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.

Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after  (page 2)

Go to ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)’ index

 
The arrival of new information (1):
  HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime” & The source of the new information  (includes sections about ‘LRH Notes’ & ‘LRH Advices’)

• A new ‘Admin High Crime’ introduced in 1986
• Who decided upon if something was going to be released as an HCO PL or HCOB?
• LRH Notes
• LRH Advices
• Do we need all these excess policy letters and technical bulletins?

 
A new ‘Admin High Crime’ introduced in 1986

“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.”
          (from HCO PL 10 Jul 86 Issue III “Admin High Crime”)

In 1991 it was also made part of the High Crimes as listed in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (Revised 8 January 1991) "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists".

Alright then, starting with July 10, 1986 we are now facing 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 tend to disappear. And all that means practically that we can not compare anymore with that which once was. Hmm, at least not in the AOSH EU in Copenhagen nor in Amsterdam org in the Netherlands. What does this all tell us?

An additional question would be: “Where is this datum actually coming from?” Consider that L. Ron Hubbard had dropped his body about 6 months prior to this being issued. Consider that as a custom L. Ron Hubbard dated his policies and bulletins on the day they were written, and these went off to be typed out and mimeographed as soon as possible after that. Is it likely that L. Ron Hubbard would have left material to be issued at some specific date? Why would that be, as this was not how this previously was done, so why now? I also have not seen anything in writing from L. Ron Hubbard that he in fact had decided upon such a thing. Is there any reason to assume that it would be worthwhile to release some policy at some set future date? Should a workable policy (proven by time) be put on hold instead of actually releasing it? L. Ron Hubbard on the contrary does tell us repeatedly that we have not so very much time and that we therefore should not waste any time (see article ‘Five Years’ from 1965, link will open as a pop-up window). In regards to this does it make any sense at all that information had been postponed prior to actual circulation? We are being informed by L. Ron Hubbard about the following:

“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 Issue I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)

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? 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 HCOB's 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 60's, and they had been issued during the late '80's 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 Technical Bulletins & Organization Executive Course volumes and this in fact being dated after L. Ron Hubbard dropped his body. These comprise all of primarily HCO PL's & HCOB's 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 1991 release of the Organization Executive Course - Management Volume 3, pages 211-297. Only those ones are listed that were either released or revised after the demise (24 January 1986) of L. Ron Hubbard.

Is it possible here that exact writing or compilation dates were not knows, and simply have been given the date that they were released?

 
Who decided upon if something was going to be released as an HCO PL or HCOB?

	“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/PL's? 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?

	“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.”

 
LRH Notes

“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 January, 1986; 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:
	Sound snippet (2:35)

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 1970) “Keeping Scientology Working”.

I have shared some additional thoughts relating to LRH Notes on my page ‘LRH vs Dictionaries’. That page discusses in detail a reference that literally makes mention of the expression LRH Notes, as for explaining some change in the reference. This page makes for interesting reading, and clarifies some things concerning LRH Notes. Click here for consultation (link wil open in a separate window).

 
LRH Advices

I recall these missions at Flag (Clearwater, Florida) that were scanning through folders of those persons that had received auditing from or were C/Sed by L. Ron Hubbard. The originals were removed and send up-lines (something), photocopies of them were placed in the folders. I was performing on another mission back then and was sharing a room with these people. This mission were not to touch the LRH originals and had to wear special gloves.

Generally any such information from these kind of sources, it could also be telexes, notes, communications and so on were referred to as LRH Advices. And this is all that they were. I recall another mission collecting all these things from other sources than auditing folders, these were telexes etc., and there was this plan to publish them in some kind of release for use by staff. Anyhow this release never came about as this mission found that L. Ron Hubbard had advised that this was not to be released in such a form.

The material issued after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard may or may not have been taken from these kind of sources.

 
Do we need all these excess policy letters and technical bulletins?

Elsewhere I had written on my site: “There is a practicality about policy. It needs to be able to reverse unwanted, undesirable and non-surivival 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 70's 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 issued (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”)

The arrival of new information (2):
  Various criteria for how new issues actually come about, and various observations made (Orders of the Day, ‘Cramming Series’, LRH or not LRH?)

• LRH OOD's become HCO PL's
• Other LRH sources for new HCO PL's – Disappearance of various information – Change of copyright
• Non-LRH and unverified sources used for new LRH HCO PL's – The ‘1981 Cramming Series’ dilemma
• About signatory section and composer/typing initials
• Incorporation into already existing references rather than referring to applicable related information through reference lists – Obscuring the new added information by not printing it in script, and removal of the source referencing of this added information
• The statement and promise of Religious Technology Center (RTC)

This chapter became a sum-up of various observations made in regards to how the source of the inflow of information changed and how one went about it. Various links are given to other places on my site where various can be studied in detail. The previous chapter “The arrival of new information (1) - HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime” & The source of the new information” also reveals some details regarding and makes for good reading.

 
LRH OOD's become HCO PL's

Orders of the Day notices from the ship Apollo dating from the 60's/70's all of a sudden get issued as HCO PL's. In fact 73 HCO PL's were added to the already existing amount of policy letters by one Sherry Anderson who was performing on some mission to go through these old Orders of the Day, probably to pull out the interesting ones and determine if they are suitable to be published as policy letters. These 73 new policy letters (extracted from OOD's) were issued during the period 4 Aug-5 Nov 80. The details about these Orders of the Day you find here (link will open in separate window).

 
Other LRH sources for new HCO PL's  –  Disappearance of various 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, even it being older material (the originals sometimes were dating back to as early as 1952). These HCO PL's did not always say where the information was actually taken from. Later in 1991 various of these even got cancelled. For some reason also various information was removed from existing publications. For example the bookpublication ‘Science of Survival’ subtitled ‘Prediction of Human behaviour’, first published in 1951. The '70's edition carry ‘Dedicated to DIANA HUBBARD’ (daughter to L. Ron Hubbard), the 1989 edition doesn't say this anymore. Noted is here also that the copyright in these publications had changed from ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ into ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’. In fact my findings unfold that this new copyright introduced all sorts of editing done on these original publications. More serious here is the disappearance of the ‘Publisher's Introduction’ (23 pages long) from this book. It contained interesting research information which was written by the ‘Editorial Staff’ of the ‘Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation’. It was placed directly following ‘The Goal of Dianetics’ chapter in the 70's edition, it is still found in the ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyrighted edition, but it was taken away in this 1989 ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ copyrighted edition. For what reason was this removed, may be because it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard himself? It appears that all these Publisher's Notices foregoing many of these authentic publications simply have disappeared, often these were giving very interesting information that tell about the circumstances it had been published. Please realize that these kind of adjustments noted here are just a pick out of many changes observed. Noteworthy are also the discontinuation of the printing up of books like ‘Dianetics Today’ (published 1975) & ‘The Volunteer Minister's Handbook’ (published 1976). Both these book received quite some attention when they were first introduced, and they were in fact LRH originals. This may also be relating to a copyright issue as various other persons made contributions in these publications. The change of the copyright and various consequences observed is discussed in detail in my chapter “More about copyrights (2) or What does the ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ actually represent?”, to consult click here (link wil open in separate window).

 
Non-LRH and unverified sources used for new LRH HCO PL's  –  The ‘1981 Cramming Series’ dilemma

We see that also some other ways/sources are used to issue more to LRH attributed references. Others in fact had written them and they simply were turned into LRH HCO policy letters and various, the original compilers then were simply deleted from these issues, and various were even given new publication dates. Some of these still appear today in the 1991 release of the OEC volumes. You find various examples of this on my page“Non-LRH turns into LRH?”, to consult click here (link will open in separate window).

The Cramming Series tell a story all by its own. Especially an interesting treatment was given to the 1981 Cramming Series, which at their release were all fully attributed to have been written and compiled by L. Ron Hubbard, but then 10 years later this was denounced for the majority of them. Most incriminating is my realization of the following (I quote from what I wrote on that page):  “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.”. To consult my page “The story of the ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH?”, click here (link will open in separate window).

 
About signatory section and composer/typing initials

 
Incorporation into already existing references rather than referring to applicable related information through reference lists – Obscuring the new added information by not printing it in script, and removal of the source referencing of this added information

Now, if you would want to have some complete listing of all the High Crimes as found in other references and so on. Then the decision could have been made to simply make up a compilation issue (issue it as an ED or something) and pull in all of these High Crimes and various in to that. Arrange them by subject/kind (something) and note the source where this High Crimes are deriving from. This way the original LRH version remains intact, and ... you have your listing. Unfortunately another solution has been chosen. HCO PL 23 Dec 65 "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists" became the issue to pull them all into, and not always with accuracy as various important High Crimes are still not listed in that reference.

 
The statement and promise of Religious Technology Center (RTC)

This five-year project started shortly after L. Ron Hubbard had passed away (January 1986), it was concluded in 1991. As a direct result we saw the release of the new ‘Organization Executive Course’ & ‘Technical Bulletins’ volumes.

The arrival of new information (3):
  Changes in how new tape recordings are being released, conflicting practices and approaches observed

• The conflict
• About various types of tape editing

The original master recordings of Ron's lectures are carefully handled to preserve the vital tech they contain. “What it Takes to Bring Ron's Lectures to You” is the title of an article published in the promo publication ‘The Path to Truth; Ron's Recorded Legacy of the Tech’ issued by Golden Era Productions in 1993. You find this article on pages 4 & 5. The information relayed in this article is quite significant and speaks for itself, you can consult it in full here (link will open as a pop-up window). Illustration on the right is also taken from this article.   The conflict It tells in detail about all the trouble that was went through restoring the original recordings, even by getting the original type of recorders “so that their exact recording qualities could be measured and duplicated”. We are being told about the “ideal scene” of to “return the sound to what it sound like before it ever hit the microphone – or even make it sound better than it did in the real universe!” It tells about “state-of-the-art components, some of which were built by GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS technicians” and so on to make that ideal scene a reality. What we are not being told about however is the editing implemented in these recordings. What is the value of doing so much effort to restore original recordings to as it sounded for those who were present at the actual lectures, and putting “many hundreds of man hours and painstaking application of exact technical principles” into this if you edit out duplicate words, all sounds from the audience, and more seriously deleting various whole paragraphs or parts of sentences from various of these lectures. You see, I personally find it very disturbing to being told about how much effort is done to deliver us a Valuable Final Product, and then find out about what else had been done, which this promo article (nor any other promo or announcements) do not say one single word about! And this editing can easily be confirmed by consulting the original reel to reel releases from the earlier years. Simply listen to the reel to reel and read the transcripts of the edited version. Various referrals for example to Mary Sue Hubbard appear removed in their entirity, and we are also missing out on sections where L. Ron Hubbard talks about his firstborn son ‘Nibs’. Various names of persons are also edited out, this by the way we find is also done in HCOB's and HCO PL's.

It is good to know though that at one time or another any of the recorded lectures have been sold to Scientology public or auditors and various, a copy of almost anything could be produced, usually at the production cost of about $14 for each or $28 per reel (usually 2 lectures, one on each side). There are people out there in the field who have all these things, simply because they purchased these things.

I think though that most people would want to have the authentic recordings as they were. And of course improvements can be made of the sound on these recordings. You see, if you leave them pretty much as they were, with the original introductions by LRH in where he is welcoming and commendating various persons and with the original applauds belonging to the particular lecture (instead of a standard clapping which is implemented and the same on every tape), now these things would truly give you a feel of as if you were actually there!

So, editing would be alright as long as it does not interfere with the integrity of the original recording. But one simply should not do things that are not intended to be done and hence violate this very integrity!

 
About various types of tape editing

There are some rules about what can be done with tape editing and what not, and they are pretty clear.

And then there is the issue of the data that some specific recording contains. This is basically about deleting various passages out of certain tape recordings as these bits of information may not be appropriate for some student on some level. If you are just learning how to subtract and multiply, then you will not at the same also teach this person about the higher mathematics. He will not know where you will be talking about, as it will not be the correct gradient. For example the Student Hat course contains various tapes to be listened to. And these tapes are taken out of a level 6 course which is the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC). Some of these tapes contain some more advanced material, and these bits of information should not be offered to a person just learning about how study is done in Scientology. The tape sets available for this Student Hat course have these passages edited out of them, but then the SHSBS lectures set does indeed contain these passages. As far as I know this is the only course where this kind of editing has been applied to. Anyway this editing was done for a specific target, which is the Student Hat. And since the time that this data had been introduced in the SHSBC it has become the first step to be done before getting trained as an auditor. It is logical that some adjustments had to be implemented for these green persons (various info about this is given in HCO PL 16 Apr 65 “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”). A result of this is also that the unedited version is always available for the more advanced student. It does then not cover nor justify all the editing implemented by Golden Era Productions.

	“I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and nonideological.
	Scientology is for a free people and is itself on this date declared free of any political connection or allegiance of any kind whatever.”          LRH           (from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 Issue III “Politics, Freedom from”)

The best known and most distributed lectures were the 'Philadelphia Doctorate Course' lectures (originally given in 1952-53). I've discussed these in more detail here (link will open in separate window). The irony here is also that on the 2 pages following this Golden Era Productions article we see advertised the new release of these lectures, and this time various phrases disappeared. I give a thorough summary of the most disturbing editing implemented in these tapes at given link.

The arrival of new information (4):
  A closer look at ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ and its relation/difference with ‘Board Policy Letters’

• A new issue-type introduced in early 1982
• Scientology Policy Directive (SPD)  vs  Board Policy Letter (BPL)
• Approval Lines - Review - Appeal Line
• L. Ron Hubbard (LRH)  vs  Scientology Policy Directive (SPD)

 
A new issue-type introduced in early 1982

“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.”
          (from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type - Scientology Policy Directives”)

Were the HCO PL's as written by L. Ron Hubbard not meant to be “policy for the Church of Scientology”? So, why do we have an additional such an issue-type for policy?

	“Examples of the need for such an issue type are policies by the Church concerning the sales and administration of a new technical breakthrough, or data concerning new Public Divisions courses, or specific policies concerning new magazines that the Church might develop.
	While new policy, not written by LRH, is discouraged, it has been found that occasionally new policy is required. As the Founder has said concerning this subject ‘one cannot totally close the door on change.’”

My question is: “What ‘new’ policy do we need in regards to these examples or anything else for that matter? We have already basic policy for everything, the main rules are already very carefully laid out.”

Adjustments can easily be made through the various other issue-types already in existence. For example Executive Directives. Do we need an additional ‘policy’ issue-type for that? Is that actually ‘allowed’?

 
Scientology Policy Directive (SPD)  vs  Board Policy Letter (BPL)

If one is so eager to get rid of BPL's, and non-LRH issues (described in detail in chapter: “The disappearance of information (2) - An odd misconception about ‘Keeping Scientology Working’”), then why do we allow SPD's? The argument given to me by some Sea Org members was that these SPD's had gone through the approval lines. But then again, had the BPL's and BTB's not gone through some approval lines as well once upon a time? The response I usually get is that we had squirrels on the lines back then. Now, how do we know that we do not have squirrels on the lines right now? During these old days we still had L. Ron Hubbard handling things, but since the establishment of the SPD issue-type he is not to be seen anymore in public.

It appears that these approval lines for BPL's were designed to catch up on errors (HCO PL 11 Nov 76 II “BPL Appeal Lines”). This reference is not easy to come by and is therefore quoted in full here (link will open as a pop-up window).

SPD's also tend to act as an actual hidden data line. Once I inquired in AOSH EU to see Scientology Policy Directives. I went around there for a while, but no one could direct me to a single copy of any SPD. They were also not being stored in the Qual Library. In fact very few staff did know about the existence of this issue-type. The routing on the various SPD's may also not include Scientology public. Mostly they seem to be written for staff only. The BPL's on the other hand were a common issue, available and issued basically to any Scientologist, public as well as staff.

	“The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.
	All the lower-level materials are in the HCOB's, PLs or on tapes.
	The data line isn't hidden. It's there for anyone to have. That there's lots of it is possibly a source of trouble in releasing it. But it's all on courses on Academies or Saint Hill. You could have a copy of everything in the tape library if you wanted. It might cost a lot, but you could have it.
	There is no hidden data line.”          LRH           (from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 Issue I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)

 
Approval Lines - Review - Appeal Line

	“... if a Scientology Policy Directive, ‘... on receipt in an org is perceived to be erroneous or potentially destructive, the matter must be drawn to the attention of the FR* with CSW*.
	The FR must verify the CSW, and if found correct must add his own observations on the issue, sending the completed package via his FR command channels to AVU (presently this is the AVC), Flag, for review and correction or cancellation.
	The issue is not activated in the org until its correction is received, or until AVU advises that the appeal is rejected.
	If the issue is activated and then found to be incorrect, the same procedure is followed.’ (L. RON HUBBARD, HCO PL 11 November 76 II BPL APPEAL LINE)”          (from ‘SPD 1’, 23 Feb 82 “A New Issue Type - Scientology Policy Directives”)

It is good to have such lines, however they also should be followed up and actually working.

 
L. Ron Hubbard (LRH)  vs  Scientology Policy Directive (SPD)

In 1997 Scientology International published SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives - Background”. You can consult this reference in full here (link will open as a pop-up window).

	“LRH personally advised and directed Church management to create ‘Scientology Policy Directives’ as an issue type.
	LRH insisted that the Church establish a distinct issue type for policy for such matters. This occurred during the time of the 1982 corporate reorganization to establish the structure of the Church--the structure which LRH advised to lead Scientology stably into eternity. LRH recognized, as part of this, that Church management would need their own type of policy issue in the years to come.”           (from SPD 26 Jan 97 “Scientology Policy Directives - Background”)

But we actually can not verify any of this, I have never seen anything from the hand of LRH about all this either. If there is, please direct me to it!

The arrival of new information (5):
  The ‘new ways’  or  Turning from a selfcorrecting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?

These ‘new ways’ seems to have been implemented in a very subtle way. The issuance of HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 September 1983) “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” played a rather large role in this. The revision of this reference was released on the same day (or one day apart) from references that were also active in supporting these ‘new ways’ of how to go about things. These were HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” & HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” (Limited Distribution).

I created this chapter here just to draw attention to the fact that a certain kind of ways of how to go about things got changed or were introduced at about the very same time. It is about interference with the right to make decisions concerning your own selfdeterminism, and before all the right to be able to defend your case effectively. It is about the use of disconnection but it is also what you actually write about people, and how you inform other people.

When I did my comparison research of all the 8 existing versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” I found various ambiguities that were introduced in the September 10, '83 revision of this HCO PL. Since their introduction injustice seems to be able to pass by easier, as it seems unnoticeable, ignored, harder to get a grip on, remain uncorrected or are subject to tremendous delays. Today the victim of injustice has been stripped from various tools enabling him to reverse this if a mistake (purposely or out of ignorance) had been made. We have had our witchhunts through history, and all ages have had their form of McCarthyism, let's not start making ground for new ones.

The main tool of Scientology is communication, being in communication with your fellow man, being in communication with your past (this is what auditing is all about), and being in communication with all the things around you. If you want to get somewhere with your bicycle, well, then your feet better be in communication with the pedals. And there we have these things called human relations. I personally see that various Scientologists quickly use the tool of socalled disconnection. Rather than handling something that often easily can be resolved by simply talking to some person, one may resort to take the easy way out i.e. look the other way rather than confront and actually just talk to that person. And then you may be start talking to others about your possible grudge, of course with the person that you should have talked to being conspicuous by his absence! I think we all can see the danger that can come from that. No-communication or denial to communicate does not solve anything in the longer run, where continued communication actually can achieve or clear up something. But even communication like in actually ‘getting across’ can not be enforced, it should however be attempted to be used when there is this chance! Scientology is about more communication and not less communication, In spite of that various seem very quick to cut communication if you bring up some subject. I have seen persons reasoning in ways like: “Hmm, he is critical.”, “Ah, now he argues.”, “Hmm, can he be suppressive?”, “Well, let's be ready to disconnect!” You may think that I am exaggerating here, but actually I am deadserious about it. Well people, let's be sensible about these things, don't make up your own ideas, let's communicate when we have this opportunity! If you do that then at least you will be able to find out if in fact you made an error in judgment, if you do not you may never find out. And who knows, may be some witches will be saved from to die at the stake.

Click at respective links for consulting my findings about Disconnection & Declaring people (links will open in separate windows).

The question is: “Who is in charge, you or someone else?”

The arrival of new information (6):
  HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”  vs  acquiring information about people & control

• Report system
• HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”
• Control factor
• A note about HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write Up”
• Today's reality

In this chapter it is solely my intention to point out the possible dangers if a good system that works well for our survival would fall into the wrong hands, gets adjusted, or is used wrongly.

 
Report system

If you aim to run some organization, you also need to have some method so that you can find out about the things needing correction. Misstandings must be known before you can actually do something about them. What you need is an inflow of information. Now, how do you acquire the information, and how do you verify its reliability? In 1965 a practical line was established for this, we see the issuance of HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”. This is basically an effective and simple report system, initially for use of Staff Members for anything that occured within the organization that needed attention.

“Only in this way can bad spots in the organization be recognized and corrected. For reports other than one's own collect and point out bad conditions before those can harm the org.”          LRH    
          (from HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”)

	“Unless the staff member is part of a portion or an org that is under a state of Emergency, FIVE such reports can accumulate before Ethics takes any action. But if the report is deemed very serious, Ethics may take action at once by investigating. ...
	The most serious reports, which are the only ones taken up at once, are technical alter-is, non-compliance, any false reports, false attestations, no reports, misdemeanours, crimes and high crimes. The others are left to accumulate (except in Emergency when all reports on that portion or org are taken up at once).”          LRH               (from HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”)

And of course, if you receive something like this you have the right to query or make a request for withdraw, as you may have information that the writer of the report has overlooked or was not aware of. These rights that you have are laid out in more detail in HCO PL 15 Dec 65 “Ethics Chits” (please consult this reference for details).

	“If you see something going on in the org or incorrect that you don't like, and yet do not wish to turn in an Ethics chit, or indeed don't know who to report, WRITE A DESPATCH TO THE INSPECTION OFFICER.
	Tell him what you have noticed and give him what data you can.
	The Inspection Offcer will then investigate it and make a report to the right executives or turn in an Ethics chit on the offending persons himself.
	Don't just natter if there's something you don't like.
	Tell the Inspection Officer. Then something can be done about it.”          LRH         (from HCO PL 15 Aug 65 “Things That Shouldn't Be” - full text of the policy letter is given)

It appears that this report system has been implemented for reason of to simply reverse non-survival situations, and to see to it that the same errors or other are not repeated. The line established is in no way harsh, forced upon or unjust.

 
HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”

We can see that the first 8 steps do not require any report written on the matter.

Feeling obliged to write reports on everything you see concerning your fellow staffmates, well, what kind of working atmosphere does this create? It may very well be that I am exaggerating, but there really is a lot of attention on that people are writing their reports. This can also be seen from the Religious Technology Center (RTC) website. It seems to be all about writing your reports. If you visit the startpage of their site we see already on the top of the page about “Send a Report to RTC”. If you click on that link you get a form where you can enter all of your details. There is also the following page on that site: “Matters of RTC Concern”, click here. It is all about reports, and not much more. Why does it need all these reports? HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” was by the way released shortly after that RTC had come into being (incorporated on January 1, '82). The urge to write reports and send to RTC was instigated at least as early as July 19, 1983. A form carrying this date and issued by RTC was entitled: “Keeping Scientology Working Alert Form”. It started of with a definition of squirrel, then the form asks various questions like “Name of the squirrel/squirrel group”, “Where are they located?”, “Who is involved in the activity?”, “What are they doing that is squirrel?”, and so on ... This outline is still followed on the RTC website.

Well, I suddenly realized that HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” actually made a difference, which realization caused me to write these lines. In the period after its issuance the Knowledge Report system is far too often used as a tool to get even with other persons. Per my personal experience it seems not always being used as a means to help the fellow staffmates and/or public. I have also met various persons that were of the opinion that one has to report every little thing that seems not totally alright. Then in the media the Knowledge Report system is often referred to as some kind of tell-tale system, or simply playing Judas. This could turn out like this sometimes, although not as a rule. Realize that people always seem to find ways to misuse something that was originally developed with a good intent.

 
Control factor

	“IT IS A FAILURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS TO CONTROL THEIR FELLOWS THAT MAKES A GROUP HARD FOR ALL TO LIVE AND WORK WITH. ...
	And get a REAL group in return that, collectively, can control the environment and prosper because its group members individually help control eachother.”          (from HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports”)

From the above the Knowledge Report system could be perceived being a tool that is used to keep others in line. A justice action then that is requiring control. The harshness of the action and the control implemented actually lays the basis for and is likely to call into being snitches or informers.

	“The purpose of justice is to clear the organization and environment.
	One cannot make clears in an uncleared environment. Justice is the auditor of the group.”          LRH         (from HCO PL 12 Apr 65 “Justice”)

Then would “control eachother” be a good thing to have?

A very relevant question may very well be: “Who actually wrote or compiled HCO PL 22 Jul 82 “Knowledge Reports” ?”

 
A note about HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write Up”  (also issued as HCOB same date and title)

O/W = Overt act/Withhold. An overt can be defined as a bad deed or something you didn't do that harmed someone else. A Withhold is simply not telling about something because you may believe that it would hurt you, or results in you receiving punishment if it was disclosed.

	“AXIOM 38:
	1:	STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNESS OF CONSIDERATION.
	2:	MECHANICAL DEFINITION: STUPIDITY IS UNKNOWNESS OF TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.
	1:	TRUTH IS THE EXACT CONSIDERATION.
	2:	TRUTH IS THE EXACT TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.
	Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity.
	Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is-ness by actual experiment.
	Thus we see that ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.
	Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.
	Lying is an alteration of time, place, event, or form.
	Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity.
	(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case's own or another's lies).
	Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness. Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.”          LRH

This writing down of these things, so to say confess your bad deeds, could in fact be a very good thing. The Catholic Church and various also have something like this in use. It's just good to come clean. If you do not, you may lay the basis for a motivator. A motivator can be defined as something that will justify your bad deed. See, every person likes to be right and considered by others to always do right, but as long as a bad deed is hidden from all others, it may evolve into something that will be justified by repeating this bad deed. In Scientology this is called the Overt-Motivator-Sequence. If you get rid of the overt (bad deed), you will also get rid of the Motivator.

	“ETHICS REPORTS
	When an auditor finds an ethics situation with a pc, he should note it for the C/S. It is, however, illegal to try a pc on data revealed in his sessions. For this reason, a report is not written to Ethics nor is any data turned over to Ethics on the matter. But the auditor must make mention of the ethics situation on his Auditor's C/S so that the C/S is informed.
	Sometimes one finds another person's offenses than the pc's in getting off withholds. These are reported to Ethics for any needed investigation, with a copy to the folder.
	The only exception to the above is when a pc is receiving an HCO Confessional. In this case, a Knowledge Report of the overts and out-ethics disclosed in the Confessional is written to HCO. A copy of the report is always left in the pc folder.”           (from HCOB 10 Nov 87 “Miscellaneous Reports”)

Above reference is found in OEC vols-1991 release: vol 1, page 850/51; vol 4, page 261/62; vol 5, 296/97 & Technical vols-1991 release: vol XIII, page 158/59. It appears that we really can't miss out on this reference. It is attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard, what bothers me however is the date of the reference (almost 2 years after the demise of L. Ron Hubbard).

The contents of these pc folder's are considered confidential and may not leave this folder, or used for other purposes. Data as contained in Ethics folders go more easily around. Anyway the data as contained in these Ethics folders can and have been used for severe Ethics actions. In that respect, how confidential are these data about overts/withholds today?

Relevant information is also found in my study “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology”, chapter “Sec-Checking (2): ‘False Purpose Rundown’ (FPRD) (Jun 84)”, see in particular section entitled “A thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person”, or click here (link will open in separate window).

 
Today's reality

Today Ethics seems to have turned into something that seems determined to find fault with people. It can be quickly replied to that if you do not like something (critical) or don't want to do a particular thing that you get to hear: “What are your overts?”  I have worked in such atmospheres within the organization and actually this can become quite annoying, of course this is not happening everywhere. But there is this tendency, remember that sword of Damocles. It does happen that when you have said or done something that is actually quite innocent, that the next day you receive a report about it. What happened with the ethics levels as found in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 Issue III “Ethics Review”? You can just talk to a person, remember! Ethics did not used to be like that in the earlier days! Ethics was also not given this much attention back then as it is given today. Things could be tough, and confusing, but one did not go around reporting every silly little thing, and in particular have an eye sticking out and purposely looking out for ‘faults’. But we did also not have some Religious Technology Center telling us all the time that you have to write your reports, and always send a copy to them. Another angle of this is if these reports are really getting the required attention, are in fact the things that you are reporting about being handled? So, if you have reported, then ask yourself that question.

	“The Purpose of Ethics is
	TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
	And having accomplished that the purpose becomes
	TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
	Thus progress can be made by all.
	Many mechanisms can exist to mask a counter intention.”          LRH               (from HCO PL 18 Jun 68 “Ethics”)

Vocabulary:

     72RA, 72R, 65RB:
For example: ‘HCO PL 2 May 72RA’, ‘HCOB 13 Aug 72R’ & ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     AOSH EU:
‘Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Copenhagen, Denmark.
     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.
     AVC (AVU):
'Authorization, Verification and Correction Unit'. It is the point at which all Staff, Flag Bureaux and other evaluations and resulting plans, programs, projects and orders are authorized and verified for issue. The unit has the responsibility of catching and handling all errors in such traffic before they are issued.
     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.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical matters not written by L. Ron Hubbard.
     C/S, C/Sed:
‘Case Supervisor’. A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc.
     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.
     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.
     FR, Flag Rep:
‘Flag Representative’. The Flag Rep has the primary duty of safeguarding that those actions necessary to the delivery of Scientology by an area or org are implemented and continued and to prevent the destruction of the org by omissions, alter-is or counter-intention and to keep Flag abreast of the existing scene so that efficient operation can be directed. The purpose of the Flag Representative is to find and report situations to Flag and to obtain compliance on orders from Flag. It being understood that such orders result from valid evaluations based on Flag Rep reports, routine reports and always with due attention to the actual statistics of the activity.
     green volume(s):
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. The ‘old green volumes’ refers to the 1974 release, ‘new green volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     HCO (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.
     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 or PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: issue-type reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     MAA:
‘Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization).
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (link will open in a separate window).
     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:
Abbreviation for ‘organization’.
     pc, pc folder:
‘preclear’. A person who is receiving processing usually is referred to as that. The folder contains information relating to the processing the person received.
     PTS, PTSness:
‘Potential Trouble Source': Those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow.
     Qual Library:
‘Qualification Library’: Located in Division 5 (Qualification Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run.
     red volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’, this is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any technical references. These references are mostly printed red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have red bindings. The ‘old red volumes’ refers to the 1976 release, ‘new red volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
“Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH.” (quoted from The Organization Executive Course volume 0, 1991 edition, page 729 or 1986 edition, page 617)
     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.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (as per KSW #1: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”).