“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified  (1)
(‘Ethics Orders’ & ‘Declares’ and what can be done about them)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

“When writing an Ethics Order, don't ARC break* its readers by leaving out the data. ...
Always put in what you know, nothing you don't know and only what you have evidence or witnesses for. Ethics Orders are issued on real data, not opinion.”
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”)  


Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified  (page 1, index page)

A history of ethics within Scientology and its affiliate organization(s). A basic explanation and rundown of Scientology Ethics and its adherent misunderstandings and misapplications.


(page 1)
  “All ethics is for ...”
Some basic terms defined and explained
  The basics of ‘ethics’ and ‘justice’ as used in Scientology explained
               - Ethics vs Justice
- The role of the Ethics Officer
  The ‘suppressive person’ (SP) and the ‘potential trouble source’ (PTS)
  The matter of ‘suppressive acts’ explained and when action is taken
         (Includes:  The ‘justice of man’)
  PTS redefined in 1973?  or  The matter of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” ip
  The matter of ‘Dead File’ clarified and the misuse of the term
Ethics Orders and the ‘suppressive person’ & Resources for defence
  What is an Ethics Order? and its dangers if used incorrectly
  Issuing Ethics Orders on ‘suppressive persons’  –  Rules of the game & defence
      - Declaring someone a ‘suppressive person’ by means of an Ethics Order
- Declaring someone a ‘suppressive person’ - Change of rules (A.D. 1983)
                (‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”;  HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” (Includes: Stipped from your rights?; Authorship))
  Your right for a ‘Comm Ev’ (Committee of Evidence)
      - 1) Has a ‘Comm Ev’ be held prior to issuance of the Declare Order?
        (Includes: Exceptions to the rule ...)
      - 2) Your right for a ‘Comm Ev’ after the issuance of the Declare Order
  Placing the organization at a risk and the responsibilities of its personnel
      (Includes: “Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist” (1986))
  The usefulness of HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”
  Is querying a Third Dynamic activity?  &  De-PTSing
  How to establish if some group may be suppressive or squirrel?
Additional ‘ethics’ related studies
  Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study  (on different page)
  Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study  (on different page)
  Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology  (on different page)
Miscellaneous information
“Code of Reform” (1968)
(page 2)
  The turbulent late ’70s and early ’80s
         - ‘List 1 Project’ (1977-78) & A new management (1982-83)
- Rough ethics and the ‘scare’ factor (US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, 17 Oct 82)
  The phenomena and history of the term ‘Rock Slam’ (1962-78 span)
  The transformation of the book ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1968-2007)  (on separate page)
      - Introduction and ‘The Scientology Ethics System’ ...
- Schematic overview of the book (editions/prints, copyrighting, chapters and annotations)
- Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1968-80): Source of the original chapters
- Descriptions of Dianetics and Scientology that we find in the various editions
- Noted differences found in book chapter “The Ethics Codes” (1968, 70, 82 & 89)
- The year 1973 enforces an American spelling for the book both in USA and Europe
- The ‘Confusion formula’ included since the 5th edition (1978), and compared to 1989 edition
- A different version from Denmark (Mar 1982) vs The ‘unregistered’ USA revision (Oct 1982)
- The first ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ edition (1989)
- The ‘Golden Age of Ethics’ edition (1998)
- The ‘Golden Age of Knowledge’ or ‘Basics’ edition (2007)
- Afterword
  Versions analysis of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

Back to Main Index Foreword

Relevant introductive information is also found in a chapter that I wrote on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order or Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after” . You may consult this in link here below:  (separate window)
    “The arrival of new information (5) - The ‘new ways’  or  Turning from a self-correcting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?”

You will find here various information relating to the matter of ethics and Ethics Orders, about its dangers if used incorrectly and means enabling the victim to defend him/herself towards injustice. The purpose of this information is to educate, to make people aware of various risks involved if these tools are not properly used, to prevent injustices from occurring or prolong them, and to tell that one has in fact rights for defence!

What ethics is not for
“What ethics is not for!!!”

I also have found that there exist serious misunderstandings about the subject of ethics as exercised in the Scientology organization. It is not and never was intended as a means to put or keep people under any sort of control. It was developed and put to use only to continue being able to deliver services (auditing and training) to the Scientology parishioner in an undisturbed environment. Ethics in its application within that organization does not stand on itself! It will get the attention from this Ethics Officer for just one single reason, and that is if it disturbs or interfers with that the Scientology parishioner is taken services from that organization! It is important to understand this, as at present this is not how it is dealt with within the Church of Scientology.

My interest in this actually started with a few little wonderings that I had about the matter of Disconnection. These little wonderings then lead to performing a detailed comparison of all 8 release versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”, the policy letter that played a bit more than modest role in things like Ethics Orders, Declares, Fair Game and touched the subject of Disconnection. Needless to say that it all became rather extensive when additional related references needed examination. In here I had also started to explain about policy letters and publication history. All these topics were mixed in this HCO PL versions chronology which thus had become messy. Simply for clarity reasons I extracted some time ago already all the gathered Disconnection information out of this page and gave it a page of its own. Since I have also moved the Fair Game information and the printing history information out of this, which both turned to pages of their own.

Go to index

Back to Main Index “All ethics is for ...”

A few key citations that set its boundaries and purpose. Underlining is mine.

“The purpose of the Ethics Officer is ‘To help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done.’
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing Ethics Codes.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat”)

“All the ethics really does is hold the lines firm so that you can route and audit. You see, all ethics is for, in actual fact, the totality of its operation—it is simply that additional tool necessary to make it possible to get technology in. That's the whole purpose of ethics, is to get technology in. Well, man doesn't have that purpose for his law and justice. He wants to squash people who are giving him trouble. That isn't the case in the handling of ethics. It's an entirely different operation. And you'll find out it's a fabulously successful operation. They'll handle it with too much violence, and they'll handle it with too light, and they'll eventually get it adjusted, and they'll eventually learn this fabulously simple point: that ethics is there to let you get technology in. You see, it's the tourniquet before the doctor arrives. You got the idea? It makes it possible to get technology in. ...
Well, when you've got technical in, why, ethics—that's as far as you carry an ethics action. You carry ethics action to the point where you get technical in. No further.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #61, renumbered 1991: #424 “Organization and Ethics”, given on 18 May 65)
sound  Sound snippet (2:17) 
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

“Now, this is the whole backbone of ethics. And there isn't anything more to ethics than the—this basic purpose of ethics is ethics exists to get tech in. If you ever see ethics being put in that throws tech out, then ethics is being used in a suppressive fashion. Now, the only way that you could use ethics suppressively is use it in such a way that it threw tech out. Because the purpose of ethics is to put tech in. If you've got ethics, you can get tech in. You carry on ethics long enough to get tech in, and that's all the longer you carry it.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #68, renumbered 1991: #431 “Briefing to Review Auditors”, given on 14 Oct 65)
sound  Sound snippet (0:33) 

“The Purpose of Ethics is:
And having accomplished that the purpose becomes
Thus progress can be made by all.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 18 Jun 68 “Ethics”)

Some basic terms defined and explained

Back to Main Index The basics of ‘ethics’ and ‘justice’ as used in Scientology explained

Go back Ethics vs Justice

The actual characteristics from a practical angle of the terms ethics and justice as regarded within Scientology we find nicely laid out in HCOB 15 Nov 72 II “Students Who Succeed”. It is also the first definition given for the entry “JUSTICE” that we find listed both in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (first released 1975) and ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976). It reads:  (underlining is mine)
“In policy there has long been written the natural sequence of ethics, tech and administration.
When administration is out, it is necessary to get in tech. When tech is out it is necessary to get in ethics.
In other words, ethics must be in to get tech in.
ETHICS is a personal thing. By definition, the word means:
‘The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by an individual in his relationship with others.’ (American Heritage Dictionary)
When one is ethical or ‘has his ethics in’ it is done by his own determination and is done by himself.
JUSTICE is the action of the group against the individual when he has failed to get his own ethics in.”          LRH

The need for this justice is further explained as follows:
“The reason we have Justice Codes is to have justice. We don't want or need injustice.
When we have no codes, ‘justice’ can be anything any authority cares to make it.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 27 Mar 65 “The Justice of Scientology, Its Use and Purpose; Being a Scientologist”)

The whole focus is put on to enable to get advantages from auditing and training. Always has, and always will be.

Go back The role of the Ethics Officer

Now let's look at this person that is referred to as the Ethics Officer. HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat” lays out:
“The purpose of the Ethics Officer is ‘To help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done.’
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing Ethics Codes. ...
In a nutshell, (a) one finds an imperfect functioning of some portion of the org and then (b) finds something that one doesn't understand about it and then (c) interrogates by despatch the individuals in that portion connected with the imperfect functioning.
Just those three steps done over and over are usually quite enough to keep an org running quite smoothly.”          LRH
From this follows that this Ethics Officer only then interferes if there are indicators for “imperfect functioning”. One of the tools being used to determine that are statistics.

With other words, even if there would be some sort of situation, it would not be the business of the Ethics Officer to get into that, as long as it does not interfere or bounces back onto the organization or its parishioners. The only business of the organization overall is basically to be able to deliver and service its parishioners, and remove, where possible, any and all stumble blocks that would interfere with the progress and/or well-being of these parishioners.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The ‘suppressive person’ (SP) and the ‘potential trouble source’ (PTS)

Within Scientology we have these terms suppressive person and potential trouble source in use. To understand the attention on and the actions taken against these so-called suppressive persons (SP) one has to understand the phenomena of the condition of being a potential trouble source (PTS). As one would not have a particular bother about that SP if no persons were to be PTS, it is pretty much that simple.

It was first with HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources” that the term came into being and the condition of being PTS was identified. It lists this as “types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble”, and for that reason are referred to as a potential trouble source (PTS). Basically these are persons that in lesser or greater degree are connected with persons that suppress or invalidate them. That person that is unable to oppose to or handle such a situation in order to not be affected by it is then referred to as a PTS. The result is irrational behaviour, making mistakes and more such things. More particularly, and this is where the subject of Scientology comes in, are the findings that “they make very poor gains in processing” as long as they remain affected by such a suppressive source or person.
It is important to identify and understand the exact reasoning forwarded here. It means that the SP is no bother to the Scientology parishioner nor its organization if one (1) can handle the PTS situation, and (2) it does not affect the Scientology parishioner or its organization. Please reflect on the role played by the Ethics Officer as laid out in HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat” (see previous chapter).

Followingly HCO PL [7] Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” (later reissued and more commonly known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”) gives below information:
“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups. ...
A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.
A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. ...
Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. ...
Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end the situation one has a pc* or Scientologist who may cave in ... . ...
A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled.”          LRH
Solutions that were offered at an early stage involved temporary disconnections with such a suppressive source or person. But already since October 1965 the hat for handling the PTS person was turned over to the Review Auditor rather than some Ethics Officer. The solution was formulated by handling the person through listing in auditing sessions. Then since 1971 much focus was also put on handling the PTS condition through educating him and have the person identifying the exact mechanics involved and thus have him becoming cause over the situation without having to disconnect.
Consult for a detailed overview of this development below link:  (separate window)
    “Solutions to PTSness: S & D, auditing, education & ‘why finding’ (1965-78)”

The focus is here on the PTS person and not the SP. Handle the PTS person, make him cause, and the SP is no further bother in regards to that person that previously suffered from a PTS condition.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The matter of ‘suppressive acts’ explained and when action is taken
(Includes:  The ‘justice of man’)

This HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”. was issued to address and attempted to handle a particular situation that existed at the time. It's first 2 paragraphs state:
“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.”          LRH
It does appear that particularly since so about 1962 things were a bit stormy. There were issues with the government, seizure of these E-meters, attempts for infiltration being reported, and so on. The measure taken to counteract this was this aforementioned HCO PL. This policy letter also introduced the term fair game. (all this is addressed on page “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”, chapter “Events leading up to the term coming into being”, consult here (separate window).
This policy letter that was being issued was thus indeed a bit crude and abrupt. But it did reflect the situation of that very time.
These measures taken also lead to repercussions which in turn lead to various cancellations of particular practices in 1968. By this time matters had also eased up. See for example the Code of Reform from 1968, consult here (separate window).

This HCO PL then goes about identifying suppressive acts as follows:
“A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.
A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.”          LRH
The whole business of Scientology was delivering services that could better and improve man. It was however found that “Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen.”  LRH and thus accordingly directed that “A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled.”  LRH.

And so that HCO PL listed a whole array of these that were considered “Suppressive Acts”. The defining rule being “those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist.”  LRH.

Now, add to this the job assignments of this Ethics Officer which is to “clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done” in where his task is:
    (1) “isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology”;
  (2) “by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines”; and
  (3) “by generally enforcing Ethics Codes”.
Mind here that the first duty of this Ethics Officer would be that he “finds an imperfect functioning of some portion of the org”  LRH. (quotations from HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat”). That would thus mean that if all is fine, that accordingly no action would be actually taken! Do you see how this would work in coordination with HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” ?

That HCO PL notes following the listing of these suppressive acts that action taken against such a person(s) or group committing them is told: “to stop committing present time overts and to cease all attacks and suppressions so he, she or they can get a case gain”  LRH. Once again we learn here about having that “case gain”.

One has to understand that these matters are merely practicalities! With what or whom do they interfere? What is the interaction? These suppressive acts listings are not laws, there is a circumstance that needs to be regarded! The business of the Scientology organization or groups, per these references, is not to play the role of some law enforcing entity, their only business is to make auditing and training happen. If that is occurring these things are not called for much attention and more particularly no action is taken. Then if someone breaks the state law you simply turn him over to the police and let them take care of matters.
Far too often however Scientology staff are taking action when it is not called for. I have seen this happening time after time after time.

There are a few listed rules that commonly have been either misused or have been misinterpreted. I fold out some examples of these here (separate window).

The ‘justice of man’

Another downside of all this is that people generally simply are not able to recognize situations! And so they just go on just doing ‘something’ and then one will be faced with all the consequences that will come forth from that. It would appear that L. Ron Hubbard also did find out about that. Which HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” relates about. It refers to this “justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person.”. This would work in various ways. It then directs:
“The target of Ethics is any neglect of org boarding or hatting and training an activity.
The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)
This reference since has been very hard to come by. The full text can be consulted here, (pop-up window).
Go to index

Back to Main Index PTS redefined in 1973?  or  The matter of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”








Back to Main Index The matter of ‘Dead File’ clarified and the misuse of the term

This is a matter that simply has to be included as this day there exists a huge misunderstanding and particularly a broad misapplication of what it is supposed to be about. The references that lay out the matter are:
HCO PL 7 Jun 65 “Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of”
HCO PL 25 Sept 65 “Addition to HCO PL 7 Jun 65 entitled ‘Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of’”
HCO PL 22 Aug 66 (Addition to HCO PL 7 Jun 65) “Dead File: Restoration to Good Standing”
And these are all there is that address it!

So, what is it then all about? Well, it is about entheta letters having been written. Now, what then are entheta letters?  The main policy letter on the matter lists explanations of the various terms.
“AN ENTHETA LETTER  =  is a letter containing insult, discourtesy, chop or nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures in Scientology. En = Enturbulated; theta = Greek for thought or life. ...
AN ETHICS REPORT  =  is a report to Ethics ... concerning the misuse or abuse of technology or the misconduct of a Scientologist. ... Such a report is not Dead Filed ... but may become a Dead File.
A MIXED LETTER  =  is a letter which is an entheta letter (couched in nasty terms to the org or its personnel) which also contains a report pretending to be an Ethics Report. ‘You awful people have an awful auditor in the field – .’ A Mixed Letter is always routed to Dead Files ...
A PETITION  =  is a polite request to have something handled by the Office of LRH or the Org. ... An impolite ‘Petition’ is handled as an Entheta Letter always.”          LRH
Obviously this is all about written letters of some sort containing all sorts of nastiness.

And then we get also a warning:
“IMPORTANT  =  It is important not to Dead File a Scientologist for reporting a bad breach of Ethics. This should be encouraged. However, people on our side make such reports without accusing us. When such reports are also accusative of us they are Dead Filed.”          LRH
And we are still left with these written matters.

So, to end up in this Dead File you (1) need thus have written something. And (2) it has to contain “nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures in Scientology”. If it doesn't, it is not supposed to have any concern for Dead File.
This however is not what we see today within the Scientology organization. People appear to end up in Dead File for the most silly reasons. Some person may have personally disliked you, some person may heard you criticizing something, some person may have uttered some hard truths that politely are directed to a person, or some person may have heard something from another person that made some claims about some other person being guilty of such things.
This in essence is actually enough to get you to end up in Dead File. It is silly of course, and it is not following any of the rules, but I repeatedly have personally observed such occurring with my own eyes. Suddenly your local Scientology organization may not send you letters anymore, or they may not invite you anymore by phone for upcoming events and such things. The funniest of it all is that most of the time it did not require anything written by you to get you in Dead File!

In essence ALL that some person has to do to get someone in Dead File is that this person marks your public folder with DF written with large initials with a red marker. No questions asked! Obviously the matter of ending up in these Dead Files has gone completely and utterly over the board!

In fact all this is actually a rather serious matter, because you can end up being treated unjustfully like this, and no person will be telling you what is going on. As the HCO PL directs: “we never inform them”. It has thus created a hidden line in where you can be wronged, and you are denied any information, as well as your right for defence.

See, the proper format for various ethics matters would be to use the guidelines as found in HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”. It is a line that was put there to give people the opportunity to write down various information to improve upon or handle a particular contrary survival situation. There are “Damage Report”, “Misuse Report”, “A Found Report”, and so on (the policy letter lists 21 of these). The last one #21 reads: Knowledge Report.  On noting some investigation is in progress and having data on it of value to Ethics.”.
The matter here is that the purpose of this line is to make various information known, make persons aware of some situation or other and see that something can be done about it or having it clarified. The Staff Member Reports form directs here: “The original goes to Ethics by drawing an arrow pointing to ‘Ethics’ and the carbon goes to the person or portion of the org being reported on”. And so, the person or persons being written on, would receive a copy of what is being written on them. If an error has been made, the person can then respond and have it clarified. But if the Dead File format is used for the wrong reasons you will have basically no recourse! Do remember: “we never inform them”.

Once I was helping out in the local organization, and there I came across my own public folder. It had a large ‘DF’ written on it. I inquired, but no staff in the organization knew anything about it. This is how things thus can go. Rest assured though that I have never been guilty of acts that rightfully would have placed me into Dead File. I can assure you that at one point or another any person can find himself represented there and commonly it will be for the wrong reason.

Another time I was confronted with a Security Officer at an Advanced Organization. I was accompanying a friend. This Security Officer came up to us and simply informed my friend that he was in Dead File (which he was not actually supposed to tell about), the Security Officer then informed that it was issued at his local organization, and he was advising my friend to contact the Ethics Officer of his local organizations to clear up the matter. He also relayed the information that only the International Justice Chief could lift the Dead File, which the HCO PL does not say anything about! Do you see how this one goes? Don't listen to claims being made, just revert back to the reference about that matter! Don't let anyone just tell you anything!

There are some warning signs to watch for here. If for some unexplained reason and rather sudden the organization personnel is not contacting you anymore for upcoming events and/or are not writing you anymore. Then you may suspect that something did happen here. And so you can go to the organization and ask them straight out what is going on here? If you are persistent here, you will have your answers soon enough and you can get this resolved.
If they tell you that you are in Dead File, then insist to see the letters you wrote that contain such nastiness and all that. If they fail to do so, or they can not present these then request that the Dead File be lifted and please do refer to the reference about Dead File. If needed you pull the book volume and put it open right in front of them and point your finger to the applicable paragraphs! If on the other hand some letters are shown, then determine if these were a valid reason to have you end up in Dead File. Just clear up the matter by these means.

Now, what is Dead File actually really about? Well, basically it is just a means to get bothering persons off the organizational lines instead of letting them literally waste the time of the personnel, time that can then be spent on persons that actually are worthy of that.

HCO PL 2 Jun 65 “Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of” directs:
“Ethics Files shall include a DEAD FILE.
This File includes all persons who write nasty or choppy letters to an org or its personnel.”          LRH
It is all pretty clear-cut, so let's not use this format for something else!

Ethics Orders and the ‘suppressive person’ & Resources for defence

Back to Main Index What is an Ethics Order? and its dangers if used incorrectly

Briefly an Ethics Order could be circumscribed as an internal communication line in an organization (or even company) that is utilized to inform those that are employed in the organization and those that take services from that organization about certain things on a need to know basis. It could be said that its initial purpose was to prevent more damage from occurring. This Ethics Order is basically an internal church issue. It informs those who need to know about what some person (or group) has been up to. It is usually send to some nearby organizations as well and any other where he may turn up. Would he then attempt to go into such an organization they can stop him right there, as they will have this information about him. It is a practicality basically aiming at to avoid disturbance in advance and also for protection of the Scientology public.

In the Scientology organization there are 2 main kinds of Orders in use that are issued by its name (as issue-type) that (in)directly may deal with Ethics. We have Ethics Order and the other one is Condition Order, although practically and theoretically they are both of them actual Ethics Orders and both answer to the rules that are laid out for them. Condition Orders are usually specifically about a certain Condition or situation that has changed. This could be as simple as a post-change within the organization (these are usually though issued as a Personnel Order); a Condition assignment for your post production; a post dismissal; when you leave the organization (Fitness Board Turndown); or as a so-called Non-Enturbulation Order. They are printed black on white paper, and this paper is of the light and cheap quality.
Those that are issued under the name of Ethics Orders cover so-called Board of Reviews, Committee of Evidences (these are a kind of justice committees) and presently also Suppressive Person Declares are issued under this format, although at some time during the past they may have been issued as Condition Orders. They are printed dark blue on so-called goldenrod paper of high quality. They are often referred to as Goldenrods.


Now, these Ethics Orders have to answer to and follow certain rules as to how they are supposed to be written. How the information is relayed and what is relayed. If these rules are not being followed up properly we will run into certain problems. They may start then to spread rumours and assumptions when there may be no ground for them. These rules are found in HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”.

How does this work in reality? How reliable are these data that are written in these Ethics/Condition Orders, may it be Non-Enturbulation Orders, Suppressive Person Declares or any other? Personally I can say that one can not blindly rely on the things that they claim. I have had Non-Enturbulation Orders and other things being written on me and I am sorry to say that these that I received contained plain falsities and distorted information. Each and every one of these I had to query and provided for was all the necessary evidence, in spite of this I have never received a particular acknowledgement to these queries. I had 2 of these that were issued at Flag (Clearwater, Fl), another was issued from the Ethics Office International (LA). This was some time ago now, and different persons I am sure are holding these positions at this point in time. I find it improper to relate here what these Orders were about, although if necessary I am still able to successfully defend my case and confidently hold my position in these on this present day.

Then there is also the matter of persons who have been staff in the Scientology organization for many, many years and were much commended and appreciated during their active years, and then all of a sudden it was found that they in reality were Suppressive Persons? I know about persons who have had this happening to them, various of these persons in fact could be very highly tech trained individuals. In particular I can name Caspar de Rijk who had been the top tech terminal of the AOSH EU (Saint Hill organization in Denmark) for many years. Caspar, who was the founder of the first Scientology organization in the Netherlands in 1972, later joined the senior Scientology organization the Sea Organization in AOSH EU in the early ’70s and became a Class IX auditor (multilingual –English, French, German, Dutch, Italian & Spanish–) & Solo C/S, till circumstances arose in 1996 (relating to the release of the Golden Age of Tech) that later made him to decide to leave in 1998. Is it logical to assume that someone who was so much acquainted with the technology and so much appreciated during so many years that such a person all of a sudden is found to have misconceptions of some sort and turns suppressive just like that? Also what message does this relate to us in regards to the actual value of this Scientology technology or knowledge if it was unable to prevent such things from occurring? There is this illogic factor involved here obviously. You see, if you have been tech trained and you have practiced your skills with excellent results during so very many years, then it does tell something about your level of understanding of the knowledge that you have acquired. For this reason it is then not very logical that this person would be found out to be suppressive, but nonetheless Caspar did receive his Goldenrod in 2003 simply for reason that he decided to start getting active as an auditor again. The situation was that during 1998-2003 he has attempted every possible standard steps to clear up his disagreements with the proper terminals within the organization, during all which time he was forbidden to audit. Finally then after seeing for himself that it did not go anywhere he decided to break away and audit again. Hence this Goldenrod issued on him.

I believe that the above relays some worthwhile information to us, for which reason I forward this overview. Any Ethics or Condition Order should be able to explain itself, meaning that you are being properly informed. Too often they do contain generalities and unexplained circumstances. Frequently after reading one I ask myself: “But what did this person actually do?”. At various occasions in the past I have even queried such orders that others received as they were either confusing or lacking data instead of clarifying. You simply have to use your sound judgment. These Orders are issued to solve problems, not to create them.

Go to index

Back to Main Index Issuing Ethics Orders on ‘suppressive persons’  –  Rules of the game & defence

Within the Scientology organization there has been this practice to announce serious matters in an official manner. This would inform the Scientology parishioners about what some person has been up to, and so they are warned. Also a publication of such matters would be recorded and send to nearby organization or where the person might turn up for further services.

Go back Declaring someone a ‘suppressive person’ by means of an Ethics Order

HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” was and still is the Policy Letter that is used for declaring an individual a Suppressive Person by means of this thing referred to as Ethics Order.

L. Ron Hubbard is pretty exact about how these Ethics Orders are supposed to be written:
“When writing an Ethics Order, don't ARC break its readers by leaving out the data. ...
Where did it happen? Is it in our area? What did he do? Who did he do it to? What's the evidence? ...
Don't be unspecific or you leave people in a huge mystery. ...
Always put in what you know, nothing you don't know and only what you have evidence or witnesses for. Ethics Orders are issued on real data, not opinion.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”)

Such an Suppressive Person Declare used to be issued as a so-called Condition Order. This is an Ethics Order however a Condition Order is more specifically putting someone in a condition, the condition here being a Suppressive Person. Today however such declares simply appear issued as an Ethics Order. At the end of such an Order it may list any of the Suppressive Acts as found in HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” which may be applicable. After each listing some specifics are given how this would apply to the person receiving this Ethics Order.

As human beings are involved in these things errors can have been made while labelling a person like that. He has the right for recourse, he may also request for a justice action to be done. If it was found that an error had been made, then the declare would be lifted and any and all rights of the person restored. If it on the other hand was found not to be an error the declare is then enforced.

HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” also gives information about how those who wish to have this declare lifted on them once again can come into good standing with the organization. It lists 5 steps this person then has to follow. They are usually referred to as the A to E steps, simply because they carry the first 5 characters of the alphabet. He simply has to show that he regrets all what he had done wrong and has to give proof for that his actions are not destructive anymore.

Go back Declaring someone a ‘suppressive person’ - Change of rules (A.D. 1983)  

In 1983 there were 2 significant kinds of changes incorporated in how affairs were dealt with in regards to so-called Suppressive Persons. Both of these seem however to act against HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”. Each are described in the below 2 sections.

Go back ‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”

Since September 1983 the following new rule was put into effect:
“A Suppressive Declare Order upon a person or group and all of the conditions inherent within it remain in force until the order has been officially cancelled by an authorized and published Church issue.”
(from HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”)
Prior to the release of this, there was no such rule in use or found listed anywhere within the organizational writings! In a sense it is remarkable. Why is it there now? What changed? Where is it coming from? What caused it to come into existence? What is the explanation? We should also not forget that L. Ron Hubbard had expressed his suspicions towards putting such a means of control on some other person. He did write in 1970: “I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice” . For this very reason Scientology had been created as a self-correcting system. It was always meant to be a self-help tool. You could always take control over the things that concerned you. Were you wronged and you could substantiate that, then there were steps you could take to reverse that situation. This sentence found added in this revision of that policy letter indicates that it was put to a stop right there!

The question we have to ask is if it would clash with the following:
“It occasionally happens that an order is issued or a policy is enforced or is found to exist which if put into effect in a certain area would result in loss or destruction.
Instead of putting the order into effect, he should query the order with:
  A.  The name of the issuer and the exact order;
  B.  The reason it would result in loss or destruction if put into effect,
  C.  A recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve.
Placing an org or person in an incorrect condition comes under this policy.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”)
Such a query as done per the above indicates that the order is not carried out, in effect or should be followed. This policy letter instructs: “Refuse meanwhile to put it into effect.”  LRH. The query simply does not need to be approved by someone, instead the arguments forwarded in the query need to be disproven. A query is always done solely on one's own self-determinism. If there are valid points to be taken into account, then this should defend he who has been offended! How does that work? A Suppressive Person Declare is putting someone in that named condition. This condition in itself may very well “result in loss or destruction if put into effect” and naturally on these grounds (which obviously has to be adequately supported!) can be queried as per HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”. My experiences have taught me that various angles of a matter can easily get overlooked and then an injustice may occur.

Mind here that ...
“IT DOES NOT RELIEVE ONE OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN ONE EXECUTES A DESTRUCTIVE ORDER. The one who follows it is in fact far more guilty than the issuer since the one following it is right there, able to OBSERVE whereas the issuer may not be.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”)
That sentence however that we find added since 1983 in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” does in fact acts against this!

Go back HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” (Limited Distribution)
(Includes:  Stripped from your rights?;  Authorship)

The beginning of this adventure of Dianetics & Scientology was an impulse that started with the issuance of the book Dianetics in 1950, and was later spurred by the development of Scientology since December 1951. By the time of 1983 it had been in existence for a good 30 years, and one should have expected after these years, after having gone through a variety of circumstances, battles, and so on that the organizational lines and operation by now would have been well established. Already in 1970, 13 years prior to 1983 L. Ron Hubbard had written in 1970: “It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.” .

HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” as it was revised and reissued on 10 September 1983 introduced a variety of new ways of how to go about things. These new ways also appear to collide with already existing policy letters. We had already Disconnection as a condition reinstated , and the new rule that SP declare orders needed to be “officially cancelled by an authorized and published Church issue” prior to them not any longer to remain in force.
The issuance of HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” –do note this being released only one day apart from 10 September 1983– appears to be part of the establishment and implementation of these new ways. It adds to and supports these new ways. This reference HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” should be regarded as rather controversial as it would in fact be colliding with already existing policy letters and well in particular with HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order” that said:
“When writing an Ethics Order, don't ARC break its readers by leaving out the data. ...
Where did it happen? Is it in our area? What did he do? Who did he do it to? What's the evidence? ...
Don't be unspecific or you leave people in a huge mystery. ...
Always put in what you know, nothing you don't know and only what you have evidence or witnesses for. Ethics Orders are issued on real data, not opinion.”          LRH
See, this policy letter urges that the order is written in a way get a clear communication across, it informs the reader. It doesn't leave you “in a huge mystery” as to what it is about, it urges you therefore to “be specific.

The problem with HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” is that it urges you to not follow these guidelines this in regards to these Declare Orders. It thus proposes an exception to the rule! The argument put forward in HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” for doing so is basically that you do not forward an enemy line. It reasons as follows: “Since one is dealing with an SP and since SPs do not deal in the truth, one purpose surely is to knock out a bunch of enemy lies, not forward them.” So you purposely do not supply any details about what the person or group actually has done or supposedly has done, and because of this it will be hard to question it directly as well.
We find in HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”:
“One could write a declare issue by simply stating something along such lines as: ‘Impartial investigation was undertaken regarding the real or imagined conflicts of John Doe and the Church and it was found that in all cases said John Doe was making false statements without any basis in fact and was spreading rumors contrary to the truth and making claims to ownership of proprietorship of products to which he had no title or right’ (if such is the case). ‘Based on the findings of this impartial investigation, John Doe is hereby declared to be a Suppressive Person. . .’ And one would follow that with a list of the fellow's actual squirrel actions and crimes and the penalties that occur for a Suppressive Person (may not be trained or processed, may not be helped or assisted, may be sued, etc.). And that would be that. There would be no forwarding of the enemy line.”          [attributed to LRH]
This use of this phrase “impartial investigation” we find, since this policy letter was issued, in pretty much all Declare Orders issued till this day. Now we know where it comes from, and it also may confirm in essense that this policy letter still would be in use today.

The problem is that HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” works as an actual ‘hidden data line’, because of the issue being Limited Distribution. Meaning no public is ever to see this reference, ordinary church staff ordinarily is also not aware of its existence. The distribution of this policy letter as per the routing indicated on it is to Ethics Officers, HCO staff (if relating to their post), Senior Executives and International Justice Chief.
This all by itself would not have been a problem if it was not colliding with already existing policy letters, but the reference is changing the rules of how to write Ethics Orders in regards to a certain kind of Ethics Orders (a Declare Order is issued as an Ethics Order), whereas HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order” does not note any exceptions. Obviously we are going to run into some problems here.
An irony here is that HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order” is listed as the first reference in the reference list that appears in HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”.

Then there is the issue with this forwarding an enemy line. This is coming from HCO PL 9 Jun 75 “The Enemy Line”. This policy letter we also find listed in that reference list of HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”. This reference basically advices about how you would handle black propaganda in regards to running a campaign of sorts. We could be facing a misconception here regarding what enemy line is actually about and what is meant with it. Policy letters are written to forward working solutions to particular problems observed in a particular area. You can not extend its application just like that! I address this further here (separate window).

Further noteworthy with this HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” may be that it is very definite in its determination. It is very outspoken about it and does this repeatedly.
“A person has been out there spreading all sorts of nonsense and false data about things. He has undoubtedly also been engaged in any number of squirrel activities -- altering the tech, covertly committing criminal acts, promoting off-Sourceness or attempting to block the Bridge with his squirrel actions.”
And here:
“The simple facts are that a suppressive person has done things which are against the tenets and agreements of the Church and its technology: He has committed High Crimes, and by so doing he has removed himself from the protection and privileges of Church membership.”
And again here:
“What is probably the most vital factor here is this: WHATEVER ELSE ONE IS DEALING WITH WHEN DEALING WITH AN SP, HE IS DEALING WITH A SQUIRREL.”
Well, then you better not make the mistake to issue such Declare Orders labeling innocent people.

Stripped from your rights?

Now, in this matter of having received a Suppressive Person Declare, it could essentially mean that you would have been stripped from your rights. See, you may have a hard time querying the declare (order), as it may/will be lacking specifics given about what exact you may have been up to. You may not even know yourself what it talks about.
But then even if you query it, it still would be in force as your query, this since September 1983 , has to be acknowledged prior to it getting “officially cancelled by an authorized and published Church issue.” This is all as per these new ways. It is good to know though that we actually still have the prerogative to query it according to HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of” (see previous section about that).
Instead you could of course also query the writing on the grounds of it being unspecific, and thus that it violates the guidelines as laid out in HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”. This does actually work.


It's just not very feasible at all that L. Ron Hubbard would have written this confidential policy letter. He is not in the habit forwarding such flaws and inconsistencies. At that we already have a court testimony from Robert Vaughn Young that he had written HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” (issued just a day later) that also was attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard that contains also a whole variety of serious flaws and illogics (see here, spearate window). It would be a reasonable conjecture to assume Robert Vaughn Young also wrote this Limited Distribution policy letter. It was him that wrote these administrative kind of writings.

Scientology technology always has been a self-correcting system, in fact it was especially designed being exactly that. These new ways introduced a change in that. Its outcome is that it gives others the power to control you, as theoretically you can be assigned such conditions (being a suppressive person) solely based on generalities, in addition this condition can be upheld till an official writing from others cancels it. We have to remind ourselves again about what L. Ron Hubbard wrote just 2 years after the discontinuation of enforced disconnection and the practice of fair game: “I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.” .

Some may ask: “But this HCO PL –that confidential one– how do we know it actually being in use?”. Firstly we can judge that from how SP-Declares actually are written. The criteria that I give in this section, do they resemble reality? Secondly I can confirm that Checklists exist for that purpose that contain many entries from this HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order”. In particular I want to name ‘FDD 123-1 Div I Int’, 1 Apr 86 “Urgent - Important; Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist”, but also ‘FDD 123 Div I Int’, 1 Mar 84 “Urgent - Important; Justice Action CSW Checklist” does mention this confidential HCO PL. Both of these FDD's were send to HCO Divisions worldwide.

The main problem here is that HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” & HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order” can not coexist! You simply can not have one reference saying something and then another confidential reference limiting the use of that first reference! If you do, then you are in fact forwarding a Hidden Data line, which is not actually allowed within Scientology.

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

In my personal experience not only SP-Declares are written in such an “unspecific” way, but the same goes for Non-Enturbulation Orders and such. No wonder then that “you leave people in a huge mystery” and “ARC break its readers by leaving out the data”.

“Just because the world is injust is no reason we must ever be.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH FCO 1205R’, ca 1970)

Go to index

Back to Main Index Your right for a ‘Comm Ev’ (Committee of Evidence)
“A fact finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a Convening Authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Sept 63 “Committees of Evidence; Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration of”)
“Its purpose is entirely to obtain evidence and recommend action which the Office of LRH then modifies or orders.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 10 Apr 65 “Dismissals, Transfers and Demotions”)
“It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the facts and clean up the ARC breaks* caused by rumour.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 27 Mar 65 “The Justice of Scientology, Its Use and Purpose; Being a Scientologist”)  (underlinings in the above are all mine)

Go back 1) Has a ‘Comm Ev’ be held prior to issuance of the Declare Order?

(Includes:  Exceptions to the rule ...)

We indeed find various indications in policy letters that a routinely issued Declare Order has to abide to a particular sequence of actions that have to take place before such a Declare Order may be issued.
We for example find listed in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review” a guide of 36 gradients of actions that have to be answered to in given sequence. A brief overview of this “rough guide to the severity of discipline” gives:

Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning in but only inspecting it silently.
Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.
Requesting information by Ethics personnel.
Reporting a person to Ethics.  (#10-16 interrogation by ‘Ethics personnel’)
Interrogation in a Court of Ethics.  (#17-21 ‘Court of Ethics’ proceedings)
Suspension ...
A Committee of Evidence ordered.  (#22-36 ‘Committee of Evidence’ proceedings)
Publishing findings.
Loss of certificates or awards.
Expulsion from Scientology.”          LRH

A Court of Ethics and a Committee of Evidence appear required steps in this sequence prior to an actual Declare Order being issued. You see, part of the actions we find listed in such a Declare Order include: “Loss of certificates or awards” and “Dismissal / Expulsion from Scientology”. But it is only the findings of an actual held Committee of Evidence that can actually recommend these things!
This policy letter actually states (underlining is mine): Only a Comm Ev can recommend suspension or remove certificates or awards or memberships or recommend dismissal.”   LRH

Mind further that “A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action.”. So the requirement of a Comm Ev held prior to expulsion really shouldn't be surprising as an “An expulsion of Scientology.” is the ultimate action taken. So you better be right if you want to put that on a person or group. Certainly it should never been down at a whim, and without the issuer being able to put up clear undeniable evidence justifying that action.
Followingly we have the guideline that “The Office of LRH passes on all Comm Ev findings before they can go into effect.”   LRH  . One should be aware that all these actions routinely are all carried out in the local organization. It is then the local organization that sends up this request for a Declare Order to that International Justice chief (IJC).

 Here it then becomes a matter of:  (underlining is mine)
Did the person who wrote it have the authority … to order it? ...
Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, in-policy, in-tech order.
Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Feb 79R II “How to Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist”)

This by itself would actually make such a Declare Order invalid!

Exceptions to the rule ...

Indeed there are a few listed exceptions to this sequence of actions as laid out in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”. This is pending particularly serious offenses and situations that may endanger if not dealt with in a direct manner. These situations often have to deal with previous justice actions already taken. As such an example we find in HCO PL 1 Jul 65 “Ethics Chits”:

What to do with the 2 or 3 students or pcs causing trouble?
Ethics issues a Non Entrubulation Order. This states that those named in it (...) 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 thim in line until tech can be gotten in on them and takes them off the back of Tech and Qual personnel.”          LRH

We see here that some people simply got a warning to cool down about things. So, there do exist a few explicit actions that can result in immediate declare per policy guidelines. But these describe extreme or very specific matters or can be seen as warnings. It does not mean that it would/could indicate that the rough guidelines as sequencially listed in HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review”would be invalid or could be bypassed overall! See, it does not say nor imply that! This has to be said as I found that some people have either misunderstood and/or misapplied this, or at times used it as a defence mechanism for justification.
Therefore each and every exception to the rule should be supported with quoted policy letters that support such an exception and needs to be accompanied with clear, verified, undeniable and factually presented evidence of the accusation(s) hold against an individual.

Go back 2) Your right for a ‘Comm Ev’ after the issuance of the Declare Order

On the other hand it may even be found after issuing such a Declare Order that a mistake had be made and in such a case one has an actual right to recourse:
“Should the person or group claim the label to be false, he, she or they may request a Committee of Evidence via their nearest HCO. The executive with the power to convene a Committee of Evidence must do so if one is requested for recourse or redress of wrongs. ...
The Committee must pay attention to any actual evidence that the person or group that is accused of being suppressive may produce particularly to the effect of having helped Scientology or Scientologists or a Scientologist and if this is seen to outweight the accusation, proof or lack of it, the person is absolved. ...
Failing to prove guilt of Suppressive Acts, the Committee must absolve the person or group publicly.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” (presently in use as HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB I “same title”), see at heading in reference: “RIGHTS OF A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON OR GROUP”)
This should all be pretty straightforward. So it may after all not be so easy at all to just put out such a Declare Order on a person(s) or group! Obviously clear and supported evidence needs to be provided for if the Declare Order is actually going to stick.
Of course it is partly also a matter of giving honest testimonies and information as the above quoted policy letter instructs that if this is not upheld that it “can result in an immediate finding against the person or group”. The policy letter also advices against “to use copies of the testimony or findings of a Committee of Evidence” for the purpose of “scorn in a civil court” as it “immediately reverses any favourable finding and automatically labels the person or group suppressive”.
So if abided to these rules and one should (theoretically at least) be pretty safe. But this is only as far as it concerns the Church of Scientology. I mean to say here that if you wish to maintain a favourable and friendly position in regards to this organization established as such, that you have to abide to its regulations as found in its policy letters! And I did say theoretically as the organization also has to abide to these justice policy rules. You, as the reader, has to determine (regarding your own situation) if this is being the case or not. If you have gone over the available policy letters, you will know which. In such a case it may get a bit hard to redress wrongs.

In any case, mind this:
“I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)
One may have developed a perfect routine for these things, nonetheless if these guidelines are not being followed or violated then they will have shown to be rather useless!

Back to Main Index Placing the organization at a risk and the responsibilities of its personnel
(Includes:  “Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist” (1986))

Per these rights and the rules that are to be abided to, it serves little purpose to issue such a Declare Order if the organization that issues them is unable to actually deliver the goods. A diligent and for all persistent person or group would or should (at least theoretically) not have too much trouble to get a falsely issued Declare Order issued on a person or group withdrawn. In return the organization then has the obligation to “absolve the person or group publicly”.

Obviously the organization, in case it has shown to be issued in error, is risking to seriously losing face in the public eye. That is if it would go public. It is thus (for the organization) a matter of being very careful about issuing such designations. L. Ron Hubbard warns:
 “Always put in what you know, nothing you don’t know and only what you have evidence or witnesses for. Ethics Orders are issued on real data, not opinion.”
“Never be afraid to issue orders that label somebody an SP if you have the real evidence.”
And there is a reason for that as L. Ron Hubbard folds out:  (underlining is mine)
“If you are frightened of civil suits because of an Ethics Order, just remember to issue them only when you have the evidence.”          LRH
(above quotations from HCO PL 2 Jun 65 I “Writing of an Ethics Order”

And according to HCO PL 7 March 1965RB I: “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”:
“It is wise for any Scientologist, HCO Secretary or Committee of Evidence in matters concerning suppressive acts to obtain valid documents, letters, testimonies duly signed and witnessed, affidavits duly sworn to and other matters and evidences which would have weight in a court of law. Momentary spite, slander suits, charges of Scientology separating families, etc., are then guarded against.”          LRH

After all people could, if the format is not properly being followed, even file a suit for libel and defamation for false accusations. Therefore the utmost cautiousness is advised in preparing these matters.

“Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist” (1986)

In fact a format for amongst other limiting the chance of failures had been drawn up in 1986 by Paul Laquerre, the then International Justice chief. This was issued as ‘FDD 123-1 Div I Int’, 1 Apr 86 “Urgent - Important; Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist”. Note that is a CSW-format and it is forwarding a checklist that guides you through all the steps that need to be complied with. Each step on this checklist form needs to have proper evidence attached and needs to be separately signed. Then this CSW and send up to the Int Justice Chief for final approval. A decision is then made to either approve or disapprove this request for a Declare Order. Obviously if it did not pass any of the required criteria it would have been disapproved.

This reference states in its introduction:
“Over the past few years many SP Declares that were proposed by orgs or missions have been rejected by the Int Justice Chief due to violations of policy in how they were written. ...
However, even today very few SP Declares are being proposed by orgs and missions despite their need, and the amount of rejects on those SP Declares that are proposed is still high.”
“There are a number of LRH Policies that must be known well in order to write a proper SP Declare. ... [listing “HCO PL 2 Jun 65 WRITING OF AN ETHICS ORDER” and 6 other HCO Pls]
These policies are broken down into checklist points (see the attachment [there are 25 check points listed]) that must be checked off when writing a declare order to ensure the declare is properly written.”

This was all about 30 years ago. Now what is today's situation? Well, it does not appear that even this checklist is being in use anymore. I has been rumoured that this Paul Laguerre himself had received such a Declare Order. I heard about this rumour from staff at the Flag organization, Clearwater, Fl. during the late ’80s.

Various complaints have since surfaced:

  1. Improper distribution of the Order
    1. People are verbally informed that a Declare Order has been issued on them, but are not being presented with an actual copy of it to read.
    2. People receive no information of a Declare Order having been issued on them.
    3. One is called to the local organization where you are allowed to read your Declare Order, but then you are not allowed to take a copy of it with you.
      (it is explained here that a copy will not be supplied because the organization does not want to risk that it gets published on the Internet)
  2. Writing of the Order
    1. Having a Declare Order issued without a Committee of Evidence ordered/convened has become common practice.
    2. Within the organization it is generally assumed that if a request for a Declare Order has been send up to the Int Justice chief (CSW that first needs to be approved), that a Declare Order is going to be issued (to that effect Scientology parishioners may be instructed and accordingly guided by Ethics Officers to have them write and send out so-called disconnection letters this prior to having a Declare Order actually issued and/or distributed)

Obviously one does need an actual copy of the Declare Order. How otherwise could you possibly get recourse to redress wrongs? In any case one simply can not be that unserious and feeble-minded about issuing these Orders written in any sort of unprofessional manner as sooner or later it may/will place the Scientology organization as a whole at very serious jeopardy! Besides that the amateurish approach will create flagrant out-PR where ever such a writing surfaces!

Go to index

Back to Main Index The usefulness of HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”

Reality factor:  Any query should be done for the right reasons! One never should resort to these actions just for the sake of querying or as some utterance of protest. Anything that one queries one has to be able to properly substantiate with facts and data. One should be able to verify that in fact there exist valid grounds for querying something. I solely advocate the means of defence that are provided for us in Scientology writings. It is used to set things right and/or for damage prevention.

The reference HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of” has been touched already little in the previous chapter. Various persons appear to have some ideas that are attached to this HCO PL.
One of these ideas is that such a query needs to be approved by someone prior to being valid. This is simply false data! The whole purpose of this reference is in particular about to not follow something because of damage prevention, for this reason (obviously) the order is not followed! It appears the ‘Orders, Query of’ format is confused here with the Completed Staff Work (CSW) format. It should be realized that this is something entirely different!
Another idea is that this format of ‘Orders, Query of’ can not be used as a defence for these so-called Ethics Orders. It should be very clearly understood that any such Ethics Order, may this be a Condition Order, Non-Enturbulation Order, Separation Order or any other kind of Order, that these put some person(s), or group in some kind of condition.

HCO PL 15 Dec 69 II “Orders, Query of” says quite clearly:
“Placing an org or person in an incorrect condition comes under this policy.”          LRH
And it says also:
“Even ‘You're fired’ can be an incorrect order and can be queried if done as above.”          LRH

There should not be any doubt about if such can or can not be queried, i.e. if in fact there are valid grounds for such.

More quotations of this reference can be consulted here (separate window).

Go to index

Back to Main Index Is querying a Third Dynamic activity?  &  De-PTSing

This Third Dynamic is referred to as a group. Now, does it affect a group, or the members within, if some person has received some declare Order? It appears that it is a seriously overlooked ingredient!

The simplicity of it is that persons will be judged by those with whom he associates. Therefore this puts a particular responsibility on those that did receive an unfair treatment through means and use of these Ethics Orders. That is, if it be an incorrect Order, if it be that it actually contains incorrect information. By lack of contrary information the Order will be used and enforced, and thus will affect any that is in some way associated with the receiver of such an Order. Therefore the receiver adopting the attitude of to just let it pass and do not take proper action in regards to the incorrectness does create a situation for this receiver of the declare Order. I think that this should not be underestimated. Usually I find however that it has been underestimated!

Spiritual freedom consists of as-ising. ‘As-is’ means ‘to view anything exactly as it is without any distortions or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist’. To be able to as-is you need information, and certain actions need to have been undertaken to make this information known. If you do not do so, you in fact forward and support a ‘counter as-isness’. You will have allowed an untruth to be in existence without counteracting it. If you however take corrective measures and communicate in regards to the incorrectness and are using the tools that have been supplied for exactly this, then you will have made a simple decision about being cause over the situation. You will have send out a message conveying: “Hey guys, there has been made an error here. Here is what's the deal...”, and you give the specifics, the evidence or any you may have what makes the incorrectness evident.

Querying also works as a means to protect oneself and/or other persons from actually becoming PTS. The basis of suppression is when you can't or don't see that anything effective can be done against it. It is also actively opposing to a condition some have attempted to put you in. Not doing anything against it may get you somehow agreeing or adjusting to that condition. Taking action is you taking a cause position towards it. This point also should not be underestimated!

Some will understand what I talk about here, others will not or choose to be in denial. Sure, you need some courage and make some little effort to do this, and many will try to explain-away it. Some persons I notice have interpreted this querying as something that may turn into some time craving menace of some sort that will continue to occupy their time and bother them in the coming future. One should understand that the whole idea of doing a query is not to get a communication started. This is not the object! The object is simply to get the querist taking a cause point! Giving him an on-policy argument. The object is to put those that are incorrect about something, that can not provide proof or support claims made at an effect point. To effectively rob those from actually having a supposed argument. A query is something you do that carries a very clear and supported statement that is put into the physical universe, that communicates that one does not agree with something, that one does not submit, and that one opposes. It does not require a response, it does not particularly need an acknowledgment! (it is not a CSW, remember). You simply put an end to something that has come onto your lines. This is what querying is about. If no one ever responds to your query, this does not matter in the least. It is not the aim to get a response. It will only come back on your lines when your arguments for querying and your defence can be effectively proven being incorrect. So, if done for the right reasons, and you have the arguments supporting and acknowledging your position in space, then basically it is done and over with. Not doing anything against it may very well leave it hanging up there in the air.

What is the price of freedom, any freedom? The reality is that one also has to be considerate towards others if one is aiming for freedom for oneself. If an error has been made, then one has an obligation to correct the incorrectness. If not, others will be judged also by it! And do not think for a moment that it will not affect you the receiver of the Order. I am afraid that it certainly will.

It says in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTSness and Disconnection”:
“To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of the suppressive—in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labeled.”
This line involves consequences. In fact it is used to put out declare Orders on others. The validity of these lines in this HCOB have been questioned although that is not the issue here. The issue here is to do which we can to actually as-is, and do some steps attempting to prohibit that it will reflect negatively on others, i.e. if it is the case that incorrectnesses would have slipped through.

Of course, be it that the Declare Order is actually correct! Well, then forget all what I said in the above, as it will not be for you!

Go to index

Back to Main Index How to establish if some group may be suppressive or squirrel?

Some criteria could be watched for.

“Squirreling = going off into weird practices or altering Scientology”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

The basic outset would be:
“What makes tech correct? When it doesn't get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.
My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.
When another, through misunderstood words or other reasons, ‘interprets’ or changes the original tech, it has been the general experience that results are not obtained.”          LRH
(from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

An argument that has been made is that any that uses old material of Scientology that this should be addressed as squirrel of some sort. It is however confirmed that the basic set out of Scientology has always been and remained the very same:
“The basics and fundamentals are stated early in the period of development and have not changed.
The ‘newest and latest’ is usually a recovery of basics and better statements of them.
That things which were true early in the subjects are still true.
That the Classification and Gradation Chart and all its processes and steps IS the basic program of any case.
That all other programs are efforts to get the pc or pre-OT back on the basic program.
That there is no hidden data line and that the materials and procedures are refined mainly to facilitate use and communication of them.”          LRH
(from HCOB 12 Jun 70 “Programming of Cases”)

But also here:
“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. ...
A subject can be reorganized and made more workable. That was done in 1969 for Dianetics. BUT IT HAD NEVER BEEN UNWORKABLE! ...
This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.”          LRH
(from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)

And here referred to as Standard Tech:
“There is only one Standard Tech! It contains only a few dozen processes and actions.”          LRH
(from HCOB 28 Aug 68 “Out Tech”)
“Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.”          LRH
(from HCOB 26 Feb 70 “Standard Tech and Invalidation”)
All indicating that any earlier tech was still workable, it does not turn it into squirrel.

We can also calculate with some sort of time factor:
Thus it should be obvious that contraction leads to death and expansion to life providing that one maintains a demand for itself and the will and skill to produce and deliver a product.
If as ours is, the product is very beneficial and if we continue to produce and deliver the demand is assured. In this we are fortunate. And we are also fortunate that, try as they will, no squirrel is ever able to duplicate our product since one variation (that of changed brand) leads to others and they promptly have neither product nor demand–that observation is itself empirical. No squirrel has lasted more than 2 or 3 years in the past sixteen years. And there have been many. That they squirrel shows enough bad faith to drive away the public the moment the public hears of the original.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Dec 66 “Expansion - Theory of Policy”)
An interesting reference that puts a time machine on things. Still there after so and so many years, then one must be doing something right.

This can also work as an argument:
“Suppressive Groups are defined as those which seek to destroy Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of Mankind.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 29 Jun 68 “Enrollment in Suppressive Groups” (Reissue of HCO PL 28 Dec 1965 “same title” that contains an amendment))
Success stories and any would disprove that such a group would be involved with any such.

Things may not always be as some have assumed that they are or if advocated as such.



     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     ARC break:
1. An incomplete cycle of some kind or another. It's a lowering of Affinity, Reality and Communication, so we call it an ARC break. (SH Spec 65, 6507C27)  2. A sudden drop or cutting of one's affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication or understanding. It's called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person's state of mind. (LRH Def. Notes)  Abbr. ARCX
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
Short for ‘Communication’.
     Comm Ev:
Committee of Evidence’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Committee of Evidence:
1. A committee of evidence is not a court. It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the facts and clean up the ARC breaks (breaks in communication) caused by rumor. (HCO PL 27 Mar 65)  2. A fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a convening authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action. (HCO PL 7 Sept 63)  3. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)  4. A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action. (HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III)  5. A Committee of Evidence is convened by the Office of LRH through the HCO Secretary and is composed of staff members. Its purpose is entirely to obtain evidence and recommend action which the Office of LRH then modifies or orders. (HCO PL 10 Apr 65)  Abbr. Comm Ev.
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     ‘Declare’ (or ‘Declare Order’):  
‘Suppressive Person Declare’ or ‘SP Declare’. Declare has grown to be an expression frequently used amongst the Scientology parishioners that means that an Ethics Order (as in official writing) in where a person(s) and/or group(s) are being declared being suppressive person(s) and/or suppressive group(s).
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
     enturbulation, enturbulate:
Cause to be turbulent or agitated and disturbed. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
Flag Condition Order’. Sea Org* issue-type reserved for ethics matters. Equivalent to Ethics Order (Condition Order) as used in lower classed Scientology organizations.
Flag Divisional Directive’. The Flag Divisional Directive has been introduced with the purpose of communicating and pushing command policies, projects and programs. Its distribution is to SO and Scn orgs alike or as designated.
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
Int(ernational) Justice Chief’.  See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Int(ernational) Justice Chief (IJC):
1. The executive responsible for the application of Scientology Justice Policies to Church staff and parishioners. The position protects the church, its tenets, and membership. The duties include reviewing and approving (or not approving) all major justice actions to ensure no injustice is done. The position is assisted by Continental Justice Chiefs. (Declaration of IJC Mike Ellis, 5 Oct 2014)  2. If a person or a group that has committed a Suppressive Act comes to this, her or their senses and recants, his, her or their only terminal is the International Justice Chief (HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA, 10 Sept 83)  3. Position established in 1979.
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     Withholds (W/Hs):
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (Marriage Hats booklet)

Go to top of this page