Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: The printed materials and the changes that the      original setup has been subjected to during 1973-86 (1: An overview of the new rules of the game ... &        2: A summary of changes observed with annotations)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> 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.

	“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
	When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive director’.
	When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.
	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.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs” - full text of the policy letter is given) (underlining is mine)

Go to “Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after”  index page

The arrival of new information (1 & 2) -
The printed materials: New rules of the game & Summary of changes

A detailed rundown of any and all observations and findings that may shed some light on this.

 
Index:

	The printed materials 1: An overview of the new rules of the game ...
		Solving a problem: ‘compilers’ turn ‘assistants’
			- Notes about BPLs & BTBs - Planned operation and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”
		An overview of issued/reissued references during 1980-81 and some examples
		About new LRH materials released since Feb 1986 (after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard)
		About old OODs, evals and advices issued after Feb 1986 (some examples)
		Changes in the issue authority and approval lines for HCO PLs and HCOBs
			- Original status quo 1972... changing rules (1974), and noteworthy deviations
				(Includes:  An array of HCO PLs released not signed or originated by L. Ron Hubbard (1979-83))
			- (1) The ‘Boards of Directors’ (May 73-Dec 81)
				(Includes:  Where is it situated?; Its authority; In use during ...(CSI taking over Dec 81- ))
			- (2) ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )
		The establishment of the RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH's technical issues (a chronology 1973-82)  (on separate page)
			- Foreword - Pierre Ethier about Mimeo section, dictaphone recordings and RTRC - Prologue to the birth of an ‘LRH technical issue compilation unit’ (1973-79) - RTCU, RTC, Mission Issues Revision & Flag Compilations Bureau (1980-82) - Unlikely ‘written by LRH’ references (an array of references published with false signatures?) - RTRC (1982- ) - The members of RTRC, setup and method of operation; Where is L. Ron Hubbard? - L. Ron Hubbard versus RTRC - The position of Dan Koon
		If a reference is signed with L. Ron Hubbard, then can we still trust that he in fact wrote it?
			- An interesting example - Some testimonies (David Mayo & Robert Vaughn Young)
		Do we need all these excess policy letters and technical bulletins?
	The printed materials 2: A summary of changes observed with annotations
		LRH sources for new HCO PLs – Disappearance of information – Change of copyright
		Disputed sources for new LRH releases: ‘LRH notes’ and ‘LRH advices’
		Non-LRH and unverified sources used for new LRH HCO PLs – The ‘1981 Cramming Series’ dilemma
		About signatory section and composer initials
		Implementing (copying) texts into HCO PLs that is already presented in other existing HCO PLs/HCOBs rather than listing them as a source in a reference list, then at a later stage deleting the original source indication of these copied texts and obscuring their original source – Obscuring newly added information by not printing it in script
		The statement and promise of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)
			(The 1991 release of the ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (including ‘Management Series’) & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes)

Solving a problem: ‘compilers’ turn ‘assistants’

• Notes about BPLs & BTBs
• Planned operation and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”

 
Notes about BPLs & BTBs

	“Auditors and Scientologists for 27 years have tended to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by myself.
	Until a few months ago my opinion was that this, while flattering, was not entirely justified.
	However, these last few months have sharply changed my belief into total agreement with all those who have expressed some fear of reinterpretations of bulletins by others. ...
	So you were right!
	A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.” (from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

It is easy to understand how this would have extended itself onto these BPL and BTB issue-types.

And so in particular during 1980-81 we see the issuance of a rather large variety of HCO PLs that indicated the assistance of a some person. It's interesting to see that in the days a bit prior to 1980 that when it said on some reference “Assisted by” that it really meant “Assisted by”. However since actually as early as late 1976 a practice started that a reference was written by the noted assistant and not the person it was attributed to, which would be the person L. Ron Hubbard. Rather ironic all this as here in reality it would have been L. Ron Hubbard that was the actual assistant. Then a whole lot of these releases were then some 10 years later massively cancelled confirming that in fact they had not been written by L. Ron Hubbard. We have these amongst other these HCO Admin(istrative) Letters issued during 1991-93 that indicated that “None of these issues were written by LRH and were falsely [or incorrectly] issued as policy [or HCO bulletin].”, or they indicated “None of these ... were written or approved by LRH”. Just these HCO Admin Letters that were issued listed already a whole total of 285 primarily HCO PLs and HCOBs that were cancelled because of these and other reasons. Consult the summary list here (pop-up window).

When we look at this, is it then surprising that people were protesting during these years. Many of the staffs and publics had been around for decades. They knew how things had been before. Any person that could not reconcile with the demands and/or the changes of the new regime, now firmly established in 1982, was then simply stripped from his/her rights and discarded of one way or the other.

Ironically a new issue-type for policy letters not written by L. Ron Hubbard was to (re)appear in Feb 82, this time around they were called Scientology Policy Directives (SPDs). (see chapter on this page “A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’ examined”)

 
Planned operation and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”

In its application it appears that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” established an approved practice in where others could issue material under the name of L. Ron Hubbard as the involvement of L. Ron Hubbard as a rule could not be and is not verified. Ironically 2 sentences later in this HCOB it says: “So from here on you are relatively safe.”. Considering the consequences of these changes then are we really that safe? There are examples as early as October 1974 in where actual writers of issues were noted as assistants, and where in L. Ron Hubbard was attributed its authorship. The release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” now had established an approved line of operation for that very practice. Following its release we see a vast increase of references that listed ‘assistants’, when they actually wrote and/or compiled them. The earliest examples (after the release of the HCOB) for these ‘assistants’ can be found in the contribution record of one Paulette Ausley (consult here, pop-up window). This person (acting as LRH Tech Expeditor) was found responsible for the infamous List One Project instigated during the early 1977's. This was about persons that apparently incorrectly were send to the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) because of a particular needle reaction on the E-meter (Rock Slam). (see details here, separate window). And then we see from her contribution record that this person was primarily involved in assisting and thus revising/writing HCOBs issues relating to E-meters. Apparently then we were not that safe! HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” was claimed to have been issued to settle things and perform a general cleanup of misapplications, but obviously it also introduced a disputable issue source line.

“HCO Policy Letters (Green on White), and HCO Bulletins (Red on White) are issues reserved for the writings of L. Ron Hubbard Founder. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it then on the issue the name L. Ron Hubbard is followed by ‘Assisted by _______,’ the person who helped get it back together at his directions per HCOB 24 Jan 77 TECH CORRECTION ROUND-UP.”         (D/WDC Chairman)

A redundant release actually as this message was already forwarded through that HCOB. Let's see it though as a reminder then ...

We can also see that not many original newly written (or previously unpublished) LRH material was issued during 1980-81. That which was issued were either:

This can be easily confirmed with looking at some obvious examples. HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, but then the signing area noted “As assisted by Senior C/S Int”. Composer initials indicated also a ‘DM’. The introduction of the reference then reads: “This paper summarizes what I learned from Ron, and my own experience in teaching TRs and getting them done from a C/S (Case Supervisor) point of view.”. All this does confirm that someone else than L. Ron Hubbard actually had written and devised this. David Mayo at the time was the Snr C/S Int, and he is as the indications tell us the person that wrote this reference, nonetheless he was denoted as just an assistant.

Another obvious example is: HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”. This release was originally written and compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard and issued as HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”. She was denoted in this release as ‘CS-G’ which stands for ‘Commodore's Staff Guardian’. The composer initials indicated ‘MSH’. It was converted to being a BPL in 1975 as it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard. A later revision which had, so it claimed, been revised by L. Ron Hubbard on 29 Dec 78, it however still attributed the issue to her as the authoress. Less than 3 years later it was revised reissued under another issue date as HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”, although it still being the very same reference. The revision notes of this new issue confirmed that the original was in fact “written by Mary Sue Hubbard”and that it “contained correct and vital data on handling PTSness”. It must be noted here that the bulk of the data and text as found in this new issue was still actually deriving from Mary Sue Hubbard, nonetheless it was now attributed as if written and compiled by “L. RON HUBBARD” and “Assisted by Mary Sue Hubbard”. Noteworthy is that the 10 Sept 83 revision of this reference makes no mention anymore of Mary Sue Hubbard anywhere. The metamorphosis of this particular reference is discussed in detail here (separate window).

We even find a variety of references in particularly the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes that are attributed to L. Ron Hubbard that provide no information about assistants, but various of these references also very strongly suggest that they have not been written or have been originated by L. Ron Hubbard. The original mimeo print-offs of these then may cancel or replace some BPL or BTB.

So, what was/is actually going on?

	“Only when I have personally written a bulletin, a policy letter or a Sec ED* should it be signed ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Executive Director’.
	When I have knowledge of or have okayed a bulletin, policy letter or Sec ED but have not actually written it, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (the name of the actual writer) for L. Ron Hubbard, Executive director’.
	When I have not seen or okayed a policy letter or a bulletin or a Sec ED but it is published by the authority of a held post such as HCO Sec*, it should be signed ‘Jane Doe (actual name of person issuing) HCO Sec (or other title)’.”          LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs”)

“Neglecting, advising against the application of, failing to enforce or tolerate the omission of standard Word Clearing and star-rate checkouts on all new or newly revised HCO Policy Letters, as well as the key HCO PLs of the Basic Staff Member Hat and the key policies of the staff member. In the Sea Organization this applies to LRH CBOs and Flag Orders as well as HCO Policy Letters.”          [attributed to LRH]
(from HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime”)

In 1991 this was also made part of the High Crimes as listed in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (Revised 8 Jan 91) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”. But it fails to indicate that it had been transported from this 1986 policy letter.

This HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime”, that was issued 4½ months after the announced passing of L. Ron Hubbard, introduced some new rules. It directed that “star-rate checkouts” are to be done “on all new or newly revised HCO Policy Letters”, this is definitely being forced upon us as when not complied with this it will be regarded as being guilty to a High Crime. At the same time we will have no access anymore to older versions of these particular policies, due to the fact that standard Qual Libraries simply are being destroyed and are thus disappearing. And all that means practically that we can not compare anymore with that which once was. All that the person will be studying is thus this new information! And if he gets to know about it through HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (Revised 8 Jan 91) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” he will not know when it actually came about! Also that a guideline like this came about a whole 4½ months after the official demise of L. Ron Hubbard is thus hugely suspect, as there has not been such a rule before!

“But even my closest staff and communicators when it hears of a new process or plan from me verbally, sees it in an HCOB or HCO PL a few days later.”          LRH (from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)

“HCO PLs and HCOBs are proven by time and are the senior data on which we operate.”          LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

Well, may be it is so that the work was not totally done, and L. Ron Hubbard left the remainder to be done by some other persons? It appears that this last option has been enervated by public announcements from ‘International Management’. We are really not being left with so many different options about this!
There exists a variety of mostly HCOBs that are issued under a specific date, but released several years later. It is imaginable that some policies or bulletins for some reason did not make it to the printing area to be typed out or mimeographed. In fact there appear to have been a couple of those during the ’60s, and they had been issued during the late ’80s as I recall. This is the human factor, things can be misplaced or any such thing. But this does not account for the about 400 pages of material as contained in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes and this in fact being dated after L. Ron Hubbard officially would have dropped his body. These comprise all of primarily HCO PLs & HCOBs dated from 1986 to 1991. Why would this be like that? Why could this be like that? Well, you may have to think this one over for a while ...

I listed below references as found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Treasury Division, Volume 3’ (1991 release) on pages 211-297. Only those ones are listed that were either released or revised after the demise (24 January 1986) of L. Ron Hubbard.

Are we to assume here that the exact date of writing or compilation were not known for these references, and that they therefore simply have been given the date that they were released?

How can we be sure of a thing like this. We see for example OODs (Orders of the Day) items, old evaluations or advices and other being issued as HCO PLs or HCOBs, this after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard. Pretty much an avalanche of these have been issued since already as early as 1980. p>

Here below I give 5 examples that were issued after 1986.

	“You can say what you please but what you say does not have to please.
	Just be careful not too many get unpleased.”          LRH

	“News media is parasitic on those who make news. It is not true that those who make news need the news at all.
	Who needs cancer?”          LRH

The last 4 of them were all enthusiastically introduced in the magazine ‘The Auditor’(Special Edition), #218 Eu/Af, Nov 86. They had them all printed in there in the LRH handwritten originals. Dates of when these were written appear to be known, respectively 15, 17, 20 & 28 February 1982. But why were they issued as HCOB/PLs? Who decided upon that 9 months after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard? How can we verify any such thing as L. Ron Hubbard was not being physically around anymore?

The question is: “How do we know that it was the wish of LRH that these were to be issued under the HCOB subsequently the HCO PL issue-type format? It may be interesting technical or administrative information but was it in fact his wish, or did someone else decided upon that?”

• Original status quo 1972... changing rules (1974), and noteworthy deviations
          (Includes:  An array of HCO PLs released not signed or originated by L. Ron Hubbard (1979-83))
• (1) The ‘Boards of Directors’ (May 73-Dec 81)
          (Includes:  Where is it situated?; Its authority; In use during... (CSI taking over Dec 81- ))
  
• (2) ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )

Original status quo 1972... changing rules (1974), and noteworthy deviations
(Includes:  An array of HCO PLs released not signed or originated by L. Ron Hubbard (1979-83))

“HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.”          LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

At the time this was issued the HCO PL nor the HCOB issue-type format was reserved for just L. Ron Hubbard. Anyone basically could issue on these issue-types on the condition that you got it approved by either L. Ron Hubbard or those Board members and that Authority and Verification Unit (AVU). With the notice if L. Ron Hubbard wrote it then it did not require an International Board or AVU to be involved. This was in for a change, as since about 1980 suddenly we find in references following the signature “L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER” the notice “Approved and accepted by the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”. This obviously violates the 1972 policy letter.

Since Jan 74, it was ruled that two new issue-types should be created in where other people could write about technical (BTB) or administrative (BPL) matters. From here on out then the HCO PL and HCOB type-format was then reserved just for L. Ron Hubbard.

[Observations:  So what to think of HCO PLs “Written at the request of ...” or “Compiled from [or “Based on”] the works [or “advices”] of LRH”, next they are signed with “LRH”. We even see references written “Based on the Idea and Advices of LRH” and “In concurrence with expressed intentions of LRH”. It sounds that one worked on a bit well shaky grounds. According to HCO PL 5 Jun 83 “Cancellations” issues could be cancelled just for reasons of that “These issues were not written or seen by L. Ron Hubbard” (underlining is mine). Also this HCO PL makes mention of “alteration of original intentions ... of the Founder”. How do we determine that? The bulk of these HCO PLs were cancelled massively (some reissued on other issue-types) during 1990-91, but how could they have been published to start with? If they got cancelled then it would be obvious that L. Ron Hubbard had not even “seen” them. How could it all happen? People seem to have going around particularly during 1976-83 publishing all sorts of stuff, lots and lots of it, take some OODs or advice here and there, do something with it, issue a non-LRH HCO PL and cancel some BPLs, and then publish them with an LRH signature underneath them (or even skip that). Or cancel some BPLs and throw a non-LRH HCO PL out to accomplish that. Now this took ‘care’ of the HCO PLs, technical references, HCOBs, were taken care of by RTRC, the LRH technical issue writing unit, see here, separated window.]

These new issue-types (BPLs and BTBs) were gotten rid of during the early 80s, and rather many were reissued (reworked) and received now an L. Ron Hubbard signature. The ones that were reissued like that remain in use like that till this day. (see details here, separate window)

It is an interesting story of how one had gotten rid of an original, confirmed written by L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL! It went down silently. Now why would you do that if had already established two years earlier “It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”). Everything was in place and you then want to change it? Why?

(1) The ‘Boards of Directors’ (May 73-Dec 81)
(Includes:  Where is it situated?; Its authority; In use during... (CSI taking over Dec 81- ))

It would be of obvious interest to make mention here that L. Ron Hubbard was absent for about 10 months during 4 Dec 72-mid Sept 73. There was no communication line with him, and no one even seemed to know where he was at. Considering that this “BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY” first appeared right in the middle of that time period, then we can not either assume he was involved in its creation in any way. This should carry some significance!

Where is it situated?

It is thus senior to the “Senior Executive Strata”, and because the HCO PL names the Watchdog Committee and Boards of Directors as two entities they are not one and the same. This leaves us with only one answer as to where the Boards of Directors reside. The here above quoted HCO PL is issued 22 Dec 79, there was no RTC incorporated or ‘existing’ as yet, but the HCO PL did know where the Boards of Directors were at! The HCO PL confirms the location, but they just did not call it RTC yet. The HCO PL calls it the Boards of Directors. Mind as well that the AVC Int (Authorization, Verification and Correction International) is named on the chart below underneath the RTC, one of their duties being the issue authority of references.

The same HCO PL also confirms that the Boards of Directors are senior to Watchdog Committee. It says in the signature area “WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY” (it says “for”) with initials ‘BDCS:WDC’ (initials always start with the highest authority).

(extracted from folding chart in ‘The Command Channels of Scientology’ (1988))

“The Watchdog Committee (WDC) is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church. WDC does not manage. It is an inspection and police organization which inspects the actual management units of the Church and sees that they are established and functioning. ... The Watchdog Committee is composed of veteran Scientology executives who have proven their competence in handling lower organizations and who are highly trained in L. Ron Hubbard administrative technology. Different types of organizations in Scientology are grouped into sectors and each of those sectors has management organizations to give them direction.”

Its authority

	“L. Ron Hubbard's role with regard to the Church is solely and only that of Founder and Author.
	LRH’s identity of Founder is simply that. Any Plans, or Policy or Tech, or advices of any kind are approved by the Board of Directors prior to their implementation, and issued as the Board sees fit. The Board of Directors accepts, votes on and passes manuscripts for issuance of PLs and HCOBs.”

Thus not as L. Ron Hubbard sees fit, nonono ..., “as the Board sees fit”!  (underlining is mine)

It is observed that the FO/CBO (released 1980) was rather late to inform about this as it can be seen it was already in use much earlier in time (1973-74). One could wonder why that is? You first implement changes and then only later you inform what was done and what it meant?

This HCO PL 7 May 81 “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder and Author” was cancelled by HCO Admin Letter 8 Mar 91 “Cancellation of Executive Issues”. The reason given for cancellation was: “None of the following issues were written by LRH and were incorrectly issued as policy.”. Basically it says here that it was cancelled because it was the wrong issue-type. But at that we don't see it reissued in some other issue-type format either. And again we are left to wonder why all this is? And why was it issued in the first place?

In use during... (CSI taking over)

We see “BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY” (‘BDCS’) used a first time in the signature area at least as early as May 73, but we see it only sporadically used in HCOBs and HCO PLs until so about 1976-77 where we see a gradual increase of its use, until so about 1979-81 there its use grew significant in HCO PLs and HCOBs.

It was however exclusively in use for the two issue-types that were created in Jan 74, which were the BPL and BTB. Both issue-types were then revoked altogether about 1980.

A last occurrence of “BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY” we see in early Jan 81.

A first use of a variation of this “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA” (‘BDCSC’) we see in late Oct 80. Notice that it dropped the plural, “BOARDS” became “BOARD”.

During Oct-Nov 80 they are used interchangeably with the previous signature, then one, then the other. In mixed order.

A last occurrence of “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA” we see on 8 Dec 81.

We see one single isolated occurrence on 12 Nov 81 of the use of “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the MOTHER CHURCH of SCIENTOLOGY” with initials ‘BDMCS’.

Then it changed once more to “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” (‘BDCSI’). A first use on 4 Dec 81.

Only a couple of references were issued like during Dec 81. We find it essentially discontinued on 15 Dec 81, with one final recorded occurrence in Mar 82.

→‘Church of Scientology International (‘CSI’) takes over:  Since early Dec 81 we see that the mention of “BOARD OF DIRECTORS” is dropped altogether, leaving only “CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” (‘CSI’), its first use appears 6 Dec 81., which is taking over the previous signature and is used in virtually all references that appeared since that time onward.

→ Transition period:  The mention of “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” did reappear two times more in references in May 82. This time however it said: “Written at the request of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL”. Another distinction was that the initials area shows a combination of ‘CSI:BDCSI’, we see that both ‘CSI’ and ‘BDCSI’ are listed.

Six more references released in Jul-Oct 82 received this same notification, a last time on 31 Oct 82, here however they all skipped the mention of ‘BDCSI’ in the initials area, it just listed ‘CSI’.

Since 27 Oct 82 the notification had changed to either say “Revision written at the request of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” or “Written at the request of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL”. Just that day 6 references were issued saying that.

The occurrence of the above could account for what we can call for a transition period of sorts. We learn from updates to the Articles of Incorporation for the Religious Technology Center (RTC) that they were “Restated 13 September 1982 affecting its hierarchical structure to align it with the setup of CSI”.

(2) ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) (Jan 82- )

“The submission would then go to RTC for authorization. For tech submissions this meant it would go to whoever was Snr C/S Int, then to Inspector General for Tech (Ray Mithoff) and then Chairman of the Board (DM.*) Submissions for policy letters went to IG Admin (Marc Yager) and the OSA* submissions to IG Ethics (Marty Rathbun).”

* DM = David Miscavige.  * OSA = Office of Special Affairs.

It is also interesting to note that the original mention of these entities in the references are being obscured. At the same time as we see the dismantling of original Qual Libraries in the Scientology organizations world wide, that meant no access to original Mimeo versions of references. They also had effectively been removed from mention (stripped) in the versions of the references that we find in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ and the ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. It is an eradication of recorded history, something that L. Ron Hubbard had spoken against when he set up Qual Libraries and its criteria.

	“It's an org library and you just get your hands on at least two of every pack on tech or policy or anything else that has ever been issued. ...
	You have an actual library, not just some books lying around. ...
	Now, you are in the business of knowledge. Well that’s where it’s concentrated in the org.”          LRH (from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71 - an extract is found in HCO PL 3 Mar 82 “The Qual Library” - More quotations and info here, separate window)

• An interesting example
• Some testimonies (David Mayo & Robert Vaughn Young)

 
An interesting example

It is pretty much confirmed fact that this is guaranteed with references published in the early days. Full credit was given to original compilers of references. During since so about the late mid-’70s it becomes a matter of increasing uncertainty. HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, which is addressed in the introductory chapter on this page, suddenly opened up a line that it becomes quite unclear if something really was written by L. Ron Hubbard or not. The early ’80s then messed up things considerably. An avalanche of non-LRH issues were cancelled and its data reissued during the early ’80s under a new reference date and fully attributed to have been compiled or written by L. Ron Hubbard.

Here in this little section however I'll give an interesting example of how awry things can go.

“(This HCOB was written up from a briefing I gave on Flag in July 1970. It was originally issued as an HCOB but others reissued it as a Board Technical Bulletin on 6 March 1977. Relegating it to ‘BTB’ status caused the data to be dropped out of wide use. I have reviewed this and and it is an accurate compilation of my original briefing and is hereby reissued in its original form as an HCOB.)”

Written in the ‘I’ form. Lines attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.

“This HCOB consisted of notes which were allegedly taken during an LRH briefing given on Flag in July 1970. The notes were written up and published as a bulletin without LRH's ever seeing or okaying them. The HCOB was converted to a BTB in 1977. In 1984 another, instead of cancelling it, erroneously had the BTB reinstated as an HCOB.”

This was issued by “CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL” (‘CSI’).

The reality of the matter is that ‘today’ we can not, I'll repeat, ‘today’ we can not positively determine that all that is in the present versions of the books actually is derived from, developed by, or written by L. Ron Hubbard, in spite of that it may say so on these references that it is. We are also missing out on a variety of information because of the stripping of all the revision notes, release data or other from the versions of the references that are found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, unabling us even to verify or track matters.

Yeah, but wait a minute here, you may say, all these occurrences were corrected! Were they? My research as found on my website unfolds that it was not. At present we simply have lost track.

 
Some testimonies (David Mayo & Robert Vaughn Young)

David Mayo

“As you know I used to be on the post of Senior C/S International, for a few years, not until over a year ago. And one of the main purposes of that post was to ensure the high standards and the high quality of the tech. There were some things which occurred which made it difficult to continue doing that at the time. And without going into those things particularly very much here, apart for one of them, which is the subject of how issues are written. You know HCOBs and issues. And you've probably seen various HCOBs or PLs that have come out over L. Ron Hubbard's name. And at other times you have seen issues that have come out as assisted by somebody. One of the things that I used to feel very strongly about at the time was that I felt that if I or somebody else was ordered to write an HCOB by LRH that it should state assisted by and who it was assisted by at the bottom of it. In other words it shouldn't, I felt, that an issue should state who wrote it. In other words if it was written by LRH it should state so and if it was written by somebody else it should state that. It doesn't mean it is not valid but I feel that the correct authorship should be assigned to these things. As a matter of ethics and as a matter of principle.” (from Advanced Ability Center (AAC) lecture #1, “The Quality and Standardness of Tech”, given on 4 Dec 83)

Sound snippet

Robert Vaughn Young

“I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI*, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. This ranged from simple messages to be sent to various organizational staff on events such as his birthday or a holiday, to my composing an entire large directive that was issued under his name. In these instances, they were done without his knowledge or consent. The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of ‘Disconnection’. The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology.” (from Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Support of Defendant's Opposition to the Motion of Bridge Publications, Inc. for Summary Judgment Against all Defendants for Copyright Infringement. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of February, 1997, Robert Vaughn Young; Civil Action No. 95-K-2143)

* ASI:  ‘Author's Services, Inc.’, these were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. Incorporated on 13 Oct 1981.

Elsewhere I had written on my website: “There is a practicality about policy. It needs to be able to reverse unwanted, undesirable and non-survival tendencies or situations. Any of these policy letters were written at a certain time and developed in accordance to some problem or situation that existed.”

We also know already about “But even my closest staff and communicators when it hears of a new process or plan from me verbally, sees it in an HCOB or HCO PL a few days later.”  LRH   (from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”). In addition has L. Ron Hubbard himself repeatedly proclaimed during the late ’70s that we now HAVE the technology!

The question is: “Are attempts being made to confuse us with excess references, more data, and more technical routines?” You see, the more data you get, the more confusing things tend to get! Apparently there was no use for these LRH references released (at least not) till after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard. These were not written based on some situation that exists now, these that were recently issued and taken from some evaluation or Orders of the Day from 20, 30, or even 40 years ago! So, why are these continue to being issued under the HCO PL or HCOB issue-type format? Why? Not everything that L. Ron Hubbard wrote was meant to be addressed as policy or a technical pursuit. All these that are being issued in the name of L. Ron Hubbard (at least those issued after his demise) are released under these issue-types according to evaluations of others! According to my knowledge there is no reference that actually says that some are supposed to do such a thing!

“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

LRH sources for new HCO PLs – Disappearance of information – Change of copyright

We see also various policy letters issued that were taken for example from the book ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ and various other such sources. As an HCO PL they were then simply dated 1980 or 1981, although them being older material, sometimes as early as 1952. These HCO PLs did not always say where the information was actually deriving from. A 10 years later in 1991 a variety of these newly created policy letters we see getting cancelled again.

‘LRH notes’

A first suggestion of this may be found as early as January 1977 in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. We find this paragraph that says: “It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it. If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”.  It refers here to “my directions”, a term that resembles pretty much the concept of that which later is referred to as LRH notes. It is equally shady and its actual authenticity can not be properly verified.

“There is only one source of Scientology and Dianetics tech, and that is L. Ron Hubbard. The existing tech — the body of knowledge that LRH has issued in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters — stays exactly like it is. There is one exception, which is the matter of some off-Source issues that need to be handled. For some time now, there has been an exhaustive search for those issues others wrote that weren't seen or approved by LRH, but which somehow were sandbagged through the lines and issued over LRH's name. What we are doing is checking them against LRH's taped briefings and conferences, those writings that come directly off LRH's typewriter, the research notes and despatches which were written in his own hand, and notes written up by Commodore's Messengers which can actually be verified as accurate — to completely sort the wheat from the chaff, the truth from falsehoods.”          Mr. Pat Broeker (Edited from a talk given at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles, California on 27 Jan ’86; as printed in periodical ‘International Scientology News 8’, [ca Feb/Mar 86])

	Here below is an actual sound excerpt from the talk by Mr. Pat Broeker at the Hollywood Palladium. Take note though that we find a slightly different phrasing in the published text as compared to the actual spoken words:
	Sound snippet

The above referred to notes identify that what is known as LRH notes. All that we know is what we have been told about these, we have not been shown these notes. It also should be obvious that notes are subject to interpretation. And it can commented upon that if L. Ron Hubbard himself could not prevent those “off-source issues” from being issued when he was still physically around (as the quoted article tells us), then what reason is there to believe that we are able to do that today after his physical departure? Did L. Ron Hubbard not write in 1970: “Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs.” (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 (Reissued 15 Jun 70) “Keeping Scientology Working”.

‘LRH advices’

	“1.	BTB 6 Oct. 71R, ..., AUDITING OF STAFF AND PUBLIC.  This issue was not written by LRH. ...
	2.	BTB 30 Nov. 71R, ..., THE CODE OF A C/S.  This code was not written by LRH. ...
	3.	HCOB 14 June 77-1, ..., PAID COMPS SIMPLIFIED - ADDITION.  ... This HCOB was not written or approved by LRH.
	4.	BTB 28 Dec. 72RA, ..., AUDITORS RIGHTS ADDITION REVISED.  The data contained in this BTB ... was written by another and was never seen or approved by LRH. ...
	5.	BTB 16 Aug. 72-1, ..., FLUBLESS C/SING IN MISSIONS.  This HCOB was not written or approved by LRH. ...
	6.	BTB 22 Oct. 73R, ..., TECH DEGRADES.  This issue was not written by LRH. ...
	7.	HCOB 11 Jan. 80 I, ..., QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON OTS.  This issue was never seen or approved by LRH ... .”

It is overlooked here rather seriously though that this is just not a valid reason for cancelling references, but it is nonetheless being resorted to. See, these references just do not require approval from L. Ron Hubbard, nor his authorship. This is not how the lines were set up. This all promotes the idea that only L. Ron Hubbard references are valid. It is however a false idea!

This was all ongoing particularly during 1990-91 because these were preparatory measures taken a newly planned release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. And so we have for example this HCO Admin Letter 21 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues” which is the all time mega issue which listed a total of 120 individual references just because they had not been written and/or approved by L. Ron Hubbard. The intent was to make it appear as if the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes contain L. Ron Hubbard materials only (or just about). And indeed we find that virtually every reference contained in these volumes carry the signature of L. Ron Hubbard, but quite a few of them were nonetheless written by others. It is just a matter of a swapped authorship.

“The most remarkable thing of it all in fact is that these 1981 Cramming Series were in full use shortly prior to their cancellation in 1991 (I can personally confirm that they were in use at Flag (Clearwater, Florida) as late as 1990). How is it possible that these during all these years escaped the attention of for example L. Ron Hubbard himself? It gives the impression someone else was running the show. It is not logical to assume that L. Ron Hubbard would have tolerated these issues carrying his signature when he had not actually written them, or would not have noticed their existence. After all cramming is a vital and much used tool.”

“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”)

Rather than adding the usual reference lists to references, here the practice turned to copying pieces of texts from already existing references to other references. Often the original source of these copied texts is not given or maintained. This is actually a sort of risky thing to do as the incorporation of this information is subject to the interpretation of the person(s) doing these things. It can easily obscure the original message and the purpose of the original writing. An example can be found with HCO PL 6 Apr 72R II (Revised 21 Jan 91) “How to Find a Why on a Person and Handle”. Some notices about this reference can be found here (separate window).

A related problem would be that the references found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes are not identical anymore with the original mimeo print-offs as they used to be. The volumes version as a rule had virtually always removed all of the revision notices which were found at the beginning of the reference. The revisions themselves are not indicated anymore in script, and there are also no ellipsis found. And thus the year 1991 introduced the practice of 2 different versions of the very same version of that reference. These 1991 volumes simply presented an edited variation!

This “five-year project” started shortly after L. Ron Hubbard was said to have past away (Jan 86). It was thus concluded in 1991. As a result we saw the release that year (of the new series of books that made up ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (including ‘Management Series’) & ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. Respectively released on 13 Mar 91 and 9 May 91. It was a task which the LRH technical issue writing unit (RTRC) had occupied themselves with, which is witnessed by the publication record of many references that were released or reissued during these preparation years.

A summary of that which was done is addressed here (separate window).

Now, did this Religious Technology Center live up to their promise? You'll be the judge of that!

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     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 PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red 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 Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
     CBO:
‘Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     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 EDs are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). 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)
     ‘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 PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     PRO:
Short for ‘Public Relation Officer’.
     PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that runs the Advanced 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.
     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 HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs 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).