Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) (Jan 74)
(An infamous part of the Scientology (Sea Org) culture, what is it, why are they having it and who thought it up?)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> 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.

        
“REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE,  brought into being in Div 4 FSO*. To it are assigned: (1) R/Sers* (2) low OCA* non-producers (3) repeated stat* crashers (4) overt product* makers. The stable datum for the unit and for its individual sections is one job, one place, one time. Its sub-products are completed cycles of action. The 5-hour daily study period for the RPF is devoted to tech. In this period, the RPF is to learn tech and get themselves handled in co-audit to fun clean-up and release. The RPF has been created by the Commodore so that redemption can occur. That is basically its only purpose. (FO 3434)”
        
   (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition)   


The institution of this Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) is something that is only in use by the senior Scientology organization known as the Sea Organization. These persons assigned to this RPF were considered to have failed the group, and it is said that in this unit they have the opportunity to redeem themselves.

 
Index:

    
The various Project Forces explained
  Introduction and FO 3434
      (Includes:  Redeem thyself...; A redemption unit that belonged to a ship is established onshore?; Referencing)
  Its origins...
      (Includes:  Rocks and Shoals, Mud Box Brigade & Rehabilitation Unit)
  ‘Deck Project Force’ (DPF) & ‘Estates Project Force’ (EPF)
 
Specifics and further information
  Authorship of FO 3434 and its subsequent series
           (Includes:  Ken Urquhart; RPF Series)
  RPF working conditions
  ‘RPF’ versus ‘Confessionals’
  A final note



 
Back to Main Index Introduction and FO 3434
(Includes:  Redeem thyself...; A redemption unit that belonged to a ship is established onshore?; Referencing)

Sea Org logo
Sea Org logo
This RPF is one of these things that has given Scientology and also L. Ron Hubbard a particularly bad name. This RPF however is exclusively for use in the senior organization of the Church of Scientology, the unit that is referred to as the Sea Organization. Even if you would be a Scientology parishioner visiting a senior organization you would still not find out (much) about it. It is a redemption unit within the Sea Org and only its staff will know about it and only they can be subjected to it.
It has been claimed that L. Ron Hubbard would be the source of the establishment of this RPF. The question is if this is actually true? First one should establish if there is actually anything found in the writings or the subject matter of Scientology that would actually justify the existence of such an outfit as this RPF, or rather that what the RPF since had turned to be!
How for example would you reconcile it with the policy letter that was issued for “cancellation of Ethics penalties”:
        
“The target of Ethics is any neglect of org boarding or hatting and training an activity.
        
 
The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
 
 
It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)
 
This policy letter was written 3 years prior to the establishment of that RPF. So, how do all these things fit together?


Redeem thyself...

The rules for the RPF claim that one of its purposes was to give the person the opportunity to redeem him/herself for supposed wrongdoings, at the same time as one received relevant auditing and a study program. The problem however is that one could end up on this RPF, as history has witnessed, a bit well easily. It is quite true that for some rather insignificant reason you could be send to this unit the RPF. There was this frequent reoccurring habit to threaten persons with ethics handling or even to be send to RPF if one did not comply with some demand. This did not result in a particular pleasant working situation. It caused this shadow of constant pressure or this sword of Damocles hanging over you. Some missionaire or some person from a senior Scientology organization could just come into the area doing some inspection, and then some things may start happening. Generally these persons did not have a very gentle way of going about this either. They certainly did not make you feel appreciated. Agreed is that for example at the Flag Land Base, a senior Scientology service organization located in Clearwater, Fl, that there were particular expectations and as a consequence much pressure was placed on staff to provide exquisite service to that public there. Especially at such places, as a staff member you see the shadow of that sword of Damocles floating around you, and staff may be wondering when their head was going to roll. I am likely to exaggerate a bit here in the above, however a particular pressure was felt. I do remember very well the general working atmosphere that evidently was present.

I recall an incident at this Flag Land Base during the late ’80s. We had this Word Clearer/Course Supervisor in the Staff College. Suddenly one day I saw her wearing black clothes and running around (those on the RPF were not allowed to actually walk, you stood either still or you run and had to wear black clothes). It appeared that she had joined the ranks of this unit the RPF. Some week or so later she was back on post again. What had happened? There were some issues about that she had questioned the routine in the course room to clap and thank L. Ron Hubbard after each study period. She simply inquired what the reference was for doing so! (there does not exist such a reference by the way)  And indeed for a such wishy-washy reason one could end up on this RPF. Anyway she was returned to post rapidly as the statistics had crashed in the Staff College after that she had been send to this RPF. Instances as these may however not have been so common during the time that I was there, but I do recall this particular incident. Unwise RPF assignments apparently did occur. One could say that this confirms that “man cannot be trusted with justice.”. So then what called for or justified this RPF to actually come into existence?


A redemption unit that belonged to a ship is established onshore?

A qualified question to ask here is why the existence of such an outfit was re-established or prolonged after one had moved onto land? After all we were not at sea anymore where such a strict discipline would be deemed necessary. As a crew member you can not ignore if you for example see some water leaking into the vessel as it might sink and thus endanger everyone on the vessel. Why then are we bringing it into land? May be for fear of a possible tsunami hitting the beaches of Clearwater or something?

See, an obvious incongruity surfaces if you actively work on to establish a redemption unit, that was exclusively was meant for use on a ship at sea, when preparations were already ongoing to move the Flag Service Organization ashore! Preparations were ongoing at least since September 1973, and the RPF was established through this FO 3434 that was published in January 1974, which is 4 months later. Why would you establish such an outfit for use on land that belongs on a ship at sea?!

More information concerning the move ashore can be consulted at link here below:
    “Why ‘Flag Land Base’? or The move ashore (Sept 73-Nov 75)”  (separate window)


Referencing

It will be hard to do a complete evaluation about this RPF outfit without having access to the main reference that actually established it. I have only had access to its third revision from 1977 and the 1997 rewrite of it. I would be interested in copies of the original 1974 release. If anyone can help me with that, then please contact me. (below link will open as a pop-up window)
    ‘FO 3434RB’, 7 Jan 74 (Re-Revised 30 May 77) “The Rehabilitation Project Force”
In these rules found in FO 3434RB I actually don't see it mentioned that one was not allowed to actually normally walk while on the RPF. In fact you were not, I remember this very clearly from Flag. You saw them either standing or running. The Declaration of Anne Rosenblum lists a summary of the rules, I believe them to be correct.
    “Anne Rosenblum's Declaration:  RPF rules”  (pop-up window)

This not walking we find phrased as follows in the later released 1997 RPF Series. “Must move quickly and run on the decks on Sea Org bases. ... Shuffling, half running and walking have no part in this. The RPF must be snap-and-pop in all its actions (which includes running) ... .”  (from ‘FO 3434RE-23R’, 27 Mar 75 (Revised 2 Jul 98) “RPF—Rights and Restrictions”)

Reference materials and lists:  (pop-up windows)
    Relevant entries found in ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’  
(includes: Rehabilitation;  Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF);  RPF's RPF;  New recruits;  Deck Project Force (DPF); Estates Project Force (EPF))
  ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) reference list and related  
(includes: Original series 1974-80, 1982-85 series, 1997 series)

 
Back to Main Index Its origins...
(Includes:  Rocks and Shoals, Mud Box Brigade & Rehabilitation Unit)

Frequently 3 supposed forerunners of the RPF are being referred to at various places out on the Internet. Usually represented rather unfavourably. I give a detailed overview of each of these in the below. Noted are also any misconceptions that have arisen about them.

       
 
Rocks and Shoals:
    
When L. Ron Hubbard founded the Sea Organization (Sea Org) on 12 Aug 1967 and went out to sea he adopted a variety of naval terms. In a Flag Order from 1967 he makes mention of Rocks and Shoals as follows: “in most Sea Organizations a list of penalties is called rocks and shoals and is read out to the crew at muster.”.  It also appears to be an old military naval term as we find them in ‘Articles for the Government of the United States Navy’ (ca 1930). Article 4 lists various motivations for punishment that may be inflicted on any person in the naval service. #10 of these says:
        
“Or intentionally or willfully suffers any vessel of the Navy to be stranded, or run upon rocks or shoals, or improperly hazarded or maliciously or willfully injures any vessel of the Navy, or any part of her tackle, armament, or equipment, whereby the safety the vessel is hazarded or the lives of the crew exposed to danger.”
        
We can understand here the source of the term Rocks and Shoals and how it had come about as general naval rules.
In this Flag Order it simply used the expression to say: “The conditions are our rocks and shoals.”. Referred is to the conditions related to ethics. This is all that it says.

Out on the Internet we then see this associated with as if the US Navy Rocks and Shoals (list of penalties) were in use like that on the Sea Organization vessel Apollo. It should be understood that ‘FO 87’, 2 Sept 67 “Titles of Address (Add Etiquette)” did not “established a list of ‘ethics conditions’ and penalties assigned to Sea Org members which was read aloud on the ship during muster”. Please note that it simply does not say that! FO 87 was about Titles of Address! Mind also the correct title of this FO 87, which is not “The Rocks and Shoals” as some people refer to it! It appears confused with the Rocks and Shoals that is claimed to have been established with FO 3434 RPF Series issued 7 years later during 1974-80.

Thus the original FO 87 though did not establish any means of penalties for the Sea Org. It appears then that this got amended in 1976 for use in the RPF. August of that year saw the release of ‘FO 3434R-34’, 18 Aug 76 “RPF Rocks and Shoals”. An oddity may be that this reference actually adds to the confusion as it starts off with quoting from this FO 87, which, as we already in the previous established, got nothing to do with actual penalties.
This Flag Order was in 1997 reissued as ‘FO 3434RE-24’, 18 Aug 76 (Revised 8 May 97) “RPF Rocks and Shoals”. This reference relates:
        
“..., members of the RPF have found the simple use of running laps around their work site, or doing push-ups or sit-ups, to be an easy and effective means of maintaining discipline. This is their system of ‘Rocks and shoals’.”
        
This Flag Order then lists 15 misdemeanors such as “NONCOMPLIANCE”, “FALSE REPORT”, “MOVING SLOWLY, WALKING INSTEAD OF RUNNING”, “BACKFLASH”, “LATENESS”, etc. Each disciplined with either of the following:
        
“ONE LAP:  This is about 1/8th of a mile (660 feet) in length and is run in a circular route.
        
 
ONE LONG LAP:  This is between 1/8th and 1/4th of a mile (between 660 feet and 1320 feet) and is run in a circular route.
 
 
ONE BIG LAP:  This is about 1/4th of a mile (1320 feet) and is run in a circular route.”
 
Please note that the penalty is just one lap for each violation.
The list follows with the following additional notice:
        
“Minor corrections on the spot can be done with ten or more push-ups or sit-ups right then and there and back to work. Anything which fits into the categories above are handled with laps.”
        

There are some witness accounts that relate about this:
Anne Rosenblum's Declaration (pre-1995) reports:
        
“There is an F.O. 3434 series called ‘Rocks and Shoals.’ There are penalties one gets for anything they do wrong such as non compliance to an order, not calling a senior ‘Sir,’ walking instead of running, missing a spot on a mirror you were cleaning, etc. The penalties consist of doing so many laps, sit-ups or push-ups. The laps are running up and down the garage ramp.”
        
Martin Ottmann's Affidavit (19 Apr 1996) says:
        
“RPFers have to do hard physical labor the whole day. Any order a RPFer has received by his senior he has to fulfill. In case he would ‘backflash’, the Flag Order 87 ‘Rocks and Shoals’, 2 September 1967, would be applied by his senior: The RPFer has to run around the next building, until he had ‘boiled off’.”
        
The reference made to FO 87 in the second account is thus incorrect. It even got the title of the reference wrong. Penalties as described here above were not in use until 1976 with ‘FO 3434R-34’, 18 Aug 76 “RPF Rocks and Shoals”.

We find on the Internet various further accounts that report incidences of “running around a pole for hours” (15 hours or even for days) and all this in a hot burning sun. It should be obvious here that this actually violates the actual rules established in 1976 with aforementioned Flag Order. Nonetheless a steady referral is made to exactly these Flag Orders as if they would promote such a treatment. such penalties like “running around a pole for hours” may very well occurring, but they can not be supported or justified with this Flag Order.

       
 
Mud Box Brigade:
    
Mud Boxes are referred to as “those areas in the bilge which collect the mud out of the bilge water. Bilges means the inside bottom of the vessel where water collects.”  (from OODs 29 Sept 71).
 Persons who were caught “loafing on post and drifting with the wind” and “invisible on post, and really goofing up on one's job” were appointed to “clean mud boxes, fuel lines, water lines, bilges, etc.”  (from OODs 4 Jan 68 & ‘FO 1701’, 5 Jan 69 “Mud Box Brigade”).

This Brigade may be at times referred to as some sort of forerunner of the RPF, but is that justified? I don't actually find anything insensible in this Brigade. After all you were at sea, not ashore.

       
 
Rehabilitation Unit:
    
‘FO 1848’, 3 Mar 69 “Rehabilitation Unit” explains:
        
“It absorbs the old mud box brigade which is cancelled. Those removed or comm eved as ineffective or trouble are send to the Rehabilitation Unit via the examiner. The Examiner looks them over for outnesses in (1) case (2) ethics (3) training (Scientology and Sea Org ship training) (4) knowledge of policy. He then makes specific recommendations which if followed will rehabilitate the individual as a highly effective and worthwhile Sea Org member. The unit is worked hard during the day on a rigorous schedule on jobs assigned by the Review Chief handling corrective areas and jobs needing remedy and repair. The unit itself is thus made into an effective ship's review team. It works on a one job, one time, one place formula completing each job before moving into the next. Each individual thus earns the right to the remedial services he or she will receive.”
        
Here indeed we can find some resemblances with the infamous and later developed RPF. Still that does not make them the same or necessarily a forerunner. There is also one particular and explicit difference. We were at sea! These guidelines were developed for life on a ship. People's lives could be depending on if some safety rule was not attended to. After all you are out there on sea, a place where safety is an issue of the highest order. Being ashore is really quite a different matter. Therefore it should not be passed over and adopted to living on land.

 
Back to Main Index ‘Deck Project Force’ (DPF) & ‘Estates Project Force’ (EPF)

The RPF should not be confused with DPF or EPF. They have a very different purpose.

Deck Project Force (DPF) was for at sea:
        
“An objective of the DPF is to keep a recruit or non-producer out of vital FSO and FB lines until he can pull his weight and is valuable. The main objective is to furnish valuable SO members to the SO.”  
(from ‘FSO 559’, 24 May 72 “Deck Project Force”)
* FSO, Flag Service Org;  FB, Flag Bureaux;  SO, Sea Org;  * FSO, Flag Ship Order.
        

        
“At this point in Sea Org development, there are two categories of DPF members: new recruits and clinical. Clinical personnel include out-ethics cases, tiger types, persons who need extroverting from their environments, and the like. Not to put ethics in on these guys is very cruel indeed. Ethics is what is needed most; ethics and good 8-C.”
(from ‘FO 3126’, 20 Feb 72 “Shipkeeping Series No. 1 - Duties of the DPF MAA)
        


Estates Project Force (EPF) was for onshore:
        
“People who are just coming into the org could also come in through an Estates Project Force. So there's an Estates Project Force. Category A are people who are just coming in and getting in their basics before you let them onto a post and then there's Category B; those who have had a chance and they're put back there until they're handled. Do not allow these Category B's back in on your lines before they are handled.”          LRH
(from Establishment Officer lecture #4“Evaluation and Handling of Personnel, Part II”, given on 2 Mar 72)
        

        
“An Estates Project Force is established in lieu of a deck project force. Such persons do grounds and buildings maintenance at any of the SO properties under the direction of the Estate Manager and supervised by an EPF MAA as assigned by the LRH Comm.”
(from ‘FO 3118R’, 4 Mar 72 “Continental Recruit Training”)
        

As time went on and the Flag staff went onshore in the mid-’70s there was no need anymore to maintain the DPF in that respect. It is interesting to see that FO 3192 in its title actually reflects this change:
    ‘FO 3192’, 16 Jun 72 “Deck Project Forces”
  ‘FO 3192R’, 16 Jun 72 (Revised 29 Jun 77) “Estates Project Forces”


I recall from the late 80s that the AOSH EU located in Copenhagen, Denmark had its use and denomination a bit confused. They had an EPF for new Sea Org applicants, and they also had an RPF. But then they also had something they called a DPF, which was in practice defined as a unit for persons that had failed to function properly as a staff member. For this reason it was figured they should be redoing the EPF. I would regard it as a gentle approach to redeem yourself as normally an assignment to the RPF would be the measure taken. Interesting is that the EPFers and the DPFers worked together in the same outfit. The EPFers ran the standard courses whereas the DPFers had an adjusted tailor-made study and hatting program they ran. At some point this use of DPF was discontinued as it was found that the references did not support it.

At the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Fl. they had in the same time period created an FRU which stands for Flag Readiness Unit. Basically this was an extension for the EPFers. Those persons that did not manage to finish the EPF study and hatting program within the expected time were send to the FRU. Although the rule of the game was that those persons that could not finish the EPF in the expected time frame (no longer than 6 weeks) were send away as they were simply not found qualified to be in the Sea Organization! They were so to say, ‘fitnessboarded out’. As it appeared, there was an unwillingness to send people away (there was a lack of sufficient staff at the time) and therefore the rules got stretched a bit... I have seen persons on the FRU for 6 months or longer. (FRU was referred to and pronounced as the ‘fru’, as in one word)

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Authorship of FO 3434 and its subsequent series
(Includes:  Ken Urquhart; RPF Series)

A frequent and for all blunt claim made is: “The RPF was concocted and ordered into existence by L. Ron Hubbard!”. Then, how true and verifiable is this claim actually?
Often you will get referred to this ‘Flag Order 3434’ (published 7 Jan 74), the reference that called into being this Rehabilitation Project Force, that it made reference to that the Commodore, L. Ron Hubbard had created the RPF. Indeed this Flag Order does say: “The RPF has been created by the Commodore so that redemption can occur.”. Although it is easily to print such a phrase, it fails however to explain when or how this would have occurred. The 3rd revision from 30 May 77 then makes mention that it was ‘Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE’, which is the only notice that we find on this revision of this Flag Order. Approving something also means that he did not write it, which is a first interesting clue that we get.
It may be concluded though that this may only affect this particular revision of this FO. The problem is that, according to Mimeo(graph) rules, the revisions replicates the information that was printed in the original version. Then if it was revised re-released, the new information is simply added about who was responsible for working with the revision. Because of this we can safely assume that also the original version had listed ‘Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE’, meaning in effect that he did not write it! So, who then wrote it?
I have not been able to consult earlier versions of the FO. If you have any such (original or R or RA) or other documents and references relating to the RPF please contact me!

Other claims that I find being made by persons out on the Internet are that
 
“Hubbard assigned people to the RPF personally and arbitrarily, and was the only person who could arbitrarily remove people from the RPF.”. I am unable to get this actually confirmed by fact anywhere;
 
 
Then we have “From 1967-1969 Sea Org members, at Hubbard's whim, were ordered to the ‘Mud Box Brigade’ or to the bilges of the ship.”. This can also not positively be confirmed by fact. There have been some people that had been on the ship and that have since made various claims that in turn did not get confirmed or were countered by other people that also had been on the ship;
 
 
And there is a claim made in regards to ‘CMO ED 411’, 29 Aug 79 “Re: Cadet Org” that is claimed to contain the ‘Hubbard’ quote: “Make it known to the children that any act of vandalism, theft or out-ethics or any crime committed by a child will be immediately followed by placing that child on the RPF under severe restrictions.”. Indeed that is quite a claim. CMO EDs are not actually known to have been authored by L. Ron Hubbard. Did the ED may be quote from L. Ron Hubbard, if so then what would be the source of that? These sources are not provided for and thus unconfirmed for their correctness nor authenticity.
 
We have had quite a few people making all sorts of claims during the years. Stories that, for the larger part, only can get confirmed by opinion.


Ken Urquhart

The journalist Russell Miller while he was doing research for his critical book ‘The Bare-Faced Messiah’ (released 1987) conducted various interviews with people who had known L. Ron Hubbard at various time periods in his life. These were reportedly all taped. At some time transcripts of a variety of these interviews appear on the Internet as the “The Bare-Faced Messiah Interviews”. The tapes themselves though have never been made available. Ken Urquhart was one of the persons being interviewed. He says relating to the RPF:
        
“The RPF came into existence while he was in his cabin after the accident [late ’73 L. Ron Hubbard had a motor cycle accident]. A guy called Gary Watson, who was the port captain, sent in some kind of programme of action to the Commodore and the Commodore set up a unit to take care of rebellious people or those not fitting in. I set up the RPF but it became very much different from what I envisaged - which was a place where you could be removed from the stress and strains of bureaucracy, with some physical work every day to take their attention off themselves and in the other half of day they could audit each other on problems they had.”  
(from Interview with Ken Urquhart, McLean, Virginia, Apr/May 86)
        
My response to “I set up the RPF but it became very much different from what I envisaged” is that when one goes through these regulations for the RPF as found in FO 3434, then what do you actually expect to happen? That is if you have some foresight it would be fairly easy to envision what people would turn it into! In fact while going over this FO 3434, it sounds pretty rough and restrictive. Mind that he was a trained auditor (he is listed as a Class IX auditor), had he somehow not yet understood how the mind of man works? What man is capable of doing and how easily he gets manipulated and gives matters the blind eye? I find the comment of Ken Urquhart rather ignorant in this respect.
Ken Urquhart 1984
Ken Urquhart at the
Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara, California in 1984

An interesting additional note can be made with that it says in FO 3434RB: “These policies and regulations may only be put aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of LRH Pers Comm.”. The LRH Pers Comm was Ken Urquhart. It appears that he then could work on this at his own authority without needing Commodore interference or approval.
It is noted that this FO 3434RB revision does indicate as if it would be ‘Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE’. Ken Urquhart on the other hand is not even indicated by his name in the signature area. We only find him in the composer initials that are listed at the bottom of the Flag Order as ‘KU’. Now the rule has always been that if you put such composer initials in references, that you also mention the person by name or at least what his post title would be. Technically because of this the Mimeo(graph) section should not have approved it and it should accordingly have been send back to the originator to have them correct this and then reapply for printing.

Mimeo(graph) section routines and rules:  (separate window)
    “Information about revising, about distribution & initials found at the end of references”

It is rather noteworthy that the actual compiler and originator of this reference is exempted from being mentioned by name or indicated even by his post in these signatures and only appears with his initials! You see, an LRH Personal Communicator is a person that would attend to and take care of all the needs of a person, in this case L. Ron Hubbard. Its function and duties are really not much more than that of a butler, then why is Ken Urquhart given so much authority? Not only that, these were very sensitive matters! A strange butler it is indeed...
It would still be worthwhile to find out how this is reflected in the original release of this Flag Order from 1974 though. It would also not be the first time that a reference would get such a notification as if approved by L. Ron Hubbard which then in later years got retracted. Then again, some references may have been missed.
An additional indication of authorship and involvement that we find in the FO 3434RB revision of 1977 is that it says as a last sentence: “NB: In the revision of 21 August 1976, the definitions of ‘Fully Cleaned-Up’ and ‘Released’ have been revised by LRH Pers Comm.”. The LRH Pers Comm still being Ken Urquhart. It appears that it continued to be his person that was involved with this reference also in the later revisions of this Flag Order. We only have a claim of an L. Ron Hubbard involvement, but we have essentially nothing to support that claim per the above relayed information.


The gullible people that criticize Scientologists...?

There is an irony present here. On one side we have the people in the Scientology organization that are being criticized for accepting and believing the claims of the Church of Scientology for all the things that L. Ron Hubbard supposedly would have managed to achieve. On the other hand we have these same critics claiming that L. Ron Hubbard would have been responsible or had devised various matters when his actual involvement can not positively be proved by fact. Furthermore just that it says underneath some reference that L. Ron Hubbard either would have written something, had ordered it, or notes his approval, does not always necessarily mean that he actually did so. Various of my researches into this and presented on this website does give good reason to be very careful about this indeed!
There is this habit however from the mainstream Scientology critic to put all the blame on L. Ron Hubbard for all bad things that had happened. If I look around on the Internet I do get the impression that some people there appear outright delusional about these things in regards to this. Please, let us be little more sensible and investigative about these matters!
An interesting review regarding this was posted anonymously on an Internet newsgroup (A.R.S.) on 3 Apr 1998:
    “RPF Exposed”  (pop-up window)


The RPF Series

We have the original reference which was FO 3434. Then we had a whole array of references specifying various things of this RPF that were published at a later date. These all appeared with a dash following a number, it goes FO 3434-1, FO 3434-2, and so on. There were 56 of them in the original series and some of the dashes had further dashes, for example FO 3434-22RC-1R. To my recollection all these additions were written by various different persons that were not L. Ron Hubbard or even Ken Urquhart. I went through the lot of them one time at the Mimeo(graph) section located at the Flag Land Base, Clearwater, Fl. They had most of them in their filing cabinets. These were mostly persons that appeared to be actually running the RPF outfit, that then had made various observations, and where setting up various specifics facilitating their duties.

Reference however had been made at places to LRH advices supposedly deriving from him, but the authenticity of these are nonetheless difficult (not to say impossible) to authenticate.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index RPF working conditions

        
“SCHEDULE  
        
 
The schedule for the RPF is to be worked out in detail by the RPF MAA around 7 hours sleep, 5 hours study or auditing, 30 minutes for each meal, 30 minutes for personal hygiene, per day.”
(from ‘FO 3434RB’, 7 Jan 74 (Re-Revised 30 May 77) “The Rehabilitation Project Force”)
 

Various persons have reported about extraordinarily working hours and unreasonable conditions allowing very few hours of sleep for the RPFers at the PAC base during the late ’70s, and even at later times. I do not know from personal observation how the RPF working conditions were like for example during these late ’70s, although the reports that I have reviewed are pretty much consistent.
I do however know from personal observation that the RPF during the late ’80s at the Flag Land Base (Clearwater, Fl.) followed very strict working hours. I have actually worked side by side with the RPF. At a time that I was involved in a Uniform Delivery Mission at the Flag Land Base, and we had al these trunks spread out in the auditorium at the Fort Harrison Hotel in downtown Clearwater Fl. There was an event scheduled one evening, and all these trunks were in the way (we had hundreds of them). We had to put them up big stacks against the walls. So we were working like that with the RPF as we had this time pressure because of the upcoming event. Then at some time (10 p.m. I think) the RPF Section Leader came up to us and said that their working time was over. We attempted to argue but that appeared useless, they left and so we (2 persons) had to finish the job working during half the night or so getting all these trunks stacked up against the walls and out of the way. Then after the event we had to sort them out again, and make a new list of where each trunk was located, so that we could pull it when the particular staff member came to try out his/her uniform. All this till the next event was banging at our front door, and we had a couple of those while the Uniform Delivery Mission was ongoing. Later we moved all the trunks to another location (Hacienda Gardens) and established there an Uniform Exchange Post. Some of the times we got help from the RPF, but not always as they were occupied some place else doing physical labour. They did however transport the trunks to the Hacienda Gardens. In fact our Mission working hours and conditions while running it were far worse than those of the RPF.

Interesting additional information may be found in a study that ‘CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions’ has performed on “The Church of Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force” in 2002. Consult here (external link) (last checked: 24 Oct 2019)

It seems though that conditions indeed are very strict at the PAC base and Scientology International (located in Los Angeles). They appear much lesser strict at for example Flag, and in Europe the conditions appear quite livable and reasonable. At Flag one still saw the RPFers running, at AOSH EU* in Copenhagen I actually could see them walking from time to time. With other words, the further you get away from the headquarters of the Scientology organization the less strict the rules appear abided to.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘RPF’ versus ‘Confessionals’

The basic reason about why one does wrong is said to be seated in our mind. Our so-called false purposes. There is this thing addressed as the Overt Motivator Sequence. Roughly this can be circumscribed as the calculation of having done something wrong, one is then ashamed and unwilling to take responsibility for it (thus you keep it hidden, withhold it). But a being wants to be good, he/she therefore resorts to get it justified by factually repeating the original wrong deed (this calculation is not necessarily made consciously).
This mechanism then would indicate that man is basically good. Now, pulling these instances in auditing sessions (revealing them) is said to relieve the person of this burden he/she placed on him/herself and eradicated herewith its motivator to continue to repeat and justify. As a process this can be referred to as confessional auditing. The auditing procedure basically consists of running various lists of questions after which the auditor traces and notes down the reactions (revealed charge) it registrars on this tool the E-Meter. The RPF it was figured particularly required confessional auditing.

For a detailed overview of the history of confessional auditing you may wish to consult link here below:  (separate window)
    “Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology  or  How ‘Confessionals’ were regarded as the years passed by ”

 
Back to Main Index A final note

It appears fact that this getting assigned to this RPF frequently has been misused and obviously has been at times in the hands of the wrong persons. At times during the recorded history of the the Scientology organization it even seemed to have turned into mad witch hunts. See link here below for details:  (separate window)
    “The turbulent late ’70s and early ’80s”
Most affirmatively we can conclude that “man cannot be trusted with justice.”. We should have learned this datum already from tracking the walk of man throughout history. Considering the subject matter and the aims of Scientology would it have been probable that L. Ron Hubbard would have set forth and created such an outfit as the RPF and have it onshore? Whatever for? It was simply destined to get misused!

This article is just an effort trying to establish what happened and that which can be confirmed. Recorded is what is found. It is not written to excuse L. Ron Hubbard.

 

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.
     8-C:

‘Routine 8-Control’.  1. Essentially and intimately the operation of making the physical body contact the environment. (5410CM08)  2. Name of a process. Also used to mean good control. (HCOB 23 Aug 65)
     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.
     CMO:
Commodore Messenger Organization’. A senior entity within the Sea Organization of the Church of Scientology.
     condition (ethics):
In Scn the term also means the ethics conditions (confusion, treason, enemy, doubt, liability, non-existence, danger, emergency, normal, affluence, power change or power). The state or condition of any person, group or activity can be plotted on this scale of conditions which shows the degree of success or survival of that person, group or activity at any time. Data on the application of these conditions is contained in the ethics policies and tapes of Scn. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     FB:
Flag Bureaux’.  1. The Flag Bureaux manages orgs. It does not just execute orders of others but initiates orders based on evaluation that directs orgs, handles situations and ensures continued growth. (CBO 435-3R)  2. The international management body of the SO with additional advisor and management activities. (HCO PL 9 Mar 72 1)  3. The external org taking care of the international and SO orgs over the world and planetary actions. (OODs 8 May 72)
     Flag Order (FO):
This is the equivalent to a policy letter (HCO PL) in the Sea Org (senior organization within the Church of Scientology). Contains policy and sea technical materials. They are numbered and dated. They do not decay, HCO PLs and FOs are both in effect on Sea Org orgs, ships, offices and bases. Black ink on white paper. Distribution to all Sea Org members. It is vital for SO units to have master files and quantity of FOs from which hats can be made up for SO personnel and courses. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     FO:
Short for ‘Flag Order’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     FSO:
Flag Service Organization’. Senior Scientology service organization located at Flag in Clearwater, Fl.
    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 Pers Comm:
LRH Personal Communicator’. This person coordinates communications from all sources to LRH. The LRH Pers Comm has full control of the Household Unit and LRH Personal Pro and all equipment, vehicles, gear, material and spaces. Thus the hat breaks down into five functions: (1) coordinating and rerouting traffic so it will be handled, (2) logging, nudging and keeping track of LRH projects, (3) library and filing, (4) keeping Household Unit matters up to the mark and the personnel busy and accounted for, (5) setting up schedules and events and getting things coordinated for them.
     MAA:
Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     OCA, APA:
Oxford Capacity Analysis’. The OCA (Oxford Capacity Analysis) is the English version of the American Personality Analysis (APA). The OCA (or APA) consists of 200 questions. These 200 questions are divided up into series of 20 questions, each of which measures a single personality trait. Thus ten traits are measured in all. (HCO PL 3 Nov 70 II)
     OODs:
Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.
     overt product:
These are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves-such as inedible biscuits or a “repair” that is just further breakage. (HCOB 10 May 72)
     PAC (base):
Pacific Area Command (base)’. The former Cedars of Lebanon Hospital complex, a Hollywood landmark, will now serve as the Church's national seminary headquarters housing ASHO, AOLA (Advance Organization), Publications Organization, Los Angeles Class IV Organization, Guardian's Office, and Flag Operations Liaison Office. (from The Auditor 133, US Edition)  May at times also be referred to as the Cedars Complex.
     R/S:
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Rock Slam (R/S):
1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials, p. 17).  2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
  Rock Slammer:  
It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04)
     Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement