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.

The information supplied on this page is primarily meant for those persons who have been on staff in a Scientology organization (esp. the Sea Org*) and who were –one way or the other– unable to fulfill their previous staff obligations. Secondarily this is also meant to be a detailed study of this subject and attempts to capture its history within the Church of Scientology.

• Introduction
• I have been sacked, what now?
          - Condition Order
          - The easy way out
  
• What is a ‘freeloader’?
          - The word as defined in Scientology writings and as per ordinary dictionaries
          - A condition of doubt ...
  
• What about staffmembers who in fact did contribute but decided to leave staff for some reason?
          - HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”
          - Cancellation of HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”
          - Liable for full payment ...
  
• What about those contributing staffmembers who got sick unabling them to continue functioning as a staffmember?
• The definition of ‘freeloader’ as found in the ‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’
          - ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’  (‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’)
          - ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’  vs  ‘BPL 13 Oct 72R’
  
• A word about ‘Scientology Policy Directive's’  &  SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”
• A word about leaves and leaving security checks
          - Leaves
          - Leaving security checks
          - Crew members who leave ...
  
• Conclusion

The information found on this page will enable those in need of it to find out what there actual condition is toward the Scientology organization. It appears that there are quite a few misconceptions about this, especially if you look around on the Internet. As much as possible I will let the applicable issues speak for themselves. Some of these may have been cancelled, however they are being quoted as their contents will clarify some things. One should also realize that Flag Orders (FO's) are primarily to be enforced on Sea Org members, whereas HCO Policy Letters are to be enforced on all.

Consult the information supplied, get an understanding of it. Then look at your own situation. What do these issues say about that? Have I been assigned the correct condition? Do I disagree with anything?
When you do find out your actual condition, then you should take action!
This could be any of the following:

1. It is all clear to me and yes I have been assigned the correct condition and so on, and I will stand for it.
   
2. No, some aspects on this are not really clear to me, why should for example this thing here apply on me? Some mistake has been made. I should clarify this.

If it is #1 you should simply go ahead with it! If it is #2 you should clarify your disagreements with the proper terminals.
I can not stress this enough, but if you are confronted with opposition you still should follow your own integrity at all times. If you don't do this now, you will have to handle it at some later date. It may also be much harder to get it clarified later on, as some things are difficult to reverse.

I have been sacked, what now?

• Condition Order
• The easy way out

The purpose of this chapter is an attempt to simply put you at cause over your situation! It is based on personal experiences and problems that other persons I know about have had with this. Ensure that you are very familiar with all the justice policies, Board of Reviews and Comittee of Evidence's have in fact time machines on them, they should not go on for ever. Let the policy letters work for you, they have been created to be put at use.

 
Condition Order

When you have received your Condition Order you should verify if this is correctly put together, and that the information is truthful. If you do not agree with what it says and you can substantiate that with hard verifiable data, you are advised to write a simple query on it as per HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”. You do this query as then the order or the assigment is not in effect and an obvious injustice should not stop you from taking service in any organization. At the same time you also request a Board of Review or a Committee of Evidence to be done to sort everything out. These cycles can take time and you should not allow that to interfere with your progress either way. So when you have good arguments and only then if you have these good arguments, this is the way to go about it.

When you are staff you receive processing and study for free, but still you are being presented a receipt describing the service and the cost of it. There is this habit in the Scientology organizations (at least in Sea Org) to add a text on them that goes something like “To be paid in full in event of contract breakage”. Prior to starting on this service you are asked to sign the receipt. The original of this will go into your personnel folder, when you leave your staff postition these receipts may be presented to you. To my knowledge however there is not any reference that says that they are to do such a thing, and is therefore off-policy. You can also be assured that signing these is not legally binding you to anything.

 
The easy way out

Various may choose the easy way out. Which is to simply accept the freeloader designation and pay whatever is asked just like that, Condition Order or not. This is however solely up to you.

If you have been staff in a Scientology organization and you did not fulfill your contract obligations it is of vital importance that you do find out your true condition towards the Scientology organization! Basically the message of Scientology is complete sanity, this means you can not accept a lie or any untruth to be in existence. If you do allow this of happening it will definitely bar your progress within Scientology and as a spiritual being. So, do not agree with something that is not true for you!

So, what initially may have seemed to be ‘the easy way out’, may turn out to be ‘the easy way into something’ which you wished –after the fact– you never had gotten yourself involved in!

“Never compromise with your own reality.”          LRH
         (from ‘PAB* 40’, 26 Nov 54 “Code of Honor”)

“WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself
  And when you lose that you have lost everything.”          LRH
        (from 'Ability 125', Feb 61 "Personal Integrity")

What is a ‘freeloader’?

• The word as defined in Scientology writings and as per ordinary dictionaries
• A condition of doubt ...

 
The word as defined in Scientology writings and as per ordinary dictionaries

Usually all ex-staff members are referred to as being ‘freeloaders’. But is this the correct word to use? What does L. Ron Hubbard say about this? And how do ordinary dictionaries define it?

	“An SO* mission to orgs* in the US recently uncovered undermanned orgs as a reason for low stats*.
	According to this mission many people had joined staffs, signed contracts, gotten free services and then went off staff.
	This is nice work if one can get it.  It leaves the good guys burdened with tech delivery with no proper income.
	Such contractbreakers are to be designated FREELOADERS.”          LRH           (from HCO PL 13 Oct 72R* “Freeloaders”, also as HCO PL 2 Dec 69R “Freeloaders”) [originally issued as ‘LRH ED* 44 Int’, 2 Dec 69 “Freeloaders” which had a 12-month validity, on Oct 13, 72 it was reissued as an HCO PL which has permanent validity, during the late 80s it was decided to give the HCO PL the date of the original LRH ED]

The keyword in the second issue is ‘such’. It can be seen here and in the foregoing issue that L. Ron Hubbard designates that ónly a certain group of people is to be made subject to this.

This all is clear enough and this all does make sense, does it not? Ordinary dictionaries comply with this as they say the following:

It prescribes certain conditions which must be in effect before one is to be assigned this condition of having had a ‘free load’ or being a ‘freeloader’. The essential thing is that they show clearly that not everyone is to be subject to that condition! It all seems to be a matter of ‘proper exchange’.

 
A condition of doubt ...

That would mean those who did not contribute and were designated being freeloaders. Those who were let go off staff because of physical disturbances or otherwise making them unqualified to remain on staff naturally do not fall under this category.

What about staffmembers who in fact did contribute but decided to leave staff for some reason?

• HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”
• Cancellation of HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”
• Liable for full payment ...

 
HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”

Now then, not all ex-staffmembers have been non-contributing. For these persons there used to be an issue which attempted to calculate the exchange between the staffmembers and the organization. This was HCO PL 11 Jun 81R (Revised 18 Mar 82) “Violation of Staff Covenant”.  True is that this was an HCO PL, however it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard. One should be aware of that prior to 1974 HCO PL's were not primarily written by L. Ron Hubbard, basically all it required is that they had to be approved by some ‘Board of Directors’. Now, strictly taken as per these rules HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant” should not have been issued as an HCO PL as it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard. But then, some HCO PL's even dated later than this one have been issued as an HCO PL, for some of these it is known that it was per the wishes of L. Ron Hubbard. It does not say anything in regards to that on this particular HCO PL, however there had to be some sufficient reason to justify this being issued on this issue-type format.

 
Cancellation of HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”

It may sound strange though that even if this particular HCO PL was not written by L. Ron Hubbard, it was in fact still an HCO PL. These series of HCO Admin Letters actually contain various listings of HCO PL's & HCOB's being cancelled.

There is an oddity about all this. The SPD issue-type was during 1982-88 actually itself cancelling HCO PL's that were not written by L. Ron Hubbard, this was done as per ‘SPD 4’, 2 May 82 “HCO PLs & HCOBs, Who Writes Them”. Instead we have now some minor authority issue like an HCO Admin Letter factually cancelling HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”. It would have been a more direct line to let the SPD do the cancelling. In fact I had a very hard time locating the issue that cancelled this HCO PL. SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” itself did not give me much of a clue either as it only said: “That issue has since been cancelled.”. Well, it appears that it was cancelled by a minor authority issue on the exact same day as the SPD was released, using the word “since” is in fact misleading. It sounds almost like if someone does not want you to know that it got cancelled the very same day as the SPD was issued, or to enable you to find the issue that was responsible for that as no data is given.

 
Liable for full payment ...

“If a staff member breaks his contract, leaving employ or going to an higher org with contract incomplete, he is then liable for FULL PAYMENT of all courses and processing he has received at full rate (not just 50%), and owes for all transport or expenses he may have been paid.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 20 Jul 66RB* “Staff Status”)

The argument can be made that ‘liable’ is to be defined as “bound by law to pay”. What then is ignored is that being liable is subject to circumstances. Sure, you are being held ‘responsible’, but your exchange and contribution has to be determined as well. This is logical and sane.

This is a different story. These people now in fact do wish to continue being a staffmember, but their physical condition or other making them unable to do so. Initially they will have gotten a pass on their medical examinations, and now they are being confronted with qualifications that came into effect after their time of recruitment. These individuals unfortunately will have to be send away from their staff position in the organization.

In fact their covenant was not violated by themselves, but by the group for the good of the group. Therefore it would not be very fair to let these individuals pay any penalties. Instead their finances should be used to help them handle their condition in any way possible and enable them to return as soon as possible if they would choose to do so.

This is also further explained by the confidential ‘Flag Order 3814’, 10 Jun 81 “Fitness Boards and Freeloader or Incomplete Covenant Declares Clarification”. This was compiled by Paul Laquerre (at the time the International Justice Chief) & Flag Mission 2578 I/C (In Charge). This issue was Limited Distribution for which reason I will not quote from it, but there is not so much more information found in that issue that has not already been explained on this page. That also means that the outcome as presented on this page concerning freeloaders and ex-staff is acknowledged by this confidential Flag Order. But you can already see from its title that it addresses ‘Freeloader’ and ‘Incomplete Covenant’ as 2 different conditions. Also please do note that this issue was dated only one day apart from HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant”. It appears that all this was part of a project undertaken during that time clarifying any and all relating to this subject, figuring out a fair handling, and attempting to take away any confusion relating to the subject.
We know already that HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant” has been cancelled (see previous chapter), and I have been informed several times verbally and in writing by the Sea Organization that ‘FO 3814’, 10 Jun 81 “Fitness Boards and Freeloader or Incomplete Covenant Declares Clarification” also has been cancelled since. They are basically replaced by the earlier mentioned SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”, which is discussed in more detail later on down this page.

Some valuable information is also given in ‘Flag Order 2934R’, 9 Oct 71 “M(edical) O(fficer) Duty Re Recruits & Students”. Those having medical conditions forcing them to “possibly recur on Medical Lines” are recommended to have a look at it. And yes, this issue is written by L. Ron Hubbard.

The definition of ‘freeloader’ as found in the ‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’

• 'Modern Management Technology Defined’  (‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’)
• ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’  vs  ‘BPL 13 Oct 72R’

 
‘Modern Management Technology Defined’  (‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’)

The original issue on the matter was HCO PL 13 Oct 72, and this was written by L. Ron Hubbard. In 1974 projects were started to reissue any HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard in a new issue-type called Board Policy Letter (BPL). See BPL 14 Jan 74R Issue I “New Issues”. An extract from this BPL is given in ‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’ under heading ‘Board policy Letter’. The motivation was to reserve the HCO PL issue-type format solely for L. Ron Hubbard. These BPL's were given the same date as the original HCO PL, with the addition that it was noted on them that a particular BPL did cancel the HCO PL of that same date. Now, if some revision was made on the BPL-reissue, simply an 'R' was added on this BPL following the date.

This was the standard way of handling this. Then it seems odd that HCO PL 13 Oct 72 appears together with BPL 13 Oct 72R in this ‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’? This almost gives the impression that the BPL then would have cancelled the HCO PL actually written by L. Ron Hubbard, but anyhow both are being quoted in the ‘Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary’. This is however an incorrect conclusion as is explained in the below.

 
‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72’  vs  ‘BPL 13 Oct 72R’

Theoretically this signature does indicate that L. Ron Hubbard had originated it, but why was it then earlier cancelled by an BPL? So was this written by L. Ron Hubbard or was it not? This 1979 revision was 2 years later cancelled by HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant” (discussed already in more detail in a previous chapter on this page). This HCO PL also acknowledges that the 1979 revision was written by someone other than L. Ron Hubbard. It says: “HCO PL 13 October 1972R, FREELOADER PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, WHO IS A FREELOADER?, written by a former CS-3”. Herewith we have it confirmed that the issue was falsily attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.
HCO PL 11 Jun 81R “Violation of Staff Covenant” was compiled by “THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL”, and as “Assisted by Lyman Spurlock”. Would the original HCO PL “Freeloader Program Administration” really have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, it would then have been cancelled by a non-LRH issue (as it was in 1975 by a BPL), which also would have been questionable.

It appears that we are dealing here with one of the many references that received the signature of L. Ron Hubbard written underneath it when it was fabricated by someone else without his knowledge or approval. As in yes, we have quite a few of these especially during the early 80's. (More info about this in my study “Scientology: The History of a Policy Letter - Introduction”, see Scientology index page.)

I hope that there are some people who have some of these issues I have not been able to consult. Please do contact me!

A word about ‘Scientology Policy Directive's’  &  SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”

• Scientology Policy Directive  (SPD)
• SPD 14 Feb 91 "Freeloader Billings"

 
Scientology Policy Directive  (SPD)

Most BPL*'s (see also previous chapter) at this time are basically cancelled. In 1982 a new issue-type was created for such policy letter not written by L. Ron Hubbard. These were called Scientology Policy Directives (SPD), see ‘SPD 1’ , 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type - Scientology Policy Directives”. Practically this new issue-type served exactly the same purpose as the old BPL's.
The BPL issue-type did fulfil some purpose and this was acknowledged by LRH himself. In my opinion it was basically a very good idea to reissue non-LRH HCO PL's into another issue-type. At least some of them still contained some usable information, I know this from personal experience.

“Anyone on the I/A (=Issue Authority) lines for these issues must totally make sure that the issue is actually needed, and that it is not covered already by existing HCO PLs. It has often been found that due to the MUs of those concerned, ‘policy’ has been issued that was not actually needed, and already much better covered in existing HCO PLs!”
          (from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type - Scientology Policy Directives”)

“Scientology Policy Directives are used to set forth internal administrative or Church policy. They are not senior to HCO PLs or HCOBs, or any other LRH issue type, and may not cancel any LRH issue. Indeed, SPDs do not even cover the same subjects as the LRH issues.”
          (from SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives - Background”)

Contrary to what it says in these SPD's as quoted above there are in fact various SPD's that do discuss matters already covered by LRH-policy. Furthermore LRH-quotes have been taken from existing LRH HCO PL's and have been incorporated into these SPD's, where found necessary the original LRH-text has been adjusted to make them fit in the SPD. Now, if you do that you definitely risk that it will start to mean something else as words had been substituted and so on... And then, if LRH policy on the matter already existed why issuing an SPD about it? Is it acceptable to alter LRH-writing like this? Another point is that the information given in these SPD's is stressed as being actual Church policy! For example ‘SPD 28’, 13 Aug 82 states at the end: “The above is unequivocal Church Policy.”.

(A detailed analysis about SPD's you will find on my page: “LRH vs A New Order (2)”, chapter “The arrival of new information (2) - A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’”. Consult here, link will open in separate window)

SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”

Now, then what about SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” ?

SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings” is a prime example of ‘adjusted’ LRH policy about these matters it proclaims to clarify. You can verify any of this for yourself by consulting various quotations from this issue itself. Click here (link will open as a pop-up window).

A word about leaves and leaving security checks

• Leaves
• Leaving security checks
• Crew members who leave ...

 
Leaves

There also seem to be some misconceptions about how the Scientology organization should deal with those who no longer wish to remain on staff in a Scientology organization. Stories are being told on the Internet that those who have expressed their wish to leave are being detained. It says for example that some person has been told that there is no auditor available right now for receiving their leaving security check and therefore they will have to wait till they have permission to leave. Would they choose to leave anyway they may be facing some unpleasant consequences. And so on...
There are some specific references about all this. I know of no references contrary to the ones quoted below. Therefore one has to insist upon that they are being enforced!

 
Leaving security checks

“Before a person may leave staff and receive a final pay cheque, a security check must be made and any overts and withholds on the organization or personnel discovered must be audited at organization expense.”          LRH
          (from HCO PL 3 Aug 60 “Security of Persons Leaving Staff”)

There is no reason to assume that the above should effect the 24-hour rule as found in FCO 1329 “Personnel Policies”.

 
Crew members who leave ...

The above is actually very interesting. It discriminates 2 different kind of circumstances, and therewith also provides us with 2 different ways of handling these situations. It appears that this Flag Order —that by the way was written by L. Ron Hubbard— does not agree with the earlier described SPD 14 Feb 91 “Freeloader Billings”, the issue that gives only one treatment for any kind of circumstance.

“A sea org member is supposed to get: ‘his allowance, transport, clothes, laundry, food, a bunk, medical expenses, courses, grades’.”          LRH
          (from ‘FO 732’, 16 May 68 “Allowances”)

Important notice:
It is however to be noted that the above is only applicable to the Sea Organization. The contract signed for this senior Scientology organization is for an unlimited period of time. The socalled Class IV & V Scientology organizations however offer contracts for a period of 2½ & 5 years. If they decide not to extend their contract after finishing this term, they are free to do so without any financial consequences what so ever..., but if they choose to leave before the end of their earlier agreed upon term some calculation will have to be made.

Vocabulary:

     1205R, 72R, 66RB:
For example: ‘LRH FCO 1205R’, ‘HCO PL 13 Oct 72R’ & ‘HCO PL 20 Jul 66RB’. 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..
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a 'bank'.
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard. In Jan 1974 projects were started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being valid reissued as BPL's.
     CS-Personnel, CS-3:
CS stands for ‘Commodore Staff’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. The 3 refers to Division 3 (Treasury division) of a Scientology organization. 'CS-3' is also referred to as 'Finance Aide' or 'Treasury Aide'.
     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.
     ED:
'Executive Directive' or 'Executive Director'.
    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.
    FCPL:
'Founding Church Policy Letter': issue-type reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues, this is an early name for 'HCO PL'. These used to be named ‘HASI PL’ (see vocabulary)
     first dynamic:
There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These are referred to as 'dynamics' within Scientology. The 'first dynamic' is the urge toward existence as one's self. Here we have individuality expressed fully.
     Fitness Board (FB):
Its purpose is to determine the mental and physical fitness of personnel and recommend the issuance of probation or denial of a provisional or full fitness certificate.
     Flag Order:
This is the equivalent to a 'policy letter' (PL) in the Sea-Organization (senior organization within the Church of Scientology).
     FMA:
'Flag Master at Arms'. Ethics Officer in Flag Sea Organization.
     HAS:
'HCO Area Secretary'. An executive in a Scientology organization who is overall responsible for the functioning of Division 1 (recruiting new personnel, communication, letters send, ethics matters etc..)
     HASI PL:
'Hubbard Association of Scientologists International Policy Letter'. This is an early name for an HCO PL. ‘HASI’ is also referred to as the ‘Founding Church’. In the 1991 release of the ‘Organization Executive Course’ volumes these are named FCPL ('Founding Church Policy Letter')
     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’.
     OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. Also referred to as the ‘green volumes’.
     org, orgs:
Abbreviation for ‘organization(s)’.
     overt (overt act):
Harmful act or anything which may work as a disadvantage towards something else.
     PAB:
'Professional Auditors Bulletin', Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary:
This is the publication ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (first released 1976). Usually referred to as simply Admin Dictionary. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
“Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinquish 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)
     Sea Org, SO:
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that run the Advance Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly.
     stat, stats:
Short for statistic or statistics.

Copyright © 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved. This page revised: 2 May, 2010