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.”          LRH
        

It's a little odd if you think about how much time it took till these issues were actually stripped from their fair game referencing, and reissued without it. Especially this is in fact a shame for HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”, which is a very frequently used reference when putting together Ethics Orders. It may have added to the confusion about the subject as found out on the Internet, but even within the Scientology organizations.

Go to index

 
Final notices

Back to Main Index Questions raised

I did encounter some claims and statements in regards to fair game that were being forwarded on a forum on the Internet. Here I take the opportunity to respond to these.

 
Go back
(proposal 1)  Does it carry any weight if lawyers representing the Church of Scientology state in court that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation?

The first one was posted by a person posting as ‘SpecialFrog’ reads:
        
“Partially in response to the discussion on Marty's site I've tried to dig through the history of the policy.
        
 
Wise Old Goat has a claimed history but he admits he can't find a lot of the docs in the chain.
 
 
Additionally, Scientology's own lawyers in the GO trials admitted that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation:
 
 
[link]
 
 
From various leaked GO materials, it is clear that there are a lot of confidential policies that only apply to GO (and no presumably OSA) that pretty definitely encourage illegal activities.”
 
(GO = Guardian Office)

In the 2nd sentence it makes reference to my site and seems to try to imply something when writing: “he admits he can’t find a lot of the docs in the chain”. See, it doesn't matter if I can't find every reference in the chain. It suffices when I have access to all the important ones. And I do have access to these and I do list them.

In the 3rd sentence it offers the proposition as if it would carry any weight if some lawyer (here presenting the Church of Scientology) may have admitted “‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation”. Now does anyone need to address this even? Of course people will practice nasty behaviour, even if not operated from or based on some cancelled reference. That is what man does. In any group you get these ‘agreements’ inciting these behavioural patterns, and this is what people will follow up on. Was there a reference secretly in use? I would actually doubt that. I have been at various places, and have observed this sort of behaviour of staff, but nonetheless I did not see them operating from some cancelled reference.
Its 4th sentence offered a link to such a court document in where some lawyer admitted that something. Linked to is the court file: “SENTENCING MEMORANDUM (16th day of December, 1980)” of “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JANE KEMBER & MORRIS BUDLONG a/k/a MO BUDLONG - Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)”. In this court document we find the passage:
     “Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early August, 1980, only after the defendants' personal attack on Judge Richey.”     
Is this actually convincing to anyone? These sort of passages are then frequently forwarded by anti-Scientologists and various persons as evidence that the actual practice of fair game had been in use regardless of its cancellation. The policy letter and reference system is rather strict and precise. If some reference is cancelled it is cancelled and this is accordingly enforced on every level. I have worked in the area that issued and printed these references and I know this being the case.

 
Go back
(proposal 2)  In what way are Flag Orders different from HCO PL's? Was ‘fair game’ ever cancelled through a Flag Order and does that bear any significance?

A second message was posted by ‘aaron saxton’ and reads:
        
“I would like to point out, that Sea Org members have as higher orders the Flag Orders, CBOs and Rons direct references.
        
 
In hat packs, the ratio of FOs to HCO Pls is about 2:1 in favor of FOs.
 
 
In Flag Orders, the Fair Game policy was issued and was never cancelled as a Flag Order – the only reason why every ex-SO from mgmt can quote it isn't because they found out about it after they left – they were taught it, in FOs and not HCO PLs.
 
 
Try to keep this in mind – Marty nor the Church will ever argue with the Flag Orders or bring them up – because they contain the worst of it.
 
 
Remember, Scientologists and staff adhere to HCOPLs and SO Members to FOs. Only SO members are Mgmt or OSA.
 
 
Messengers for example in their hat packs through the CMO EPF and Basic Modified Product One Series of training have a ratio of messenger orders, FOs/CBOs and HCO PLs of about 4:2:1.
 
 
In other words, HCO PLs are for the people, but FOs are for the Princes.”
 
(CBO = Central Bureaux Order;  OSA = Office of Special Affairs)

I would not say that Sea Org members “have as higher orders the Flag Orders, CBOs and Rons direct references”. Flag Orders are actually only listed as the equivalent of HCO PL's in the Sea Organization. They are not more, less, or senior. They are equivalent!  The same applies for these CBO's and even any “direct references”. The matter is only that the duties of these Sea Org members are different but also senior to those staff in lower classed Scientology organizations. Flag Orders deal with matters that Sea Org member need to know and operate on. However, the bulk of the references where they operate on are still HCO PL's. HCO PL's are basic and carry information which Scientology staff and Sea Org members have to abide to. Flag Orders are policy letters that carry specified information on a need-to-know basis for that Sea Org member.. This is then the only difference. They are not supposed to relate conflicting information or policies. The Sea Org issue-types are simply an addition for use by Sea Org members. Therefore the ratio of how many HCO PL's and Flag Orders that would appears in so-called hat packs is entirely pending which hat/function it is for. It carries little to no weight.

Then a remarkable claim is made in sentence 3. It thus claims: “Fair Game policy was issued and was never cancelled as a Flag Order”. Messaging that fair game was not cancelled as in Flag Order, and therefore fair gaming was still valid in the Sea Organization. It then says: “they were taught it, in FOs and not HCO PLs”. Both of which are rather ridiculous statements. Did this person in the previous sentences not talk about a ratio of Flag Orders and HCO PL's in hat packs? See, if it is cancelled in an HCO PL, the same is cancelled for Flag Order and/or the Sea Org.
The writer (sentence 4) fails to exemplify how Flag Orders would “contain the worst of it”. For me that simply doesn't click. At a time I had access to all of it, including confidential material. I would rather say that HCO PL's have carried ‘rougher’ guidelines than Flag Orders. On the other hand Sea Org members did have a ‘rougher’ attitude. And they actually needed to be as they were overseeing the lower leveled organizations. The Sea Org was responsible if these failed, and if required had to step in and take corrective actions.
Sentence 5 further claims: “Only SO members are Mgmt or OSA.”. Mgmt refers here to International Management which is a higher echelon in the Church of Scientology, and indeed these are Sea Org members, however this certainly does not account for all OSA staff. Some will be Sea Org staff, but the bulk of them rather simply will not! Every Scientology organization will have an OSA section and staff, being a Sea Org member is not listed as a requirement here.

Now the other side of the angle: (1) The practice of fair game once was incited by issuance in an HCO PL, it was however never (to my knowledge) separately addressed or issued through Flag Orders (contrary the claim of this ‘aaron saxton’). Now, per the reasoning offered by this individual wouldn't that mean that there was thus no fair game practiced by Sea Org members?; (2) Furthermore the actual reference that cancelled the practice of fair game, HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” had simultaneously also been issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. May be this ‘aaron saxton’ cares to explain this? But quite frankly I don't think that this person actually knows what he talks about at all.

So, don't believe all that you read. Many persons out there think they know something, assume a lot of things (habitually not getting their facts properly lined up) and then tell stories.


Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Afterword

Now, after having gone over all this information and its arguments. Would it be plausible that a trick had been played with a supposed cancellation of fair game, but not really? After all this is the idea that ardent anti-Scientologists try to pass on to us.
Well, consider this then. If a trick had been played, then the Scientology organization regarding this really has been guilty of a disservice to itself. You see, HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” is around, but HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” that in reality was responsible for the cancellations of the actual practice of fair game as such, is much more difficult to unearth. Why would they do that, if a trick had been played? Doesn't that make you wonder?

In the final end it may not seem at all plausible that the anti-Scientologist has that much of an argument left regarding this. Considering that the Scientology organization was run only by valid (not cancelled) policy letters. Those that have been more closely involved in the organization know this being the case. Then we have some persons talking about that some section of the organization (Guardian Office) was operating on their own policies. And these persons that tell that, where do they come from? Right, the Guardian Office. Here one should wonder what they themselves were actually involved with! Operating on cancelled policy letters? These same persons also relate about unsigned despatches that they received and that they believed having been written by L. Ron Hubbard. This they say was occurring during the late 70's. Then again, what sort of persons would operate on orders like this, in particular if existing valid policy letters contradicted them?

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     ARC:
Affinity, Reality, Communication’. A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.” (LRH Def. Notes)
     ARC break:
1. An incomplete cycle of some kind or another. It's a lowering of Affinity, Reality and Communication, so we call it an ARC break. (SH Spec 65, 6507C27)  2. A sudden drop or cutting of one's affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication or understanding. It's called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person's state of mind. (LRH Def. Notes)  Abbr. ARCX
     CBO:
Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
     Committee of Evidence:
1. A committee of evidence is not a court. It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the facts and clean up the ARC breaks (breaks in communication) caused by rumor. (HCO PL 27 Mar 65)  2. A fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a convening authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action. (HCO PL 7 Sept 63)  3. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)  4. A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action. (HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III)  5. A Committee of Evidence is convened by the Office of LRH through the HCO Secretary and is composed of staff members. Its purpose is entirely to obtain evidence and recommend action which the Office of LRH then modifies or orders. (HCO PL 10 Apr 65)  Abbr. Comm Ev.
     CSW:
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     Flag Order (FO):
This is the equivalent to a policy letter (HCO PL) in the Sea Org (senior organization within the Church of Scientology). Contains policy and sea technical materials. They are numbered and dated. They do not decay, HCO PLs and FOs are both in effect on Sea Org orgs, ships, offices and bases. Black ink on white paper. Distribution to all Sea Org members. It is vital for SO units to have master files and quantity of FOs from which hats can be made up for SO personnel and courses. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     FO:
Short for ‘Flag Order’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     OSA:
Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
    Pol Ltr:
‘HCO Policy Letter’. See at entry ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     PTP:
Short for ‘Present Time Problem’.
     PTS, PTSness:

potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual Library:
Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement