HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965 REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970 Remimeo Sthil Students (Reissued 28, 7.73 to correct word on p. 48, Assn/Org Sec Hat para 2. [Change in this type style.]) HCO Sec Hat Case Sup Hat Ds of P Hat Ds of T Hat Staff Member Hat Franchise (issued May 1965) Note: Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. "Quickie grades" entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not "entirely a tech matter" as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2 year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. ALL LEVELS KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING HCO Sec or Communicator Hat Check on all personnel and new personnel as taken on. We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. The only thing nowis getting the technology applied. If you can't get the technology applied then you can't deliver what's promised. It's as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what's promised. The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is "no results". Trouble spots occur only where there are "no results". Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are "no results" or "bad results". Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. So it is the task of the Assn or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. Getting the correct technology applied consists of: One: Having the correct technology. Two: Knowing the technology. Three: Knowing it is correct. Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. Five: Applying the technology. Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications. 44 Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. One above has been done. Two has been achieved by many. Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. Five is consistently accomplished daily. Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. Eight is not worked on hard enough. Nine is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the not quite bright. Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group. could evolve truth. A third of a Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to "eat crow". On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technology". By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as "unpopular", "egotistical" and "undemocratic". It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegátion and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. 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 safely 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 co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and 45 were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called "new ideas" would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve- psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum. So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it's not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten has been relaxed the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.J., Wichita, the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up, you saw the obvious "reasons" for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by "public opinion" media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. When you don't do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the Bank dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. It's the Bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It's the Bank that says we must fail. So just don't play that game. Do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. Here's an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin: A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that "It didn't work". Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn't really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor "Process X didn't work on Preclear C". Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of "new technology" and to failure. What happened here? Instructor A didn't jump down Auditor B's throat, that's all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor's report and looked it over. When a higher executive on this case did so she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that Process X increased Preclear C's TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Qed and Aed with a 46 cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B's own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B's IQ on examination turned Out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be "too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases"; All right, there's an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: "That process X didn't work." Instructor A: "What exactly did you do wrong?" Instant attack. "Where's your auditor's report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?" Then the Pc wouldn't have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty. In a year, I had four instances in one small group where. the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that. auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. Here's an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student "because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!" Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. "Of course his model session is poor but it's just a knack he has" is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertaken because nobody at levels 0 to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter TA dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he "overcompensated" nervously, swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at "set". So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student "got such remarkable TA". They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole .track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren't quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. When people can't get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree: The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology. Under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. Hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly trained. As an instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the 47 sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeves rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He's slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it, Don't wait until next week. By then he's got other messes stuck to him. If you can't graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining, graduate them in such a state of shock they'll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they'll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe-never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us-win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable." Fit that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. But we won't have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we'll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to Ten, will make us grow less. So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It's our possible failure to retain and practise our technology. An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of "unworkability". They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done. If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Do them and we'll win. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jw.rr.nt.ka.mes.rd Copyright ($) 1965, 1970, 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 48 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965 (Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word Remimeo "instructor" replaced by "supervisor".) All Hats BPI SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY For some years we have had a word "squirreling". It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why. Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable System. In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely taped path of Scientology. Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels. It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out. It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth. Therefore it is a workable System, a route that can be traveled. What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You'd think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide. What would you think of a supervisor who let a student depart from procedure the supervisor knew worked. You'd think he was a pretty wishy-washy supervisor. What would happen in a labyrinth if the guide let some girl stop in a pretty canyon and left her there forever to contemplate the rocks? You'd think he was a pretty heartless guide. You'd expect him to say at least, "Miss, those rocks may be pretty, but the road out doesn't go that way." All right, how about an auditor who abandons the procedure which will make his preclear eventually clear just because the preclear had a cognition? People have following the route mixed up with "the right to have their own ideas." Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions- so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others. Scientology is a workable system. It white tapes the road out of the labyrinth. If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, Man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone. Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess, So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because 49 it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn't following the route. Scientology is a new thing-it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery. Scientology is the only workable System Man has. It has already taken people toward higher I.Q., better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor. Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. So put the feet of students and preclears on that route. Don't let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out. Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. Don't let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they'll be free. if you don't, they won't. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jw.rd Copyright ($) 1965, 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 50 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 FEBRUARY 1965 Remimeo DELIVER Now that we can deliver, the first thought of every staff member in every Org from Saint Hill through the main orgs down to the smallest Franchise Office should be to deliver Scientology training and processing to every person responding to their promotion. Books and all other items should be delivered effectively and rapidly to buyers. Certificates should be delivered to all who earn them. Classification should be delivered quickly to those who can pass. The action of Promotion is to offer as many as can be reached something each of those reached will want and buy. After Promotion obtains response, one must deliver. That means good case gains to preclears and students, good reality and useful knowledge and skill to every student. Delivery, if not done swiftly and cheerfully and effectively, balls up the lines, retards growth and keeps everyone marking time. The first job of the books personnel is to deliver books ordered. There is no other action to take. Just deliver. Keep the invoice line simple by simply invoicing everything ordered and note whether paid or not. In shipping books or such items not paid for, request the sum owing while holding the first invoice and when it comes let invoicing make a new invoice showing payment and let shipping relate it to the old. Refund overpayments regardless of what the customer said unless it's a donation. Keep book shipping simple. Deliver books. Be sure books are on hand and deliver them. That's all one does in Books. When someone buys training, sign the person up and deliver the training and a good case gain too. When someone buys processing, give them the processing called for at the pc's level whether you advertise you will or not and deliver a case gain and a completed level. Deliver. When promotion has promoted a response, don't get chatty with the response. Just tell the person what it is, how much it costs, how easy it is and when he should get it; or to come in and get it, and deliver. Promote, organize and deliver. We can now deliver technically. You don't have to "make Scientology work". You don't have "to alter it so it will work". You don't have to dream it up. All you've got to do is be skilled in doing exactly what's taught and you'll deliver handsomely. You can deliver it, so deliver it. On a pc who has never been processed, do Level 0. Give him or her an HCO Board of Review certificate as a pc for that level when it is complete; when a pc has Level 0 Grade certificate, do I. Etc. Boot them up as fast as you can. Do only what the Levels are. Issue a certificate when they're all flat on the TA for that grade. On people who have been scattered through one or another of the levels, finish up 51 anything missed in the lowest level, then the next level, then the next, etc. When a pc has completed IV finally, be sure your staff can do VI on him. To get an org or individual to deliver effectively, remove the distractions from the delivery channel, remove the barriers to delivery, detect and get rid of the non compliance to orders to deliver. And deliver pure Scientology, effectively. Get a move on. Learn what's to be delivered and deliver it. Same with a course. Deliver it and certify you have. That's all. You're selling wins. Deliver them. The whole human race is about to start going up. They'll move to the degree you deliver and no faster. So let's get the show on the road. Nobody now has to do anything arduous. Just find people, make them want and pay for delivery and then deliver. That's all. Let's go. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright(c)l965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 52 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1965 Gen Non-Remimeo HCO Sec Hat HCO JUSTICE DATA RE ACADEMY & HGC Tech Sec Hat D of P Hat HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON D of T Flat THE BASIS OF INSANITY The suppressive person (whom we've called a Merchant of Fear or Chaos Merchant and which we can now technically call the suppressive person) can't stand the idea of Scientology. If people became better, the suppressive person would have lost. The suppressive person answers this by attacking covertly or overtly Scientology. This thing is, he thinks, his mortal enemy since it undoes his (or her) "good work" in putting people down where they should be. There are three "operations" such a case seeks to engage upon regarding Scientology: (a) to disperse it, (b) to try to crush it and (c) to pretend it didn't exist. Dispersal would consist of several things such as attributing its source to others and altering its processes or structure. If you feel a bit dispersed reading this Policy Letter, then realize it is about a being whose whole "protective colouration" is to disperse others and so remain invisible. Such people generalize all entheta and create ARC Breaks madly. The second (b) is done by covert or overt means. Covertly a suppressive person leaves the org door unlocked, loses the E-Meters, runs up fantastic bills, and energetically and unseen seeks to pull out the plug and get Scientology poured down the drain. We, poor fools, consider all this just "human error" or "stupidity". We rarely realize that such actions, far from being accidents, are carefully thought out. The proof that this is so is simple. If we run down the source of these errors we wind up with only one or two people in the whole group. Now isn't it odd that the majority of errors that kept the group enturbulated were attributable to a minority of persons present? Even a very "reasonable" person could not make anything else out of that except that it was very odd and indicated that the minority mentioned were interested in smashing the group and that the behaviour was not common to the whole group- meaning it isn't "normal" behaviour. These people aren't Communists or Fascists or any other ists. They are just very sick people. They easily become parts of suppressive groups such as Communists or Fascists because these groups, like criminals, are suppressive. The Suppressive Person is hard to spot because of the dispersal factor mentioned 'above. One looks at them and has his attention dispersed by their "everybody is bad". The Suppressive Person who is visibly seeking to knock out people or Scientology is easy to see. He or she is making such a fuss about it. The attacks are quite vicious and full of lies. But even here when the Suppressive Person exists on the "other side" of a potential trouble source, visibility is not good. One sees a case going up and down. On the other side of that case, out of the auditor's view, is the Suppressive Person. The. whole trick they use is to generalize entheta. "Everybody is bad." "The Russians are all bad." "Everybody hates you." "The People versus John Doe" on warrants. "The masses." "The Secret Police will get you." Suppressive groups use the ARC Break mechanisms of generalizing entheta so it seems "everywhere". The Suppressive Person is a specialist in making others ARC Break with generalized entheta that is mostly lies. He or she is also a no-gain-case. So avid are such for the smashing of others by covert or Overt means that their case is bogged and won't move under routine processing. 53 The technical fact is that they have a huge problem, long gone and no longer known even to themselves which they use hidden or forthright vicious acts continually to "handle". They do not act to solve the environment they are in. They are solving one environment, yesterday's, in which they are stuck. The only reason the insane were hard to understand is that they are handling situations which no longer exist. The situation probably existed at one time. They think they have to hold their own, with overts against a non- existent enemy to solve a non-existent problem. Because their overts are continuous they have withholds. Since such a person has withholds, he or she can't communicate freely to as-is the block on the track that keeps them in some yesterday. Hence, a "no- case-gain". That alone is the way to locate a Suppressive Person. By viewing the case. Never judge such a person by their conduct. That is too difficult. Judge by no- case-gains. Don't even use tests. One asks these questions: 1. Will the person permit auditing at all? or 2. Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains? If (1) is "No", one is safe to treat the person as suppressive. It is not always correct but it is always safe. Some errors will be made but it is better to make them than to take a chance on it. When people refuse auditing they are (a) a potential trouble source (connected to a Suppressive Person); (b) a person with a big dis creditable withhold; (c) a Suppressive Person or (d) have had the bad luck to be "audited" too often by a Suppressive Person or (e) have been audited by an untrained auditor or one "trained" by a Suppressive Person. [The last category (e) (untrained auditor) is rather slight but (d) (audited by a Suppressive Person) can have been pretty serious, resulting in continual ARC Breaks during which auditing was pressed on without regard to the ARC Break.] Thus there are several possibilities where somebody refuses auditing. One has to sort them out in an HGC and handle the right one. But HCO by policy simply treats the person with the same admin policy procedure as that used on a Suppressive Person and lets HGC sort it out. Get that difference-it's "with the same admin policy procedure as" not "the same as". For treating a person "the same as" a Suppressive Person when he or she is not only adds to the confusion. One treats a real Suppressive Person pretty rough. One has to handle the bank. As to (2) here is the real test and the only valid test: Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains? If the answer is NO then there is your Suppressive Person, loud and very unclear! That is the test. There are several ways of detecting. When fair auditors or good ones have had to vary routine procedure or do unusual things on this case in an effort to make it gain, when there are lots of notes from Ds of P in the folder saying do this-do that-you know that this case was trouble. This means it was one of three things: 1. a potential trouble source 2. a person with a big withhold 3. a Suppressive Person. If despite all that trouble and care, the case did not gain-or if the case simply didn't gain despite auditing no matter how many years or intensives, then you've caught your Suppressive Person. That's the boy. Or the girl. This case performs continual calculating covert hostile acts damaging to others. This case puts the enturbulence and upset into the environment, breaks the chairs, 54 messes up the rugs and spoils the traffic flow with "goofs" done intentionally. One should lock criminals out of the environment if one wants security. But one first has to locate the criminal. Don't lock everybody out because you can't find the criminal. The cyclic case (gains and collapses routinely) is connected to a Suppressive Person. We have policy on that. The case that continually pleads "hold my hand I am so ARC broken" is just somebody with a big withhold, not an ARC Break. The Suppressive Person just gets no-case-gain on routine student auditing. This person is actively suppressing Scientology. If such will sit still and pretend to be audited the suppression is by hidden hostile acts which include: 1. Chopping up auditors; 2. Pretending withholds which are actually criticisms; 3. Giving out "data" about their past lives and/or whole track that really holds such subjects up to scorn and makes people who do remember wince; 4. Chopping up orgs; 5. Alter-ising technology to mess it up; 6. Spreading rumours about prominent persons in Scientology; 7. Attributing Scientology to other sources; 8. Criticizing auditors as a group; 9. Rolling up Dev-T, off policy, off origin, off line; 10. Giving fragmentary or generalized reports about entheta that cave people in-and isn't actual; 11. Refusing to repair ARC Breaks; 12. Engaging in discreditable sexual acts (also true of potential trouble sources); 13. Reporting a session good when the pc went bad; 14. Reporting a session bad when the pe went up in tone; 15. Snapping terminals with lecturers and executives to make critical remarks or spread ARC Break type "news" to them; 16. Failing to relay comm or report; 17. Making an org go to pieces (note one uses "making" not "letting"); 18. Committing small criminal acts around the org; 19. Making "mistakes" which get their seniors in trouble; 20. Refusing to abide by policy; 21. Non-compliance with instructions; 22. Alter-is of instructions or orders so that the programme fouls up; 23. Hiding data that is vital to prevent upsets; 24. Altering orders to make a senior look bad; 25. Organizing revolts or mass protest meetings; 26. Snarling about Justice. And so on. One does not use the catalogue, however, one only uses this one fact-no case gain by routine auditing over a longish period. This is the fellow that makes life miserable for the rest of us. This is the one who overworks executives. This is the auditor killer. This is the course enturbulator or pc killer. There's the cancer. Burn it out. ---------- In short, you begin to see that it's this one who is the only one who makes harsh discipline seem necessary. The rest of the staff suffers when one or two of these is present. 55 One hears a whine about "process didn't work" or sees an alter-is of tech. Go look. You'll find it now and then leads to a Suppressive Person inside or outside the Org. Now that one knows who it is, one can handle it. But more than that, I can now crack this case! The technology is useful in all cases, of course. But only this cracks the no-gain-case'. The person is in a mad, howling situation of some yesteryear and is "handling it" by committing overt acts today. I say condition of yesteryear but the case thinks it's today. Yes, you're right. They are nuts. The spin bins are full of either them or their victims. There's no other real psycho in a spin bin! What? That means we've cracked insanity itself? That's right. And it's given us the key to the Suppressive Person and his or her effect on the environment. This is the multitude of "types" of insanity of the 19th century psychiatris€ All in one. Schizophrenia, paranoia, fancy names galore. Only one other type exists-the person the Suppressive Person got "at". This is the "manic-depressive" a type who is up one day and down the next. This is the Potential Trouble Source gone mad. But these are in a minority in the spin bin, usually put there by Suppressive Persons and not crazy at all! The real mad ones are the Suppressive Persons. They are the only psychos. Over simplification? No indeed. I can prove it! We could empty the spin bins now. If we want to. But we have better uses for technology than saving a lot of Suppressive Persons who themselves act only to scuttle the rest of us. You see, when they get down to no-case-gain where a routine process won't bite, they can no longer as-is their daily life so it all starts to stack up into a horror. They "solve" this horror by continuous covert acts against their surroundings and associates. After a while the covert ones don't seem to hold off the fancied "horror" and they commit some senseless violence in broad daylight-or collapse-and so they can get identified as insane and are lugged off to the spin bin. Anybody can "get mad" and bust a few chairs when a Suppressive Person goes too far. But there's traceable sense to it. Getting mad doesn't make a madman. It's damaging actions that have no sensible detectable reasons that's the trail of madness. Any thetan can get angry. Only a madman damages without reason. All actions have their lower scale discreditable mockery. The difference is, does one get over his anger? The no-case-gain of course can't. He or she stays misemotional and adds each new burst to the fire. It never gets less. It grows. And a long way from all Suppressive Persons are violent. They are more likely to look resentful. A Suppressive Person can get to one solid dispassionate state of damaging things. Here is the accident prone, the home wrecker, the group wrecker. Now here one must realize something. The Suppressive Person finds outlet for his or her unexpressed rage by carefully needling those they are connected with into howling anger. You see the people around them get dragged into this long gone incident by mistaken identity. And it is a maddening situation to be continually mis- identified, accused, worked on, doubled crossed. For one is not the being the Suppressive Person supposes. The Suppressive Person's world is pretty hard to live around. And even ordinarily cheerful people often blow up under the strain. So be careful who you call the Suppressive Person. The person connected with a Suppressive Person is liable to be only visible rage in sight! You have some experience of this-the mousey little woman who rarely changes expression and is so righteous connected to somebody who now and then goes into a frenzy. 56 How to tell them apart? Easy! Just ask this question: Which. gets a case gain easily? Well, it's even simpler than that! Put the two on an E-Meter. Don't do anything but read the dial and needle. The Suppressive one has the high stuck T.A. The other has a lower T.A. Simple? Not all Suppressive Persons have high T.A. The T.A. can be anywhere especially very low (1.0). But the needle is weird. It is stuck tight or it RSes without reason (the PC wearing no rings to cause an RS). Suppressive Persons also can have the "dead" thetan clear read! You see people around a Suppressive Person Q and A and disperse. They seek to "get even" with the Suppressive Person and often exhibit the same symptoms temporarily. Sometimes two Suppressive PersOns are found together. So one can't always say which is the Suppressive Person in a pair. The usual Combination IS the Suppressive Person and the Potential Trouble Source. However you don't need to guess about it or observe their conduct. For this poor soul can no longer as-is easily. Too many overts. Too many withholds. Stuck in an incident that they call "present time". Handling a problem that does not exist. Supposing those around are the personnel in their own delirium. They look all right. They sound reasonable. They are often clever. But they are solid poison. They can't as-is anything. Day by day their pile grows. Day by day their new overts and Withholds pin them down tighter. They aren't here. But they sure can wreck the place. There is the true psycho. And he or she is dying before your very eyes. Kind of horrible. The resolution of the case is a clever application of problems processes, never o/w. What was the condition? How did you handle it? is the key type of process. I don't know what the percentage of these are in a society. I know only that they. made up about 10% of any group so far observed. The data is obscured by the fact that they ARC Break others and make them misemotional-thus one of them seems to be, by contagion, half a dozen such. Therefore simple inspection of conduct does not reveal the Suppressive Person. Only a case folder puts the seal on it. No-Case-Gain by routine processes. However this test too may soon become untrustworthy for now we can crack them by a special approach. However we will also generally use the same approach on routine cases as it makes cases go upward fast and we may catch the Suppressive Person accidentally and cure him or her before we are aware of it. And that would be wonderful. But still we'll have such on our lines in Justice matters from now on. So it's good to know all about them, how they are identified, how to handle. HCO must handle such cases as per the HCO Justice Codes on Suppressive Acts when they blow Scientology or seek to suppress Scientologists or orgs. One should study up on these. The Academy should be careful of this and report them to HCO promptly (as they would potential trouble sources or withholds that won't be delivered). The Academy must not fool about with Suppressive Persons. It's a sure way to deteriorate a course and cave in students. 57 POLICY When an Academy finds it has a Potential Trouble Source, a "withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily" or a Suppressive Person enrolled on a course or a blow the Academy must call for HCO Department of Inspection & Reports, Justice section. This can be any HCO personnel available, even the HCO Sec. The HCO representative must wear some readily identified HCO symbol and must take a report sheet with a carbon copy on a clip board. HCO must have present other staff adequate to handle possible physical violence. The student, if still present, must be taken to a place where an interview will not stop or enturbulate a class, by Tech Division personnel. This can be any Tech Division office, empty auditing room or empty classroom. The point is to localize the commotion and not stir up the whole Tech Division. If Tech Division personnel is not available HCO can recruit "other staff" anywhere by simply saying "HCO requires you" and taking them into the interview place. HCO has a report sheet for such matters, original and one copy for Justice files. The HCO representative calls for the student's folder and looks it over quickly for TA action. If there is none (less than 10 divs/sess) that's it. It is marked on the report sheet, "No TA action in auditing" or "Little TA". HCO is not interested in what processes were run. Or why there is no TA. If the course requires no meters the folder is inspected for alter-is (which denotes a rough pc) or no case changes. If there are no TA notations in the folder HCO should put the person on a meter, making sure the person is not wearing a ring. One asks no questions, merely reads the TA position and notes the needle and marks these in the report sheet. The Tone Arm will be very high (5 or above) or very low (2 or less) or dead thetan (2 or 3) and the needle would be an occasional RS or stuck or sticky if the person is a Suppressive Person. This is noted in the report sheet. If the folder or the student in question says he has had no case gain this is again confirming of a Suppressive Person. If two of these three points (folder, meter, statement) indicate a Suppressive Person, HCO is looking for two possible students when so called in- the one who caused the upset and that student's coach or student's auditor. There very likely may be a Suppressive Person on the course that is not this student. Therefore one looks for that one too, the second one. If a bit of questioning seems to reveal that the student's auditor was responsible, test that student too, and enter it on a second HCO report form. And order the other one to auditing at the student's own expense. In short be alert. There's been an upset. There may be other persons about who caused it. Don't just concentrate on the student. There is a condition on the course that causes upsets. That is really all one knows. When one walks in on it, find out why and what. If the HCO tests indicate some doubt about either student being a Suppressive Person, HCO asks about a possible withhold and enters any result on the sheet and sends the students and sheet separately to the Tech Division, Dept of Estimation. The procedure is the same for a Suppressive Person but is "a withholdy pc who ARC Breaks easily" or simply "a withholdy PC" if no ARC Breaks are noted. "Auditing recommended". But there is a third category for which HCO is very alert in this interview. And that is the POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE. For this person may only be audited further if he or she disconnects or handles the Suppressive Person or group to which he or she is connected and can't be sent to the HGC or back to the course either until the status is cleared up. 58 If this seems the case, there is no point in continuing the person in the Tech Division and HCO takes over fully, applying the policy related to Potential Trouble Sources. This type of case will probably not be dangerous but quite co-operative, and probably dazed by having to do something about his situation. He or she has been hammered with invalidation by a Suppressive Person and may be rather wobbly but if the Justice steps are taken exactly on policy there should be no trouble. HCO can take a Potential Trouble Source (but never a Suppressive Person) out of the Tech Division premises and back to HCO to complete such briefing. Remember, it is all one to us if the Potential Trouble Source handles it or not. Until it's handled or disconnected we don't want it around as it's just more trouble and the person will cave in if audited under those conditions (connected to a Suppressive Person or group). A Suppressive Person found in an Academy is ordered to HGC processing always. And always at his or her own expense. If the Suppressive Person won't buy auditing, or co-operate, HCO follows steps A to E in policy on Suppressive Persons in the Justice Codes; HCO may be assisted in this by Tech personnel. The point is, the situation must be handled fully there and then. The student buys his auditing or gets A to E. There is no "We'll put you on probation in the course and if. . ." because I've not found it to work. Auditing or Suppressive Person A to E. Or both. THE BLOWN STUDENT The student however may have blown off the premises or he has gone entirely. On a minor, momentary blow, where all it took was the student's auditor and a few words to get the student back, the matter is not a real blow. But where the student leaves the premises in a blow or doesn't turn up for class, the Tech Division must send an Instructor and the student's auditor over to HCO Department of Inspection and Reports. An HCO representative should go with them at once to pick up the student. The student is brought back with as little public commotion as possible and the procedure of HCO checkout, etc is followed as above. THE GONE STUDENT Where the student can't be gotten back (or in all such cases) the real cause may be a Suppressive Person in the Course itself, not the blown student or the upset student. If the Suppressive Person is on the course (and is not the blown student) HCO will want to know this. In all such cases the one who caused the environment may not be the culprit. The HCO representative calls for the blown student's case folder and looks for TA. If there is none or for some reason the student wasn't audited, or if no meters were used on that course, HCO seeks to find out what the case's responses were to processing. If the case seemed to change or improve yet the student is gone, HCO looks over the blown student's ex-auditor for suppressive characteristics such as satisfaction the pc blew, critical statements about tech or instructors, case rough or difficult, lies about the circumstances, etc, and if such signs are present, HCO orders the blown student's ex-auditor to the HGC at the student's own expense. If this interview with the blown student's auditor seems to indicate a Suppressive Person beyond any doubt UCO orders the student to the HGC at the student's own expense. The blown student's course auditor will not be found usually to be a Potential Trouble Source as these are seldom bad or rough auditors, so questions about this possibility don't really apply. 59 But if this student (the blown student's auditor) is Suppressive, it's HGC or A to E. If the student gives on A to E he or she may be returned to course or to the HGC as HCO deems best. ---------- In all such cases where a Suppressive Person is found, watch out for legal repercussions by having reliable witnesses present during such negotiations or upsets and take liberal notes for possible Comm By. This is why there also must be an HCO representative handling it. If there is no agreement to be audited and the student who is found to be a Suppressive Person will not respond to A to B (because student has blown and can't be found or because the student flatly refuses), the student is considered terminated. A waiver or quit claim is given or sent the student stating: Date Place I __________________________________having refused to abide by the Codes of (name and place of org) do hereby waive any further rights I may have as a Scientologist and in return for my course fee of I do hereby quit any claim I may have on (name of org) or any Scientologist personnel or any person or group or organization of Scientology. Signed 2 Witnesses Only when this is signed the student may have his course fee returned, but no other fees as he accepted that service. The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refund. And after signing can only return to Scientology as per policy on Fair Game. The HGC audits such a Suppressive Person sent to it on special processes specially issued by HCO B for Suppressive Persons. It will be found that adherence to these policies will make Academies very calm. Note: Nothing in this policy letter waives or sets aside any policy concerning the auditing of known institutional cases in an HGC. Persons with histories of institutionalized insanity may not be audited in HGC. L. RON HUBBARD P.S. If you've wondered if you are a Suppressive Person while reading this-you aren't! A Suppressive Person never does wonder, not for a moment! THEY KNOW THEY'RE SANE! LRH:wmc.cden Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME: The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP. [From HCO P/L 21 October 1968, Volume 1, page 489.] 60 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1965 Remimeo Issue II All lnstructors' Hats HCO Personnel Hats DIVISION 4 HGC Auditors' Hats TECHNICAL Sthil Executives Sthil Instructors ACADEMIES RELATION TO HCO JUSTICE Sthil Staff Auditors STUDENT TRAINING THE NO-GAIN-CASE STUDENT Instructors MUST be alert for no-case-change cases on course and for "Withholdy pcs who ARC Break easily", "blowy students" and "unstable gains" cases. Even indifferent auditing on even a haphazard course causes good case gains. The minority group of no-case-change in routine course auditing and "withholdy" is very minor. These categories contain all the students who disturb your course, are insolent to instructors, rant against rules, etc. You are under no orders from me that you must please them but you are under orders to report such cases to HCO. YOU ONLY USE DIFFICULT CASE OR STUDENT IN THE ACADEMY AS AN INDICATOR OF SOMETHING WORSE. You aren't a staff auditor but an Instructor. You want proper auditor and case gain of course, and you'll get it (providing when some student says IT didn't work you find out exactly what the student did that didn't work and you'll find it was never what was ordered). However, on cases that are very difficult, watch it! These difficult cases are more than cases. They mean trouble for you from that student and for your class in ways you wouldn't look for. By concentrating on "tough cases" you miss the fact that you have a whole Class to handle. If you want it handled, look rather at what these tough cases do to your class and handle the "tough case" in a way to protect your course, not to make their cases move. IN AN ACADEMY, DON'T TRY TO HANDLE YOUR COURSE ENVIRONMENT WITH STUDENT AUDITING! Handle your course environment with good data, good 8C and discipline and HCO Justice machinery. Your students now have their old course regulations suspended. Instead, the Justice Codes are in. The students are Scientologists. Becoming students gives them no new rights. And it doesn't remove their Justice rights either. I've been through all you go through and I have found, by comparing conduct on a course to conduct in the field afterwards, that the turbulent student is a pc, not a student. He or she makes trouble. On the course and afterwards. The total symptom that alerts you to such a person is "tough case". This is very easy to notice. Just look over the student case folders and note that one or another student doesn't seem to get going. Note the folder you have to work on. That's it. That's your trouble spot on the course. DON'T judge students by "conduct" or speed of study. Judge on "tough case" only. Routine auditing is good unless it's been alter-ised. Routine processes work on good people. The no-case-gain case makes you hunt for magical processes and fatally leads to alter-is. Now hear this: 61 THE PROCESSES YOU HAVE, EVEN WHEN ONLY FAIR, ARE BETTER THAN THE PROCESSES THAT WILL BE DREAMED UP BY STUDENTS OR ANYONE AROUND YOUR COURSE. The processes you use, if altered to "fit" some tough case will cease to work on standard cases when so altered. The "tough case" (who is also the difficult student) is the sole reason one has an urge to alter a process. You must be sure to push routine processes done routinely. When you see a process being altered look for a "tough case" in the pc or the student and call HCO promptly if you find the poor TA type case, the "no change" response to routine processes. Your approach is to run the standard processes in the right grade in the right sequence. That's all you teach students to do and it's all you do in case supervision. When these "don't work" even when you force them to be correctly applied, you have a tough case there. Don't louse up Scientology technology to handle a "tough case". You don't have to invent the processes for it. They already exist in the HGC. When you see alter-is, look for the tough case and let HCO take it from there. We are, after all a team, and as a team we can handle our environment. Your job is just teach and get run the processes of the grade in the right sequence. Your job is to teach students to do just that. Your job is to force the student to run the process that should be run and run it right and to correct any alter-is savagely. Never let some student tell you "it didn't work" without at once plowing in there to look. You will find only one of two things wrong: 1. Your student erred in the wording, sequence or application of the process through lack of study or 2. Either the student auditor or the student pc is a "tough case". Don't let anybody try to vary a process to fit a case. If you do your indicator is obscured in letting anybody fool about it "trying to make a process work" or trying to get inventive just to crack a "tough case". The majority of your course trouble and the tendency to alter-is material comes from trying to force a "tough case" to get gains. Should you alter or advise alteration of a process you are letting our side down. It leads you into teaching students to alter-is and there goes the balloon. It means they won't be able to run standard stuff successfully. And that means (let's be brutal) they will miss, by non-standard auditing, on 90% of their cases, the good people. They will slant all Scientology toward one nut and we'll be a failed mess like psychiatry with our clinics full of psychiatric cases not people. The HGC (and perhaps one course level) is taught to handle "tough cases". The processes for them are standard, too. You must hold the line and answer a student's "didn't work" with "Exactly what didn't work?" and "Exactly what did you do?" and you'll find they didn't do it, or it's a tough case. Either way follow policy. YOU MUST REPORT A TOUGH CASE TO HCO AT ONCE. For there sits a Justice matter, not an Academy problem. It's not your hat. You see the no-gain-case, the "withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily", "the blowy student", "unstable gain student" and your tendency may be to do something original or give the student some different process. If you do you are madly off-policy. In the ordinary Academy Course you are not teaching a "tough case" course. You are teaching a nice fast, workable course for decent average cases. Your majority is com posed of good students. They deserve your time. So this makes the "tough case" student the odd man (or woman) out. They make a lot of commotion so one may think they are "everybody" on a course. They're not. They are seldom higher than 10%. So you risk the 90% of your course and all Scientology just to handle 10%. 62 Could I point out that the Protestant idea of recovering at any expense and considering very valuable any sheep who strayed, was batty. How about the whole flock? Leave them to the wolves while one ran off after one? No, please don't go the route by doing that. It's pretty awful. No, this "tough case" is for the HGC and HCO. And I'd darn well rather you didn't give the person the technology before he straightens out as he'll hurt people with it. Such "tough cases" are possible to salvage. They're just cases. But it takes an HGC to run them and it takes HCO to hold them still so they'll be audited. Remember, we're a team. HCO and HGC are part of the team. Don't steal their hats. The "tough case" is judged only of the basis of case gain or lack of it. The Academy does NOT send students to the HGC for "slow study" or dullness or any other reason except "tough case". That's firm policy. The "tough case" is the only one you send. There are 3 categories of these "tough cases". 1. The Roller Coaster Case. The Potential Trouble Source. A suppressive person is on the other side of this one. The case will get a gain and slump, get a gain and slump over and over. It isn't a "manic-depressive" as the old 19th Century psycho-analyst thought. It's a guy whose marital partner or family is going into fits over this person's connection with Scientology. This is purely a Justice matter and belongs to UCO. He either disconnects or acts. to settle his or her situation. No halfway measures. But you can't do much about that in an Academy. If you did you'd leave your class to the wolves. Get on-line and route this mysterious fellow who can't get a gain without losing it the next day or week over to HCO with a "Please investigate. Possible Potential Trouble Source." Don't even bother to question the student. HCO will find out. It's also illegal to audit them so HCO won't even route to the HGC but will act as per policy on such. Always err on the side of sending HCO too many students rather than risk keeping one who is a liability to us all. But never send merely a course "cut- up" or a lazy student whose case runs well. This policy is only faintly discipline. It is actually excellent technology to a recurring course problem. 2. The Withholdy Case. The withholdy case is routinely ARC Breaking and having to be patched up, commonly blows, has to have lots of hand-holding. As your course possibly isn't at that level it is too much to handle anyway and you're not equipped to handle. But even if your course is equipped to handle the right action is again HCO. Report this student to HCO with the label "Withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily" or "Blow type ease". And get HCO over to the Academy. HCO may route to HGC at the student's own expense or get two tough staff members to stand by while the withholds are explored on a meter in case this is a real Justice case or just a student lunch thief. The reason for all that weird behaviour is always a withhold condition. You can't be bothered. HCO, however, is interested in the NO REPORT aspect of such a case. This person hasn't told all that's sure. HCO can send to HGC or refund or even Comm Ev. 3. The Suppressive Person. The suppressive person does turn up to get trained. And when you train them (a) their case doesn't change, (b) they cheer when their course pc loses and gloom when their course pc wins and (c) they chatter about the horrors of discipline and seek to lead student squirreling or revolt. Their dream is a society wherein the criminal may do anything he pleases without any faintest restraint. We sometimes get loaded up with these characters but they run about 1 or 2 in 80 students usually. This person has no faintest chance of' making it unless handled for what he or she is in an HGC. And if you train such you lend our name to all the chicanery and injury they do with our tech and protect them with our name. You've seen this case in another guise of squirreling- chatter- chatter about phoney past lives when they were Cleopatra and so on invalidating others' actual memories, talking only whole track to raw meat. You've seen this one. It's suppression pure and simple and they know it! And they don't ever get a case change and their ARC Breaks don't heal, etc. etc. etc! The secret here is 63 CONTINUOUS OVERTS which are then withheld. The technical fact is they are quite gone and are SOLVING A PERSONAL BUT LONG GONE PROBLEM BY CONTINUOUS OVERTS. One can actually handle them if one knows this seemingly tiny fact. One finds of course the PTP, not the overts. For one has about as much chance pulling this fellow's overts as moving the Earth by pulling weeds. The suppressive acts this person does are solutions to solve some long long ago problem in which the pc is stuck. To an HGC this is finding conditions of environment the pc has had and discovering how he or she handled them. But this is HCO-HGC business. The longer you wait to notify HCO, the more harm will be done and HCO will get inquisitive as to why there was no report from you on this. For here is the auditor heart breaker, the flatterer, the rumour factory, the 1.1 and the course and group wrecker. Here's "Whee, kill everybody!" in person. Here also is the possible government agent, the AMA BMA stooge. Here is the guy who plans to "squirrel" and "grab Scientology". Here is the boy. Or here is the girl. But here is also a thetan buried in the mud. And if you let this person go without attention he or she will soon become ill or die-or worse will mess up or kill others. This person is the only real psycho. And if you let him drift he'll soon wind up in the brain surgeon's suppressive hands. So it's nothing to overlook. People who have to solve their problems by shooting the rest of us down are what made life such a hell in this Universe. You have your hands on the implanter, the warmonger, the wrecker. But still, this is what's left of a human being and he or she can be salvaged. But only in an HGC, not a course. Please! Here also is the criminal or the sex crazy guy or the pervert who just had to break old Rule 25 (the old no-sex Academy rule). People who are sex crazy are over their heads in a collapsed bank that they've collapsed themselves with overts. Let's be real. This person throws people back in twice as fast as we can pull them out! So why arm him with tech. Put on your label when you send for HCO "No-Case- Change despite good tries with the routine processes taught on this course that was closely supervised in correct application". Let HCO take it from there. It's not Academy business. Your routine procedure on any of the 3 types of case is: 1. Call HCO Department of Inspection and Reports; 2. Minimize disturbance; 3. Hold the student in an empty classroom or auditing room; 4. Stand by to help if things get rough; 5. Help HCO complete its report; 6. Let HCO (and probably HGC) take over from there and get back to your students. If you're going to grow and get your own case changes and have a good time instructing you'll read this very, very carefully and put it very briskly into practice. At first you may not agree that you should be so sharp. It may be a blow to feeling you can crack all cases. You probably can. But man, that's an HGC hat. What are you doing wearing it as an Instructor? By all means crack the routine cases. But the tough Ones? That's HCO and HGC. The bigger we get, the easier all this will be. But now let's make a start in teaching courses that are fun for all by giving the deep six to those who want a mess. Okay? Well, do it, do it, do it. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.cden Copyright ($) 1965 by L Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 64 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 APRIL 1965 Remimeo ETHICS All Tech Div HATS TRAINING AND PROCESSING Preclears REGULATIONS Al Qual Div HATS TECH DIVISION, QUAL DIVISION TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE STUDENTS' QUESTIONS (effective on the Posting of the 1965 Org Board) 1. The only answers permitted to a student's demand for verbal technical data or unusual solutions are "The material is in (HCOB, Pol Letter or tape)." "What does your material state?" "What word did you miss in the (Bulletin, Pol Ltr or tape)?" and (for requests for unusual auditing solutions) "What did you actually do?" Any other answer by Technical Secretaries, Ds of T, Instructors or course personnel is a misdemeanour. 2. Any instructor teaching or advising any method not contained in HCOBs or on tapes, or slighting existing HCOBs, Policy Letters or tapes may be charged with a crime. 3. Any Instructor in any way obscuring the source of technology by wrongly attributing it may be found guilty of a false report. STAFF AUDITORS' ACTIONS 4. Any staff auditor who runs any process on any org pc that is not given in grade and level HCOBs may be charged by the Tech Sec or D of P with a misdemeanour. 5. Any alteration or non-standard rendition of a process is a misdemeanour. 6. Any staff auditor running a pc above the pc's grade instead of for the next grade, or running processes out of sequence in a grade may be charged with a misdemeanour. 7. Any staff auditor reporting falsely verbally or in writing, on an auditor's report may be charged with a crime. 8. Any staff auditor turning in an illegible report may be charged with a no report which is a misdemeanour. 9. Any staff auditor attesting falsely to TA or falsely reporting the flattening of a process may be charged with a misdemeanour. 10. Any staff auditor who receives orders to run an illegal process must report the matter at once to HCO Ethics or Saint Hill, requesting that the person so advising be charged with endangering the staff auditor's job and repute. STUDENT REGULATIONS 11. Former regulations for students are abolished. 12. Students are covered as Scientologists by the HCO Ethics Codes and may request recourse from injustice and have the same privileges as any field Scientologist. 13. Tech Secs, Ds of T, Supervisors and Instructors as well as Qualifications Division 65 personnel may request a Court of Ethics from the Department of Inspection and Reports for any student they find it necessary to discipline under the HCO Ethics Codes such discipline being in lieu of a Committee of Evidence. However the student may request a Committee of Evidence instead if he or she feels a wrong is being done. 14. Any student knowingly altering technology, applying processes improperly or using technology illegally on HGC pcs, on lower unit students or the public while a student may be charged with a misdemeanour. 15. A student damaging another by wilful application of incorrect technology may be charged by his Instructors with a Crime and a Court of Ethics action must be requested by his Instructors. 16. A student falsely enrolling may be charged by the org with a crime. 17. Blowing a course is handled under Suppressive Acts. If so charged the student may have recourse if applied for before 60 days to the Department of Inspection and Reports Ethics Section. PRECLEAR REGULATIONS 18. Preclears are covered by HCO Ethics Codes. 19. A preclear may have recourse when feeling unjustly wronged by applying to the Ethics Section of the Department of Inspection and Reports of the org. 20. A preclear refusing to answer an auditing question may be charged by the staff auditor with a "no report" and taken before a Court of Ethics at once. 21. An HGC or staff preclear must report flagrant breaches of the Auditor's Code to the Ethics Section of the Org, but if the report is false beyond reasonable doubt the preclear may be charged with a Suppressive Act. 22. A student preclear or HGC preclear blowing an org without reporting to the Tech Sec, D of P or the Ethics Section first and who will not permit any auditor to handle the matter at the org where the auditing occurred must be fully investigated at any cost by HCO in the pc's own area. The auditing session must be fully investigated by the Ethics Section and if any Auditor's Code breaks are found to have occurred in that auditing the auditor may be brought before a Court of Ethics. The entire matter and its final results must be reported to the Office of LRH at Saint Hill. 23. Charges against HGC or student preclears may also be made by the Tech Sec, the Qualifications Sec, Ds of T, Ds of P, Instructors and staff auditors. QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION 24. Any person undergoing Review is subject to the same actions as in the HGC or Academy and any personnel of the Qualifications Division may charge students and pcs under the Ethics Codes and bring them before a Court of Ethics. 25. Persons charged by Qualifications Division personnel may request recourse if wronged. 26. The Qualifications Division may request a Court of Ethics on Technical Division personnel, preclears and students for false reports, false attestations and no reports as well as other Ethics matters. And the Technical Division personnel may on their part request a Court of Ethics on Qualifications Division personnel, students or preclears. This policy letter does not change any HCO Codes of Ethics but only augments them for the purposes of assisting peaceful and effective training and processing with the exact technology issued. LRH:wmc.cden L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $ 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard [ Amended by HCO P/L 27 October 1970, Issue II, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Course Supervisor, in the 1970 Year Book.] 66 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 APRIL 1965 Issue II Remimeo TECH & QUAL DIVISIONS TECHNICAL PERSONNEL The first call on all Certified Auditors belongs to the Technical and Qualifications Divisions. Certified Auditors are primarily assigned to these Divisions and are then additionally assigned to other posts. At times of Technical and Qualifications overload, certified auditors may be called upon to take up their technical duties no matter what other Division they may be in; exempting only Executive Secretaries, Secretaries and Directors of Departments who have the staff status number of their post. SKILL The relative technical skill required of technical personnel is as follows: 1. Review Case Cracking Unit 2. Review Cramming Unit 3. Academy 4. HGC 5. Qualifications Division personnel 6. Technical Division personnel. The Director of Processing should, in choosing between two personnel, be the better auditor than the Director of Training, but both should be of high skill. A Qualifications Secretary must, to be other than a Deputy, have higher certificates, grades and status than other personnel in the Qualifications Division and must have been trained as a Review Case cracking auditor in the Saint Hill Department. of Review. The Technical Secretary must have certificates, grades and staff status number senior to or equal to any auditor in the Technical Division and must, to have other than Deputy status, have been interned in the Saint Hill HGC. INTER-DIVISION Inside any Division (but not from one Division to another) Technical personnel may be shifted without it being called a transfer from one department to another or one unit or section to another within the Division. This is true of all Divisions. In Technical and Qualifications Divisions such shifts of post are often valuable in affording a change and gaining experience and understanding. LRH:wmc.rd Copyright ($) 1965 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 67 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 APRIL 1965 Issue III [Excerpt] Remimeo ETHICS REVIEW (Correction to HCO Pol Ltr 24 April 1965 and additional Ethics data) As per HCO P01 Ltr of 28 April 1965, and others of later date, orders to auditing or training may not be made as a sentence or used in an Ethics Court or by a Comm Ev or any other reason. Auditing and training are awards. A student who is disruptive of discipline and acts contrary to the Ethics Codes may not be ordered to Review by the D of P, D of T or Ethics personnel or other persons in an org. ORDERING STUDENTS & PCs Tech and Qualifications personnel, particularly the Tech Sec and Qual Sec and D of Estimations, the D of P and D of T, D of Exams and D of Review and D of Certs may order students or pcs to Review or to course or to HGC or anywhere in and around these two Divisions without any Ethics action being implied. It is just normal, done to get students and pcs on the road to higher levels. Ethics actions may only suspend training or deny auditing. Therefore, a student ordered to Ethics for discipline who does not then give adequate promise and example of good behaviour and compliance must be thoroughly investigated even to his or her own area and in the meanwhile may not be trained or processed. The student, however, may not be dismissed or expelled unless full Ethics actions and procedures have been undertaken. All sentences carrying a denial of training or processing must carry a means of the right to be trained or processed being restored in a specified time or under specified conditions. STUDENTS AND PCs & ETHICS The routine action of Ethics is to request a reappraisal of behaviour and a signed promise of good behaviour for a specified time. If the student or pc refuses to so promise, then the next action of Ethics is an investigation of the student's course or pc's processing behaviour. When then confronted with the data, if the student still refuses to promise, Ethics undertakes a full investigation in the student's or pc's own area. If the student or pc still refuses to co-operate, the student goes before a Court of Ethics which may pass sentence. RECOURSE Only after sentence has been passed by a legal body such as a Court of Ethics or Committee of Evidence or after an illegal disciplinary action may a student or pc ask for a recourse. Normally before asking for recourse a student or pc petitions the Office of L. Ron Hubbard if unwilling to accept the discipline but this must be done at once. If the petition is unfavourably acted upon, the student or pc may ask for recourse. Recourse must be requested of the Convening Authority that had local jurisdiction over the student or pc and may not be requested of higher authority. A request to higher authority than the Ethics activity that passed sentence is a petition, not recourse. LRH:jw.cden.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Note: A complete copy of this Policy Letter can be found in Volume 1, pages 395--398.} 68 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 JULY 1965 Tech Div Hats Qual Div Hats TECH DIVISION Etbics Hats QUAL DIVISION Executive Hats ETHICS CHITS This is a VERY important policy. When it is neglected the org will soon experience a technical dropped statistic and lose income and personnel. The most attacked area of an org is its Tech and Qual personnel as these produce the effective results which make Scientology seem deadly to Suppressives. The Suppressive is TERRIFIED of anyone getting better or more powerful as he is dramatizing some long gone (but to him it is right now) combat or vengeance. He or she confuses the old enemies with anyone about and looks on anyone who tries to help as an insidious villain who will strengthen these "enemies". Thus Tech and Qual personnel are peculiarly liable to covert, off line, off policy annoyances which in time turn them into PTSs. Their cases will Roller Coaster and they begin to go off line, off policy and off origin (see Dev-T Pol Ltrs) themselves. This results in a technical breakdown and an apparency of busyness in these divisions which does not in fact produce anything, being Dev-T. The policy then is: NO TECH OR QUAL PERSONNEL MAY OMIT GIVING ETHICS CHITS TO ETHICS ON ANY INCIDENT OR ACTION COVERED IN THE DEV-T POLICY LETTERS OR WHICH INDICATES SP OR PTS ACTIVITY. This means they may not "be decent about it" or "reasonable" and so refrain. This means they must know their Ethics and Dev-T Pol Ltrs. This means they may not themselves act like Ethics Officers or steal the Ethics hat. It means that they must chit students who bring a body and ask for unusual solutions; they must chit all discourteous conduct; they must chit all Roller Coaster cases; they must chit all Suppressive actions observed; they must chit snide comments; they must chit alter-is and entheta; they must chit derogatory remarks; they must chit all Dev-T. Anything in violation of Ethics or Dev-T Pol Ltrs must be reported. Ethics will find then that only two or three people in those areas are causing all the upset. This fact routinely stuns Tech and Qual personnel when it is called to their attention-that only two or three are making their lives miserable. Ethics, seeing tech statistics drop, must investigate all this and WHEN ETHICS FINDS the Qual and Tech personnel have not been handing in Ethics chits, the Ethics Officer must report them to the HCO Exec Sec for disciplinary action. NON ENTURBULATION ORDER What to do with the 2 or 3 students or pcs causing trouble? Ethics issues a Non Enturbulation Order. This states that those named in it (the SPs and PTSs who are students or preclears) are forbidden to enturbulate others and if one more report is received of their enturbulating anyone, an SP order will be issued forthwith. This will hold them in line until tech can be gotten in on them and takes them off the back of Tech and Qua! personnel. NOT THEORETICAL This is not a theoretical situation or policy. It is issued directly after seeing tech results go down, Tech and Qual cases Roller Coaster and results drop. Ethics found that the entire situation came about through no chits from Tech and Qual personnel about troublesome people which resulted in no restraint and a collapse of Divisions 4 and 5 Comm lines and results. When Tech and Qua! personnel try to take the law into their own hands, or ignore issuing Ethics chits, chaos results, not case gains. Keep Tech Results UP. LRH:mh.cden L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 69 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OP 5 JULY 1965 Gen Non Remimeo ASSIGNMENT OF TECH PERSONNEL The Director of Review has first, immediate and urgent call on all auditors not on duty due to the reason of their pcs being in Review. Any waiting list has first call on auditors whose pcs have just been completed. If there is no waiting list, such auditors are also on call to Review. If there is no call by the Director of Review, first call on the auditors is by the Director of Tech Service (Dept 10). If the Director of Tech Service has no use for them, the third priority on idle auditors is Dir Comm for Expediters. COURSE SUPERVISORS First call on Course Supervisors who have no students or whose classes have been combined so as to leave them with no students is the D of P. Second call is Academy Admin and third call is Dir Comm and nothing may interrupt any of these priorities. LRH:rnh.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 JULY 1965 Amends and cancels HCO Policy Letter of 5 July 1965 Gen Non Remimeo ASSIGNMENT OF TECH PERSONNEL QUAL DIV Auditors are fully assigned by name to the Qual Div. The practice of borrowing auditors from the Tech Div confuses the lines. Assign enough auditors to Review to take care of the work. If it is too consistently an overload, assign additional auditors, but on a permanent org board basis, not a daily borrowing. TECH DIV First call on the auditors of the HGC who are not working is the Dir of Tech Service (Dept 10). If the Director of Tech Service has no use for them, the second priority on idle auditors is Dir Comm for Expediters. COURSE SUPERVISORS First call on Course Supervisors who have no students or whose classes have been combined so as to leave them with no students is the D of P. Second call is Academy Admin and third call is Dir Comm and nothing may interrupt any of these priorities. LRH:ml.cden.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 70 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JULY 1965 Remimeo All Tech Hats Tech Div All Qual Hats Qual Div RELEASES, POLICY ON Every HGC auditor and executive and every person in the Qua! Division must be checked out on the following materials rapidly as soon as put on staff. The final result of lower level auditing is Release. If an auditor cannot detect it and if executives do not know what to do with it, FANTASTIC ERRORS WILL OCCUR THAT WILL ARC BREAK PCS WITH THE ORG. This is the major area of technical goofs-messing up Releases. If an auditor does not recognize floating needles and TA position even at Level 0, he or she will miss the point where the pc goes Release and will continue to audit the PC. CLEAR PHENOMENA ON THE METER Books 1. E-Meter Essentials, pages 17 and 18, paragraphs 40, 41,42,43,44,45,46 and 47. HCO Policy Letters 1. Meter Checks-2 April 1965, paragraph entitled "Release Check". SEC EDs 1. SEC ED 65 INT, 29 June 1965, Org Boom in Releases. HCO Executive Letters 1. Data on Releases, 6 July 1965, page 2, number 7. 2. Former Release Programme, 5 July 1965, page 2, paragraph 2. The Auditor 1. The Auditor, 8, page 3, column 1, paragraph 5. HCO Bulletins 1. Model Session Revised, 3 July 1965, "Release Reached", paragraph 2. RELEASES, VITAL DATA HCO Policy Letters 1. Power Processes 28 April 1965 2. Release Award 4 May 1965 3. Releases, Vital Data 10 May 1965 4. Power Processes 20 May 1965 5. Memorandum of Agreement 21 May 1965 6. 6 Power Processes 14 June 1965 7. Releases 6 July 1965 8. Release Policies 12 July 1965 71 SEC EDs 1. 47 INT 2. 50 TNT 3. 51 TNT 4. 58 INT 5. 59 INT 6. 64 INT 7. 65 INT HCO Executive Letters 1. The Future Programme 3 May 1965 2. Saint Hill Courses 23 May 1965 3. Data on BPC and Releases 10 June 1965 4. Snap and Pop 11 June 1965 5. More Data on Release 29 June 1965 6. Data on Releases 6 July 1965 Auditor 8 1. Article, "The Road to Clear". Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart 1. Chart 2. HCO Policy Letter, Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart, 5 May 1965. TECHNICAL MATERIALS OF RELEASE HCO Bulletins 1. Clear and OT Behaviour 8 June 1965 2. Releases, Different Kinds 28 June 1965 3. Release Rehabilitation of Former Releases and Thetan Exterior 30 June 1965 4. Model Session Revised 3 July 1965 5. States of Being Attained by Processing 12 July 1965 HCO Policy Letters 1. HGC PC Review Auditing Form 26 June 1965 L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 72 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 JULY 1965 Gen Non Remimeo TECH DIV & REGISTRAR TESTING All psychology type testing is herewith abandoned on HGC and Academy lines (not public lines). This means the OCA, APA, IQ and tests of any other description. The reasons are as follows: 1. Testing makes registration lines hard to manage. 2. Tests test only what a person knew and do not test an increase of awareness. They changed because of valence changes. Releasing has shown they do not test increased capacity to learn or live or the pc's new potential but Only test the pc's data awareness, all of which comes from the pc's past. A person knows only what he knew. Releasing and Clearing give back the ability to observe, know and act. Any data returned to the pc was data he knew before arid was occluded. But this doesn't show up on psychology type tests. 3. Different tests would be required to demonstrate what increase the pc has had. The old type test, measuring valence shifts, invalidate a pc's gains. He feels good, is alert and aware. The test only tests what he knew. Therefore until new tests are developed that do show the current state of the pc, the old type tests will not be used. Example - A Released OT can tell you a great deal of newly observed data but, tested on psychology tests can only say what he knew about life and cannot tell you what he now knows because he is just now knowing it. Not having seen a baby since going Released UT, he can only answer how he knew he reacted to babies. How he reacts now to babies is unknown to him since there are no babies around to react to. 4. The tests can be thrown by certain processes almost any way you wish in very short times. IQ can be raised giddily by rehabilitating the ability to withhold (DC HGC used this during an ACC with phenomenal results in IQ gain). You can shift valences on a pc almost at will with "Where would be safe?" and other processes. But when you clean up the pe himself you have what he knew or how he reacted and this is not yet known at the time tests are given after processing. Pes are more apt to know what they don't know in an increased awareness, coming off the manic of pretended knowing or false data. 5. Modern processing by grades is not clued by any test we use. We once had to have tests to tell us what to run. We now have advanced too far to need the data. ALLOWED USE OF TESTS Tests may be used as a Public Service, on Introductory Evening Lectures, by Field Staff Members or in any way as a purely promotional item to give people a reality on their cases to invite auditing. Once they have bought training or processing the tests have no further value. PRESERVATION OF TESTS All test files in an org must be carefully preserved. They are a gold mine of Research and Promotional material and are extremely valuable, NO TESTS TO SAINT HILL No further copies of pc tests or graphs need be sent to Saint Hill. Auditor-Pc attestation forms (LRH Daily Report) and Certs and Awards copies are sent instead as described in Policy Letters. LRH:mh.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 73 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 JULY 1965 Remimeo Tech Hats Qual Hats Tech Div Qual Div RELEASE DECLARATION RESTRICTIONS HEALING AMENDMENTS The following three policies emerged from a Comm Ev conducted at Saint Hill 23 July 1965. RELEASE RESTRICTED No person who is dependent for his or her livelihood upon a Suppressive Person or Group, may be awarded any Release award declaration or pin as such a person is not re!eased in his environment. No person who is dependent for his or her livelihood upon compensation being paid for physical or mental disability, may be awarded any Release award declaration or pin as there is too much vested interest in remaining disabled. HEALING AMENDED All students of any course are debarred from visiting any medical or healing practitioner unless they are given an Ethics clearance first and all possibility of "roller-coaster" (sudden case decline) has been looked into and any suppressives or bad auditing precisely isolated. The exception is an emergency involving severe injury or infectious disease, but in this case the student must be cleared by Ethics to be permitted back on course or even in the org. This includes all accidents. Course Supervisors are subject to Comm Ev in not so routing students requesting to see a doctor. All students must have permission to see a medical doctor except in cases of severe emergency. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.bp.cden Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 74 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1965 Issue IV Gen Non Remimeo SOME TECH DIV POLICIES (Preserved policy from former Policy Letters which have been cancelled) LEGAL ASPECTS OF SIGN UPS No persons may be admitted to an Academy or HGC who have not signed waivers (release forms) of the old type. All such waivers must include a statement that the person is there on his or her own determinism and that the person has no record of being committed in an institution or has a criminal record for felony. Persons with such commitments or records should be referred to a field auditor near their home and refused training or processing at the organization. Persons suspected of purely medical illness should be referred to a doctor for competent treatment if such a doctor or treatment exists. Minors must have their parents or guardians sign the waiver and any note for time payments. Known trouble sources as per recent HCO Policy Letter, all of which remains in force, should be required to straighten up their lives before enrolling or signing up for processing or should be forthrightly refused. Anyone objecting to an E-Meter check should be refused entrance. Thus by keeping the legal aspects straight you will be able to help the many and not be messed up by a few. For a very few such people (21 to be exact) were the sole sources of grief in the 1950 boom. To have a boom, you have to keep your nose clean legally or you can be stopped by the enturbulence generated, both in the org and the public. Such enturbulence is all that shortens your lines or overworks staff. HUSBAND-WIFE TEAMS ENTERING ACADEMIES Husband-Wife teams should not be forbidden. But in all cases where husband and wife are trained to co-audit each other they must mail their auditors' reports routinely to the D of P for which they will be charged a nominal but real fee for case supervision. Professional auditors or co-auditors who use auditing in or out of an Academy to estrange husbands and wives are subject to a Court of Ethics at their nearest HCO on any 2nd Dynamic misconduct complaint from either party, husband or wife, and a penalty up to suspension of certificate may be sentenced the offender if proven guilty. During training it is against policy to team husbands and wives together for practice drills even when they will be co-auditing after leaving class. Where possible husbands and wives should, however, be persuaded to bring another couple to be trained rather than co-audit and it should be arranged that the wife audits the other wife and the husband the other husband after training. In this case it is all right to team them in any pairing under training for drills. SCHOLARSHIPS No scholarships are now allowed. COURSE FEES STANDARDIZED Any course taught in a continental zone must conform to that zone's course fees, and it must be approved by Saint Hill and not altered. OUTSIDE COURSES As present day level courses require a full Tech Division plus a full Qualifications Division plus an Ethics Officer, no Academy courses may be given outside Academy premises. 75 PE COURSES (BS COURSE) PE Courses will still be taught by field auditors and franchise holders, which is the BS Course. They result in a BEGINNING SCIENTOLOGIST certificate. STUDENTS A course completion is a check sheet not a time period or a classification. It is now a crime to run a course without a check sheet or to change a check sheet on a student after it's issued. A different check sheet can be issued to the next student that enrolls on that very same course. But once issued, the same one is completed for a course completion of that course and the student gets his certificate for the Level when it is and can take his exam for class. There are 2 check sheets actually-Theory and Practical. Both should be complete before you let a student go to the next certificate. COURSE TIMES All courses in all orgs enroll any time of any day. No special courses for certain dates will be tolerated in any org. Magazines should say "Enrolls any time" after every course in every Academy Ad. If you don't you go mad trying to get pcs every week for ad money and wind up with a psychiatric ward for an HGC. The check sheet system used now at Saint Hill for levels fits every course nicely and requires no "every 4 weeks". Saint Hill enrolls all week long! Further, Supervisors in Scientology must not personally lecture students on technology. If you want a current check sheet for a level write your comm-member (HCO Pol Ltr of 13 March 1965) at Saint Hill. "CLEARS" Sell Release with confidence. Only squirrelling on levels and rough ARC Break handling can prevent it. The total rundown of processes is easy to groove in in an HGC and should be adhered to violently if you want to get results and releases. It's no myth now. RELEASED STUDENTS Students who are releases have to do all the required auditing as an auditor. And get it passed. Release is an honorary, not a technical award. But a truly floating needle release may not be further audited except for Power Processes. A student doesn't know more about Scientology just because he's released. He just learns faster. So the released student must do all his auditing on pcs, subjective and objective. If you don't have any raw meat for a student to do all his levels on, make the student scrounge his own pcs off the street or citydump. Remember, don't panic on release. It means the student like any other student must do all his required check sheets and go on up, level by level just like every other student. PLEDGING CODES Applications for certificate must be made by every student. This should give how they want their name on the certificate, address, and the routing of the student out of the org, CF routing and all that. This application must also carry a pledge stating that the applicant subscribes to and promises to uphold the Auditor's Code, the Code of a Scientologist and it must state he is informed of and will follow the policies relating to gradation and classification. CITY OFFICE AND CENTRAL ORG COURSES City Offices may teach BS, HAS and HQS Courses. Central Orgs teach these and may teach Level courses according to their status of org-these courses being HRS by Class 0 orgs, HTS by Class I orgs (plus the HRS), Class II orgs teach HRS, HTS and HCA, Class III orgs teach HRS, HTS, HCA and HPA. In 1968 Central Orgs will also be given permission to teach HAA if they have attained Class IV status. LRH:ml.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Modified by HCO P/b 12 October 1972 Issue I, Sign-Up Made Simple, which was cancelled by HCO P/L 1 December 1972 Issue IX of the same title, also modifying the above policy letter, in the 1972 Year Book.] 76 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1965 Issue II Saint Hill issue only STUDENT AND PC REPORTS The Saint Hill Technical Division regularly receives student and pc reports from its junior orgs. These should be checked over by Tech as per usual Pol and then sent to Central Files. Central Files DOES NOT file them; The Central Files Officer only checks them against CF to be sure we have their addresses. He then sends the preclear reports to the Dept of Success which files them by area. Both student reports and HGC reports are both so filed. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.kd Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 DECEMBER 1965 [Amended 16 January 1970] Remimeo E-METERS ALLOWED The Listing E-Meter and Mark V are the only meters allowed for use in the Dept of Processing, Dept of Training, and the Qualifications Division. This was announced in Auditor 10 and now becomes policy. Further, students in training must have their own E-Meter. This policy must be enforced if you expect to turn out auditors who can audit. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright ($) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 77 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 FEBRUARY 1966 Gen Non-Remimeo Issue III Applies to Saint Hill HGC CURE Info other orgs INTERNE TRAINING AND STAFF AUDITORS (Results from Comm Ev 1 Feb 66 and my studies of situation) Interne and staff auditor and course supervisor training and the training of Tech Division executives and any and all staff training of whatever kind is transferred herewith to the Qualifications Division Department of Review. (This does not include staff members taking standard courses in the Tech Div at night.) The severe drop in the Tech Division's HGC completion statistics which began on 17 Nov 65 and reached bottom 14 Dec 65 and which did not properly recover had only one large change connected with it: HGC Interne training was transferred from the Qual Division to the Tech Division. Mending a statistic fall consists of locating the change that preceded it and undoing that change. This has been done in this Policy Letter by returning Interne training and staff auditor training back to Qua!. The Committee of Evidence of 1 Feb 66 revealed that the then Director of Processing did not believe it possible to alter or change a statistic, that one could only explain and justify one. It is possible also that the feeling that one could not change a case was forced on staff auditors at that time. On this possibility, anyone taking charge of interne and staff auditor training should stress the truth that an auditor can change cases and can change them as fast as his auditing is smooth and by-the-book. An auditor gets completions in exact ratio to the letter perfectness of his auditing and his adherence to the exact technology we now have in Scientology. The Qual Sec need not necessarily change Interne Supervisors or times of training unless he sees fit. It is pointed out that he is held responsible for the quality of HGC auditor performance and technical knowledge and how he achieves this is up to him. The Director of Processing is held responsible for the amount of auditing time put in on pcs. Should results not occur by reason of poor auditor performance on the advice of the Case Supervisor he should order the auditor to Qua!. And if the results are not forthcoming by reason of non-compliance with the Case Supervisor's orders he should order the auditor to Ethics for a hearing. If an auditor auditing in and for the HGC receives an order from the D of P or the Case Supervisor that is non-standard or is an extra-ordinary solution he must file a job endangerment Chit with Ethics at once and may not execute the instruction. The principal duties of the D of p are to get auditors putting in auditing time and getting lots of pcs done and interview pcs to check flatness or unflatness of processes. Checking must be done with a minimum of waiting time by the auditor and pc. The D of P does not check out release grade attainments as this is done by the Qual Examiner and any double examination (by both D of P and Qual Examiner) must be held to a minimum. The D of P also musters his auditors before the morning session and before the afternoon session and hands out folders at these times with a minimum of session time loss. The Case Supervisor does the folders. The Case Supervisor does not interview cases but runs them by the book and folder. When a Case Supervisor interviews cases or discusses them with the D of P or auditor it has been found that only then do errors creep in and hold up progress. Therefore the Case Supervisor and D of P must not occupy the same office. The Case Supervisor may not take technical orders from the D of P. The Case Supervisor is under the Tech Sec, not the D of P. The D of P looks after staff auditors and Internes as Org personnel and is their immediate superior. The D of P is responsible for staff auditor procurement without absolving HCO's personnel officer from it. 78 That auditors are on the job on time and are putting in their session time and their conduct and their actions as staff members are all m the province of the D of P. The Qua! Div's Dir Rev may remove an auditor from the active processing list if he believes that auditor is not sufficiently trained but if so must either take action to further train or inform the Qua! Sec the auditor may not be permitted to audit, the Qual Sec informing the HCO Area Sec to transfer the person or dismiss. Before the D of P can assign an auditor to audit he must have an ok chit from Dir Rev. The Leading Auditor idea may be preserved or discarded at the discretion of the D of P. The D of P assigns auditors to specific cases. This is done by Tech Services in actual fact but only after consultation with or approval of the D of P. The Case Supervisor may order a staff auditor to review for clumsiness or to Ethics for non-compliance but must do so through the D of P on whose actual authority it is done. The daily summary of results by the HGC is compiled by the Case Supervisor and promptly posted on a public board. Auditors sent to Ethics or Review and pcs Sent to Ethics or Review are noted by name on this board. TABLE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR HGC STAFF AUDITORS AND INTERNES Org Exec Sec - Full responsibility for quantity and quality of service. Qual Sec - Training arrangements for all Tech Personnel and Internes. Satisfied pcs. Dir Exams - Authority to Declare. Dir Rev - OK to Audit chits, repair of goofs. Actual training. Satisfied pcs. Dir Certs & Awards - Declares pc awards. Chaplain - Port of refuge for pcs and auditors when all else fails. Tech Sec - Completion Statistic of the Tech Div, Executive Personnel appointments, general adherence to plan and design. D of P - Staff Auditors and Internes as Staff Members, PC auditor assignment, auditing quarters state of and assignment, Ethics and Review routing authority, auditor procurement, pc procurement, checkouts for flatness of processes, head of Dept. Case Supervisor - All Case Folders, results on cases, indicating auditors and pcs to Review or Ethics or Declare, posting results, adherence to proper technology. HCO Area Sec - Taking effective action on down graphs that don't recover at once. Ethics Officer - All Ethics actions referred or found necessary. Personnel Officer- Staff Auditor Procurement. Dir Registration - New Internes. I wish to point out that these were more or less the arrangements which existed prior to the slump in November, and which were in force when I was Case Supervisor. I, as Exec Dir SH, hold the Org Exec Sec SH and through her the Tech Sec SH and Qual Sec SH responsible for seeing that these orders and arrangements are carried out exactly for only these will cure the HGC slump. And they will cure it only if exactly performed. ----------- Note: This instance of a slumped statistic brings to view a curious phenomenon I noted while studying it. Apparently there is a natural law that "where interdependence does not exist, a slump may occur". This applies to life, but it apparently is vital to an org. Where a function of an org does not have lines across two or more portions of an org, the function may slump. In this case the action of auditing and responsibility for results as earlier organized crossed Tech, Qua! and HCO, 3 divisions. When Interne and staff auditor training was dropped into Tech along with the auditing also the tension went out of the line and the statistic slumped. 79 If this law is so, then any function of an org that is not dependent on 2 or more portions of the org may slump. And on checking up I have found that only those functions at Saint Hill which do not have lines into two or more divisions are already slumped. Thus a possible principle of organization exists-that a line, to function, must cross divisions. A staff member, being a terminal must not cross divisions. But lines of functions must. This is only a comment but is curious enough to be remarked. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 FEBRUARY 1966 Remimeo Tech Div Qual Div STAFF AUDITOR AND SUPERVISOR PROCUREMENT The Director of Processing is responsible for procuring qualified staff auditors, regardless of any action by Dept 1, Div 1. This has always been the case and always will be. The Director of Training is responsible for procuring Academy or College Supervisors regardless of any action by Dept 1 Div 1. Neither of these policies absolves Dept 1 Div 1 from the procurement of staff Auditors and Supervisors. QUAL DIV TRAINS STAFF The Qualifications Division trains staff Auditors, Internes, Supervisors, Ds of T, Ds of P and Tech Secs. No other division than Qualifications may train staff. ----------- Note: A recent slump in Tech statistics at Saint Hill followed at once in a shift of training of Internes from Qual to Tech Divisions. Note: A slump in HGC completions was traced to the Tech Sec and D of P taking no interest or action in procuring HGC Auditors. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.cden Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 80 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 FEBRUARY 1966 Remimeo Issue II Tech Hats Qual Hats Ethics Hats TECH RECOVERY My study of a Nov 1965 plummeting HGC Completion statistic indicates certain policies are necessary in all HGCs and Qua! Divisions. The following errors were found: 1. The HGC ceased to look for former release grades to rehabilitate and ignored opportunities to do so on the basis that "outer orgs have rehabbed them all already". This came out in the Comm Ev held on a D of P of that period. Of course, if the HGC failed to rehab earlier grades (or earlier life overruns) it could achieve no later grades or Grade V. This alone would have ended completions promptly on all grades and wiped out the graph. 2. Invalidation of the appearance of a free needle and invalidating any auditor who "thought he saw one". This wiped out all release attainments and made for total overrun of all pcs of all grades. This error existed for 15 years so it is not surprising that it got back in again. 3. Whenever an overrun occurred, "rehabilitation of it" was done by running different new processes instead of standard rehab routine as in HCOBs, i.e. Doing ARC Break, PTPs, Rudiments, anything but a real rehab of that process that was overrun. 4. Abandonment of standard tech in favour of unusual solutions. This is always present when a collapse of Tech occurs. 5. One SP was found in the middle of all this but after his departure the statistic did not recover so one can assume another SP was in the middle of it still or that the HGC remained PTS and didn't separate from the SP found because he was so convincing, so reasonable and so persuasive as to why a Tech statistic must remain down. ------------ It is interesting that (1) above-ceasing to rehab lower grades-would be absolutely fatal to any upper grades. Therefore this becomes policy: NO UPPER GRADE OF RELEASE MAY BE BEGUN NEWLY ON A PC UNTIL ALL LOWER GRADES ARE FULLY REHABBED TO FREE NEEDLE. THIS APPLIES TO ALL GRADES 0 TO VII. Regarding (2)-Invalidation of what a free needle is-and thus running past all free needles, let it be noted that this is an Auditor's Code Break- continuing a process that has ceased to produce change and is therefore a crime. This was wrong too long to be allowed to go wrong again. Thus we get the policy: AN AUDITOR WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE OVERRUN A FREE NEEDLE ON A PRECLEAR MUST BE GIVEN AN ETHICS CHIT; AND IF THE ACTION IS SEVERAL TIMES REPEATED, ETHICS MUST ORDER A FULL REVIEW OF THE AUDITOR'S CASE INCLUDING AN EYESIGHT TEST AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH ETHICS INVESTIGATION AND HEARING. Note that a Mark V Meter run with too high a sensitivity does not give a marked change when a needle floats. Thus sensitivity must be reduced in ordinary running and increased only to get in rudiments. Then a free needle becomes more visible. A Mark V cranked up to 128 Sensitivity looks like a floating needle all the time at a casual glance on most pcs. Sensitivity 5 is ample. Also, meters go out of 5,000 ohm calibration and don't read on the M and F "Clear" reads and change of electrodes can change M and F "Clear" reads. A free needle, if a process is overrun vanishes with just one extra command so an auditor must be alert. Please also note that this has been part of the Auditor's Code for ages- running past a flat point of a process has been forbidden since the first formulations of the Auditor's Code. 81 Regarding (3)-Rehabilitation by using other processes-the HCOBs on rehabs are very explicit. To run another process would clobber the pc. Thus we get the policy: REHABILITATIONS MUST BE DONE BY REHABILITATING THE PC ONLY ON THE PROCESS OVERRUN AND ONLY BY STANDARD HCOBS ON REHAB PROCEDURE. Re (4)-Unusual solutions-we get the policy: ANY AUDITOR ACCEPTING AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION WITHOUT FILING A JOB ENDANGERMENT CHIT OR FOUND USING AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION MUST BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND GIVEN AN ETHICS HEARING. FAILING TO REPORT AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION ADVISED OR USED IS ALSO SO HANDLED. AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION IS ONE EVOLVED TO REMEDY AN ABUSE OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. On (5)-Statistic failing to recover after an SP is spotted in a department gives us the 2 policies: WHENEVER AN SP IS DISCOVERED AND DECLARED IN AN ORGANIZATION ALL HIS ASSOCIATES IN THAT PORTION OF THE ORG MUST BE CHECKED OUT FOR OR GIVEN AN S & D. and WHEN AN SP IS DISCOVERED IN AN ORGANIZATION, IS DISMISSED OR REMOVED AND THE STATISTIC DOES NOT RECOVER, ANOTHER SP MUST BE LOOKED FOR. --------- It is noted that the general condition of the Completion Statistic of Dec 65 to Jan 66 could be attributed to the above gross errors. It is now certain that (1) Rehabilitation of earlier grades, (2) Free Needle and (3) Rehabilitation by standard practice are primary targets in our technology for anyone seeking to mess it up and that unwitting tampering with these three things and lack of HCO Enforcement on them will reduce HGC statistics and prevent their recovery. Of course one could also go mad in the opposite direction-( I) rehabilitate earlier grades endlessly on a pc regardless of how many times a free needle had been obtained, (2) call any loosening up of a needle a free needle and (3) refuse to even 2-way comm with a pc under repair for overrun for fear it violates standard procedure for rehab. The middle course is the correct course in this case. Relax and just be very sure the pc has been properly rehabbed to free needle on each grade up to the one one is going to start by demanding the awards of release that were granted and if these weren't ever awarded, then do the rehabs necessary grade by grade. The only sticky point in this is that if a pc had ever been run on a higher grade without rehab of a lower, one must rehab "from the top down" at times, tackling the highest overrun first, but nevertheless doing all of them that were by-passed eventually. The way to recognize a free needle is watch for one. When it happens you will see one. Then you will never afterwards wonder. The free needles. available on a case can all be swallowed up by a failure to rehab all grades ever by- passed or overrun. If no free needles show up on a case at all then partially rehab any grade available for rehab back and forth until one has one of them go free needle and then get a free needle on the remainder. Life can also be an overrun and a pc never audited will respond to a rehab of "something overdone". This doesn't mean the pc went release before Scientology-it means that purpose overrun then jams-rehab of life situations of overrun consists of hitting the purpose that was overrun and when this is hit, the pc goes release in PT and was not a release in the past. An example is an overrun located in 20 AD when the person, alert to Christianity decided to be good, made it and then overran it for 1945 years. When the purpose was found (to be good) and dated and the overrun spotted the needle went free. Rough auditing, bad TRs, "letting the pc Itsa", etc can swallow up free needles. Also a totally ARC Broke meter that won't read at all with bad indicators all over the place won't record a read, looks sometimes like a floating needle, the difference being the pc has total bad indicators-sour, mean, sad, etc. A free needle occurs most often after a big cognition and the unskilled auditor looks at the pc who is being bright and interesting and just doesn't see the needle float, asks more questions and overruns, and the free needle vanishes-when a pc is cogniting, look at the meter not the pc. And the instant the TA starts up and the needle goes sticky suspect an overrun and check. 82 As for doing something else rather than Standard Procedure for rehab, plain ignorance can cause it. The auditor's desire to help the PC if unaccompanied by solid tech background leads to wild efforts, new processes and anything but cool standard procedure.. When the person checking out pcs is also the case supervisor, unusual solutions creep in. The most errors I've seen made by a Case Supervisor were made after he had seen the pc or talked with the auditor. Cases have to berun by report only and auditors have to be supervised and their sessions listened to by somebody else besides the Case Supervisor. Tech is Tech. There is such a thing as Standard Tech. Pc wild tales and hollow eyes and auditor hobby horses have-to be kept off Case Supervisor lines. So there must be a person who checks out pcs and supervises auditors and their auditing performance but who never opens his or her face to suggest instructions about the PC and only writes down that the auditor is rough or the process is flat or the process is overrun. The Case Supervisor lives in an Ivory tower. Sounds strange but unless it's done that way, wild departures from Standard Rehab Procedure and from Standard Tech in general will occur. Hell, all psychiatry went down that drain-the desperate patient, the desperate measures. Squirrelling stems from the Case Supervisor being the auditor supervisor and the pc interviewer. Oil, water, being in two divisions, Commies and Fascists, dogs and cats won't mix. Neither will the personal contacter of auditors and pcs and the Case Supervisor ever successfully stay crossed. The individual practitioner breaks down only because he does both auditing and Case Supervision. Auditing is an organization action which is why today we have Field Staff Members and HGCs. Additional notes of things discovered in the investigation of the plummeted statistic on Completions were: 1. Auditors rabbiting out of uncertainty and so stumbling past End Phenomena and floating needles. 2. Case Supervisor getting auditors to ask leading questions on Pr Pr 2-"Ask the pc if he is interested in Medical Practices". 3. D of P: "Find out what the needle is floating on". 4. Case Supervisor: Told auditor that a floating needle was not the End Phenomenon of a Process in which "the TA had to be run out". 5. Lack of knowledge and understanding of the Technology and not knowing the difference between such things as Anaten, Secondaries and Engrams by Case Supervisor, D of P, and so confusing auditors. ----------- Of course the one thing one can't technically overcome is an SP keeping an area messed up. His case doesn't improve because of his intentions and overts and fear of people getting better or being bigger than he. When an SP dominates an area, only Ethics actions can handle. The primary indicator of the presence of an SP in an org is a plummeting statistic immediately after he starts handling a portion of it. Indifferent leadership, even inaction can't drive a statistic down. Only active suppression can. So watch the statistics and don't get reasonable when they fall. Either outside the org suppression has been brought down on that portion of the org, making it PTS or there is an SP there. The final answer is what happened just before the statistic fell. If a new appointment was made and it fell, unappoint it fast. If nothing cures the down statistic find the SP or handle the PTS situation because one or the other are there. Completions stayed down for 15 years. Then we found auditors never noticed free needles. Now for Heaven's sakes, 15 years was enough. Don't repeat the error! It does work you know. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 83 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MARCH 1966 Remimeo All Scn Staff Tech & Qual HGC CURE (Continued) Long after I thought the final findings were all in in the Nov-Dec 65 HGC Completion Slump, another really gross HGC error showed up. Training of HGC auditors was shifted from Qua! to Tech Div just. before the fantastic down curve. This change was known and caused a heavy investigation of the HGC. But this datum was not disclosed until later: STARRATED CHECK OUTS ON INTERNES AND AUDITORS DESPITE EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS WERE DROPPED THE MOMENT THE TRANSFER FROM QUAL TO TECH OCCURRED. The newer auditors began to audit with no real data. Thus we find the SP discovered in that investigation had discovered a thorough way to depress a statistic-you didn't require check outs on processes. This gives us another vital datum- IF YOU DO NOT REQUIRE HGC AUDITORS AND INTERNES TO CHECK OUT STAR-RATED ON THEIR MATERIALS BEFORE THEY AUDIT HGC PCS THE COMPLETION STATISTIC WILL GO TO ZERO. It did at once, I think lack of this one datum has been holding back all the statistics in any org that has not recovered. Lack of star-rates on staff auditors and internes has been found to crash an HGC and deliver no service. Remedy it at once on all staff auditors, internes and supervisors. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 84 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MARCH 1966 Remimeo Issue II All Tech & Qual Hats Students Tech & Qual Solo Audit Course Interne Course U R G B N T Clearing Course STAR RATES ON TECH AND QUAL STAFF Effective on Receipt ETHICS NOTE ALL ORGS - It is a High Crime not to have this Policy continually in effect after 1 June 66 as it has been found to suppress orgs when not kept in effect and to crash HGCs. All HCO Bs and Tech Info and Advices of the following courses are STAR RATED and the student may not begin to audit until they have all been passed with Star-Rated type check outs with no comm lag. INTERNE COURSE (Power Process and HGC Staff Auditors) CLEARING COURSE (but not the platens) All vital data required for auditing at Level VI must be checked out, Star-Rated on the following Course: SOLO AUDIT COURSE All HGC and Qual Auditors and Internes must pass in all Scientology Orgs star-rated all HCO Bs directly concerned with all the Level Processes they will use on pcs, Rehabs, S & D and various Review actions and the Pol Ltrs governing the HGC and Review and any relation to Ethics before being permitted to audit an HGC PC in any HGC anywhere or to audit in Review. Note: - The above data applies to all orgs when they teach the listed courses and applies to all HGCs at once. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.rd Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 85 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 MARCH 1966 Remimeo Exec Secs Hats Exec - HCO -. Tech - Qual ES Comm Qual Hat Ethics HCO Sec Hat Dir I & R Hat URGENT Ethics Hat Tech & Qual Hats HIGH CRIME LRH Comm Hat Effective 1 June 1966 In any instance of a heavily falling statistic in Tech or Qual or a chronically low statistic in Tech or Qual in an org or in any org which has chronically low statistics in all divisions: The Ethics Officer must look for this policy violation which is the highest crime in Tech and Qual: TOLERATING THE ABSENCE OF, OR NOT INSISTING UPON STAR-RATED CHECK OUTS ON ALL PROCESSES AND THEIR IMMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY AND ON RELEVANT POLICY LETTERS ON HGC INTERNES OR STAFF AUDITORS IN THE TECH DIV OR STAFF AUDITORS OR INTERNES IN THE QUAL DIV FOR THE LEVELS AND ACTIONS THEY WILL USE BEFORE PERMITTING THEM TO AUDIT ORG PCS AND ON SUPERVISORS IN TECH AND QUAL WHO INSTRUCT OR EXAMINE OR FAILING TO INSIST UPON THIS POLICY OR PREVENTING THIS POLICY FROM GOING INTO EFFECT OR MINIMIZING THE CHECK OUTS OR LISTS. If an Ethics Officer or any person in HCO Dept 3 discovers this high crime to exist he must report it at once to the HCO Area Secretary. The HCO Area Secretary must at once order a thorough investigation into any and all persons who might have instigated this high crime and report the matter to the HCO Exec Sec. The HCO Exec Sec must then convene a Committee of Evidence with the persons accused as interested parties and must locate amongst them the suppressive or suppressives by the "reasonableness" of their defence, state of case and other signs. The Committee of Evidence must declare the located S.P. suppressive by HCO Ethics Order and dismiss. If any Ethics Officer, Director of I & R or HCO Area Secretary fails to obtain Co-Operation by superiors in carrying out this Policy Letter quickly then he or she must inform the LRH Communicator. The LRH Communicator must then cable full particulars to Worldwide. The Worldwide AdCouncil must then carry out this policy letter expeditiously and at any cost. If the HCO personnel making this discovery cannot obtain action in any other way he or she must go outside the org and cable LRH Comm WW and his actions and costs in so cabling will be reimbursed on Claim to WW and his post will be fully protected. 86 If the AdCouncil WW suspects this policy not to be in full force in any org despite assurances an HCO WW personnel must be sent to that org to investigate and may be deputized to remove either or both Exec Secs of that org by Comm Ev on the spot or at WW. ----------- It has been discovered that failure to check out, Star Rated, the Tech and Qual HCO Bs applying to levels being audited or taught or examined and their processes and the data used in Review and relevant policy on those using the material in orgs results in a crashed Division 4 completion statistic, crashed income and low statistics throughout and a failing org and was the reason through 1965 for struggling orgs-the public would not pay more for service than it was worth to them and with this policy out, the service was not worth very much. It has been found that a suppressive person will discourage this check out policy as one of his first actions. ----------- This policy applies whether an auditor has been trained or not with star- rated check outs. Staff and Review auditor and Supervisor are special technical status grades and one cannot consider this double training. ----------- "Star-Rated" means = 100 percent letter perfect in- knowing and understanding, demonstrating and being able to repeat back the material with no Comm lag. Org Exec Sec Communicator, for Qual WW is the final authority for any check sheets on this matter and is responsible for preparing and standardizing them from time to-time. But the lack of a check sheet from ES Comm Qual WW does not set aside any provision or penalty of this policy letter. ----------- This policy letter is issued in the complete knowledge that the absence of this policy in full effect is the primary reason for orgs not growing and is based on actual experience. ----------- The only higher crime I could think of would be to pretend to have an org but have no technical personnel on staff in Tech or Qual. That is suppressive also and will crash an org. Handle it similarly to the above. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml.cden Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Added to by HCO P/L 21 November 1971, Scientology Courses Examination Policy, Volume 5-page 139, which made it firm policy that anyone examining a student for certification on any Scientology Course, including Admin, must have first star- rated related Policies, HCO Bs or other issues before writing or grading exams.] (Note: In the original issue of this Policy Letter the words "THE ABSENCE OF" in the first line of the 3rd paragraph were omitted. However, in a poster issued by Flag in 1971 quoting this capitalized paragraph of the "High Crime" P/L, these words were included, and accordingly have been added in this printing. - Ed.] 87 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1966 Remimeo TECH vs QUAL The general rule is laid down that, except for Declaration of Grade, Certificate or Class, Tech shall attempt to handle all it can on all cases and students and only when Tech personnel consider it hopeless (or the student or pc is ready for Declare, Cert or Grade) shall the student or pc be sent to Qual. "Review flat" is not now to be considered mandatory. The pc previously has been sent to the D of P and then to Qual to verify that a flat point has been reached. This routing is ended. If the auditor or Case Supervisor, either one, wants a check for the flatness of a process, only then is the pc sent to the D of P (not to Qual also). If the flatness indicates a grade has been attained the usual action is just send from auditor to examiner in Qual. To routinely and always send a pc for a flatness of process check is actually a violation of the Fast Flow Management System. It checks things which may be all right. Review, when it finds a rehab incomplete, should quickly route the pc back to Tech. As a general rule, on]y when Tech is utterly at a loss does Review take over and audit the pc. The Case Supervisor should keep and post HGC auditor "statistics" announcing goofs and wins. The Case Supervisor must require a retrain of an HGC auditor whenever a pc winds up being audited in Review. I always send the auditor to Interne Training for retrain whenever I have to send a pc to Review. Processing today is very simple but very exact. The data is all there. That's the only data. Don't add any. Just do what the HCOBs say. There are no exceptional cases. HGC auditors who over-run just don't know what a free needle is. They should ask a Clear to hold the cans so they can see one. When you check for flatness on a process gone to free needle you may overrun it. For the auditor, the D of P and the Examiner and Review to check, each one, for flatness, will goof up a flat point every time. For the Case Supervisor to neglect ordering retraining of his auditors when he finds pcs not doing well is a grave omission. For Tech not to carry on trying and limply turn all bits and pieces over to Qual is to train Tech into weakness. Two rules: In Tech, when all else fails, then hand it over to Review. In any difficulty, when all else fails, do what Ron says. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:lb-r.cden Copyright ($) 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 88 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 AUGUST 1967 Remimeo BPI SECOND DYNAMIC RULES It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred it has not resulted in any improved condition. All I have been interested in, so far as Scientology law was concerned, was in removing retarding elements or practices from the path of progress toward freedom. Man is aberrated. Otherwise we would not be here. He is hard to rescue as he has been carefully "trained" to do himself harm. I have no concern about the second dynamic activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering to others and so impede our forward progress. Therefore ALL FORMER RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTIVITIES OF STUDENTS, PRECLEARS, STAFF AND SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED. In their place, any husband, wife or individual whose processing or training has been impeded or interrupted beyond any reasonable doubt by second dynamic activities on the part of staff or associates or their husband or wife may have recourse to the CHAPLAIN'S COURT, Division 6, of any Scientology organization, and any case heard, if it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that, without provocation, a person's training or processing has been impeded by the irregular second dynamic actions of the defendant, a fine of not less than £1000 sterling or greater than £5000 sterling shall be awarded the plaintiff and until paid, the defendant shall have no further training or processing. This policy is not retroactive (Occurrences before this date may not be tried). No Ethics order shall be issued by reason of second dynamic activities. All Ethics orders now in force relating to the second dynamic are cancelled. No staff member may be punished, transferred or dismissed because of second dynamic activities. No student or preclear may be suspended or dismissed because of second dynamic activities. Nothing in this policy letter lays aside our actual knowledge of the consequences of second dynamic overts against husbands and wives being processed or the degree to which training or processing can be impeded for someone because of another's acts. We are also aware that those org staffs which are over active on the second dynamic seldom prosper. We also retain any and all technology relating to the second dynamic. One of Man's primary areas of aberration is the second dynamic. Processing, not discipline, is the only thing which eradicates aberration of such depth. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jp.cden Founder Copyright ($) 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 89 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1967 Remimeo All Tech & Qual Staff Ethics CONFIDENTIAL DATA 1. No Ethics Chit written by anyone should contain data which is classified as confidential. 2.. Such material so classified is contained in Power Processes, Clearing Course and Advanced Courses. Qual Sec - Helen Pollen HCO Area Sec - Irene Dunleavy Exec Council SH - J.J. Delance - Joan McNocher - Ken Urquhart Exec Council WW - Tony Dunleavy - Eunice Ford - Ken Delderfield Guardian Comm WW - Corrie Ellis Mary Sue Hubbard LRH:jp.cden The Guardian WW Copyright ($) 1967 for by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Founder HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 NOVEMBER 1967 Remimeo Info Int E/O WW Local B/Os Info Int SPEOWW OUT TECH ANY AND ALL published mimeoed out tech processes or "recommendations" or "interpretations" not written or signed by myself must be sent to the International Ethics Officer at WW with any information on their authorship or origination so that Conditions may be assigned and broad cancellation can be issued by the International Ethics Officer. The reason for this is the discovery of a process on page one of the Org Exec Course checksheet of 21 Sept 67 which would ruin any student's case, his interest in admin and which would deter enrolment. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jp.cden Copyright ($) 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 90 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 MAY 1968 (Reissued from Flag Order 800) Remimeo SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY There is one Tech and that is Standard Tech. Unfortunately there is other Tech around. This other Tech is a Liability. Other Tech is defined as any tech which is not-standard Tech. Let's start punching this hard. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:sb.js.rd Founder Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 AUGUST 1968 Remimeo All Franchise and Orgs Division 6 Hats DISSEMINATION A PC RARELY DISSEMINATES. ONLY AN AUDITOR DISSEMINATES. We know this from experience. Thus an Org which makes more pcs than auditors will tend to collapse. Also an Org which makes only pcs will collapse. So always make an equal number of auditors and pcs or more auditors than pcs. This will ensure dissemination to the field as the auditor will understand what he is disseminating and will therefore be successful. Public Aide for LRH:ei.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright ($) 1968 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 91 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 OCTOBER 1968 (Cancels HCO PL 20 March 1964) Remimeo TECHNICAL REPORTS The Class VIII'S have, been assigned to Orgs to ensure that Standard Tech goes in and Stays in. They are responsible for ensuring that all cases are properly supervised. Orgs with Class VIII auditors do not send copies of auditing reports to LRH or WW. Orgs without Class VIII's continue to send them to LRH via Tech Sec WW. Orgs with Class VIII's should send in a weekly report regarding Tech results, and the Org LRH Comm should randomly select reports of one preclear being audited in Tech and in Qual to send to Tech Sec WW for inspection. All Academy Student reports shall be addressed by the student to LRH personally and sent via Tech Sec WW. Such reports shall be on a weekly basis. Tech Sec WW Mark Jones Qual Sec WW Mark Jones HCO Area Sec WW Edith Hoyseth Ad Council WW Rodger Wright Chairman LRH Comm WW Rodger Wright D/Guardian WW Jane Kember Guardian WW Mary Sue Hubbard for L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ei.rd Founder Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 NOVEMBER 1968 Remimeo SENIOR POLICY We always deliver what we promise. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ei.rd Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 92 NOT HCO POLICY LETTER CORRECT COLOUR FLASH BLUE ON WHITE EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE FROM L. RON HUBBARD FO LRH ED 81 INT Date 20 January 1969 A VITAL TARGET Trained Auditor Programme It is vital that we step up auditor training in all orgs. The VITAL target is TO HAVE TRAINED AUDITORS IN PLENTY IN ORGS AND FIELD. My data is that we must have specialized in preclears for quite a while, that staff training as auditors went out and that we began to develop backlogs of pcs. Backlogs of pcs must be avoided. Trained auditors by far make the better executives. Thus staff auditors get promoted to execs and the staff auditor vacancies aren't filled. We used to allow for this. Many Academy graduates came on staff as staff auditors routinely. HGC auditors then got promoted to executives. Staff training programmes permitted staffs to get to be trained auditors on a part time schedule. In London we used to hire typists and clerks from employment agencies. A large percentage of them, with no urging at all, saved up and took advantage of their 50% staff discount and got their HPA, then came back on as staff auditors and went on to other staff posts. Either training got too long or too involved or the route got barriered. In any event each org should take responsibility for getting the route unplugged. People who came on staff came from the public as just-a-job or from the Scientology field, got trained, became staff auditors, etc. I know in orgs where I have worked I usually had to unblock hiring. For some reason I had to do it. All sorts of barriers got put up to people who wanted on staff. I used to hear of people and by pass and get them to be put on. Also, I used to order a sign in PE to get PE attendees to join staff and a sign in the Academy to get graduates to join staff. This was SOP. When an org is signing up more pcs than students it will go broke or be poor. The 50% scholarship offer (50% of fees) mailed out used to work well. It could be mailed to FSMs to hand Out to prospective students. If the scholarship only applied from Dianetics to HPA and not to segments, it would boom training. Some orgs just plain try to be clinics. The public loves to take no responsibility and be given it all as pes. When they get to Solo and above they wish to hell they had become real auditors. You can jam the training line by making an Academy Course long and as heavy as an SHSBC. The REAL design of training (if anybody would really do it this way) is: Dianetics: Fast Course on Technique. Slide by on philosophic data. 93 Academy: Fast Courses on Technique. Learn all the motions. SHSBC: A course taking in ALL the data, philosophic, with polishing of Technique. Class VIII: Sharp rapid STANDARDIZATION of auditing and case supervising with 100% gains. When you try to standardize Class VIII style the Dianetic course, or SHSBC, the Academy courses, you slow people down to nowhere. Now that we have Ethics in and VIlls in every org WE CAN RESTORE ATTESTATION. When we knocked it off we also knocked down our stats. Ron's Journal 1968 will RESTORE ATTESTATION OF GRADES AND CLASSES. This will speed up training again and raise stats. It works only if you keep Ethics in. This is my immediate contribution to MORE AUDITORS. After all, early auditors weren't all that well trained. And training parallels the progress time track of the subject! BUT as we EXPAND we will CONTINUALLY FACE THE PROBLEM OF AUDITOR SHORTAGE. Therefore YOU make a contribution on your end of it by making the lines open. Post staff procurement signs. Get staff trained up. Get the public to get trained. Executives who aren't trained auditors have the highest mortality rate as executives. How can anyone really guide a Scientology org who doesn't know the subject. So let's keep this Target up there as a big Target: TO HAVE TRAINED AUDITORS IN PLENTY IN ORGS AND FIELD. Train staffs is part of the Target. Sign up more students than pes is part of it. Push Training in Promotion is part of it. We used to tell people that training as an auditor made one more able to handle life and his fellows. It didn't mean one became a professional auditor and hung out a shingle. We better hit this campaign again. Anyway, it's a key Target, a big one. It is a Vital Target, what we have to do to make things go at all. L. RON HUBBARD Founder SEAL 94 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JANUARY 1969 Issue II Remimeo MAINTAINING STANDARD TECH Although by Ron's words Sea Org Missions will be policing the correct exact application of standard technology, a safeguard against violation of the standard of financial nature is hereby established. This has been done to increase organisational awareness that standard tech is not solely the responsibility of the auditor and case supervisor. They need to be backed in their efforts by the full organisational structure and the members this comprises. STANDARD TECH IS CORRECT EXACT DUPLICATION OF SOURCE IN APPLICATION AND IS ACCOMPLISHED BY COMPLETE ORGANISATIONAL ENDEAVOUR. Each org member is to some extent responsible for the technology Ron gave us. As from the day of this policy letter every Org employing Class VIII technical staff, is going to be fined the sum of 1000.00 for every GROSS goof which was found allowed to slide by unhandled. The keyword is UNHANDLED. Goofs, although they shouldn't occur may sometimes happen, but standard tech resolves all cases including goofs. However a case allowed to leave the Org attested to as complete, with unhandled out tech on the case is not merely a goof but a false report. In such cases, were they ever to occur, a fine will be levied, payable AT ONCE to the Sea Org. And this money is payable out of the Financial Planning allocation. So it will really be in all members' interest that Out tech does not occur, and in the event of it ever happening to take strong action against the sinning party. Tech is very very simple, but also very very accurate since the advent of VIII. Tech is tech, it is IN or it isn't. RON'S TECH IS STANDARD TECH AND HAS NO VARIABLES OR ARBITRARIES. IT IS RIGHT OR IT IS WRONG WITHOUT ANY SHADES OR GRADIENT IN BETWEEN. And that is that. As Standard Tech is IN and winning it is not expected that any fine will ever have to be levied, and none will be retroactively. But they will be in any case found in future where violation is found unhandled. Ron gave us standard tech, you apply it and we will police it. And so we'll all grow stronger. Lt. O.J. Roos Flag C/S for L. RON HUBBARD LRH:OJR.ldm.ei.rd Founder Copyright ($) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 95 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 OCTOBER 1969 Remimeo Tech & Qual Personnel TECHNICAL DIVISIONS - PROMOTION AND RESPONSIBILITY (Originally issued as ED 318 INT) 1. All Personnel of Tech Divisions are reminded that it has long been a function of this Division to promote itself. 2. Foremost and most obvious is the old dictum, that when Tech is in, bodies will come flooding in. Happy, satisfied preclears and students will not be quiet about Scientology wins. They will disseminate. Keeping the Promotional Points for their Departments in an alert and realistic way will do the rest. 3. Letters of Procurement by the Departments of Processing and Training are very effective. Personnel of Tech do not sit back and expect Dissem to bring in all the students and preclears. They get busy themselves writing, telephoning, scheduling and Tech Services always gets advanced bookings in earlier. And they demand that Dissem get their enrolments up. 4. Directors of Processing get busy keeping Auditor Procurement going and work with Qua! to get Training Programmes in for already Classified Auditors in the Org and in the area. And they demand that Personnel Procurement bring in auditors and train and recruit auditors in the Academy. NO HGC SHOULD EVER BE SHORT HANDED FOR AUDITORS. Policy clearly allows for any qualified auditor in the Org to be used when necessary (P/L 28th April, 1965 "Technical Personnel"). But with good Auditor promotion and training this need not become necessary. 5. Tech Personnel, including Supervisors and Auditors take full responsibility to see that they themselves keep trained and checked out on all necessary material for their departments. They don't wait for Qual to remind them or for Ethics to take action first. They make sure that Qual does train them and that there is no violation of High Crimes Policy of star rated checkouts (P/L 8th March, 1966 "High Crime"). 6. Tech Services Personnel do not wait until Auditors or Students complain about lack of material-or wait for Boards of Investigation to do their job. They make certain that materials are provided and in good condition. They keep materials supplied to Auditors and Students and make certain that lines and routing is properly done. They are there to give swift happy-making service to Technical. 7. Technical Personnel do not natter, complain or go into apathy if their Pcs and Students are "held up too long in Qualifications". They see to it that HCO and Ethics speeds routing. 8. Technical Personnel do not sit and hope that Public Divs will arrange Public Lectures, HAS or other beginning Courses which will feed people into the Technical Division. The Technical Secretary has materials ready and personnel prepared to give these courses. 9. Technical Personnel realize that they are turning out the PRODUCT of the 96 Organization-completed students and preclears who will bring about changed conditions on this planet, and that is what the Organization is all about. 10. So Technical Division Personnel do not sit around and wait for the rest of the Organization to do the job. They keep busy doing their own actions, keeping their Promotional Points in, and keeping Technical in on themselves.... and demand that the rest of the Organization help keep them supplied. Hana Eltringham Deputy Commodore Flotilla Rosalie Vosper - HCO Area Sec WW David Dunlop - Dep Qual Sec WW Ad Council WW Anne Tampion - HCO Exec Sec WW Allan Ferguson - Org Exec Sec WW Tom Morgan - Public Exec Sec WW Rodger Wright - LRH Comm WW Leif Windle - Policy Review Section WW Jane Kember - The Guardian WW for L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:HE:ei.rd Copyright ($) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 97 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 NOVEMBER 1969 Issue II Remimeo Cl VIII Checksheet Dianetics Checksheet Qual Sec Hat Tech Sec Hat C/S Hat RIGHTS AND DUTIES The following Rights and Duties are to be posted in the staff area of every Qual Division and Tech Division, where they will be frequently seen by auditors and technical personnel. They are to be printed green on white in letters at least 1 inch high, each on a separate card (4 total). AN AUDITOR HAS THE DUTY: TO KNOW AND ABIDE BY THE AUDITOR'S CODE TO APPLY TECH EXACTLY AS PER HCOBS AND LRH TAPES TO BE THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FOLDER OF ANY PC HE AUDITS TO FOLLOW C/S INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY IN SESSION TO REFUSE TO AUDIT AN INCORRECT C/S TO AUDIT ONLY THOSE MATERIALS ON WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHECKED OUT STARRATE TO BE FAMILIAR WITH AND APPLY ALL NEW TECHNICAL MATERIALS UP TO HIS CLASS LEVEL AN AUDITOR HAS THE RIGHT: NOT TO AUDIT A PRECLEAR HE DOES NOT WISH TO AUDIT NOT TO AUDIT MORE THAN 5 HOURS PER DAY, 6 DAYS PER WEEK TO REFUSE A C/S HE KNOWS TO BE INCORRECT TO ASK TO BE REFERRED TO THE HCOB COVERING A C/S HE IS UNCERTAIN OF OR FEELS IS INCORRECT NOT TO BE PUNISHED FOR QUERYING A C/S WHETHER CORRECT OR NOT TO HAVE PCS, AUDITING ROOMS, AND MATERIALS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM BY TECH SERVICES 98 A CASE SUPERVISOR HAS THE DUTY: TO REFUSE TO DISCUSS A CASE WITH EITHER THE AUDITOR OR THE PC TO REFRAIN FROM DISCUSSING OR MENTIONING DATA FROM PC FOLDERS SOCIALLY TO CORRECT HIS AUDITORS' APPLICATION OF TECH POSITIVELY, WITHOUT INVALIDATION TO ORDER THE AUDITOR TO CRAMMING OR RETRAINING FOR ANY FLUNKED SESSION TO MAINTAIN A STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT TO C/S ALL FOLDERS DELIVERED TO HIM DAILY A CASE SUPERVISOR HAS THE RIGHT: TO HAVE HIS OWN OFFICE TO HOLD NO OTHER POST NEVER TO RUSH HIS OWN C/S ACTIONS TO ACCEPT NO TECHNICAL ORDERS OR ADVICES OTHER THAN FROM LRH TO DEMAND A HIGH ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF THOSE WHO WORK ON HIS LINES TO DEMAND THAT PCS DO NOT DISCUSS THEIR OWN CASES OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE PC RULES TO ISSUE AND GET COMPLIANCE ON ANY ORDERS NECESSARY TO THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY AND TECHNICAL RESULTS Lt. Nate Jessup, Chairman Ens. Janet Guilford, Secretary W/O Bob Guilford, Member Qual Board of Investigation for L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:NJ:JG:BG:nt.rd Copyright ($) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 99 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 FEBRUARY 1970 Remimeo All Orgs AOs SHs E/Os Hat T/Sec Hat PES Hat Dir Success Hat ARC Br Reg Hat PRO Hat PRO Crse checksheet ETHICS QUALITY OF SERVICE ARC Breaks bring about and restimulate a desire to get even. An ARC broken person attacks. Criminals, revolutionaries, great generals are simply dramatizing the effects of an ARC Break of long duration. Madmen seldom attack that which ARC broke them but choose wrong targets. Any and all attacks suffered by orgs are from ARC broken persons. Even when such persons were really ARC broken with some other activity, they instantaneously attack us. Most ARC breaks are caused by by-passed charge. This charge is usually the restimulation of some earlier ARC break not caused by us. WITHHOLDS ARE ONE PRIMARY CAUSE OF BY-PASSED CHARGE. When persons are poorly processed or poorly trained they can restimulate a great deal of by-passed charge. When persons are permitted to take higher grades without really attaining lower grades, by-passed charge is inevitable; hence we see refunds, attacks and upsets in orgs and the field. The true cause of ARC Breaks of long duration which transfer to us is when we permit technical goofs. ETHICS exists primarily to see that people honestly make their grades and are trained as they should be and that no-one is permitted to prevent good auditing and good training or to enturbulate the org so that it cannot occur and to make sure the org is there to give service in volume. Ethics is not concerned with "acceptable social behaviour" only insofar as it impedes the training or processing of others. THEREFORE: Accepting for higher levels of processing persons who have not made their lower levels shall be classified as a crime. Processing persons at higher levels who have not made lower levels shall be classified as a crime. 100 Training persons at higher levels who have not proven themselves as competent Dianetic auditors shall be classified as a crime. Admitting a famous person or notable writer to higher level processing who has not fully attained lower level processing shall be classified as a HIGH CRIME. This applies in particular to Power and Clearing Courses. Administering Power to anyone who has not had Dianetic Triples, Scientology Triples and adequate gains or who needs further auditing or Review shall be deemed a crime. Permitting an ARC broken person to leave an org unhandled shall be deemed for the last auditor to audit him and for the PBS and Director of Success a crime. Failure to strenuously act to clean up an "ARC broken field" shall be deemed a high crime for the Executive Council. ALL ETHICS OFFICERS are to regulate their conduct of duty so as to safeguard good auditing and training in the organization and to create a calm atmosphere where these can occur in volume. This Policy Letter has first priority and claim on the duties and attention of the Ethics Officer. In interpreting the above in technical matters, the Ethics Officer should consult the opinion of competent auditors not connected to any charge in progress. Nothing in this Policy Letter shall prevent Scientology grades before Dianetic Grades. Nothing in this Policy Letter shall limit the amount of auditing that a person can be given at any one grade. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jz.ei.rd Copyright ($) 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 101