“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified (2)
(Includes: “Code of Reform”; ‘Rock Slam’; HCO PL “Suppressive Acts”)
(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.

Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified  (page 2)

Go to “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified” index page

Miscellaneous information

Back to Main Index “Code of Reform” (1968)

An incidence of historical importance that is little known this day.

Code of REFORM
On August 1st 1968 Scientology organizations in the UK began mailing a Code of Reform Questionnaire. One million questionnaires were sent out containing 4 questions as follows:
(1)What reforms if any would you like effected in what you may have heard of or know of Scientology Organizations or policies?
(2)What changes in conduct or what conduct would you suggest to Scientologists?
(3)What services would you like Scientology to perform in the community?
(4)How could Scientology better fit in with the aims and purposes of your area of interest?
The response by the general public was intelligent and constructive. Some reforms have been implemented already.”

(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

During these years issues had been raised in the form of stiffer applied ethics actions on persons and other. There was a specific reason for this to have occurred. I address this in detail on my page “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”, see chapter “Events leading up to the term coming into being”. Either way this Questionnaire will have had some effect on the following quoted changes implemented. It being noted tough that the practice of fair game already had been abandoned (per HCO PL 21 Jul 68) prior to the Questionnaire having been send out.

Policy Changes by Scientology Organizations

Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.
Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
Cancellation of condition known as fair game.
Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down or otherwise recorded.”

(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

It does appear here that matters (at least during these ’60s) were given appropriate attention for correction if there were indications for misconceptions, misapplications, or misinterpretations.

Go to index

Back to Main Index The turbulent late ’70s and early ’80s

Go back ‘List 1 Project’ (1977-78)  &  A new management (1982-83)

Special mention has to be made on this page of these particular time periods because many people were put through some rather unpleasant ordeals and having them denied the standard Ethics and Justice procedures as laid out in policy letters.
During 1977-78 many Scientology staff were taken from their post and send to this Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) only because of some E-meter read. A read that was interpreted as a so-called Rock Slam but it wasn't. Then again during 1982-83 many staff were put through similar ordeals like thrown of post, received SP Declares for no particular reason, and so on. Their right for defence had simply been denied.
Then some years later in time during the early ’80s the organization lost hundreds of valuable staff, many of them were Scientology old-timers and had been there establishing and forming the organization. This ‘clean up’ was coinciding with the establishment of a new Church management. People have been talking about these matters on the Internet. I myself have spoken with quite a few of these persons and they told me their story. And their stories show a conformity. Rights to standard Ethics and Justice procedures had uniformly been denied. A paper was written, given to the person and that was it. Or they may had been ordered to report to the Rehabilitation Project Force, were no particular reason given, and if they refused they had no other way out then leaving.

I address both of these time periods and provide for specific researched information at the links here below:  (separate windows)
    “Witch hunts (1) (late ’70s): ‘List 1 Project’ & ‘Rock Slams’ (1977-78)”
  “Witch hunts (2) (early ’80s): The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management (1982-83)”

Go back Rough ethics and the ‘scare’ factor (US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, 17 Oct 82)

RTC logo
RTC logo for‘Standard Ethics’

During the time as we got this new management with Religious Technology Center (RTC) established and all that came with it, we see increasing stiffening ethics actions taking place. Rather noteworthy in this respect is the reputed US Mission Holders Conference that was held in San Franciso on 17 Oct 1982. Various persons were speaking at this conference. Here I focus particularly on the speech of this Mr. Ray Mithoff. We find here an evident harshness and scare factor being forwarded.
We find a transcript of this conference being released the following month as ‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow Up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”.

In the first part of his speech Mr. Ray Mithoff relates:
“Tonight you've heard a bit about this recent epidemic of this squirrel tech, ...”
Concluding that:
“It's not just that one person went crazy and invented something, ...”
And expressed about it:
“But I was particularly disgusted when I found out that other people and other staffs, mission staffs in particular went along with this, thought it was great ...”

In the second part of the speech Mr. Ray Mithoff first flags with:
“The upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11 -- these levels are amazing. They are amazing beyond your belief. These things are all there and it's a very bright future.”
Then the scare factor makes its entry with if you were to:
“Join up with some squirrel ..., try to audit some piece of tech that you've invented and call it Scientology or take a piece of Scientology that is Scientology tech and go out and try to sell it to somebody and call it something else, call it, you know, Whiz-Bangs or something.”
Following the warning:
“You do something like that I can assure you you will have no more certs, you won't even have the corner of your HAS Course cert. You won't even have the thumbtack to pin it on the wall. You won't have any certificates, you won't get any auditing and I can see to it that you won't. And you particularly won't get anymore OT levels, nothing, if you persist.”

Later in the speech again:
“Like I said, if someone here persists in squirrelling or getting others to squirrel or just standing there like this while your buddy is wrecking Scientology, just standing there (whistling) like that, which I consider just as gross. And if you all read the new 1982 Policy Letter called Knowledge Reports, you'll see what I mean. If you just stand right there and say, well, okay, let this guy wreck Scientology. From my post I can very much ensure that you will never, ever get anywhere near any Scientology book, meter, anything and I can request of persons in RTC to see to it that other measures are taken. But I can Assure you that you will not have anymore certs whatsoever and anyone in this room right now who goes out and tries to do anything even vaguely resembling this ‘dinging’ thing of ringing the bell in the courseroom or locking students in closets or ah, telling every single public person that walks in the door that they're PTS because they have money or something like this, anybody who gets into this thing and I find out about it (and I will because of my comm* lines are very, very far reaching right now) I can tell you you won't have anything left. Nothing.”

Mind that this Mr. Ray Mithoff addresses here all of the attendees of this conference. It is also not all forwarded in a very gentle manner. It's like saying: “Conform to what we say, or else..!”. Personally I am not in particular fond of this way of expressing. Its product is rather that you will shut up people, them having a point in regards to Keeping Scientology Working or not. It is better then to not draw attention to oneself by opening one's mouth for anything in fear that one may become a target. In particular you will not be prone to question these speakers for what they say or claim is the right thing or not the right thing. After all you may imperil your “upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11 -- these levels are amazing. They are amazing beyond your belief. These things are all there and it's a very bright future.”, and your future may not be so bright. Although there is this imminent danger that this harsh approach may not forward the purpose accurately!

Later during the conference a break was made for Overts & Withholds write-ups and Knowledge Reports, papers were passed out and so on. A stressing comment was also made by Cmdr. Wendell Reynolds (International Finance Dictator):
“If you've done stuff in the past and you come clean now we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We'll assume that you weren't hatted or you were misdirected or something else. You don't come clean tonight and I find out something after this, man, you've had it.”
It does sounds here like about everyone had done bad things one way or the other. These attendees were actually mission holders all of them. Thus people that have been active spreading Scientology and all that. Does the majority of these people not deserve appreciation for that? Is it then justified to speak in that manner as was being done to the lot of these people? You see, if some person had done something wrong, you simply take it up with that very person on the side. The products of such a particular person will speak for itself. But you do not resort speaking to a whole crowd and scare the hell out of the lot of them.

Of course, certain measures taken may have been necessary in events of heavy turbulence of some sort. We have to watch however what it may result in? After all we don't want an obedient flock of sheep. Or do we? You see, all you got to do is pull out the culprits. While evaluating statistics and products you would soon find out, and that would be the end of it.
Well, let's keep in mind here that if you allow yourself to be ruled by fear instead of following your integrity, well, then I would say, “man, you've had it”. “I can tell you you won't have anything left. Nothing.”

We find this line of approach set forth in the one year later issued ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. The person that had been posted as the Flag C/S since September 1973 and active as the Senior C/S International during Oct 78/Aug 82 after he forcefully was kicked out and defamed. This SO ED was made into a broad release issue. Coincidentally this writing as well goes into these “upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11” matters.

First this SO ED informs that “He (David Mayo) knows that there are many new OT levels above Solo NOTs which have been fully researched”. Then it continues with that “He knows very well that anyone involved in a squirrel group or psychiatric group or any anti-Scientology activity will never, ever be permitted to receive these services.”. Finally we get the following warning:  (underlining is mine)
“The actions of Mayo and the little group he has joined amount to not only an attempt to lure some people off the Bridge, but an attempt to deny that Bridge to them for eternity (because once they become involved with this squirrel practice they will thereafter be denied access to the upper levels).”
It seems all pretty final ...

Mind however that L. Ron Hubbard writes:
“I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.
Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.
I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don't think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.”          LRH
For reason:
“I think of an auditor as a person with enough guts to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. This quality is rare and this quality is courageous in the extreme.”          LRH
(above quotations from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)
In spite of all this we see that particular during the earlier ’80s that any that practices Scientology outside of the reign and control of the Church of Scientology are ruthlessly being hunted down and persecuted. The ‘progress’ that had been made we then find proudly presented in this periodical ‘KSW News’ published since 1983 by the Religious Technology Center (RTC).
* KSW = Keeping Scientology Working .

But why would anyone want to close them down and put such an effort there? Had L. Ron Hubbard not made clear that:
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”)
It would seem that they would disappear all by themselves, because of ... no income.

Back to Main Index The phenomena and history of the term ‘Rock Slam’ (1962-78 span)

The term Rock Slam does surface in the history of Scientology, and it does mean something bad. A so-called Rock Slammer is generally regarded synonym to a suppressive person. At times this has also been misused. Below I have put together a little chronology about the use and how it is referred to during the 1962-78 time span.

The booklet ‘E-Meter Essentials’ (released May 61) defines it as:
“A Rock slam is a crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle, narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches happening several times a second. The needle ‘goes crazy’, slamming back and forth, narrowly, widely, over on the left, over on the right, in a mad war dance or as if it were frantically trying to escape. It means hot terminal or hot anything in an assessment and takes precedence over a fall.”          LRH

HCOB 23 Nov AD12“Routine Two-Twelve Opening Procedure by Rock Slam an HPA/HCA Skill” says:
“DATUM 1962 – Rock Slammers. Persons who Rock Slam on Scientology or associated Items are Security Risks.”          LRH

The first edition of ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (released Jun 75) provides for 9 reference entries for ‘ROCK SLAM’, and for ‘ROCK SLAMMER’ 3 reference entries. Most of them are rather technical in nature, although it is interesting to note that none of these are found anymore in the 1983 edition of this ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (for those who may wish to consult all of these click here, pop-up window). The 1983 edition instead only lists 2 reference entries for ‘ROCK SLAM’, one from August 1976 (Revised Sept 78) and the other from September 1978. The reference entry for ‘ROCK SLAMMER’ now only focuses on one reference from November 1974 (Revised Dec 76), and only uses the information that was added when this was revised. The general idea of what ‘Rock Slam’, and ‘Rock Slammer’ is about is given by below references found in this first edition of this ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’.
“ROCK SLAM, ... 4. as a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)”
“ROCK SLAMMER, ... 3. it isn't somebody you can get a rock slam on, you would be wrong if you assumed that. It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: ‘Consider overts against Scn’ and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04)”

The reference HCOB 1 Nov 74 “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers” refers to such a person more specifically as: “R/Ses have to do with Scientology or one or more areas of the old Scientology List One found in the Book of E-meter Drills”. This particular List One gives us a summary of Scientology related words. The original 1962 list of words can be found in HCOB 24 Nov AD12 “Routine 2-12, List One – Issue One, The Scientology List”. The 1971 version can be found in “The Book of E-Meter Drills” (1971 Edition), consult here (pop-up window). It basically means that an auditor runs of this list of words on a preclear (assessment), and then watches if the needle of the E-Meter reacts as prescribed for Rock Slam.
That sentence quoted in the above was rephrased in its revision into: “R/Ses have to do with evil thoughts, overts or intentions.”  (from HCOB 1 Nov 74R (Revised 30 Dec 76) “same title”).

Either way it becomes quite clear and in particular since the release of this HCOB 1 Nov 74 “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers” that clearly adjudicates that so-called Rock Slammers are definitely something really bad, i.e. if it be a real Rock Slam. From this HCOB the section entitled “ROCK SLAMMERS”:
“In a group of 400, the actual percentage of R/Sers is low. It's about 8 in 400, or 2-2½%. Those figures should seem familiar. They are the same percentage for SPs. And that gives you a clue to the identification of an R/Ser.
Where requirements for Scn or SO Orgs have been established for R/Ses they apply to the 2-2½% of real R/Sers as these are also considered security risks for staff purposes.
These people can of course be salvaged as pcs* using Expanded Dianetics. Letting them on staff could be disastrous, however.”          LRH

Precaution apparently should be taken though as it says also: “Staff concerned must be able to identify an R/Ser which is different from someone with an R/S.”  LRH.

This HCOB added in its revision of 1976 a section entitled: “LIST ONE R/Ser”:
“There are, for our purposes, two kinds of R/Sers. (a) Those who R/S on subjects not connected with Scn and (b) Those who R/S on subjects connected to Scientology. The latter is a ‘List One R/Ser’ and it is of great importance to us that they be located and moved off lines when they are part of staffs as their intent is solely to destroy us what ever else they say: their long run actions will prove it.
The definition of a List One R/Ser is anyone who has R/Sed on List One. If that is confirmed fully, that's it. Not all points on the checklist have to be present. The full list of Scientology List One items can be found in HCOB 24 Nov AD 12 ‘Routine 2-12 List One - Issue One, the Scientology List’.
Where there is any doubt as to the validity of a List One R/S, a verification should be done. The procedure is to vigorously Sec Check the pc on the subject of the reported List One R/S. This Sec Check must be done by an Auditor who knows R/Ses and can make lists read and pull W/Hs* connected with R/S.”          LRH
(from HCOB 1 Nov 74R (Revised 30 Dec 76) “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”)
Note: It is noted here that this revision was ‘Assisted by CS-4/5*. The composer/typist initials given are ‘LRH:JE:lf’. It appears that this CS-4/5 was John Eastment. I note this here as this particular R-version of this HCOB is very hard to come by. The later revision from September 1978 still does note ‘Assisted by CS-4/5’ but it does not note the ‘JE’ initials anymore. This September 1978 also fails to note 1976 in its copyright notices, which is improper as the 1976 revision after all was quite extensive.

Both HCOB 3 Sept 78 “Definition of a Rock Slam” & HCOB 10 Aug 76R (Revised 5 Sept 78) “R/Ses, What They Mean” denotes that “A ROCK SLAM MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION OR AUDITING.” (both references are quoted in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1983 Edition) at ‘ROCK SLAM’).

Go to index

Back to Main Index Versions analysis of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

Probably no other policy letter had been subjected to so many changes as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”. The basis of this initial research into these matters was a very thorough and detailed analysis of the publication history of this particular HCO PL and various of its adherent subjects. It is now placed here as background information.
One can see an interesting development in how this policy letter changed through time. This particular HCO PL was of vital importance for so-called Suppressive Person Declares. These suppressive acts that are listed in these Ethics Orders were directly taken from this reference. The HCO PL also details about various other, on a need to know basis, information directly relating to these Suppressive Person Declares.

HCO PL versions index:

HCO PL 1 Mar 65 I  
HCO PL 23 Dec 65 (Replaces ‘HCO PL 7 March 65, Issue I’ - originally misdated as 1 March 65)
HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 1979)
HCO PL 16 May 80 II (Cancels and replaces HCO PL 23 December 65R Rev 31 Dec 79, same title)
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 September 1983) (Replaces HCO PL 16 May 80 II)
           (List of High Crimes extended)
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 25 Aug 1988)
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB (Revised 8 January 1991)
           (List of High Crimes once again extended)
HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB (Reissued 4 November 2001 with date change)

Go back
HCO PL 1 Mar 65 I
Original release title: “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”

Some clarification about the expressions used are explained in the policy letter itself:
“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 Scientologists and which are listed at length in this policy letter.”          LRH

On 28 Dec 1965 L. Ron Hubbard made this even more clear when he wrote:
“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))

As per the above 28 High Crimes “are listed at length in this policy letter”.

Go back
HCO PL 23 Dec 65
HCO PL notices:
(Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1 March 1965)

Some paragraphs were added and other minor changes were made. Apparently due to a mistake this was issued under a new release date. It should have been made into HCO PL 7 Mar 65R (Revised 23 Dec 65). Instead it was simply given the date of the release of this revision (Note: this original release date was restored in 2001, see last version of this policy letter).

Go back
HCO PL 23 Dec 65R
HCO PL notices:
(Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to “disconnection” which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968)
(Revisions in Script) (Ellipses indicate Deletions)
New title:
“Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

The above HCO PL notices was because of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. Another one (not mentioned in the revision notes) was the removal of any and all referrals to fair game (even removed from the original title of the HCO PL). This deletion was due to the HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game”, either of those 2 references you will only find in ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division 1’ (1970) , reprinted till the mid ’80s.

Accordingly it also deleted the following 2 paragraphs:
“..., no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.
The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.”          LRH

Go back
HCO PL 16 May 80 II
HCO PL notices:
(Cancels and Replaces HCO PL 23 Dec 65R revised 31 December 1979, same title)

This is basically a rewrite of HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 79) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”. I would conclude that it contains about the same information. A listing of all the High Crimes, the A to E steps for those wanting to get back in good standing, etc ... HCO PL 23 Dec 65 had been subjected to a variety of changes during the years and this may have been the reason for this also being issued under a new date. The approach in this issue is more gentle then it was in HCO PL 23 Dec 65R. It now even confides to us that hope is never completely out when dealing with Suppressive Persons:
It must be noted however that no matter how severe the case we never close the door entirely. As stated in HCO PL 16 March 1971 Issue II IMPORTANT - AN OPERATING STANDARD RULE: ‘YOU MUST KEEP THE DOOR OPEN ONLY IF IT'S JUST A CRACK.’.”

HCO PL 16 May 80 II “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” was cancelled by HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”, an issue not written by L. Ron Hubbard but compiled by “Church of Scientology International”. This issue also cancelled 3 other HCO PLs. All of these 4 HCO PLs as it says in this issue “were not written by the Founder”.
Please note that the issue HCO PL 16 May 80 II itself did say that it was in fact written by L. Ron Hubbard. HCO PL 8 Sept 83 that is cancelling it actually claims that HCO PL 16 May 80 II was falsely being issued as being written by L. Ron Hubbard when it was written by someone else. Also note that the issue was in full use during more than 2½ years, prior to anyone apparently noticing or correcting this!

HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” says further:
“Data on Suppressive Acts and the handling of Suppressive Persons and Groups is to be found in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA, Revised and Reissued 10 Sept 83, ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS, which has been reissued in its original content with revisions to update it.”

Go back
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA

HCO PL notices:
(Revised and reissued 10 September 1983)
This HCO Policy Letter has been revised and reissued:
a)  to give the full and complete list of High Crimes (Suppressive Acts),
b)  to clarify the rights and non-rights of a declared Suppressive Person and give the administrative handling of such person in order to protect the Church and its organizations and individual Scientologists against Suppressive Acts, and
c)  to update the issue in order to reflect the organizational changes which require the sanction of senior Ethics and Justice terminals in the handling of Suppressive Persons of Groups.
(Revisions not in script)

Please note that this policy letter in actual fact was replacing HCO PL 16 May 80 II “same title”, even if this is not specifically mentioned anywhere in this policy letter! (consult HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”)

List of High Crimes extended

This revision was quite extensive, it went from 7 printed pages to an actual 14 pages. The listing of High Crimes had grown from 28 up to a total of 73. These newly added High Crimes were not placed following directly after the original 28 High Crimes, they were simply mixed in with these. This means that if you wanted to know exactly which High Crimes were added you had to do some serious digging. It is unclear to me why these new High Crimes were not simply placed following the original 28 High Crimes, the final sequence of the 73 High Crimes appear not to be arranged in some logical order anyway? In addition this may have caused the HCO PL saying in the revision notes: ‘Revisions not in script’, making it much harder for anyone to determine what was actually being added in this new version of this HCO PL! this is actually a bit of a bother as changes were in script just for the readers to be able to see what actually had been changed. It folds out the history of the reference.
In the previous versions the High Crimes were just run-off one after the other separated only by a semicolon (;), now they were separated by paragraphs and each received a number (except for the last one that only referred to another reference for Crimes that could be considered High Crimes if of magnitude and committed repeatedly).

An analysis unfolds that we can identify 2 categories of added High Crimes. We have those that were imported from other existing references, and those that we can not trace for their origin.

Those that could not be found in any other reference were: #4, 9-16, 38-46, 52, 60-62, 65. An interesting addition are the following 4 of these:
Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.
Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology.
Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.
Acts calculated to misuse, invalidate or alter-is legally or in any other way the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology.”
They are all relating to trademarks, copyrights and such. Prior to 1983 none of these were found on these lists, and only #11 had been seen before in HCO PL 4 Jul 59 “Actions for HCO Secretaries Faced with Illegal Usage” phrased as “Unauthorized use of materials, trademarks, copyrights, ...”. We may ask why they are listed in this policy letter now? They hadn't been there before.
An interesting note can additionally be made about the mention of “authorized” that we see in #11. In HCO PL 14 Oct 68RA (Revised 19 Jun 80) “The Auditor's Code” we find (underlining is mine): “promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology in safe guarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects.”.
Which had been changed from (underlining is mine) “I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.”   LRH   (from HCO PL 14 Oct 68R (Revised 1 Jan 76) “The Auditor's Code”).
It went thus from “legal” to being “authorized”. An interesting change and it is not really the same thing. Whereas HCO PL 4 Jul 59 “Actions for HCO Secretaries Faced with Illegal Usage” addressed the matter of “unauthorized use” combined with “illegal usage”. So, why was that changed in that Auditor's Code?

Then, #47-51, 53-59, 63, 64, 66-72 were imported from other already existing HCO PLs & HCOBs. Each of them gives the source reference from which they were deriving. So if you needed additional data about them it would be easy to retrieve that.

At this time the total count of listed High Crimes in this 1983 version of this policy letter is 73.

Go back
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA
HCO PL notices:
(Revised and reissued 25 August 1988)
Only changes are to correct typographical errors.
Corrections in script.

True is that only 4 very minor spelling errors had been corrected. However this release still had the same RA indication as the previous version, which means you needed to have both versions to know which of the RA ones was the latest. Usually however you would find all of these filed together in the library of the organization. This should not cause a direct problem, although I can tell from personal observation that they have been confused.

During the late ’80s a variety of reissues where printed, they only incorporated very minor corrections. Now these reissues had no indications anywhere on them that this was in actual fact a reissue with some very minor correction(s), this information was only given on a separate sheet attached with a staple to the front (a so-called front-sheet). If this front-sheet was removed which usually happened as you were asked to “Please destroy your copy of this issue, and replace it with the attached”. The front-sheet would as it seems suit no purpose anymore and was discarded off. These 2 issues would seem identical, when in fact they were not.

Go back
HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB
HCO PL notices:
(Revised 8 January 1991)
Revised to update the lists of high crimes given in the policyletter.
Revisions in script.

Please note that the version of this HCO PL as found in 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes do not have these revisions indicated in script!

List of High Crimes once again extended

The list of High Crimes was extended with 14 additional High Crimes. At least some of them appear to have been imported from other HCO PLs and/or HCOBs. This time however only of 2 of them some source references were given. In addition all the source references for the in 1983 added High Crimes were removed. That means you will not be able anymore to locate the original reference where these quotations were deriving from, also you will not know when exactly they became designated being a High Crime or how this was established. Information which could be worthwhile knowing. Then the numbering of these High Crimes as it was introduced in the previous 1983 revision was also removed.

Now various High Crimes found in other HCO PLs and HCOBs are known to have been imported into this policy letter. However for some reason the following important one has been omitted:
“This is therefore a HIGH CRIME policy letter and it is an offense both to follow or obey or issue any verbal or written order or directive which is contrary to or changes or ‘abolishes’ anything set up in HCO Policy Letters or HCOBs, including the downgrade of ‘that's out-of-date’ or ‘that's been cancelled’ without showing the HCO PL or HCOB which revises or cancels.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)
This one is not particularly insignificant I dare say! Actually one can regard it as a huge flaw that this one had been missed, as that what it acts against is a main reason why things had gone awry!!!

But it didn't forgot to import this one:
“Neglecting, advising against the application of, failing to enforce or tolerate the omission of standard Word Clearing and star-rate checkouts on all new or newly revised HCO Policy Letters, as well as the key HCO PLs of the Basic Staff Member Hat and the key policies of the staff member. In the Sea Organization this applies to LRH CBOs and Flag Orders as well as HCO Policy Letters.”          [attributed to LRH]
(from HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime”)
A bit tricky this one as this was issued a whole 4½ months after the official announcement of the passing of L. Ron Hubbard. It forwarded a new rule, and a rule that can be disputed.

One can ask what criteria were used to determine which High Crimes were to be imported into this policy letter and which not to import?

At this time the total count of listed High Crimes in this 1991 version of this policy letter is 87.

Go back
HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB
HCO PL notices:
(Reissued 4 November 2001)
Reissued 4 Nov 2001 to correct the date of the issue. This PL was originally issued 7 March 65. When revised in December 1965, the mimeo typist originally altered the date of the PL to the revision date of “23 December 1965”.

Strictly taken that which the mimeo typist did back then in December 1965 was the way these things were dealt with! Revisions were commonly issued under a new reference date. The standard of adding ‘R’ and ‘RA’ and all that was not in particular use earlier than 1972 (with possibly a few instances in 1971). This new standard was firmly established with the issuance of HCO PL 2 May 72 “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”.
A criticism can be uttered here in regards that this changing to this old date from 1965 that it is a kind of late in time. The reference date 23 December 1965 was very well established, it was known and referred to by this date. It is also a well used reference. It just works rather confusing to alter this 36 years later.

This is the latest release till date. This reissue did not forward any actual revisions or additions, all it did was changing the reference date.

Go back
So what have we seen? The original version from 1965 listed 28 High Crimes, the revision in 1983 added this up to 73 High Crimes, and in 1991 another 14 were added making this a present total of 87 High Crimes.

Now are all these changes incorporated actually supported by L. Ron Hubbard in his policies? Was it meant to be that quotations from other references or in this case importing High Crime instances, removing the source references and incorporate them into another issue? Also adding numbering of the High Crimes and then removing this again.
Check it out for yourself: LRH allowed alterations (separate window).

An often used argument from the current Church Management of Scientology is that many revisions made are done following securely ‘LRH notes’. So what about these ‘LRH notes’, how are we going to deal with those? I have discussed this earlier on which you may want to reflect: Hidden Data Line (separate window).

And once again the following:  (from Scientology Policy Directive 19, 7 Jul 82 “The Integrity of Source”)
“It's hereafter firm Church policy that LRH ISSUES ARE TO BE LEFT INTACT AS ISSUED. …
No one except LRH can revise his issues whereby changes are incorporated into the text and then reissued. …
…, the original LRH issue (regardless of type) shall remain intact so that the original wording is kept. In this way his writings retain their integrity and there is no mystery as to what he wrote and what the revision stated and why.
The only occasion for any revision of an LRH issue is if a typographical error was found in the original.
Already existing issues stand intact and valid. …
This policy will allow the integrity of Source to be reinstated.”

One should consider that rules and policies only have use if they are being executed and/or followed.

Well, I hope you have now some basic understanding about how this one goes. Revisions that is ... .



     ..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.
After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     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.
     Committee of Evidence:
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)
Commodore Staff-Division 4’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 4 is the Technical division of a Scientology organization. CS-4 is also referred to as ‘Training and Services Aide’.
Commodore Staff-Division 5’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 5 is the Qualifications division of a Scientology organization. CS-5 is also referred to as ‘Qual Aide’.
     ‘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).
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).
Hubbard Professional Auditor/Hubbard Certified Auditor’. An early course taught in Scientology Churches only. At one time HCA and HPA were equivalent certificates, HCA being the American designation and HPA, the British.
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the ’80s however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
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)
Rehabilitation Project Force’. For more detailed information see article here (separate window).
     SO ED:
Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
Withhold(s). See at that entry in vocabulary.
     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