Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help me with my research? <<  Consult my want list here !

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

A policy letter that obviously had gone through a lot is HCO PL 23 Dec 65 "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists". The basis of my initial research into these matters was a very thorough and detailed analysis of the history of this particular HCO PL and various of its adherent subjects. Be aware though that this is mostly for the insider that is familiar with these things. Just to avoid that some parts may not be well understood. If you are not familiar with Scientology procedures then it may not be of any use to you, as you will likely not understand where I will be talking about and unable to relate the information. You may also misinterpret that what I relate about.

 
Index:

	Foreword
	What is an Ethics Order? and its dangers if used incorrectly
	Issuing Ethics Orders on ‘suppressive persons’  –  Rules of the game & defense
		- Declaring someone a Suppressive Person by means of an Ethics Order
		- Declaring someone a Suppressive Person - Change of rules (1983)
			(‘New rule’ vs HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of” & HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”)
	The usefulness of HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”
	Is querying a Third Dynamic activity?  &  De-PTSing
	How to establish if some group may be suppressive or squirrel?
	“Code of Reform” (1968)
	Versions analysis of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

Relevant introductive information is also found in my chapter entitled “The arrival of new information (5) - The ‘new ways’ or Turning from a selfcorrecting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?”. See my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order” or click here to consult (will open in a separate window).

One could say that this all started with some little wonderings that I had (see page “Scientology: The ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study”, chapter “Prelude”). These little wonderings then motivated me to do a detailed comparison of all versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists", the policy letter that played a more than modest role in things like ‘Ethics Orders’, ‘Declares’, ‘Fair Game’ and even touched the subject of ‘Disconnection’. To be brief about it it became rather extensive. All these topics were mixed in this HCO PL versions chronology. Needless to say that it became messy. Simply for clarity reasons I extracted some time ago already all the ‘Disconnection’ information out of this page and gave it a page of its own. At this time that I am writing this I also decided to extract the ‘Fair Game’ information out of this, which also turned into a page of its own.

The basis of this page from the very beginning had been this HCO PL analysis which at present has turned to a modest chapter found at the end of this page. This serves now as background information. One can see an interesting development in how this policy letter changed through time. This particular HCO PL was in particular of vital importance for socalled ‘Declares’. These suppressive acts that are listed in them and various were directly taken from this reference. The HCO PL also describes in fair detail about various other on a need to know basis information directly relating to ‘Declares’. This information is presently found in chapter “Issuing Ethics Orders on ‘suppressive persons’ – Rules of the game & defense” on this page.

Since I moved the ‘Disconnection’ & ‘Fair Game’ information out of this page I have added various additional chapters that lay out in more detail various consequences relating to Ethics Orders, its danger if used incorrectly & defending oneself towards injustice. The purpose of my information is to educate, to make people aware of risks involved if these tools are not properly used, to prevent injustices from occurring or prolong them, and to tell that one has certain rights for defense!

Briefly an Ethics Order could be circumscribed as an internal communication line in an organization (or even company) that is utilized to inform those that are employed in the organization and those that take services from that organization about certain things on a need to know basis. It could be said that its initial purpose was to prevent more damage from occuring. This Ethics Order is basically an internal church issue. It informs those who need to know about what some person (or group) has been up to. It is usually send to some nearby organizations as well and any other where he may turn up. Would he then attempt to go into such an organization they can stop him right there, as they will have this information about him. It is a practicality basically aiming at to avoid disturbance in advance and also for protection of the Scientology public.

Dangers

Now, these Ethics Orders have to answer to and follow certain rules as to how they are supposed to be written. How the information is relayed and what is relayed. If these rules are not being followed up properly we will run into certain problems. They may start then to spread rumours and assumptions when there may be no ground for them. These rules are found in HCO PL 2 Jun 65 Issue I “Writing of an Ethics Order”.

How does this work in reality? How reliable are these data that is written in these Ethics/Condition Orders, may it be Non-Enturbulation Orders, Suppressive Person Declares or any other? Personally I can say that one can not always rely on the things that they claim. I have had Non-Enturbulation Orders and various being written on me and I am sorry to say that these that I received contained plain falsities and distorted information. They were queried every one of them with all the necessary evidence provided for, although I have never received a particular acknowledgement to my queries. 2 of them were issued at Flag (Clearwater, Fl), another was issued from the Ethics Office International (LA). This was some time ago now, and different persons I am sure are holding these positions at this point in time. I find it improper to relate here what these Orders were about, although if necessary I am still able to successfully defend my case in present time.

Then there is also the matter of persons who have been staff in the Scientology organization for many, many years and were much commended and appreciated during their active years, and then all of a sudden it was found that they in reality were Suppressive Persons? I know about persons who have had this happening to them, various of these in fact could be very highly tech trained individuals. In particular I can name Caspar de Rijk who had been the top tech terminal of the AOSH EU (Saint Hill organization in Denmark) for many years. Caspar, who was the founder of the first Scientology organization in the Netherlands in 1972, later joined the senior Scientology organization the Sea Organization in AOSH EU in the early 70's and became a Class IX auditor (multilingual –English, French, German, Dutch, Italian & Spanish–) & Solo C/S, till circumstances arose in 1996 (relating to the release of the Golden Age of Tech) that later made him to decide to leave in 1998. Is it logical to assume that someone who was so much acquainted with the technology and so much appreciated during so many years that such a person all of a sudden is found to have misconceptions of some sort and turns suppressive just like that? Also what message does this relate to us in regards to the actual value of this Scientology technology or knowledge if it was unable to prevent such things from occurring? There is this illogic factor involved here obviously. You see, if you have been tech trained and you have practiced your skills with excellent results during so very many years, then it does tell something about your level of understanding of the knowledge that you have acquired. For this reason it is then not very logical that this person would be found out to be suppressive, but nonetheless Caspar did receive his Goldenrod in 2003 simply for reason that he decided to start getting active as an auditor again. The situation was that during 1998-2003 he has attempted every possible standard steps to clear up his disagreements with the proper terminals within the organization, during all which time he was forbidden to audit. Finally then after seeing for himself that it did not go anywhere he decided to break away and audit again. Hence this Goldenrod issued on him.

I believe that the above relays some worthwhile information to us, for which reason I forward this overview. Any Ethics or Condition Order should be able to explain itself, meaning that you are being properly informed. Too often they do contain generalities and unexplained circumstances. Frequently after reading one I ask myself: “But what did this person actually do?”. At various occasions in the past I have even queried such orders that others received as they were either confusing or lacking data instead of clarifying. You simply have to use your sound judgment. These Orders are issued to solve problems, not to create them.

Issuing Ethics Orders on ‘suppressive persons’  –  Rules of the game & defense

• Declaring someone a Suppressive Person by means of an Ethics Order
• Declaring someone a Suppressive Person - Change of rules (1983)
          - ‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”
          - HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”  (Limited Distribution)
  

 
Declaring someone a Suppressive Person by means of an Ethics Order

HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” was and still is the Policy Letter that is used for declaring an individual a Suppressive Person by means of this thing referred to as Ethics Order.

Such an Suppressive Person Declare used to be issued as a socalled Condition Order. This is an Ethics Order however a Condition Order is more specifically putting someone in a condition, the condition here being a Suppressive Person. Today however such declares simply appear issued as an Ethics Order. At the end of such an Order it may list any of the Suppressive Acts as found in HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” which may be applicable. After each listing some specifics are given how this would apply to the person receiving this Ethics Order.

As human beings are involved in these things errors can have been made while labelling a person like that. He has the right for recourse, he may also request for a justice action to be done. If it was found that an error had been made, then the declare would be lifted and any and all rights of the person restored. If it on the other hand was found not to be an error the declare is then enforced.

HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” also gives information about how those who wish to have this declare lifted on them once again can come into good standing with the organization. It lists 5 steps this person then has to follow. They are usually referred to as the A to E steps, simply because they carry the first 5 characters of the alphabet. He simply has to show that he regrets all what he had done wrong and has to give proof for that his actions are not destructive anymore.

 
Declaring someone a Suppressive Person - Change of rules (1983)  

• ‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”
• HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”  (Limited Distribution)

In 1983 there were 2 significant kinds of changes incorporated in how affairs were dealt with in regards to socalled Suppressive Persons. Both of these seem however to act against HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”. Each are described in the below 2 sections.

 
‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”

Prior to the release of this revision, this rule was not in use or to be found anywhere within the Scientology organization! In a sense it is remarkable. Why is it there now? Where is it coming from? What caused it to come into existence? We should also not forget that L. Ron Hubbard had expressed his suspicions towards putting such a means of control on some other person. L. Ron Hubbard did write: “I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice” (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”). For this very reason Scientology had been created as a selfcorrecting system. It was always meant to be a selfhelp tool. You could always take control over the things that concerned you. Were you wronged and you could substantiate that, then there were steps you could take to reverse that situation. This sentence found added in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA indicates that a stop had been put at exactly that!

Such a query as done per the above indicates that the order is not carried out, in effect or should be followed (“Refuse meanwhile to put it into effect.”  LRH). The query simply does not need to be approved by someone, instead the arguments forwarded in the query need to be disproven. A query is always done solely on one's own self-determinism. If there are valid points to be taken into account, then this should defend he who has been offended! How does that work? A Suppressive Person Declare is putting someone in that named condition. This condition in itself may very well “result in loss or destruction if put into effect” and naturally on these grounds (which obviously has to be adequately supported!) can be queried as per HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”. My experience has learned me that various can easily be overlooked and an injustice can in fact occur.

“IT DOES NOT RELIEVE ONE OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN ONE EXECUTES A DESTRUCTIVE ORDER. The one who follows it is in fact far more guilty than the issuer since the one following it is right there, able to OBSERVE whereas the issuer may not be.”          LRH
         (from HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”)

That sentence however that we find added since 1983 in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 September 1983) “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” does in fact counteract this!

HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”  (Limited Distribution)

(on the Internet its existence is only acknowledged by it being entered in the copyright database in US, no quotations from this policy letter are found anywhere; because of that and this policy letter being Limited Distribution I will not quote from it directly)

The beginning of this adventure of Dianetics & Scientology was an impulse that started with the issuance of the book Dianetics in 1950, and was later spurred by the development of Scientology since December 1951. By the time of 1983 it had been in existence for a good 30 years, and one should have expected after these years, after having gone through a variety of circumstances, battles, and so on that the lines would have been pretty much laid out in how to go about things. L. Ron Hubbard wrote in 1970: “It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.” (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA “Issues–Types of”).

If in the case you would have received a Suppressive Person Declare, it would mean that you basically would have been stripped from your rights. You will have a hard time querying the declare (order), as no specifics are given about what you may have been doing. And even if you query it, it still would be in force as your query –since September 1983– has to be acknowledged prior to it getting “officially cancelled by an authorized and published Church issue” (see previous section: “‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 ‘Orders, Query of’”). This is all as per these new ways. The problem is how are you going to go about it to get your voice being heard if you have been judged already?

Scientology technology always has been a selfcorrecting system, in fact it was especially designed being exactly that. These new ways introduced a change in that. Its outcome is that it gives others the power to control you, as theoretically you can be assigned such conditions (being a Suppressive Person) solely based on generalities, in addition this condition can be upheld till an official writing from others cancels it. We have to remind ourselves again about what L. Ron Hubbard wrote just 2 years after the discontinuation of enforced disconnection and the practice of Fair Game: “I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.” (from HCO PL 6 Oct 1970 Issue III “Ethics Penalties”).

Some may ask: “But this HCO PL –that confidential one– how do we know it actually being in use?” Firstly we can judge that from how SP-Declares actually are written. The criteria that I give in this section, do they resemble reality? Secondly I can confirm that Checklists exist for that purpose that contain many entries from this HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”. In particular I want to name ‘FDD* 123-1 Div I Int’, 1 Apr 86 “Urgent - Important; Suppressive Person Declare CSW* Checklist”, but also ‘FDD 123 Div I Int’, 1 Mar 84 “Urgent - Important; Justice Action CSW Checklist” does mention this confidential HCO PL. Both of these FDD's were send to HCO Divisions worldwide.

The main problem is that HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” & HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of” can not coexist! You simply can not have one reference saying something and then another confidential reference limiting the use of that first reference! If you do, then you are in fact forwarding a Hidden Data line, and such is not allowed within Scientology.

In my personal experience not only SP-Declares are written in such an “unspecific” way, but the same goes for Non-Enturbulation Orders and various. No wonder then that “you leave people in a huge mystery” and “ARC break its readers by leaving out the data”.

“Just because the world is injust is no reason we must ever be.”          LRH
      (from ‘LRH FCO* 1205R’, ca 1970)

Reality factor:  Any query should be done for the right reasons! One never should resort to these actions just for the sake of querying or as some utterance of protest. Anything that one queries one has to be able to properly substantiate with facts and data. One should be able to verify that in fact there exist valid grounds for querying something. I solely advocate the means of defense that are provided for us in Scientology writings. It is used to set things right and/or for damage prevention.

There should not be any doubt about if such can or can not be queried, i.e. if in fact there are valid grounds for such.

More quotations of this reference can be consulted here (will open in separate window).

This Third Dynamic is referred to as a group. Now, does it affect a group, or the members within, if some person has received some declare Order? It appears that it is a seriously overlooked ingredient!

The simplicity of it is that persons will be judged by those with whom he associates. Therefore this puts a particular responsibility on those that did receive an unfair treatment through means and use of these Ethics Orders. That is, if it be an incorrect Order, if it be that it actually contains incorrect information. By lack of contrary information the Order will be used and enforced, and thus will affect any that is in some way associated with the receiver of such an Order. Therefore the receiver adopting the attitude of to just let it pass and do not take proper action in regards to the incorrectness does create a situation for this receiver of the declare Order. I think that this should not be underestimated. Usually I find however that it has been underestimated!

Spiritual freedom consists of as-ising. ‘As-is’ means ‘to view anything exactly as it is without any distortions or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist’. To be able to as-is you need information, and certain actions need to have been undertaken to make this information known. If you do not do so, you in fact forward and support a ‘counter as-isness’. You will have allowed an untruth to be in existence without counteracting it. If you however take corrective measures and communicate in regards to the incorrectness and are using the tools that have been supplied for exactly this, then you will have made a simple decision about being cause over the situation. You will have send out a message conveying: “Hey guys, there has been made an error here. Here is what's the deal...”, and you give the specifics, the evidence or any you may have what makes the incorrectness evident.

Querying also works as a means to protect oneself and/or other persons from actually becoming PTS. The basis of suppression is when you can't or don't see that anything effective can be done against it. It is also actively opposing to a condition some have attempted to put you in. Not doing anything against it may get you somehow agreeing or adjusting to that condition. Taking action is you taking a cause position towards it. This point also should not be underestimated!

Some will understand what I talk about here, others will not or choose to be in denial. Sure, you need some courage and make some little effort to do this, and many will try to explain-away it. Some persons I notice have interpreted this querying as something that may turn into some time craving menace of some sort that will continue to occupy their time and bother them in the coming future. One should understand that the whole idea of doing a query is not to get a communication started. This is not the object! The object is simply to get the querist taking a cause point! Giving him an on-policy argument. The object is to put those that are incorrect about something, that can not provide proof or support claims made at an effect point. To effectively rob those from actually having a supposed argument. A query is something you do that carries a very clear and supported statement that is put into the physical universe, that communicates that one does not agree with something, that one does not submit, and that one opposes. It does not require a response, it does not particularly need an acknowledgment! (it is not a CSW, remember). You simply put an end to something that has come onto your lines. This is what querying is about. If no one ever responds to your query, this does not matter in the least. It is not the aim to get a response. It will only come back on your lines when your arguments for querying and your defense can be effectively proven being incorrect. So, if done for the right reasons, and you have the arguments supporting and acknowledging your position in space, then basically it is done and over with. Not doing anything against it may very well leave it hanging up there in the air.

What is the price of freedom, any freedom? The reality is that one also has to be considerate towards others if one is aiming for freedom for oneself. If an error has been made, then one has an obligation to correct the incorrectness. If not, others will be judged also by it! And do not think for a moment that it will not affect you the receiver of the Order. I am afraid that it certainly will.

Of course, be it that the declare Order is actually correct! Well, then forget all what I said in the above, as it will not be for you!

Some criteria could be watched for.

Things may not always be as some have assumed that they are or if advocated as such.

An incidence of historical importance that is little known this day.

“Code of REFORM
On August 1st 1968 Scientology organizations in the UK began mailing a Code of Reform Questionnaire. One million questionnaires were sent out containing 4 questions as follows:
(1)What reforms if any would you like effected in what you may have heard of or know of Scientology Organizations or policies?
(2)What changes in conduct or what conduct would you suggest to Scientologists?
(3)What services would you like Scientology to perform in the community?
(4)How could Scientology better fit in with the aims and purposes of your area of interest?
The response by the general public was intelligent and constructive. Some reforms have been implemented already.”
(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

During these years issues had been raised in the form of stiffer applied ethics actions on persons and other. There was a specific reason for this to have occurred. I address this in detail on my page “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”, see chapter “Events leading up to the term coming into being”. Either way this Questionnaire will have had some effect on the following quoted changes implemented. It being noted tough that the practice of Fair Game already had been abandoned (per HCO PL 21 Jul 68) prior to the Questionnaire having been send out.

“Policy Changes by Scientology Organizations
1968
Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.
Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
Cancellation of condition known as fair game.
Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down or otherwise recorded.”
(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

It does appear here that matters (at least during these 60's) were given appropiate attention for correction if there were indications for misstandings, misapplications, or misinterpretations.

HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

• HCO PL 1 March 65 Issue I    
• HCO PL 23 Dec 65        (Replaces '‘HCO PL 7 March 65, Issue I’ - originally misdated as 1 March 65)
• HCO PL 23 Dec 65R      (Revised 31 December 1979)
• HCO PL 16 May 80 Issue II   (Cancels and replaces HCO PL 23 Dec 65R Rev 31 Dec 79, same title)
• HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA   (Revised and reissued 10 September 1983) (Replaces HCO PL 16 May 80 II)
          (List of High Crimes extended)
  
• HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA   (Revised and reissued 25 August 1988)
• HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB   (Revised 8 January 1991)
          (List of High Crimes once again extended)
  
• HCO PL 7 March 65RB (Reissued 4 November 2001 with date change)
• Afterword

HCO PL 1 March 65 Issue I

Original release title: “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law”

As per the above 28 High Crimes “are listed at length in this policy letter”.

HCO PL 23 Dec 65
HCO PL notices:	(Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1 March 1965)

Some paragraphs were added and other minor changes were made. Apparently due to a mistake this was issued under a new release date. It should have been made into HCO PL 7 Mar 65R (Revised 23 December 1965). Instead it was simply given the date of the release of this revision (Note: this original release date was restored in 2001, see last version of this policy letter).

HCO PL 23 Dec 65R
HCO PL notices:	(Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to “disconnection” which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968)
	(Revisions in Script) (Ellipses indicate Deletions)
New title:	“Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

The above HCO PL notices was because of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. Another one (not mentioned in the revision notes) was the removal of any and all referrals to Fair Game (even removed from the original title of the HCO PL). This deletion was due to the HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game”, either of those 2 references you will only find in the previous (1974) release of ‘Organization Executive Course’ - Volume I (Division 1).

HCO PL 16 May 80 Issue II
HCO PL notices:	(Cancels and Replaces HCO PL 23 Dec 65R revised 31 December 1979, same title)

HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA
HCO PL notices:	(Revised and reissued 10 September 1983)
	This HCO Policy Letter has been revised and reissued:
	a)  to give the full and complete list of High Crimes (Suppressive Acts),
	b)  to clarify the rights and non-rights of a declared Suppressive Person and give the administrative handling of such person in order to protect the Church and its organizations and individual Scientologists against Suppressive Acts, and
	c)  to update the issue in order to reflect the organizational changes which require the sanction of senior Ethics and Justice terminals in the handling of Suppressive Persons of Groups.
	(Revisions not in script)

Please note that this policy letter in actual fact was replacing HCO PL 16 May 80 Issue II, same title, even if this is not specifically mentioned anywhere in this policy letter! (consult HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”)

 
List of High Crimes extended

An analysis unfolds that we can identify 2 categories of added High Crimes. We have those that were imported from other existing references, and those that we can not trace for their origin.

Then, #47-51, 53-59, 63, 64, 66-72 were imported from other already existing HCO PL's & HCOB's. Each of them gives the source reference from which they were deriving. So if you needed additional data about them it would be easy to retrieve that.

At this time the total count of listed High Crimes in this 1983 version of this policy letter is 73.

HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA
HCO PL notices:	(Revised and reissued 25 august 1988)
	Only changes are to correct typographical errors.
	Corrections in script.

True is that only 4 very minor spelling errors had been corrected. However this release still had the same RA indication as the previous version, which means you needed to have both versions to know which of the RA ones was the latest. Usually however you would find all of these filed together in the library of the organization, so this should not cause a direct problem.

During the late 80's a variety of reissues where printed, they only incorporated very minor corrections. Now these reissues had no indications anywhere on them that this was in actual fact a reissue with some very minor correction(s), this information was only given on a separate sheet attached with a staple to the front (a socalled frontsheet). If this frontsheet was removed which usually happened as you were asked to “Please destroy your copy of this issue, and replace it with the attached”. The frontsheet would as it seems suit no purpose anymore and was discarded off. These 2 issues would seem identical, when in fact they were not.

HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB
HCO PL notices:	(Revised 8 January 1991)
	Revised to update the lists of high crimes given in the policyletter.
	Revisions in script.

Please note that the version of this HCO PL as found in the 1991 release of the Organization Executive Course do not have these revisions indicated in script!

List of High Crimes once again extended

The list of High Crimes was extended with 14 additional High Crimes. At least some of them appear to have been imported from other HCO PL's and/or HCOB's. This time however only of 2 of them some source references were given. In addition all the source references for the in 1983 added High Crimes were removed. That means you will not be able anymore to locate the original reference where these quotations were deriving from, also you will not know when exactly they became designated being a High Crime or how this was established. Information which could be worthwhile knowing. Then the numbering of these High Crimes as it was introduced in the previous 1983 revision was also removed.

One can ask what criteria were used to determine which High Crimes were to be imported into this policy letter and which not to import?

At this time the total count of listed High Crimes in this 1991 version of this policy letter is 87.

HCO PL 7 March 65RB
HCO PL notices:	(Reissued 4 November 2001)
	Reissued 4 Nov 2001 to correct the date of the issue. This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of “23 December 1965”.

 
Afterword

So what have we seen? The original version from 1965 listed 28 High Crimes, the revision in 1983 added this up to 73 High Crimes, and in 1991 another 14 were added making this a present total of 87 High Crimes.

An often used argument from the current Church Management of Scientology is that many revisions made are done following securely ‘LRH notes’. So what about these ‘LRH notes’, how are we going to deal with those? I have discussed this earlier on which you may want to reflect: Hidden Data Line (link will be opened in separate window).

One should consider that rules and policies only have use if they are being executed and/or followed.

Well, I hope you have now some basic understanding about how this one goes. Revisions that is ... .

Vocabulary:

     71R, 72RA, 65RB:
For example: ‘HCO PL 16 Nov 71R’, ‘HCO PL 2 May 72RA’ & ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     ARC break:
An incomplete cycle of some kind or another. It’s a lowering of Affinity, Reality and Communication, so we call it an ARC break. 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.
     Committee of Evidence (Comm Ev):
A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature.
     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.
    FCO:
'Flag Condition Order'. Sea Org* issue-type reserved for ethics matters. Equivalent to Ethics Order (Condition Order) as used in lower classed Scientology organizations.
     FDD:
'Flag Divisional Directive’. The Flag Divisional Directive has been introduced with the purpose of communicating and pushing command policies, projects and programs. Its distribution is to SO and Scn orgs alike or as designated.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses. 
      HCO PL (Pol Ltr, P/L or PL):
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH HCO PL:
This is to stress that this HCO PL was in actual fact written by L. Ron Hubbard and not someone else (see further HCO PL).
     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 (link will open in a separate window).
     org, orgs:
Abbreviation for ‘organization(s)’.
     PTS (Potential Trouble Source):
Those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
“its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH.” (quoted from The Organization Executive Course volume 0, 1991 edition, page 729 or 1986 edition, page 617)
     SP:
A usual abbreviation for Suppressive Person.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (as per KSW #1: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”).

Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved. This page revised: 2 May, 2010