>> 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.
“Mary Sue, my dear wife, who has helped and contributed so much since the early days of dianetics.”
L. Ron Hubbard
(from periodical ‘The Auditor 43’, [Dec ’68])
Besides some general information about Mary Sue Hubbard it is my idea and my intent to try to address various matters concerning her that are not found already elsewhere on the Internet. Of course my main approach is also here to primarily focus on her achievements, acknowledgements and other data as found in the actual Scientology published writings and that which can be confirmed. Some attention however has also been given to a few theories.
- The ‘Guardian Office‘, the ‘Guardian’, and the ‘Controller’
- (1) And then things went wrong ...
- (2) The take of Mr. David Miscavige of the events
- (3a) Conspiracy theories ... (with notes about Quentin Hubbard)
- (3b) A take over plan devised? (with reference to ‘The Crowley Files’ and Quentin Hubbard)
- The ‘Office of Special Affairs’ (OSA)
- A brief explanation of ‘PTS Type A’ and a compact history of this policy letter
- A brief overview of the chronological history of HCO PL “PTS Type A Handling”
- A detailed analysis of each of the different phases of this reference “PTS Type A Handling”
Introduction and brief overview of achievements (Includes: Referrals found to Mary Sue in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition))
Not all will appreciate a page like this. The Church of Scientology has been very silent about her existence since the early 80's. And even when she died in 2002 (see death certificate on the right) the Church of Scientology gave no notice whatsoever about that happening to its parishioners. What did happen though is that her name silently disappeared out of the listing of contributors in the magazine ‘Impact’ (periodical from the International Association of Scientologists). Still she had been married for so long with the founder of Scientology, and was there at his side during all these rough developing years of Scientology as early as 1951. Did she not earn any appreciation at all?
It is also acknowledged that she even helped to coin the word “Scientology”. This is noted in a brochure about Mary Sue Hubbard issued in 1967. It is also noted in ‘The Auditor 21’, [Sept 67]. Then it is fact that she was selected as one of the Trustees on the very first incorporation of the Church of Scientology (and 2 other churches) in New Jersey signed and sealed 18 December 1953 and filed and recorded 4 days later. The other 2 Trustees selected were L. Ron Hubbard Sr. and John Galusha (for details and various other info see my page “Introduction to Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard”, chapter “The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’”).
Achievements publication wise
She in fact was responsible for a whole variety of contributions. For the larger part she was working in the background, but there exist various publications from her hand. For instance we have the compilation of the publication ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’ (1965), another publication is ‘Marriage Hats’ (1974), less known is that it was she that wrote and devised HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”. In fact there have existed a whole variety of HCO PL's actually written by her, various can still be consulted in the 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. At present ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’ does not note her contribution anymore although it is the same book that she originally compiled. The publication ‘Marriage Hats’ is discontinued as far as I can tell, it was lastly issued in 1982. Also the present version of the policy letter that dealt with “PTS Type A Handling” does not note anymore that this was originally devised by Mary Sue Hubbard. During 1981-2000 it has been in use as HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”, although it is the very same reference! In 2000 it was restored to its original issue date (see details in respective chapters).
She was responsible for various achievements in the area of evaluation. For example she compiled a course checksheet that was issued and reissued per the below:
BPL 6 Jul 73RA (Revised 7 Aug 75) “Data Series Evaluator's Course”
BPL 4 Jul 78 “The Original Checksheet of 6 July 1973 by Mary Sue Hubbard, Elementary Evaluators Course”
Does anyone have a copy of the 1975 revision and/or the 1978 re-release for me? Please contact me!
It be noted here also that I have found no record BPL 4 Jul 78 having been cancelled. However it is not being in use, at least not in its original form.
She also compiled the book “Sea Watch Picture book”. “It covers the basic and routing actions of watch members posts on any ship.” (from ‘FO 2229’, 2 Dec 69 “Sea Watch Picture Book Checksheet”).
There is the following notice from L. Ron Hubbard about that:
“Actually, the brother, or the cousin—well, let me say it this way: the grandfather of the Word Clearing Series is the Sea Watch Picture Book. And Mary Sue did that, and we found out that it was difficult to teach people the complexities of bridge duties and ship handling. And she worked for a long, long, long, long time and I said, ‘Look, the people with whom you are dealing are TV-oriented, they are visual-oriented, so let's get out a picture book.’ And she worked and worked and worked on this and she got out a Sea Watch Picture Book.” LRH (from lecture “Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)
There exist also various articles and notices in magazines. Today these are pretty hard to come by. I transcribed a couple of the more interesting ones here below: (pop-up windows).
The book ‘Scientology:
A History of Man’, first published as a limited manuscript in 1952, still used to say in the 1980 edition: “THIS WORK IS DEDICATED TO MARY SUE HUBBARD WHO HELPED”. But it does not say this anymore in today's version.
Referrals found to Mary Sue in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition)
“Is L. Ron Hubbard married?
Yes, he is happily married and for twenty-five years to Mary Sue Whipp Hubbard, and through this marriage they have three lovely children.”
Note: This is actually rather noteworthy. As in actual fact they had 4 children together: Diana, Suzette, Quentin & Arthur. Although only a little of 2 years prior to the release of this book Quentin had died (November 1976), and this under suspicious circumstances. It seems here that only the at that time still alive children apparently are referred to.
“The Summary Course Lectures. During March 1952 L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to professional course students at the Hubbard College. … 5204C__ HCL-Spec Electropsychometric Scouting — Battle of the Universes (MSH audits Ron)”
“Marriage Hats, by Mary Sue Hubbard, published by the Publications Organization, U.S., Los Angeles, California, 1974.”
An overview of her life
She was born as Mary Sue Whipp on 17 June 1931 in Texas. Daughter to Harry Whipp and Mary Catherine Hill.
“If anyone ever deserved becoming a Clear, it is Mary Sue Hubbard.
For nearly sixteen years Mary Sue has been Ron's most trusted and constant helper in Scientology, its research and organizations.
Born this life in Rockdale, Texas, Mary Sue was raised in Houston and after one year at Rice Institute graduated as a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Texas.
Although scheduled for a career in petroleum research, she had found Dianetics and on graduation from the university insisted on following it as a career.
She came to the Foundation in Wichita, Kansas in early 1951 and received her Hubbard Dianetic Auditor's Certificate and then became a Foundation staff auditor. She then began to help Ron as a research auditor.
She and Ron were married in early 1952. Those were very turbulent days and after Ron had wrested his materials from the early boards of directors, she went with him to Phoenix, Arizona to establish the first organization Ron controlled—the Office of L. Ron Hubbard, which was located at 1405 North Central Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona. This became in a few months the Hubbard Association of Scientologists.
Amongst other things she helped Ron coin the word ‘Scientology’.
In Phoenix amid the constant violence of the turncoat Don J. Purcell of Wichita and his suits which attempted to seize Scientology, Mary Sue became ill and to save her life, Ron took her to England where several Dianetic groups had asked him to form an organization.
There their first child Diana was born, who is a dual U.S. and British citizen. When a British organization had been formed, Mary Sue went with Ron to Spain and then back to Camden, New Jersey to better organize U.S. Scientology. From Camden they went back to Phoenix where Quentin was born and, later on, Suzette.
During those hectic formative years, she held at one time or another every post in an organization and yet kept her home running and assisted in research.
In 1955 she helped establish the Washington organization as its first Academy Supervisor, then spent many months abroad and returned to Washington. In 1958 Arthur was born at the Washington hospital.”
(from ‘The Auditor 21’, [Feb 67] “Clear 208, Mary Sue Hubbard”)
Diana Meredith DeWolf Hubbard
Geoffrey Quentin McCaully Hubbard
Mary Suzette Rochelle Hubbard Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard
24 September 1952
6 January 1954
13 February 1955
8 June 1958
‘Ability 55’, [late Sept ’57] reports:
Mary Sue Hubbard, Sept ’57
“The Academy of Scientology at 1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. is now under the close direction of its Superintendent Mary Sue Hubbard.
Immediately after assisting as an instructor of the 18th A.C.C., Mary Sue took over the post of Director of Training at the Academy.
A sound and efficient Academy of Scientology has been a long time goal of Mary Sue. In Wichita, in Phoenix and in London and Washington she has studied Dianetic and Scientology training. It was her opinion that much was wanting and it was her goal to create an Academy where a student could be taught to be a really good professional auditor in a short period of time.
Now she is Director of Training, giving personal attention to every student.
That students are now graduating as experts is evident in the fact that the profiles of their first intensives are excellent -- far better than the results of only a year ago.”
HCO PL 6 Feb 59 “HCO Accounts WorldWide” notes:
“Director of Accounts, World, Mary Sue Hubbard.”
HCO WW PL 22 Aug 59 “HCO WW Projects” notes:
“Saint Hill Project No. Eight: Collection of Accounts owed HCO from past transactions. This project is supervised by Mary Sue Hubbard.”
Mary Sue Hubbard at that time was noted to have been posted as the Treasurer.
HCO PL 19 Oct 59 “HCO STHil Appointments” notes:
“The following posts are now permanently held at HCO WW:
Deputy Executive Director - Mary Sue Hubbard HCO Sec”
“In 1959 she helped establish the International Headquarters at Saint Hill.
Through these years she won the hearts of Scientologists by her constant good sense and devotion. She earned the complete trust of the public. In organizations it became understood that when Mary Sue took over a post it would prosper and that when she gave her attention to an organization it promptly came out of the red.
Even a generally unkind press has not otherwise than referred to her as the ‘charming Mrs. Hubbard and the four delightful Hubbard children’. In England even the shopkeepers ask her to intervene on their behalf with local government.
She and Ron until three years ago were co-auditors. They worked their way through the jungle that is now so well mapped for others. Then came the levels requiring solo.
She went up through the grades by rehabilitation when they were established and for many months sat in an unsuspected overrun at Grade VI.
Her task, as was Ron's, was devotion to keeping things going. She was probably Clear a year ago but typically Mary Sue, wanted to be thoroughly sure of it and kept on.
Finally, the Clearing Course Supervisor ordered her to be checked out and as suspected, Mary Sue had been Clear for some time and was working at O.T. level, Grade VIII, and passed a very thorough Clear check easily on January 26, 1967, becoming Clear 208.
If the world was lucky to have Ron, then Ron was lucky to have Mary Sue.
Staunch, good and thorough, Mary Sue's hand for sixteen years has helped guide Scientology and its organizations. She did the first research on the handling of E-Meters as the preclear. She helped map the track and helped establish the processes we use today.
All these sixteen years have been super-human in their demands.
Golden-haired, slender and charming, Mary Sue has come through it all.
Above others she has earned her status of Clear. And that she could make it in the pressure and turbulence of our formative years is a tribute to both Mary Sue and Scientology.
Her life has been epic, impossible to adequately describe in these few words.
And it is with great triumph and pride that we salute our Mary Sue—Clear 208!”
(from ‘The Auditor 21’, [Feb 67] “Clear 208, Mary Sue Hubbard”)
The International Board:
“The International Board is composed of three board members, L. Ron Hubbard, Chairman, Mary Sue Hubbard, Secretary, and Marilynn Routsong, Treasurer. It is the controlling board of Scientology. ...
There are no other boards or board members, individual board members, officers or secretaries with the power of issuing policy.” LRH (from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 II “Policy: Source of”)
Within the next 2 years both L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard resigned from this board. The version found of above quoted policy letter has been adjusted accordingly in 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, although it did not receive a notice that it actually had been revised. The above quoted text in thus only found in the 1970-74 release of these same volumes, that were reprinted until mid 80's).
Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard receiving the overwhelming reception given them by Clears at Saint Hill, England.
“Mary Sue today is in her home in England. She is no longer a member of the board of Scientology organizations and is not a director or officer of any of the corporations. She holds a staff post of Guardian in the Worldwide Division at Saint Hill. She works 10 to 12 hours a day but spends the evenings with her children. Her mother, sister and brother live in the United States.
Most of her work today is concerned with assisting Scientologists to get help and assuring them of justice and good service. When things go too wrong people usually count on Mary Sue to put things right for them. And, with remarkable skill, she always does.
Concerning her Clearing, Mary Sue herself says:
‘The adventure of self-discovery through Scientology is the most exciting and rewarding anyone can experience.
Through the Grades of Processing, the complexities and aberrations fall away, and one is again himself—unique amongst all others, with experience and abilities available for which one dreamed, yet dared not to hope as possible. And one is Clear.
To those enroute, the high adventure lies ahead. Take courage—the Road is sure and the chains are no longer forever binding.
To those who are Clear and going to O.T., I am proud to be with you—we have much to do and the future is ours.
To my dear husband, auditor, teacher and our Founder go my thanks and acknowledgment for having given the most precious gifts of Freedom and true Beingness to me and my fellow Man. Without him, none of this would have been possible; and so to Ron goes my everlasting gratitude for having provided for us all the Road to Clear.’”
(from ‘The Auditor 21’, [Feb 67] “Clear 208, Mary Sue Hubbard”)
The ‘Guardian Office‘, the ‘Guardian’, and the ‘Controller’
Executive Division (Div. 7), Department 20 -
Office of the Controller
Office of the Guardian
The Guardian Office as such was introduced in March 1966. HCO PL 1 Mar 66 “The Guardian” notes:
“The post of THE GUARDIAN is established herewith.
The Guardian is the most senior executive of Scientology just below the Executive Director. The post is senior to
Executive Secretaries. ...
The purpose of the Guardian is:
TO HELP LRH ENFORCE AND ISSUE POLICY, TO SAFEGUARD SCIENTOLOGY ORGS, SCIENTOLOGISTS
AND SCIENTOLOGY AND TO ENGAGE IN LONG TERM PROMOTION. ...
The First Guardian is Mary Sue Hubbard.” LRH
On 1 September 1966 “FOUNDER L. Ron Hubbard resigned from the Board of Directors and post of Executive Director and was given the title Founder, to continue his writing and research” (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition)).
The org board from 1966 listed ‘Mary Sue Hubbard THE GUARDIAN WW’ directed placed under ‘L. Ron Hubbard FOUNDER’.
Early 1969 introduced the post of Controller:
“The post of CONTROLLER is founded in the Office of LRH.
The post is just senior to the GUARDIAN.
The duties of the post consist of coordination of all Scientology orgs and activities.
There is just one Controller in all Scientology, just as there is only one Guardian.
The Controller is appointed by the Founder or in his absence by the Guardians and Board of Directors in single meeting.
The term of the Office is for life as is that of the Guardian.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jan 69 “Controller”)
Note: HCO PL 18 may 73 “Mini 7 Division Org Board and Tech Admin Ratio” still only lists the Guardian WW (see ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (1976 Edition), on page 603).
According ‘The Organization Executive Course, Division 7’ volume, page 33 (1974 edition), Mary Sue Hubbard was listed on the Organizational Board as the Controller at least since 1971. She acted as the Controller issue-wise at least since the release of HCO PL 8 Feb 72 II “Targeting of Divisional Statistics and Quotas”.
I am not sure, but may be (probably) already at that time (since 1969, 1971 or 1973?) the post of Guardian was held by Jane Kember (after all these posts were “for life”). Mary Sue's function by now had turned into that of an overseer.
I am not confident about when exactly Mary Sue turned Controller, although this was not already at the time when the post was established through the release of HCO PL 21 Jan 69 “Controller”. Because I have it evidenced that Mary Sue acted as the Guardian (indicated as CS-G) in December 1969 as per a Guardian Order she had issued.
In August 1973 a Controller Communicator Network was established to assist the duties of the Controller as per HCO PL 16 Aug 73 “Controller Communicator Network” (later reissued as a BPL on 24 Aug 75). It established the post of the Controller Communicator.
“PURPOSE: The purpose of the Controller Communicator is:
To find and report situations to The Controller and to obtain compliance on orders issued by The Controller.
SENIORITY: All Controller Communicators operate under the authority of The Controller.
The immediate senior of the Controller Communicator is the Controller Communicator Flag. The senior of the Controller Communicator Flag is The Controller, Mary Sue Hubbard.
A Continental Guardian ranks with but not above or below a Controller Communicator for his Continental Guardian Office.” Mary Sue Hubbard,
(see also ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976))
There exists an 80-page brochure that aims to lay out the various functions of this Guardian Office (GO). This publication that was released by the Church of Scientology of California, appears exceedingly rare. I only have come across 3 copies during many years, one of which that I own. Things went seriously downhill for the Guardian Office not too long after its release in 1978. It is rather likely that the distribution of this publication was halted or withdrawn because of the events from the early 80's. It's extreme rarity and the fact that indeed very few even appear to know about this release tend to confirm that. The Guardian Office was later in 1983 replaced with, or rather renamed, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). Any association between the 2 offices was not deemed desirable. One was basically not allowed to refer to the GO as being a forerunner of OSA. I have been informed by a person that had worked in OSA for a period of 10 years that within OSA this was even defined as an enemy line. The message was also given that GO was something rather different from OSA. This publication makes it rather clear though that it is nonetheless the same office with the same duties.
It is largely a collection of newspaper clippings intermixed with various explanations about its organization and the different sections of the Guardian Office and which direction it had taken since its incorporation in 1966. Initially I had expected that Mary Sue would have been mentioned in there as it is generally accepted that she run the office. To my surprise she is not mentioned anywhere! The office itself was headed by Jane Kember, shown with large picture and all.
From ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition), page 508:
“In 1981, after a series of Sea Organization inspections of the Guardian's Office (GO), it was found that the GO—a small unit of the Church established in 1966 to protect the Church from external threats—had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard's policies and was, in fact, attempting to usurp control of the Church.
Further investigation by Sea org executives revealed that the GO's corruption was so extensive it had been hindering Church expansion internationally—inhibiting both public and staff from advancing up the bridge. As a result of these investigations, Sea Org officials disbanded the Guardian's Office entirely.”
Besides this entry the Guardian Office is also addressed on page 662, which tells the same as in above quotation although differently phrased. These are the only instances in this book where reference is made to this Guardian Office. I found that it is also not listed in the alphabetical index at the end of the book.
This Guardian Office was headed by the Guardian. At least since about mid-1973 Mary Sue Hubbard was referred to as the Controller. The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition to present) make no mention of any of this. In fact this whole book makes no reference anywhere at all of the person Mary Sue Hubbard that I could find!
So it is claimed that this Guardian Office was “operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard's policies and was, in fact, attempting to usurp control of the Church”. Then, would Mary Sue Hubbard have been involved with “attempting to usurp control of the Church”? This association is not made directly like this anywhere in particular, although this is what it amounts to. Mary Sue was the Controller and was regarded as overall responsible for the Guardian Office. To me it is unclear how much in control of, and in which degree she knew what had been going on in the Guardian Office. Now, if the claim be true, then why would she want to take ‘control’ of the Church? For what reason and benefit? In a sense she was already in control because of her position. Also something to consider is if L. Ron Hubbard could have been lead behind the curtain by Mary Sue. But then, would L. Ron Hubbard have been easy to fool? Would he remain being together with someone that intends to rule him out? I never understood this issue about Mary Sue Hubbard. For years I had been hearing that Mary Sue remained ‘in good standing’ as a Scientologist and all that. During the late 80's I was told at Flag (Clearwater, Fl) that these words came from Mr. David Miscavige. If true, they are empty words if you'd ask me. She never appeared at any international church meetings since the early 80's, or even during the 70's for that matter. No one knew really where she was. When she died, she received not a single word of appreciation of any kind, it was not even mentioned that she had passed away! The Church of Scientology officials passed it all by completely in silence. The appreciation however from L. Ron Hubbard seems quite clear though (see below).
“Mary Sue, my dear wife, who has helped and contributed so much since the early days of dianetics.” LRH
‘The Auditor 43’, [Dec ’68] had a special colour photo supplement as a New Year wish in where L. Ron Hubbard listed some of his “favourite things”, this included boats, photography, his wife and their 4 children, and the dog Vixie. All with accompanying text from L. Ron Hubbard.
Now, do we have any reference from L. Ron Hubbard himself as if something would be wrong with Mary Sue? I have been unable to find any such, or be able to establish the authenticity of any such. Nonetheless since there have been many rumours in regards to Mary Sue. Some claim that she was a plant (infiltrator) of some kind. I am not sure about what she then was supposed to do, and what aims she would have had. Another version is that she may have been framed. After all outside forces could not infiltrate the Scientology organization as long she was there. The removal of Mary Sue opened the door so to speak.
“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 Guardian Office that was called into being in 1966 and was effectively setting stops to that, after all, this was what the Guardian Office was created for! Out on the Internet various versions about this issue of the Guardian Office can be found. Just keep in mind that different versions are around, and also do not overlook that which was at stake. The main point I want to stress here is that time after time L. Ron Hubbard has been more than just appreciative towards Mary Sue. On tape lectures and such she got repeatedly acknowledged by him. Mary Sue was present and involved since the initiating years of Dianetics and Scientology. She always had been there on the side of L. Ron Hubbard. Since the early 80's till this day however she is simply ignored by the Church of Scientology. It's like she never even existed! Various questions that I have in my opinion have not accurately been addressed nor answered by Church of Scientology officials regarding Mary Sue Hubbard.
L. Ron Hubbard did say on a lecture from 1960:
“Mary Sue and I, you know, have been married now for eight years. We went down to Oklahoma and hooked it up about eight years ago. Smart move on my part; probably not so smart on hers.” LRH (from State of Man Congress lecture #5 “Marriage”, given on 2 Jan 60)
Sound snippet (0:19)
This may have turned true in unexpected ways, or how unexpected would it have been?
Either way Mary Sue Hubbard and 10 others in the Guardian Office (including Jane Kember) were found responsible or guilty of various things and accordingly adjudicated to serve a jail sentence in 1979. Thus by news agencies she is usually remembered rather unfavourably and the focus is often put on that particular incident, see for example here (pop-up window). Various information out on the Internet and from news media may be quite distorted and incomplete. One person says or claims something, and the rest just copies and may add another twist to it. We have obviously not been given the whole picture, we are obviously missing out on information here. In the case of Mary Sue Hubbard usually she is pictured rather negatively. She quite clearly has the Church of Scientology against her, but also the opponents to Scientology, and even various Free Zone groups claim that she was a plant of some sort. Nonetheless L. Ron Hubbard does not say one bad word about his wife! What does this all end up to? What for example does this tell about the position of the Church of Scientology and the various Free Zone groups claiming she was a plant? We seldom hear the other side of the story. May be it is about time to gather the actual background story about this tale of Mary sue Hubbard. To actually dig up the facts and relate them as they are, and then fold out and investigate the inconsistencies.
(2) The take of Mr. David Miscavige of the events
In link here below you can consult the take of Mr. David Miscavige regarding these happenings: (pop-up window)
It appears quite clearly from this that Mr. David Miscavige targets the person Mary Sue Hubbard directly. A selection:
“… particularly Mary Sue Hubbard, even refused to answer our questions …”
“Our attempts to get information were thwarted by Mary Sue Hubbard.”
“… Mary Sue Hubbard was covertly attempting …”
“… Mary Sue Hubbard and the rest of her criminal group …”
“… Mary Sue Hubbard and her GO allies …”
“… senior GO officials secretly met with Mary Sue Hubbard and conspired to regain control of the GO …”
It does bother me though that Mr. David Miscavige is pointing this finger at Mary Sue Hubbard when L. Ron Hubbard has not ever done that, quite the contrary.
This first paragraph (#26) of this part of the affidavit of Mr. Miscavige that is addressing the Guardian Office provides for a circumscription and various statements from Mr. Miscavige. The chapter starts with saying: “To understand the magnitude of this upheaval, a description of the history, power and authority of the GO is vital.”. Here below I cite this whole paragraph in sections and let them follow with my comments:
“The GO was established in March of 1966 because legal and other external facing matters were consuming the time and resources of Churches of Scientology.”
The policy letter that established the Guardian and its adherent office was HCO PL 1 Mar 66 “The Guardian”. This policy letter does tell quite clearly that “The purpose of the Guardian is:
TO HELP LRH ENFORCE AND ISSUE POLICY, TO SAFEGUARD SCIENTOLOGY ORGS, SCIENTOLOGISTS
AND SCIENTOLOGY AND TO ENGAGE IN LONG TERM PROMOTION.” LRH.
The Guardian as appointed in each organization could be seen as an entity that acts independently from the org lines in order to safeguard and possibly guide the org in the right direction. It particularly interferes if it affects matters involving (as listed in this policy letter):
“refusing to pass anything contrary to policy”
“move in heavily where there is a threat of great importance to an org or Scientology after the usual lines and posts have goofed”
“to be informed of and to trace every affluence awarded to find out what happened before it occurred and to publish findings”
“Long Range Promotion”
“works out or calls for and approves the long range promotion of Scientology”
“defined as data leading to predictions of occurrences and useful in forecasting events and so assisting planning and in handling matters arising from events”
Per the above it is not in particular about legal matters. It is rather that the Guardian's Office is as the name suggests was the guardian of Scientology. This may effect legal matters indirectly, although it is not per sé about that. At least not as is laid out in the original policy letter of March 1966.
It may have grown to be like that as time passed, however it was not in particular like that at its initiation back in March 1966! The brochure ‘The Guardian Office of the Church of Scientology’ (issued 1978) confirms: “The functions have evolved to a degree since 1966, as one can see from the present organization of the Guardian Office.”.
In particular various internal matters relating to legal were taking care of by HCO which is laid out in HCO PL 15 Nov AD8 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO” and HCO PL 15 Nov AD8 II “Legal Aid – HCO”. It was affecting “Seals, copyrights, marks, tapes, bulletins and books”. The Guardian Office basically only interfered in case of a flap on the org lines.
But it then says in the section of this brochure ‘The Guardian Office of the Church of Scientology’(issued 1978) that bears reference to legal matters: “The function of the Legal Bureau is to handle all legal matters. These include maintaining the corporate status and legal safety of the Church. All matters pertaining to Church incorporation, taxes, trademarks and patents are the concern of this Bureau. Any suits involving the Church are handled by the Legal Bureau also.”. Is HCO by-passed here? Nonetheless it is clearly stated in HCO PL 15 Nov AD8 “The Substance and First Duty of HCO”: “All this applies now and later. And it will become more important as time goes on.” LRH. So, what situation would we be facing this day if it had remained in the hands of HCO?
“In particular, Church leaders were being distracted from their primary functions of ministering to the spiritual needs of their expanding religious communities and building their organizations.”
I don't really see how this would work! This is not why the Guardian Office was called into being as per HCO PL 1 Mar 66 “The Guardian” (see previous section).
“During the 1970s the GO operated as an entirely autonomous organization unchecked and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church. The power of the GO was absolute.”
According to HCO PL 1 Mar 66 “The Guardian” that says:
“The Guardian is the most senior executive of Scientology just below the Executive Director. The post is senior to
Further in the policy letter it says:
“The powers of the Guardian may not be deputized or exercised by any committee or Council or deputy or assistant
and may only be exercised by the Guardian.” & “The Guardian may dismiss any Executive or staff member seeking to deny or exercise the Powers of the Guardian.” (these Powers are listed at large and in detail in this policy letter).
“The Guardian's powers are derived from the Executive Director who already has and exercises these powers.”
“But the Guardian has great power in that none but the Executive Director can cancel an order from the Guardian.”
In essence however as per HCO PL 1 Mar 66 “The Guardian” it is not supposed to be “checked and supervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church”. How are you going to guard the organization if one was to unconditionally submit to that. The Guardian Office was to act if things had gone or tended to go awry. Also per the same policy letter its powers were not either to be “absolute”. Things here however may through time have grown to become that, but we then do not find this reflected in these original references about the Guardian Office.
Either way the Guardian at least to some extend had to answer to the Executive Director as per this policy letter. He also, as any staff member, had to abide by policy. Therefore the “power of the GO” could not have been “absolute” as it is not senior to policy. Also various report to me that they had queried ‘orders’ issued by Guardian Office terminals that were rescinded.
More importantly though unlike for example Religious Technology Center (RTC) they could not withhold licenses from Churches, Field Auditors or Franchises. Nor could they illegally cancel certificates to enforce altered tech even if they would have wanted that.
“Unless a member of the GO, one could not even enter their locked offices.”
Ironically enough this appears quite true for the unit that replaced the Guardian Office since 1983, which is the Office of special Affairs (OSA). If the organization was large enough one was not allowed to enter the actual working offices of OSA. I remember this quite clearly from Flag (senior organization, located in Clearwater, Fl.), at least this was so during the late 80's.
Also various report to me that even though they were no actual members of the Guardian Office but yet spent much time in their offices, consulting with the Assistant Guardian about staff auditing, training and various.
“They held all corporate directorships.”
This is rather untrue. The Guardian Office did not hold the directorship of either Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (HASI) or the Church of Scientology of California (CSC) which where at the time the two main corporate entities. This becomes quite clear when one consults the various legal documents.
“They and they alone dealt with legal affairs of the Church.”
This as we already know is not quite correct.
HCO for the most part handled the internal legal affairs. The Guardian Office only stepped in when some situation turned into a flap. As I noted earlier however over time the duties of the Guardian Office appear to get adjusted as we can see from the brochure ‘The Guardian Office of the Church of Scientology’, issued in 1978.
“The GO operated in complete secrecy, and conducted its affairs independently of the Church and its management and personnel. Any attempt to find out their affairs, by Church ecclesiastical staff or any Scientologist, was met with the same ‘treatment’ they handed out to others.”
The above criticism is not particularly supported, because for the most part they kept the staff briefed on their activities as they were supposed to (per so-called Mission technology as covered in Flag Orders), although methods and sources will have been excluded.
Be it noted here that Mr. David Miscavige was responsible for the missions/missionaries that were send out in his capacity of being the CMO Action Chief (heading the Mission bureau) during 1979 (I have various Flag Orders addressing Mission matters that are carrying his name and post). He therefore must have been aware of Mission tech existing and how one was to deal with that.
“For instance, GO staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of government offices for which eleven members of the GO were prosecuted and convicted.”
Illegal actions taken are rather hard to justify, although this may have been at the behest of agent provocateurs. May be so, nonetheless some things are not really clear about this as I touched earlier in my Guardian Office overview. There is also an irony present which involved the actions of various government entities taken against the Church of Scientology and in particular against the yacht Apollo. The controversy in these matters are at large discussed in Omar V. Garrison's book ‘Playing Dirty’ (issued 1980).
“There were also instances in which GO staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church -- means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy, not to mention the law.”
A comparison has by various also been made that this may very well describe the set out of the Office of Special Affairs (OSA) and the Religious Technology Center (RTC).
A note may be made here that factually there has not been a particular entity in existence that had absolute power within the Scientology network, i.e. until Mr. David Miscavige assumed control of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) as its Chairman of, as some propose, some ‘elusive and mysterious’ Board of Directors. Could this pose the situation that Mr. David Miscavige accuses Mary Sue Hubbard of things he himself has been doing or wished to establish for himself? After all he frequently has been receiving accusations at his address that he has been doing that, we actually can read about that on the Internet and in the media. Then if we perceive that if someone is a bit too overzealous with the righteousness of one's own role played in something then we may for a moment consider for example the implications of HCOB 31 Jan 70 “Withholds, Other Peoples”. Some may very well not like that I propose such an association. Well, put it to the test.
Examine the statements of Mr. David Miscavige in this 1994 affidavit. You see, there are some ingredients in all these happenings that are inconsistent and this actually bothers me.
Then we should also consider here the directions of L. Ron Hubbard that are found in HCO PL 4 Jan 66 VI “LRH Relationship to Orgs”. This reference tales about the various responsibilities or the hats worn by him. They are listed as: “LRH, An individual”, “LRH Trustee”, “LRH Board Member”, “LRH, Executive Director” and “LRH, Staff Member”. The reference then details about their specifics and significances.
At the end of the reference it directs:
“Our growth depends on our staying out of trouble, getting our lines in and keeping corporate structure straight. And understanding these separate identities or titles and functions and using them. ...
It is doubtful if this situation will change. ...
My identities are therefore woven in to the pattern so they don't have to be altered to keep things going. ...
This is not only today then, but tomorrow as well and the above identities are firm as identities whether I am here or not. Even today 99% of my functions are done by delegated authority. ... We won't vanish if I as a person vanish. ...
So whatever happens to me as a person leave this LRH identities on the org unfilled and all will be well. If you try to fill them catastrophe will result.” LRH
Now, we have this occurrence of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) and a whole variety of additional corporations coming into being in 1982. Then we see that Mr. Miscavige surfaces as the Chairman of the Board (COB) of this RTC. Things since that time have been changing around. The question is if the directions given in HCO PL 4 Jan 66 VI “LRH Relationship to Orgs” have been violated. In order to be able to do a comparison we thus are forced to put the question: “Did ‘catastrophe’ occur?”.
(3a) Conspiracy theories ... (with notes about Quentin Hubbard)
It is also rather noteworthy that Mary Sue herself is rather silent about these matters. We don't hear her story told by herself. Her story is persistently told by others. Why would this be? If an attempt had been made to actually infiltrate and take over the organization then how would one go about things? How to keep those involved or those that could expose what really was going on quiet?
We are may be facing a situation in where the ‘murder’ (allegedly suicide) of the oldest son Quentin Hubbard (died 12 November 1976) may have been used to keep Mary Sue quiet. Could there be any truth in this? It is a reality that the circumstances surrounding his death are still clouded in mystery till this day: (pop-up window)
We find in a declaration dated 9 March 1994 the following notices of Robert Vaughn Young about this:
“Hubbard's son Quentin also died under mysterious circumstances in 1976. He had disappeared from his home in Clearwater, Florida, and was found unconscious in a car next to the Las Vegas airport. (Coroner's report is attached as Exhibit U. He died unidentified, as a ‘John Doe.’) The engine of the car was on and a hose ran from the exhaust pipe (although it appeared to have fallen off when the authorities arrived) to the window, making it appear to be a suicide. But, like his father's death, there were a number of nagging questions. For example, Quentin was found unkempt with a beard stubble, a state that no one who knew Quentin could accept. (He was ultra-meticulous in his appearance.) Or that the license plate of the car was missing and found under a rock some distance away. Or that his wallet was gone, making identification impossible. Or that a near-empty bottle of liquor was found, as if he had been drinking, when Quentin did not. Or that there were needle marks on his arms, when he did not use drugs.”
Robert Vaughn Young was a member of the Church of Scientology for a period of 20 years (1969-1989), it is reported that he had worked in the highest management
Much is assumed although little is actually supported by fact. We also have this interesting time coincidence. Only a 6 months later on 10 May 1977 the HASI organization (that held the copyrights of Scientology) had gone defunct (see for details my study on HASI, see page “Scientology membership:
HASI vs IAS - A comparison”) and then the subsequent FBI raid on the Scientology headquarters and the Guardian Office that took place on 8 July 1977.
There are various rumours that go around about Quentin. Some claim that (1) he was a homosexual (no actual evidence surfaces that would confirm this); (2) that he would have attempted suicide earlier in 1974 for which reason he was send to the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) (this claim to date is unclear and unconfirmed by fact); (3) that all he really wanted to do was to fly aeroplanes instead he was groomed by his father to take over the Scientology organization after him (old numbers of the Scientology periodical The Auditor do confirm his interest for aeroplanes although this was at a rather young age), and; (4) that he was a nice individual and stable but yet was unable to oppose his father.
In a “Special Message From Lt. Quentin Hubbard” published in ‘Clear News 80 (AOLA edition)’, [Feb 73] it says: “I, Quentin Hubbard, am a Flag trained Case Supervisor who was kept on the straight and narrow by the Founder and was eager to apply my tools to the HGC and Advanced Courses.”. Mind though this “kept on the straight and narrow” has to be taken in the proper context. Quentin had just turned 19 years at that time and he was performing on a mission (see vocabulary) to correct various that had gone awry in the AOLA. People fired on such missions naturally have to operate on detailed instructions, and for this reason they are also specially trained (Mission School). Per this issue number of Clear News he also handled it rather successfully. Considering the nature of doing missions within the Scientology organization, he was doing these things but could then not oppose his father? It also strikes me as odd as if Quentin would not have been allowed to give in to some passion about flying, after all L. Ron Hubbard himself had been a pilot.
The sources given for various of these rumours appear to be very few, and these are not always very reputed sources either (decide for yourself), nonetheless these are the ones that persistently go around, and in particular are spread about by those persons that oppose the subject of Scientology. It further appears acknowledged that he was very well acquainted with the Scientology technology, he was a Class XII auditor. The persons that knew him that I personally have spoken to tell that he was a very gentle and polite person, but also say that he may not have been the kind of leading figure as his father was.
A story is also being told that at a time, that sequences of these claimed take over and infiltration plans were put into working order, that the Hubbard's were kept safe at some place. Quentin however had managed to escape. Not long after that he was then found as he was. It may also be noteworthy that the various Scientology-related magazines made no notice of his passing anywhere.
A very last notice in regards to Quentin Hubbard as found in the various Scientology magazines:
Quentin Hubbard returns to the Founding Church for a special event
About four hundred people crowded the Academy and other areas of the Founding Church of Scientology on Saturday March 20th to see special guest speaker Quentin Hubbard and find out more about the new Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida.
The group first watched a color video tape preview of the new facilities at the Flag Land Base. The film told more about the courses and processing available at the Land Base that make it a ‘mecca for those who seek technical perfection.’
Quentin Hubbard's talk marked his first return to the Founding Church since 1959. He spoke to the enthusiastic crowd for nearly three hours — a new record for him. His talk centered around a capsule history of his father's development of Dianetics and Scientology and of the expansion that has taken place up to the present time. Quentin's listeners — ‘old hands’ and newcomers alike — heard new stories about Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard's experiences and about the Sea Organization's adventures during the formative years of Scientology.”
(from ‘Ability 293 Major’, Apr 76 (see also ‘Ability 294 Minor’, May 76))
Peculiar enough is the picture of Quentin as was published with the above article not a very recent photograph. It appears it had been taken from a photo shoot that he had together with his sister Diana at least about 2½ years earlier (late 1973). It is peculiar because photographs of Diana are about, but very few exist from Quentin. The published photograph, as it appears, had been edited from a larger picture (see complete photograph on the outer right).
(3b) A take over plan devised? (with reference to ‘The Crowley Files’ and Quentin Hubbard)
The following has been suggested to me:
“Someone considered Quentin a barrier to seizing full control of the Church so they eliminated him, then they got rid of his mother by setting her up.
Now with them out of the way. It gave them the opportunity to put their agent in place and groom him to take control of the whole organization as its unquestioned Tzar or Dictator.
Their mole was none other than David Miscavige.
Again, just another one of them ‘conspiracy theories’?
Well not totally theory if you follow these links:
You'll find Miscavige here under the M's
And his friend, lifetime member of the CTCC and fellow co-conspirator Heber Jentsch here:
I'm sure there were others not listed as well that helped.
My conclusion is that it was an inside job, once they figured out that Remote Viewing actually worked and that the Church of Scientology as it was, was an actual threat.
Not just another wacky cult.”
Notes: The link to the ‘CIA source list’ at http://cryptome.org has since moved to http://cryptome.info/0001/cia-2619.htm (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). This list is also found at http://www.crow96.20m.com (click at ‘CIA source list’). These present a list of a total of 2,619 ‘CIA Sources’. This is defined as: “A source is not a paid agent but an individual who can occupy a position of influence, such as an international banker, a member of the print or television media, or a scholar or academic, who might be in a position to influence official decisions or supply necessary support for an official CIA position.”. The file is a selection from ‘The Crowley Files’. Robert Trumbull Crowley was a senior Central Intelligence Agency officer from 1948 until the mid-1980s.
http://www.crow96.20m.com says: “The Crow was the CIA code name for Robert Trumbull Crowley, once Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations for that agency.
In 1996, Crowley gave a quantity of his private papers to several journalists.
Because of his position with the CIA, Crowley was privy to many of the agencies most closely-kept secrets and his files are legendary.
After his death in October of 2000, various official U.S. agencies attempted to get these files back into official cover but they have proven to be completely unsuccessful.”
Further data on the Remote Viewing as mentioned in this response can be found in my study “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology”, see article at link here below: (separate window)
All this starts to sound awfully alike some sort of JFK murder conspiracy. In where the Church of Scientology does seem (sort of) to have assumed the role of the Warren Commission. We may not even be very wrong about that either. The reality is that the story that we are being told in regards to Mary Sue has big holes in it. There are too many inconsistencies found. What to say for example about Mr. David Miscavige that witnesses and speaks out against Mary Sue Hubbard, when L. Ron Hubbard had never anything but good things to say about her?
If you go to Dallas today they will tell you the story of the lonesome killer. They will display the rifle that allegedly was used to shoot John F. Kennedy. They will show you the building and the exact spot from which Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly had fired these shots. You may also hear the story of the magical bullet. This is still the official version told today, nonetheless this tale also has such holes in it that makes it a shear impossibility that it would/could have happened that way. The discussion about that and the controversy are still ongoing this day. Some happenings as it seems are not meant to be cleared, and they will remain shrouded in mystery.
So far these conspiracy theories ...
The ‘Office of Special Affairs’ (OSA)
The duties of the Guardian Office have since been taken over by the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). The Office of Special Affairs International was formatted as such in December 1983, it is circumscribed as “a network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors.” (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition), page 649).
Various of her brainchilds more closely examined
‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’ (1965), compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard
Released in February 1965 and introduced as follows: ‘For Excellence in Metering;
THE BOOK OF E-METER DRILLS; Clearing Series: Three; By MARY SUE HUBBARD’.
“Mary Sue, proofreading her book, The Book of E-Meter Drills. This book is Clearing Series III, I being E-Meter Essentials, and II being The Book of Case Remedies, both by L. Ron Hubbard. The Book of E-Meter Drills contains 27 Training Drills on the E-Meter, and they go from Level I through Level VI. The Foreword is by L. Ron Hubbard, and all the drills were developed by him.
Mary Sue spent over 200 hours compiling and assembling the book, to say nothing of the time spent in its proofreading. Her proofing had to be particularly meticulous, as she knew that the slightest incomprehensibility could mean an auditor's skill in using the E-Meter would be less than optimum if he didn't understand the drill. Each drill is numbered, has a name, its purpose is delineated, the position that the student and his coach take is given, the commands of the drill, of course, are given, and the training stress is stated.
Any auditor, whether he or she be a veteran Pro, or a starter at Level I, will find this book (doing the drills, of course) to be a great boost to his auditing skill. The Level I auditor will use the book and its drills as he or she moves up through the levels. The veteran Pro will do well to start with the first drill
and when he can do it perfectly, go to the second, etc, through the entire book.”
(from ‘The Auditor 6’, [ca Feb 65])
Through the years this little publication saw 8 prints:
All these editions had the cover as shown on the illustration here on the right.
The copyright of for example the 1978 edition (7th printing) of this original publication gives: ‘Copyright 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard’. It was sized 6' x 8½' (14½ x 21½ cm).
It should not have been more than just that Mary Sue Hubbard should continued having been given credit for her involvement with the creation of this publication, this in regards to the new edition of the book. Still there is more to tell. There is a related true oddity to be found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes concerning the original little publication ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ are a series of books that list all the technical information in chronological date order. Mixed in there we also find listings of the tape lectures that L. Ron Hubbard had given about technical matters. We also find listed information about the book publications at their appropriate places in chronological order. It gave information about when exactly it had been released, some notes were given about the publication, and we also see an illustration. The 1976-78 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes provided for an illustration of the latest edition available of the publication. The 1991 release of these same volumes showed instead an illustration of the authentic first edition of the publication.
This is as ‘The Book of E-Meter Drills’ appears in‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VII, 1963-1965’ (1991) on page 568:
THE BOOK OF E-METER DRILLS
BY L. RON HUBBARD Published February 1965
The Book of E-Meter Drills consists of E-Meter drills developed by Ron and first compiled and published at Saint Hill in February 1965.
In this forward for this book, Ron wrote:
“This present booklet contains all the standard E-Meter drills used used in training in Scientology.
“There are no other drills. Many have been developed from time to time and have proven less workable or useless. These drills have been of the greatest possible value.”
In 1988, a new edition of The Book of E-Meter Drills was released, fully updated with Ron's advances in E-Meters and metering since 1965 – including vital data and drill steps specifically for Hubbard Professional Mark VI and Mark Super VII meters.
If we look at this more closely we see the oddity. On the illustration of the book under the text ‘basic drills by L. RON HUBBARD’ we are missing the text ‘compiled by MARY SUE HUBBARD’. However, on the first edition and all the following 7 editions of this book, this text is really found on them! It really also does show on the illustration as found in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. Why was this referencing to Mary Sue Hubbard deleted in the 1991 release of these same volumes? It appears that the publication as shown in the above illustration does not exist like that, according to my knowledge it has not ever been issued like that. We also take notice that the information given on that page does not either make any mention of Mary Sue Hubbard, whereas ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VI, 1965-1969’ (1976) on page 12, explicitly says that it was compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard.
It seems quite clear that any mention to Mary Sue Hubbard must be removed, anywhere and everywhere! Personally I think this erasure on the illustration is quite silly! May people not know that it was in fact Mary Sue Hubbard that had compiled this very publication? Why, I wonder! This is though a clear attempt to actually change history!
Was this sanctioned by L. Ron Hubbard? Well ..., I really don't think so. It appears sanctioned by someone who implemented that in 1988, and this is at least about 2 years after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard.
“The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
‘Marriage Hats’ (1974), written by Mary Sue Hubbard
This was just a very little publication laying out the hats for the wife and husband. Today this little writing may be considered a little old-fashion. The role given to the wife and husband are pretty classical. Some may argue today that it would be discriminating the wife as she can not be creative and develop herself, and the husband can do as he pleases. I think it is mostly a matter of opinion. These hats as they are found in this publication can vary between couples. It's just the agreement that exists between the wife and the husband. Today though civilization appears to go in the direction of that both the partners should have an outside job, just to be able to pay all the bills. In very early days we were to pay the tithes (a tax amounting to pay 10 percentage of your income), today we pay a lot more than that. We also are being harassed about all the things that are advertised all around us all the time, things we most of the time do not really need at all. Many are also craving for luxury, we all need a television, a car, a own house, expensive vacations, a summer house, a boat and so on. While the parents are working the kids then often get dumped at some nursery during the day, these kids somehow they do not really come first anymore. It can be questioned if this development is so survival. We are facing a different reality then at the time these little publication was written. It probably would need some updating to address today's situation.
Below I have printed in full the ‘Introduction – Hats’ chapter. Especially this chapter in fact is still quite valid. The little book is findable, however you may have to look around for it. The importance of it all is that it is vital that the hat is determined for both the partners. It does not always mean that the classical form has to be followed.
Introduction – Hats
the beingness and
doingness that attains a product. The term and idea of ‘a hat’ comes from conductors or locomotive engineers etc. each of whom wear a distinctive and different type of headgear. A ‘hat’ therefore designates particular status and duties in an organization.”
— L. Ron Hubbard.
In all of man's history, there has never been a clearcut statement of the principal duties of the game of man and wife. Here, at last, one is supplied, the result of experience distilled from one very successful marriage.
These duties outline the beingness, the “hat” you assume when you become a “husband” or a “wife.”
They were written for two Scientologists by Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of L. Ron Hubbard. They were then copied and passed from hand to hand, so great was the demand for them.
Clearly there is a need for a new statement, not only to include new data, but also to re-examine and reaffirm certain old and practical divisions of responsibility.
Lately, these old traditional divisions have become obscured, neglected or subject to dispute. Women have frequently “dumped their hat” as wife and mother to become businesswomen, executives or artists. Husbands in turn have sometimes “dumped their hat” as providers and leaders of the family.
Marriage for many has become a rather confused game where the purpose is unknown, the roles of the players undecided and the boundaries of the playing field itself uncertain. Marriage and careers become entangled, at cross purposes, and seem to cancel each other out.
For a Scientologist, the road is somewhat easier.
He or she is aware that life can be divided up into several spheres or dynamics and that each individual strives to develop and survive on many levels; first, as himself; second, through sex and family; third, as a member of a group; fourth, as part of mankind; fifth, with all living things; sixth, as part of the physical universe; seventh, on an aesthetic or spiritual level; eighth, through God or infinity. These are called the dynamics* and optimumly each man or woman functions on all these levels.
A Scientologist knows, therefore, that she may be a wife and take instructions from her husband on the second dynamic, and also be an administrator and give orders on the third - as a member of a larger group.
These separate beingnesses may be difficult for the beginner at first, but if each sphere of responsibility is clearly delineated, it becomes far easier.
Many marriage problems come from a failure to assume the full beingness appropriate to marriage itself.
As L. Ron Hubbard has said, the question has never been:
“. . . to be or not to be, but what to be . . .
I had someone in marital trouble look at me thoughtfully once and say, ‘I don't have any idea what are the rights or duties of a wife.”
Most marital counseling is concerned with a husband who cannot be a husband, a wife who cannot be a wife. A wife who will not let a husband be a husband, and a husband who will not let a wife be a wife — the average marriage.
You might say therefore ‘marriage is very unhappy.’
No, marriage is not unhappy, marriage is a difficult beingness.’
That beingness is made easier by the two “hats” that follow. They define the primary areas of responsibility and can be used as a guide and inspiration to help you clarify, better approach and achieve your own ideal scene for your marriage. Not all the clauses of these hats would apply to any one marriage all the time. The circumstance of a marriage can vary according to time and place and culture or subculture. But those clauses concerning communication,* overts* and withholds* are constant — those are the basic building blocks of human relationships regardless of time or place.
Today this little publication seems sort of replaced with a chapter found in ‘The Scientology Handbook’ (published 1994), see chapter 13 (pages 475-499) entitled: “Marriage”. (more info about this book is found here, separate window). This chapter deals with amongst other Marriage being a postulated relationship, about morals (not having withholds to each other), and about being in communication with each other. Roughly this is about it. (these are also found on the website especially dedicated to this Handbook, for the Marriage page click here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). Some of this has been addressed as well in Mary Sue Hubbard's pamphlet ‘Marriage Hats’, what has been missed in this Handbook though is this thing about what hat actually to wear. On page 499 of the Handbook it promotes 3 course books as they appeared in the ‘A Scientology Life Improvement Course’ series. Two of them have been available since 1988, these were: ‘Starting a Successful Marriage’ & ‘How to Maintain a Successful Marriage’. At a later date was added: ‘How to Improve Your Marriage’.
From what I have seen thus far though the importance of having these hats have not really been addressed in these courses, not anywhere else either that I know of. This means also that Mary Sue Hubbard's publication remains being quite remarkable!
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”, written by Mary Sue Hubbard
A brief explanation of ‘PTS Type A’ and a compact history of this policy letter
These PTS Types are categorized from ‘PTS Type A’ to ‘PTS Type J’. These are all listed in HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources”. It simply lists “Policies ... for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble. These persons can be grouped under ‘Potential Trouble Sources’.” LRH
“PTS TYPE A, persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scn. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scn in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong. They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by an organization or auditor. (HCO PL 27 Oct 64)”
It was Mary Sue Hubbard that had developed an approach that would successfully address and solve the problem with in particular this ‘PTS Type A’.
It was first issued as HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”. It went through some minor revisions, then on 29 Dec ’78 it was revised by L. Ron Hubbard which consisted of adding a first section to it, leaving the remaining 3 or so pages as they were. It was still acknowledged in HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling” that this reference was actually “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”, although in the signing area Mary Sue Hubbard was already demoted to an assistant. In the version HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”every reference to Mary Sue Hubbard had been removed! This version is also the one that is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, although that version actually contained updated referencing which was reissued on 3 Apr ’89 (that notice though is only found on the original mimeo print-off of the issue). Finally on 28 Oct 2000 it was reissued under its original date (HCO PL 5 Apr 72RD “PTS Type A Handling”), which at the time of this writing is still only available as an original mimeo print-off.
A complete copy of the version of this reference that introduced the by L. Ron Hubbard added section (BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised 29 Dec 78) I “PTS Type A Handling”) can be consulted here (pop-up window).
A brief overview of the chronological history of HCO PL “PTS Type A Handling”
Note: I have been unable to physically examine the 2nd BPL version, the information given for these is incomplete and assumed.
HCO PL 20 Oct 81
(Cancels and Replaces BPL 5 Apr 72RC Issue I)
L. Ron Hubbard
Assisted by Mary Sue Hubbard
Revised & Reissued
as an HCO PL
Board of Directors
of the Church of Scientology of California
(revision notes confirm: “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”!)
‘CS-G’ stands for ‘Commodore's Staff Guardian’. This person is responsible for the Guardian's Office over the world and this function is best described as guard and protect Scientology.
‘MSH’ in the composer initials denote: ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’.
It means that it was written by the CS-G (=Mary Sue Hubbard) and that it was done for L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.
BPL 5 Apr 72R (Revised and reissued 20 Jul 75) I “PTS Type A Handling”
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
Revised & Reissued as BPL
by Flag Mission 1234 2nd
Approved by the
Commodore's Staff Aides
Board of Issues
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
Revised & Reissued on 20 Jul 75 as BPL.
Revision notes indicate: ‘(Revision in Script)’.
Only minor revisions.
Do you have a copy of the actual ‘R’ revision? Please contact me!
BPL 5 Apr 72RA (Re-Revised 6 Feb 77) I “PTS Type A Handling”
Judging from a comparison of BPL 5 Apr 72R I “PTS Type A Handling” with BPL 5 Apr 72RB I “PTS Type A Handling” the revisions must be very minor.
Do you have a copy of the actual ‘RA’ revision? Please contact me!
BPL 5 Apr 72RB (Re-Revised 2 Sept 77) I “PTS Type A Handling”
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
AVU I/A BPI Appeal Line
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
Only minor revision: “(To change reference in first
line to 7 May 69 which
revised PL 27 October 64, the
original reference, and to correct
the following quote.)”. Referred is to the quote that was taken from mentioned reference and that was following directly this revision notice.
BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised 29 Dec 78) I “PTS Type A Handling”
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH Tech Expeditor
L. RON HUBBARD
The ‘LRH Tech Expeditor’ is indicated in the composer initials as ‘PA’ (= Paulette Ausley).
Revision notes indicate: ‘(Revision in this Typestyle)’.
The revision by the ‘LRH Tech Expeditor’ probably was quite minor. Per the data given we have to assume here that L. Ron Hubbard added the whole introduction to the reference (the first whole page of this present version foregoing the section headed: “DEFINITION”). It is imaginable that this ‘Expeditor’ rounded up the short reference listing as found on this first page or/and may have added ‘Class IV Grad checksheet’ on the routing of the reference.
A complete copy of the version of this version of the reference that introduced this by L. Ron Hubbard added section can be consulted here (pop-up window).
HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”
It informs: “(Cancels and Replaces
BPL 5 April 72RC I
PTS TYPE A HANDLING)”.
Revision notes say: “(BPL 5 April 72RC I PTS TYPE A HANDLING, written by Mary Sue Hubbard, contained correct and vital data on handling PTSness, so it is reissued here as an HCO Policy Letter by the Board of Directors. It now has the full force of policy.)”.
It states that “It now has the full force of policy.”. In fact it always has had the “full force of policy” since it was first issued on 5 Apr ’72 as an HCO PL! In addition BPL's also always have been full authorized policy! This notice is basically nonsense.
It is fully confirmed here that in fact this reference had been “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”!
If we compare HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling” with the previous version BPL 5 Apr 72RC I “PTS Type A Handling” in detail we find that they are virtually identical. A few sentences only had been added in the 1981 release. A notable omission that was found in all earlier versions of this reference, but for some reasons was deleted in this HCO PL is found in the section headed: “THE WHY”. ‘Why’-finding is an important measure to take in permanently solving a situation, because with this you remove the motivator of the person to continue mocking up the non-survival situation. Anyway the first sentence in the last paragraph in that section on the BPL said: “See the Data Series PLs (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.”. This sentence is fully skipped in the 1981 HCO PL. To be able to find a ‘why’ one has to know exactly how to go about it, for this the Data Series PLs are really indispensable. This line was not to return in there in later versions of this reference.
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
Mary Sue Hubbard
Revised & Reissued
as an HCO PL by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
First this very version of this reference confirmed that this reference had in fact been “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”, only then to be demoted to an ‘Assisted by’ designation in the signing area! In fact in this case it was L. Ron Hubbard that had assisted Mary Sue Hubbard by adding the first section to the reference, it was not the other way around here! The main substance of the reference was still deriving from and devised by Mary Sue Hubbard, and not L. Ron Hubbard.
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”
Revision notes say: “(Revised 10 September 1983 to reinstate the use of disconnection in alignment with HCOB September 1983, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION.)”. Accordingly it “CANCELS: HCO PL 15 Nov 68, CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION”. Indeed these changes are extensive, it really turned things around. Quite noteworthy is also that the revisions are not indicated in ‘script’, and the deletions are not indicated with ‘ellipsis’ as they actually should have been. This makes it impossible to determine what exactly had been added, changed and where something had been deleted. I can tell you that it is quite hard to actually find copies of any of the previous versions of this reference. This reference was found in the PTS/SP Course packs, but you would need to find a pack issued prior to September 1983, and this may be a hard task.
In fact the actual authorship of this “HCOB 10 September 1983, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION” has been seriously questioned and this is based on very solid grounds! Accordingly implementing its data into HCO PL “PTS Type A Handling” is also being questioned! I discuss this in detail on my page “Scientology:
‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study”, on that page see the parts “(1) HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”” and “Conclusion”.
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
Adopted as Official
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
In the previous version of the reference (HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”) we still found a confirmation in the revision notes that it had been “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”, although she been demoted to an ‘Assisted by’ designation in the signing area. This time however we don't find any referencing anywhere to Mary Sue Hubbard, the person that in fact had originated and written this very reference! This acknowledgement to Mary Sue Hubbard was not to return in later versions of this reference either. This seriously violates:
“The field or public must not be led to believe that I have written or issued things I have not. Further, other people have authority, too.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Reissued 3 Apr 89) “PTS Type A Handling”
Revision notes say: “(Reissued 3 April 1989 to update references. ...)”.
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
This is actually the version that is found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. Although you will only find the revision notices and typing/composer initials on the original mimeo print-off, they are not found in the version as presented in these volumes.
HCO PL 5 Apr 72RD (Reissued 28 Oct 2000) “PTS Type A Handling”
Revision notes say: “(Cancels and replaces HCO PL 20 Oct. 81R, PTS TYPE A HANDLING ...)”“(Reissued on 28 October 2000 to restore the original date of the issue that was accidentally omitted by Mimeo when LRH later revised the issue.)”
It claims that it “was accidentally omitted by Mimeo”. According to the information that I found on the previous versions of this very policy letter it was lastly revised by L. Ron Hubbard on 29 Dec ’78. That version remained being a BPL, and it was still issued with the date 5 Apr 72, this was BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Re-Revised 29 Dec 78) I. This all occurred about 3 years prior to reissuing this same data as HCO PL 20 Oct 81! The revision notes sounds like as if L. Ron Hubbard had revised the 1981 release, which he most certainly did not. This is therefore not“accidentally omitted when LRH later revised the issue”. This argument is also supported by the fact that this was also not the only policy letter that received a new date in 1981! We have a whole variety of these being issued during especially the year 1981. Some attention is given to various of these on my study “Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution”, see Scientology index page.
It can be concluded that the data as given in these revision notes obviously are quite incorrect!
Although the original publication date had been restored with this release, still some additional comments can be made. Below I have listed all the published versions of this reference. It appears that the revision designation of the new release refers back to the last version it was previously published under this date, which was designated ‘RC’. This new release continues where the BPL left of and is then designated with ‘RD’. I note here that one apparently referred back only to that designation given, it does not refer back to (reinstate) the original text of that last BPL version! Anyhow designating it to ‘RD’ in fact is quite incorrect as we skipped the 3 releases with the 1981 HCO PL date. It should have been something as follows:
As it was released:
(in bold if attributed)
HCO PL 5 Apr 72 Issue I
BPL 5 Apr 72R Issue I
(Revised and Reissued 20 July 1975)
BPL 5 Apr 72RA Issue I
(Re-Revised 6 February 1977)
BPL 5 Apr 72RB Issue I
(Re-Revised 2 September 1977)
Reference and quotation update
BPL 5 Apr 72RC Issue I
(Re-Revised 29 December 1978)
L. Ron Hubbard added a first section to the reference
HCO PL 20 Oct 81
Revised reissue of BPL 5 Apr 72RC Issue I, referrals to Data Series deleted
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R
(Revised 10 September 1983)
Extensively revised, implements practice of disconnection
HCO PL 20 Oct 81R
(Reissued 3 April 1989 to update references)
As a rule reference updates were considered actual revisions, although here it did not change 81R into 81RA
HCO PL 5 Apr 72RD
(Reissued 28 October 2000)
No obvious revision other than date change (RF instead of RG would be proper, HCO PL's that turned BPL in the 70's and were not revised did not receive an R designation either)
The signing area at the bottom say:
L. RON HUBBARD
Revision assisted by
LRH Technical Research
Obviously some have been busy here to actually un-acknowledge the involvement of Mary Sue Hubbard with this issue. Now, is this a proper thing to do? Well, I really don't think so. Which is why I lay my data out in the open here on my site, and make it available for anyone to find out about this! There are some words that I would like to use for these kind of practices as they obviously have been applied here. Although I have satisfied myself with expressing that I HIGHLY DISAPPROVE of it! I think this will get my message across! History is as history is, DO NOT obscure it! Let revision notes as found on issues also be fully verified and truthful.
In fact this one had fooled me for quite a while too! I was not aware of the fact that the original of this reference was written by Mary Sue Hubbard until quite recently. And then I wonder, what else had not been written by L. Ron Hubbard that I did not find out about as yet?
And yes ..., YOU can do something too!
Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960
..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. AD..:
‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979. AOLA:
‘Advanced Organization Los Angeles’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Los Angeles, USA. AOSH EU:
‘Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Copenhagen, Denmark. BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked. CMO:
‘Commodore's Messenger Org(anization)’. A senior Scientology organization. communication:
The interchange of ideas or objects between two people or terminals. More precisely, the definition of communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication at Effect of what emanates from Cause. (The ability to communicate is the key to success in life – therefore, this definition should be studied thoroughly and understood. Read Dianetics ’55 for a full practical treatise of communication.). (from Marriage Hats booklet) CS-G:
‘Commodore's Staff Guardian’ is responsible for the Guardian's Office over the world and this function is best described as guard and protect Scientology. CTCC:
‘Church Tax Compliance Committee’ (Church of Scientology) Dynamics:
The urge, thrust and purpose of life – SURVIVE! – in its eight manifestations. The First Dynamic, survival of self; the Second Dynamic, the urge toward survival through sex and children; the Third Dynamic, the urge to survive through a group. The Fourth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all mankind; the Fifth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all living things; the Sixth Dynamic, the urge toward survival as the physical universe; the Seventh Dynamic, the urge toward survival through spirits or as a spirit; the Eighth Dynamic, the urge toward survival through infinity. (Marriage Hats booklet) ED:
‘Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH ED's are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. 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. FSO:
‘Flag Ship Order’. An issue-type used on the ship. HCO (Division):
‘Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications. 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’. LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R) mission: 1. A mission could be defined for our use as a formally authorized individual or group sent to perform a specific task or duty sent by Operations. That would require, then, personnel selection, training, briefing, Mission Orders, dispatch and full admin. The difference between an errand and a mission is that missions are sent by an Operations Officer, errands are sent by anyone else. When an “errand” involves more than one day it should be handled by Operations, not by some other division. It then becomes a mission. (FO 2530R) 2. To handle downstat orgs and areas the Sea Org simply gets in ethics. This is done in such a way as to enable that org or area to get in tech, which makes it possible then for them to get in admin. In order to do this we send out missions. These have unlimited ethics powers and enough force to accomplish their purpose of getting in ethics. (FO 228) 3. A mission consists of a missionaire trained officer and missionaire trained personnel. (FO 1802) Mission School is designed to train a Sea Org member to undertake and execute a mission, any mission. It provides the know-how and technology to get the job done. (FO 2505). ‘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). 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). overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional. Sec ED:
‘Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED.An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). Withholds (W/Hs):
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (Marriage Hats booklet)