>> 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.
“Individual staff members, secretaries and executive secretaries are commended, promoted, demoted or Comm Eved on the basis of their stats. A person with high stats has Ethics protection. A person with low stats not only has no Ethics protection but tends to be hounded. ...
Run only by statistics.”
L. Ron Hubbard
(from HCO PL 5 Feb 70 “Statistics, Management by”)
Besides from providing some general information about David Mayo it is my intent here to address various information concerning him that is not found already elsewhere on the Internet. I persistently and scrutinously focus primarily on the data that is actually found in Scientology publications and writings themselves. It should be very well understood that it is not my initial intent here to either defend or blame David Mayo. The data as found is taken as it is and I forward herewith my findings.
Also various perspectives are given towards having the correct technology and not having the correct technology and the role played by David Mayo and his influence on this.
- “misdefinition of the State of Clear” (The definition of Clear, A note about NOTs (NED for OTs) & Its relation with the NOTs materials); “Mixing Rundowns”? & “Torpedoing of a Qual Division”?; “Sabotage of Ethics Technology”?; “Attempt to Wreck Auditor Training”? (Professional TRs removed as a prerequisite for Academy Levels, ‘Training Routines Remodernized’ & Additional TR references); ‘Destructive “KSW” Issues by Mayo’; Assuming the “hat of Source”?; “Deliberately mis-C/Sed the auditing of his wife, Merrill Mayo”?; Attempting to overrule ‘Religious Technology Center’?; “further information on what Mayo did” and “many other crimes”?; The ‘scare’ factor; Final comments about this SO ED ...
What's the deal with David Mayo really? (Includes: Saint or Judas?; A conspiracy theory? Disrupting a Bridge ...; Where is David Mayo today? Did he quit Scientology?)
“But the moment that you move even a sixteenth of a millimeter sideways off of what is generally applicable to all minds, you are again into the particularities and opinions. ...
In other words, even if you arrive at the technology, you still have the task of safeguarding the technology because, once more, it can easily turn and become a false technology.” LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63)
Saint or Judas?
David Mayo, once top dog and then thrown down the gutter. Is it possible to maintain the position of top tech person (after L. Ron Hubbard) for a period of 9 years to then find out he was all bad? In effect this is the tale that the Church of Scientology is conveying to us! Well, would that be possible, this in an organization that claims it has an advanced technology that specializes in making man more sane and able, where such a really bad person is able to stay on that long without exposing himself at a much earlier date? It doesn't sound very plausible, but what then is the deal with David Mayo really?
We have these 2 published writings, that Condition Order and that Executive Directive, both written and issued in 1983, obviously with the intent to defame and demolish the reputation of that person David Mayo, concluding and telling how immensely bad he really was. We find that the Executive Directive is littered with paraphrases signed with L. Ron Hubbard, adjudicating that “Mayo was simply a bird dog. The definition of a bird dog is: ‘Somebody sent in by an enemy to mess things up.’”. It would thus seem here that L. Ron Hubbard himself was in on it.
Scientologists that practice Scientology outside of the church however tell that David Mayo had been framed and that all the accusations of the church were bogus and had no base of truth whatsoever. They say that this Executive Directive was just a made up thing filled with inaccuracies. So, who is right here? Did the church follow the rules of the game or was it an uncalled-for witch hunt? Both tales are being told. So, which is it?
A conspiracy theory? Disrupting a Bridge ...
David Mayo managed to set the standard of the technology within the Church of Scientology (in use today), then after he had left the church, he also managed to set the standard of the technology which today is prevalent amongst those Scientologists that practice Scientology outside of the control of the church.
But wait a second here now, are you saying that the church kicked out that bad David Mayo dude, but nonetheless maintained the Bridge that was established during his time of reign? Well, this is certainly how it looks, yes! It was a rather different Bridge that was in use before David Mayo got posted as the Senior C/S International. That Bridge pretty much was turned around during his time of reign (1978-82).
Isn't that all a rather strange thing? Just think about it! Therefore, was this a mission accomplished? Could this possibly have been an indeed very carefully planned operation that had been met with a success? After all the whole field of Scientology practitioners that were active outside of the reign of the Church of Scientology and those within the Church of Scientology, they all had now adopted and were promoting that very same that we appropriately will refer to as the David Mayo Bridge.
What happened was that David Mayo, after leaving the church, established the Church of the New Civilization, with its Advanced Ability Center (AAC) in Santa Barbara, California in 1983. It was met with a steady success, after which it then expanded to more and more places, including Europe. Everyone that disagreed with the church basically saw David Mayo as a good guy that had been put through ordeals and was harassed by the Church of Scientology. David Mayo also had the repute of being a competent tech person, after all he had been top tech dog for a great number of years. We had now additional Scientology groups starting up that were adjusting to and fully accepting the status quo of the tech established during 1978-82 as it was in use by David Mayo in his group at the Advanced Ability Center.
“Who is talking, really?”
This obviously raises some questions here. After all, this technology itself is considered the most valuable aspect of Scientology! Now, if you can't get rid of an effective technology, the only option you have left is to attempt to somehow disrupt it. Was David Mayo the means and the grain of sand that was added to the clockwork mechanism to disrupt it? Could he have been an undercover or sleeper agent of some sort send out to accomplish exactly that! You see, we have to face the situation here that virtually no person or group today is delivering the original LRH Bridge or is delivering Standard Dianetics. Now, why is that? Didn't L. Ron Hubbard forewarn long since that “As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.” and that “the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it”. Coincidentally the same year that David Mayo had joined up with Scientology.
Well, reflect for a moment again on that paraphrase that we find in that Executive Directive in where a supposed L. Ron Hubbard wrote: “Mayo was simply a bird dog. ... ‘Somebody sent in by an enemy to mess things up.’”. There may indeed be more angles to this then one originally had figured! See, this was interpreted by the out of church Scientologist as an untruth, when it in reality was true. Whereas the Church of Scientology parishioner believed it be true, but he figured that for the wrong reason. So, are people being played here?
In 1996 the Church of Scientology was finally able to shut down the group of David Mayo permanently. Cause for this is said to have been that the church just never let them be. An argument from the Church of Scientology was that this group was using so-called OT-materials (NOTs) of which the church claimed to own the copyrights. The persistent litigation (or thread of litigation) is said to have forced the group into bankruptcy. David Mayo himself had disappeared from the public view. So, where had David Mayo gone? At the time one could only guess. Rumours started to spread on that precarious thing called the Internet, this is what happens if you have no information. Some persons tell that he had divorced from his then wife Julie Mayo/Gillespie. Some other persons tell that he had withdrawn the claim that he had received this long despatch from L. Ron Hubbard turning over the Tech Hat onto him for the next 20-25 years. People may just have been guessing or they may in fact have been telling the truth.
A rumour that also surfaced was that a financial settlement was reached with the Church of Scientology in that same year. We don't know the specifics of the agreement but it will very likely have stipulated that he agreed to no longer dabble with Scientology. It may though sound a bit awkward though that he would have agreed to stop being involved with Scientology altogether, after working with it for so long! He is from New Zealand, could he have started a Scientology movement over there? The US based Church of Scientology representatives would not have been able to take particular legal actions or harass him there. The reality is that he did not do that!
Either way the Church of Scientology had now solved the problem of David Mayo. Church of Scientology parishioners could not turn anymore to his group for services. Now they had to either stay in the church and spend their funds there or locate what today is called an Independent Scientology group that are around here and there. The version of the Bridge that they offer would also be the David Mayo Bridge.
We have two reasons to think if David Mayo may have been a person that could be lead behind the curtain rather easily. This because of
that he thought it plausible, or just assumed, that the work was not completed as yet, and
that he believed that L. Ron Hubbard would have had any reason at all to come back after 20-25 years to resume leadership of the organization.
When in effect L. Ron Hubbard had resigned the executive posts already in 1966 , this coupled with that he had announced in 1970 that the work was completed. Additionally L. Ron Hubbard had written earlier in 1957 that “I'll not always be here on guard.” Therefore neither of these reasons here above listed at (1) and (2) are worthy plausible options by any measure! Consult further arguments on this here (separate window).
Where is David Mayo today? Did he quit Scientology?
After leaving the church he thus had started his own group in Santa Barbara, California in 1983. This was not in the liking of the Church of Scientology who apparently gave the group a very hard time. Some sources report that the Advance Ability Center was shut down for a while since April 1986. At least as late as 1993 it was still spoken about. Also newsletters from the group continued to be distributed till that time. The group finally had to close its doors in 1996.
During the 1st half of 1996 we have a David Mayo posting regularly on a few newsgroups on the Internet (298 messages), we also find a Julie Mayo there (11 messages).
Then it turns all quiet around him.
Next time we hear from a David Mayo again was in 2011, when we have a likely imposter appearing on that infamous anti-Scientology forum. It seemed serious at first, but it was not for long that this individual started to post as a typical run-of-the-mill anti-Scientologist and was referring to spacecooties. It would not have been very likely that a previous tech person of the repute of David Mayo would use such derogatory expressions. Soon he was joined by a Merrill Mayo. They got quite a few fooled there, including the forum owner and various Scientology old-timers, for a while at least. I had 3 persons contacting me and confiding to me David Mayo finally had returned. Well, if this would have been an unlikely case of mistaken identity, and it indeed would have been David Mayo, then what would this tell us about him in regards to him referring to spacecooties?
Then in 2013 a photograph hit the Internet on some quasi official website picturing an aging David Mayo. It all seemed authentic enough. The photograph was accompanied with text that said that he was unwilling to discuss the subject matter that had occupied his life from 1963 to at least 1986. It thus did appear that he had gotten into an agreement with the Church of Scientology. It was feared that if he was to speak out repercussions would have been the result.
From this time forward more people started to reveal they had contact with David Mayo. Some email conversations with David Mayo were shared on a Facebook group (dating Nov. 2013 to July 2014). Interesting in a sense as my website was noted in some of these exchanges. The reply from David Mayo to technical questions however read: “I am not permitted to write an answer what you have asked.(!!!)”. Either way we did not learn very much about what he thought of my Internet pages.
Finally in 2017 the news came that David Mayo had passed away. (19 Nov. 1940 - 23 Oct. 2017)
I am told his family put up this website in his memory (no Scientology is shared on there though). It has pictures and other things. Visit https://davidmayo.smugmug.com/ (last checked: 22 Aug 2019).
A necessary word of introduction to this study ... (includes disclaimer)
This may very well be the most charged subject concerning Scientology of them all! The person David Mayo has been displayed since the early ’80s as the evil of evils, truly as being the worst squirrel of them all!
Today he is still regarded and considered like that, i.e. within the Church of Scientology. There, everything he has touched is supposed to be taken out of reach of everyone. For example on a copy of a checksheet of the “Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course” issued March 1982 I found the entry: “TAPE: 8103C10 INTRODUCTION TO THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN COURSE by Senior C/S International” crossed out and someone had added the handwritten notice: “Cancelled, tape to be destroyed.”. Another
instance of this I found in a copy of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume XII, 1978-1979’ (1980). On page 264 we find HCOB 13 Dec 78R “PC Set-Ups and C/S 53”, a handwritten notice had been added saying: “Cancelled — Mayo issue”.
It even goes as far as physically destroying the whole of the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. I have it positively confirmed from various sources that so around 1997 the order was given to physically destroy all copies of these volumes, meaning reducing them to shreds. An argument given was that they contained references deriving from David Mayo. All that we actually find are just 3 references in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume XII, 1978-1979’ (1980):
HCOB 13 Dec 78R “PC Set-Ups and C/S 53” (see page 264)
HCOB 24 Sept 79 “Flying Ruds in Cramming” (see page 421-23)
HCOB 21 Dec 79 “Auditor Assignment Policies, Cramming Assignment Policies” (see page 431-32)
They all say: ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Founder. As assisted by Senior C/S Int.’. Of course it makes much sense to shred all of these volumes in this series because of these few pages!
In spite of the overwhelming efforts taken by the Church of Scientology to defame the person David Mayo, the story now also has to be told
on a dicey area where automatic group think only dictates he was a bad dude. Hence various persons may even exert the very same automatic A=A in regards to the person that has the nerve to start looking a little bit closer at things and tells about his findings! Well, this is certainly a risk that ‘I’ am taking. This is what can happen, however not necessary
a totally will happen. What can I say? Pixilated parrots always will associate A=B=C etc.. I have been advised by a friend: “If you were to really tap into the area of Mayo
you have to be
like 10 times more delicate as you have been with your other pages.”.
Any inconsistencies and illogics that I encountered are noted and commented upon. This dissertation is not meant to be for a quick read through. It is rather offered as a sort of database that can be referred to, in where particular information can be found, where answers may be found of any wonderings or questions that any may have regarding the material offered. Most of the information offered is for the insider that is familiar with this material.
This little ‘necessary word of introduction’ is also my disclaimer. I basically claim nothing, I ask questions. I offer logical deductions as per the data at hand. The answers given however may very well not be in the liking of various people at all! I can't help that and I am not worried about that either. I am certainly willing to accept the challenge if it is found that I am doing something that I am not supposed to do, although I have no interest to be approached about this with sole opinion or make-wrong with absence of any serious arguments!
A communication ... (How I fell into this)
I actually never intended to undertake this task until very recently (early July 2006), but somehow I fell into this and started digging little. I commented to a friend of mine that I had written and released a little section about David Mayo entitled “An introductory note about references written and issued by David Mayo” (at present this is found on this page, see later chapter with this title). I asked my friend's opinion about that and he responded: “Beautiful. Continue pounding away at this area and tell it like it is.”.
He continued with: “You can probably make the ‘DM’ contributions into a separate page in itself
by covering the 1981 Happiness Rundown issues. The exact issue on this
is HCOB 15 January 1984 Happiness Rundown Additives.
I bet that the 1981 HRD issues are not that much different than the 1984 ones
and now we have you to probe this area to check it out.”.
A last comment was: “Did you know that on my HRD course there were two issues that had the
Happiness Rundown Additives in the reference section yet it was not
included in the course?
Time to check this out for good.”.
I knew about these Happiness Rundown Series but hadn't really thought about it when I wrote my little David Mayo section. In fact I was so reluctant about the idea to create a page about David Mayo that I responded: “‘separate page’? I am not sure if it would be wise. I might draw too much attention to the person David Mayo. Mayo is a very sensitive ‘item’ in the orgs.”.
Anyway, things evolved and I also recalled these ‘NED for OTs Series’ of which many witness of the involvement of David Mayo. Previously I had already started a little project to make a list of HCO PLs issued during 1978-83 which in detail noted the composer and publication information simply for enabling me to determine at which time exactly what practice of how to deal with these physically changed. I extracted the ‘DM’ and ‘dm’ indicated issues from this list and then added the HCOBs to that.
I told my friend about these ‘NED for OTs Series’ and he responded: “Yes I do see that a Separate DM page can open a can of worms and how
we would have to stay away from the ‘1978’ issues but perhaps we could
get away with a longer DM paragraph to include 1981 HRD and what is
found when comparing to 1984 versions.
Just looking to take away the Automation Non-think instilled by C of S
regarding him of ‘Yep he was totally bad and evil’ into as you quote
‘Other people have authority too’.
Had the cog(nition) that your site really has been designed to De-PTS people
out of the group think - a mighty admirable cause that most go forward.”.
Well, and this is how I fell into this!
Provisional release of these pages
Prior to releasing these pages to the public (6 Dec 2006) I had released them to various chosen (24 Nov 2006). I accompanied this with the text:
“The information that they relay may force various persons to have a look in a new dimension of time at things. This in particular in regards to the role played by David Mayo, but also the changes implemented and introduced during his time of reign. Then the validity or possibly the invalidity of NOTs is given attention. These particular changes are folded out in detail on especially page #3 (Definition of Clear) and #5 (History of Grade Chart).
These are sensitive and serious matters, and I hope that I may receive some responses or arguments that can point out any errors in that I have found. That is prior to me distributing this information broadly.”
The intent was to get some responses about their content. May be I missed something? May be I was seriously wrong about some of the data presented? May be it was better to rewrite some parts of it as it may get misinterpreted?
Due to the nature of the various responses that I received I can conclude that this is a touchy subject indeed. The reactions are of a rather mixed nature. Most of them are appreciative, a few however have judged that my pages attempt to take down the icon David Mayo from his pedestal. In a sense this is actually funny, as no such thing had even crossed my mind! That is just not interesting at all! Research is about taking the information as it is found. It is not about disregarding some data or looking in the other direction because some person(s) may not be very appreciative towards some of the findings that surface. It is my sole intent to attempt to tell history as it happened, it is most definitely not my intent to rewrite history! If some persons do not take kindly of the things that I say, because it may actually shake their stable datum, (and it will clash with many a person's stable datum), then that is entirely their problem. After all it appears always to have been a habit of man to turn the eye the other direction when something surfaces that is somehow hard to face. No person wants to hear or feel he has been cheated and lied to. Instead one may then resort to either silence (plain denial) or one attacks it. Well, I can't make it into the liking of all, nor have I any interest to do so!
One response said: “I doubt it was David Mayo who made all the fuss. I have not enough data what happened behind the curtain but I rather would point out John Eastment.”. John Eastment for a while was also the Senior C/S International (1989-92), although this is a kind of late in time. Primarily the changes that I discuss took place much earlier in time. In addition there is no detectable evidence found in church publications what John Eastment may have done or not done, which may be questionable or sensitive, at any point in time. But we have an avalanche of this kind of data concerning David Mayo. I requested more argumentation and data regarding John Eastment, which I received. While looking over the various information it could not be substantiated that John Eastment was in any way involved in the particular changes that I discuss in the matters regarding David Mayo.
Another response was: “If Mayo would have been the why, all would have been changed backwards but that didn't happen”. How good an argument is this actually? It is disregarding that there may have been other reasons why some person was forced to leave some group. It could also have been the ultimate plot. May be some entities have intended that persons would reason like this. You would have wiped out a possible argument, before you were able to put it there, as in that it is not even considered. You may call these distraction tactics. This way you effectively could cover up some real sabotage!
David Icke relates to a mind manipulation technique that he calls: ‘Problem - Reaction - Solution’. It goes something like this:
“First of all YOU create the problem, but you get someone else to be blamed for it. You then report that problem through the media in the way YOU want it reported. You get the public to react to YOUR problem by saying: ‘Something must be done! This can't go on! What are THEY gonna do about it?’ And at that point THEY who have covertly created the problem and blamed someone else, who glean that reaction to do something, then offer the solution to the problem they have created.”
As I said, I primarily work with those things that can be substantiated preferably in printed and published materials. I am not interested in ideas or reasoning without proper support why something may be or may not be so. The facts that can be verified and the data that is around will have to defend itself. Circular reasoning or anything resembling this will not be given much attention. If you have some verifiable data that actually shows me being in error about some things, then forward that data. I actually have already received a variety of suggestions and alternate interpretations, and to date I have already implemented the plausible ones into my pages.
An introductory note about references written and issued by David Mayo (Includes: Initial observations and findings; ‘Robotic TRs’; Actions taken by the church)
The person David Mayo was active as the Senior C/S International in the time period 1978-82 in the Church of Scientology. One could say that circumstances arose regarding David Mayo in 1982, and as a result of that he is since that time not considered to be in good standing with the Church of Scientology anymore. What followed was that everything that he had published or had participated in was considered bad or squirrel material.
Initial observations and findings
When scanning through the latest edition of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ and ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes (issued 1991) I happen to catch 3 HCOBs (2 of them simultaneously also were issued as HCO PLs) that at one time were said to have been written and issued by David Mayo. And indeed the original releases of these references did indicate on them “Assisted by Senior C/S International”. With additionally composer initials found at the bottom of these references saying ‘DM’. This should at least confirm that the person David Mayo had been somehow involved with these releases. What follows from this is that it is really worthy of notice when we find that all these 3 references are till this very day still found in their original form although they were now instead fully attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard. The only difference here is that it was stripped from the mention of the name David Mayo, his post and initials.
These references are:
HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82 “Confessional Tech Policies”
This is found with very minor revisions three times in the ‘The Organizational Executive Course’ volumes. See‘Volume 1’ on pages 642-644; ‘Volume 4’ on pages 985-987; ‘Volume 5’ on page 448-450. And one time in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. See ‘Volume XII, 1980-1984’ on pages 387-388.
It is listed as HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82R (Revised 10 Dec 88) “Confessional Tech Policies”.
HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non Interference Zone”
This is found just one time in the‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. See ‘Volume XII, 1980-1984’ on pages 389-390.
As HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”.
HCOB/PL 10 Mar 82 “Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required”
This is found two times in ‘The Organizational Executive Course’ volumes. See ‘Volume 1’ on pages 645-647; ‘Volume 4’ on pages 1197-1199. And one time in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. See ‘Volume XII, 1980-1984’ on pages 391-393.
Since that time the far majority of references originally written David Mayo had been taken out of circulation. The above 3 noted references appear to be a few of the exceptions. There are however other ways to maintain references, you can also rewrite them. It was found that 3 such references are still in use today. They carry the same reference date and title although they had been rewritten. Nonetheless they were not that much different in actual context compared with the original releases. Apparently it had been found that the information they contained needed to be preserved in some form.
HCOB 24 Sept 79 “Flying Ruds in Cramming”
HCOB 21 Dec 79 “Auditor Assignment Policies, Cramming Assignment Policies”
HCO PL 9 Mar 82 “Eligibility for OT Levels”
These rewritten versions of these are all found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ and ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.
We also find that various chapters and texts that had originally been written by David Mayo are copied into references published at a much later date, with the difference that they were now fully attributed as if written by L. Ron Hubbard. An interesting example for this is a reference that today in use is as HCOB 7 Aug 83 “Robotic TRs”. But it was obviously that it had been imported from HCOB 16 Aug 71RA (Re-Revised 4 Sept 80) II “Training Drills Remodernized”.
The text originally appeared as a chapter entitled: “ROBOTIC TRS (Anatomy Of A Robot)”, and it is identical.
The original reference was back then cancelled and replaced by HCOB 16 Aug 71R II (Reissued 6 Aug 83) “Training Drills Remodernized”. Its revision notices read:
“This HCOB was revised by others and published as HCOB 16 Aug 71RA, revised 4 Sept 80, same title. That revision ... also added sections of text to the issue. Those ... additives were not written by or approved by me and that revision of 4 Sept 80 is herewith CANCELLED.”
Then we have ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” confirming that these “others” is in fact was referring to the person David Mayo. It reads: “‘I notice that Mr. ... Mayo, ..., rewrote HCOB TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED.’ (LRH)”.
Actions taken by the church
The whole thing turns a bit ironic as by actual examination of the previous release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes it appears that only ‘Volume XII, 1978-1979’ (issued 1980) contain some references that witness of a David Mayo collaboration, and there are just 3 of them. The argument has been forwarded, this by International Management of the Church of Scientology, to physically destroy all these volumes, including thus ‘Volume I-XI’. The forwarded reason for that is then that there would be David Mayo materials contained within them, which is thus only ‘Volume XII’. Now, ain't all this interesting?
Accordingly would this then also mean that we have to physically destroy (shred) the whole of ‘The Organizational Executive Course’ and ‘The Technical Bulletinsof Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes that came out in 1991? You see, we have discovered that these contain materials written by the bad dude David Mayo! Now, if you won't shred them, then how consequent are you about matters?
Naturally it will be found by some individuals, with some awkward logic, that these references would have been written by L. Ron Hubbard after all. Or you just ignore all the information (we trust our leaders, and they say it is ok), and so that would be the reason why they still appear in these volumes and are tolerated.
Now, a while back there was quite a bit of attention on this whole affair with that situation involving David Mayo. Newcomers in the Scientology organization will though not learn anything about this, as since that time all the materials have been edited, removing his name and all that. Original Qual Libraries with old material also have been disappearing. So, there is no way they can find out anymore about this from within the Church of Scientology itself.
A bothering aspect is though that if David Mayo really was such a bad person, then how would it be possible that L. Ron Hubbard let him be Senior C/S International during a whole 4 years, during 1978-82? Would L. Ron Hubbard himself not have realized very early on that something would be fishy about some person. See, if you are a bad dude, then you can't actually hide that. And in particular you can not hide that within the topic of Scientology. There are always indicators that would expose such a person. So, logical questions need to be asked!
So, we are facing one of two situations; (1) would be that he was not a bad dude after all, but someone framed him; (2) would be that some people planned a bad dude to be there, then changed their mind and wanted him out of there (for one or the other reason).
Statistics and some considerations ...
Much effort had been taken to destroy the reputation of David Mayo. However, if you are a bad dude, you leave tracks, these tracks can be recognized and evaluated right there. Now, how could such a really bad dude actually ending up as the top technical person within Scientology in the first place? David Mayo was also the first Senior C/S International worth of mention. Why was this position actually instigated in the first place and why was David Mayo chosen to fill this position?
It is a bother that David Mayo is claimed being wrong and being in error virtually about everything. In a sense this is actually strange as within the Scientology organization promotions are entirely based upon the products you deliver, results which are measured by so-called statistics.
“Individual staff members, secretaries and executive secretaries
are commended, promoted, demoted or Comm Eved on the basis of their
stats. A person with high stats has Ethics protection. A person
with low stats not only has no Ethics protection but tends to be
Run only by statistics.” LRH
(from HCO PL 5 Feb 70 “Statistics, Management by”)
The fact that David Mayo became Flag C/S in 1973 and was later in 1978 promoted to Senior C/S International and stayed on there till 1982 simply must have been because of the proven good results he must have gotten during this time. In addition this reflects a fairly long time span. It is rule within the Scientology organization that if it is shown that you are unable to continue to deliver the products expected from you that you will be demoted. What we see however is that David Mayo continued to stay on! We do not learn about his actual achievements, and they must have been there!
A text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard found in ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” says “he could lie to me consistently, convincingly report, this that or the other thing”. Then Mr. Ray Mithoff follows with “Despite his cleverness at lying and manufacturing convincing reports, there were indicators which gave him away.” And in the summary section of the SO ED we find again “Despite the cleverness with which Mayo could lie, he was still found out.”.
Of course, but there is this time factor involved. Actual results or no results during a longer period of time would have done the trick. To “lie consistently” and “convincingly report” does not replace actual statistics. One could present falsified statistics, but these you can just not hold up during a period of 10 years.
“The most direct observation in an org (or a country) is
These tell of production. They measure what is done.
It cannot be said too often that management is best done by
Each division in an org has a GROSS DIVISIONAL STATISTIC. This is
calculated to reflect the production of that division by all its
An EXECUTIVE COUNCIL has all these GDSs available to it every
week. This is done by the OIC system (Organization Information
Centre). The stats are collected by each division and compiled by
Dept 3 Div 1 Inspection and Reports into graphs. No matter how
small an org, it has to have an OIC.
The EC as a Council runs the org by observation of the GDSs.
Conditions are assigned each Division by the EC each week
according to these GDS stats.” LRH
(from HCO PL 5 Feb 70 “Statistics, Management by”)
A few historical facts concerning David Mayo (Includes notices about “‘Flag Conditions Order 7138’, 2 Mar 83” & “SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83”)
His contributions in form of the release in official references such as HCOBs and HCO PLs cover the period September 1978 - July 1982. This is close to 4 years.
Various of his achievements are recorded in Scientology magazines such as Ability, The Auditor, Source and so on.
Auckland HASI Staff.
David Mayo (HCO Secretary), 4th person standing from the right.
Merrill Mayo (his wife) is 2nd person sitting from the right.
Auckland staff on Clearing Course, standing on the outer right on the podium are David Mayo and Merrill Mayo.
Late ’66/early ’67.
Congress attendees in Sydney press to buy books from the congress book stand, ca March 1969. (David Mayo on the right in the back)
Students on the Class VIII Auditor's Course at the Advanced Org United Kingdom in Edinburgh, ca April 1969. (David Mayo left at the front)
There is a mention of a David Mayo in the Saint Hill (UK) periodical ‘Expand No. 1’, (1968), as him being posted as the Dissem Dir AK (AK stands for Auckland). It is further reported that he was the Flag CS since 1973 (per David Mayo himself this was in September of that year), which was then located at the Flag ship ‘Apollo’. In 1975 this location was moved to the Flag Land Base (FLB) which was located in Clearwater, Fl. His office was at the Fort Harrison Hotel. At least since that time he was also referred to as Class XII Senior C/S Flag. In late 1977 he was starring as the C/S in the film ‘Secret of Flag Results’.
In October 1978 he turned Senior C/S International. And was removed from this post late August 1982.
We also get early information from an interview with Merrill Mayo from 4 Jul ’83 in Riverside, California:
“Interviewer: Well Merrill, When did you come in to Scientology?
Well, I came in in 1961. And shortly after that, in the early part of 1962, I went to the Briefing course at Saint Hill. And that's where I met David and was married to him there by Ron. And then after that I worked in the local org in New Zealand until 1968 when I went into the Sea Org. And then, then be around the ship for a while and for a time I did the Class VIII course. And then in the early part of 71 we went to the ship again and I was working in the HGC from early 71 until rather latish October, about mid-October 1978. And I learned to do Ls there, that's Class XII Auditor, in 1974 at Flag, which was pretty great! And then I was brought out to Int, well just preceding that, David had suddenly gotten called away from flag to go help LRH, area. ...
Interviewer: This is CMO Int is it?
That's right, and where LRH was. And so he went out there to help LRH, and then I got called out there several weeks later to be with him. And so, that's how I moved permanently from Flag to where CMO Int was and where LRH was.
Interviewer: And where is CMO Int?
CMO Int is at Gilman Hot Springs ... about 60 miles from LA.”
(Note: David Mayo was posted as Senior C/S Int in October 1978, and Merrill Mayo was called from Flag to become part of the Snr C/S Int office.)
Sound snippet (1:55)
(Please note that above sound snippet is slightly longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
The status of David Mayo in regards to the Scientology organization as of early 1983 was first laid out in: (pop-up windows)
Both of these releases as the routing on them tells us were BPI (Broad Public Issue), and for All Staff and All Public (Scientologists). By examining these 2 releases they appear to complement each other. The FCO is the actual SP-Declare. The SO ED appears to get into more detail of various of the things David Mayo was accused of doing. The one that received the broadest distribution was the SO ED. This FCO is much harder to get a hold of. It is not really clear to me why we have 2 of such issues on David Mayo. It is probably so that it was found necessary to inform the Scientology public about David Mayo in more detail (the FCO counts 11 pages, the SO ED has 17 pages). David Mayo by then had started his own group delivering Scientology, fear must have been present that various Scientologists would quit the church and join his group. This of course had to be counteracted.
In July 1983 David Mayo published “An Open Letter to All Scientologists”. At which time he had established the Church of the New Civilization (CNC) which at the end of July 1983 called into being the Advanced Ability Center (AAC). This Open Letter we find posted at various places out on the Internet, this letter is of interest as David Mayo himself relates about his own time line within the Scientology organization. Further he made various announcements. Consult in below link: (pop-up window)
A last mention (that I am aware of) by Church of Scientology officials towards the Scientology parishioners about David Mayo was issued in August 1985 by the Office of Special Affairs International (OSA Int). Consult in full in link here under. (pop-up window)
That what it relates is to say the least, rather interesting. Mind that the person spoken about had been in control of the Tech and was respected for that for some 10 years within the Church of Scientology.
Some mention in this letter is made about ‘stolen materials’. During the early ’80s NOTs materials had been taken from AOSH EU by supposed Int Msnairies that had demanded to see the NOTs materials. Later these Msnairies were checked upon but could not be located, they were gone and with them the NOTs materials. It has been rumoured that David Mayo would have been behind that. No such accusations however could be proven or made to stick. In fact David Mayo used in his group his own set of NOTs materials (recompiled), which would not have been such a problem for him as after all he was quite involved in the coming about of the original NOTs materials, his initials are found on about every one of the references in the original series. What reason is there to assume that he would not already have all of this original material, mind that he did work with it during a period of 4 years (1978-82) while associated with the Church of Scientology. It is simply not very logical to put the blame of some ‘stolen materials’ on David Mayo, or that he would have been interested in acquiring these, for obvious reasons.
A few notes about the person David Mayo and how people perceived him
David Mayo, ca 1984
The responses that I find and get concerning the person David Mayo are of a mixed nature. The parishioners of the Church of Scientology don't want to know anything about him. Eyebrows are raised as soon as his name is mentioned. The persons however that are found in the Free Zone are generally pretty much in favour of him. Most persons at that time and today that are active in the Free Zone figure that David Mayo must be all right as he was kicked out from the Church of Scientology. This may however not be a fully rational deduction. Things are not all black and white. It is urged to be careful here.
The persons that knew him personally generally appear to appreciate him fairly highly, as a person and as a C/S. One other interesting response that I received reads: “In my view he was a fair guy who was dedicated to the tech and who was fed up with CoS (Church of Scientology) bull shit, false PR and sales crap and just wanted to deliver the tech for what it was.”. But also considers that “he was not the person to make it on that post and not the person to be the spiritual leader, he was simply not the right type of character.”.
We have more than 20 hours tape and video of him left this day. And they do give a impression of the person David Mayo. In particular the informal Sunday meeting lectures that he gave for his group at the Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara, California. The impression that one may gets from David Mayo is one of an attentive observer, polite, careful and seemingly a well-intentioned individual. One may however not get the impression that he was a particular strong person or a leader character.
Another Scientology old-timer told me that his impression was that David Mayo was very popular with the auditors. He tells me that one Charlie Rush there referred to him fondly as THE GREEN D, because he used green ink in signing his C/Ses, and the nickname caught on. The D stands for David. This would have been around 1978.
The ‘Senior C/S International’ (incl. ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin’)
The following was relayed by Janis Grady (highly-placed executive during the late ’70s): “The first person to have the post of Snr CS Int was Paulette Cohen. Paulette was over the rainbow with us as the Qual Sec. She also audited LRH and C/Sed the crew. As such she worked very closely with LRH on all tech matters and any tech queries coming from Flag would go to Paulette who would then discuss them with LRH and respond. I believe it was after the L1 campaign, Paulette got busted and Mayo replaced her. It was not published world wide, it was a position at Special Unit working directly with LRH on technical points and research such as NOTs - the post then expanded from there as Special Unit started growing and dividing up into various different functions, such as Messengers handling all LRH traffic directly and Mayo handling the tech queries or matters - this was the start of WDC and Snr CS Int Office getting onto management lines while LRH got more involved in Cine and tapes.”.
Yet another Scientology old-timer (Cl IX auditor) in Europe tells me: “By my knowledge Paulette never was Snr C/S Int, she was LRH Tech Expeditor. The first Senior C/S Int was D. Mayo.”. It appears that it may not have been common knowledge that/if this Paulette Cohen would have been the Senior C/S Int. I personally had also always thought/assumed that the post of Senior C/S Int was established with the posting of David Mayo as such in October 1978. If Paulette Cohen was the first Senior C/S Int it must have been after May 78 as she till then still acted as the LRH Tech Expeditor (see HCOB 26 May 78 I “Dianetics: Urgent Command Change”). There is really not very much known about this Paulette Cohen. There is a little notice to be found from David Mayo that she had been auditing L. Ron Hubbard, dating back to 1978 (see his interview with Russell Miller in 1986). Some more information is related in the Writ of Expulsion issued on David Mayo. This relates the following:
“Subsequent investigation first brought to light that Mayo engineered the reinstatement of a highly dangerous auditor (declared SP Paulette Cohen). This person was directly responsible for the infamous ‘List 1 Project’ in the late 70's which labelled literally hundreds of well meaning staff and public falsely as ‘List 1 R/Sers’ and ‘Suppressives’.
For this Cohen had been forcibly removed from any and all technical lines forever. Her severe infractions of the standard technology of Scientology were blatant and documented many times over.
Despite her gross auditing errors, severe and disreputable code breaks, squirrel application of technical rundowns, and clearly false reports time and time again in worksheets, Mayo over a two year period worked steadily to position this person back onto technical lines where she once again committed serious squirrel technical procedures on key staff members at senior level.
Mayo himself personally acted as the Case Supervisor for these cases while SP Cohen squirrelled horribly under his direction and approval.” (from ‘FCO 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare David Mayo”)
This ‘List 1 Project’ and ‘List 1 R/Sers’ are further explained in a chapter on my page “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology”. Consult here (separate window).
It is rumoured that David Mayo was appointed by L. Ron Hubbard personally for the position of Senior C/S Int. These appointments then would likely have been announced through so-called Personnel Orders. As a rule these announcements would not appear in Scientology magazines as ‘The Auditor’, ‘Ability’ or ‘Advance!’. Although one may have expected this for particular important appointments, but we fail to find them. It would either have been announced verbally at events/meetings and/or by such a posting order which would go internally by the communication basket system as in use by the organization. Was it actually broadly and publicly announced to the Scientology community, and if so how was this done? I have forwarded this question to various old-timer Scientologists, none of these recall any official announcements. Various of these persons consulted were during these times either at Flag, or other major Scientology organizations.
After David Mayo a new Senior C/S Int did its entry at least since the reference HCOB 28 Sept 82 “Mixing Rundowns & Repairs” (attributed to: ‘LRH, Data collected by Cmdr R. Mithoff Snr C/S Int’; initials: ‘CSI:LRH:RM:dr/iw’). Prior to becoming Senior C/S Int and therewith replacing David Mayo he appears to have been active as Snr C/S FLB (=Flag Land Base) as per HCOB 23 Jul 81 “Pregnancy and Auditing” (attributed to: ‘LRH, Assisted by Snr C/S FLB’; initials: ‘BDCSC:LRH:RM:bk’). And he still acted as such one year later which we have confirmed with HCOB 11 Jul 82 I “Questionable Auditing Repair List” (attributed to: ‘LRH, as assisted by Senior C/S FLB’; initials: ‘LRH:RM:gal’). This is an interesting note as this actually matches the career of David Mayo who prior to becoming Senior C/S Int is said to have been active as Flag C/S during 1973-78 (technically this is pretty much the equivalent of being Sr C/S Flagship Apollo, that since 1975 was located on the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Fl. At such time they went onshore).
Senior C/S International
D/Senior C/S International
ca Jun 78? / early Oct 78
early Oct 78
/ late Aug 82
28 Sept 82
/ 26 Feb 87
7 May 87
/ 26 Apr 89
8 Dec 86 / 26 Feb 87
17 Nov 89
/ 14 Oct 92
26 Jul 93
/ present time
* There are still uncertainties concerning if she officially was posted as such or that she only may have acted in such a capacity as the LRH Tech Expeditor. Anything to add then please contact me!
* Prior to June 1978 she still acted as LRH Tech Expeditor (see HCOB 26 May 78 I “Dianetics: Urgent Command Change”).
* David Mayo himself depicts the morning of 29 Aug 82 as the time he was removed from his position as the Senior C/S International in a letter that he wrote on 8 Dec ’83.
The dates given in the above are those that I have been able to positively confirm that each acted as such during given time period. It is fairly obvious that they replaced each other, but I don't have the exact dates (months) when that happened. It is reported that Paulette Cohen got ‘busted’ (exact reason unknown) and replaced by David Mayo. David Mayo in turn also got excommunicated and was replaced by Ray Mithoff. Then Ray Mithoff went on to function as the Inspector General for Technical in the newly established Inspector General Network (April 1987). This can be considered a promotion on his part. Jeff Walker who had been his deputy during a few months then followed him up as the Senior C/S International. I am unsure about why Jeff Walker and John Eastment left the position, although I recall rumours that went around at Flag. Anyway after John Eastment quitting the post Mr. Ray Mithoff resumed his position as the Senior C/S International, and he has been holding that position ever since.
In spite of the fact that there have been various post changes as per the above table, this position as time since has learned us appears to have been or was intended to be of a rather permanent or long-term nature. The only other permanent posting till that time was L. Ron Hubbard as being the Founder, then we have the posting of the Guardian and the Controller (since 1969). So, the establishment of this position of Senior C/S International may have introduced further permanent or long-term postings. It may have meant that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the person holding that position may then have no consequences for the position or repute of that person. Later permanent postings introduced during the early ’80s were for example Executive Director International (ED Int), RTC Chairman, IAS President and a variety of others. Regardless of being downstat or upstat he seems/appears to remain holding this position. It may mean that the person is not being made accountable for things that occur. If this is so, this would actually clash with the statistics system that Scientology uses.
Either way when special or serious circumstances arose apparently one could be removed. David Mayo was removed from his position in late August 1982. Something like that also happened with the first ED Int (Bill Franks), who was removed somewhere late 1982. Anyhow the persons since then holding these positions are still holding them today, and that's since about 20-25 years as it seemed like untouchables. Prior to 1980 that the same persons would hold the same position in the organization for such very long time periods was not very common. Till then we only have had the Guardian and the Controller which were for life as per HCO PL 21 Jan 69 “Controller”.
‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin’
At such a time when David Mayo was removed and Mr. Ray Mithoff took his place as Senior C/S International we also see the establishment of the Senior C/S Int Bulletin. The first number of this periodical was issued on 19 December 1982. Various of these were not for broad public distribution, but only for circulation amongst Tech and Qual Staff (Technical and Qualifications Division). Its purpose was “to provide a communication line to technical personnel over the world”, “to give tech people an opportunity to keep informed as to what is being found and corrected in various areas”. They were issued and written by the Senior C/S International which was Mr. Ray Mithoff.
Then only 2 weeks after the issuance of David Mayo's Condition Order we see the release of ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin No. 3’, 17 Mar 83“David Mayo Verbal Tech”, and yes it was entirely dedicated to David Mayo. This particular one was not for public distribution and I therefore will not directly quote from this. The title of the Bulletin though explains already what it is about. And indeed it relays about various other communication lines that David Mayo had used, such as despatches, conferences, cramming orders, notations in folders, telexes etc.. In a sense this Bulletin could be regarded as a sort of reinforcement or repetition to various claims that were later published in ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. The claims made in the Bulletin though can only be verified if one has access to and can review these despatches and so on. We do not actually have that, so therefore I only note its existence. There is also ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin No. 5’, 6 May 83“Off-Source ‘C/S Hat Write up’”. It relates about that David Mayo had circulated a hat write up some years back for the post of Case Supervisor, and the advise is given here to ignore it (i.e. shred it).
David Mayo about attributed authorship
The history of Scientology does witness about rather many references that have not been attributed correct authorship designations. Most particularly during the second half of the ’70s it becomes rather difficult to determine actual authorship. A new rule introduced (endorsed in 1977) that would demote actual authors to be indicated as assistants just didn't facilitate matters. But since then there were also many references that had come out over L. Ron Hubbard's name, when he had not actually written them or even seen them.
Here we find an interesting statement from David Mayo about this:
“As you know I used to be on the post of Senior C/S International, for a few years, not until over a year ago. And one of the main purposes of that post was to ensure the high standards and the high quality of the tech. There were some things which occurred which made it difficult to continue doing that at the time. And without going into those things particularly very much here, apart for one of them, which is the subject of how issues are written. You know HCOBs and issues. And you've probably seen various HCOBs or PLs that have come out over L. Ron Hubbard's name. And at other times you have seen issues that have come out as assisted by somebody. One of the things that I used to feel very strongly about at the time was that I felt that if I or somebody else was ordered to write an HCOB by LRH that it should state assisted by and who it was assisted by at the bottom of it. In other words it shouldn't, I felt, that an issue should state who wrote it. In other words if it was written by LRH it should state so and if it was written by somebody else it should state that. It doesn't mean it is not valid but I feel that the correct authorship should be assigned to these things. As a matter of ethics and as a matter of principle.”
(from Advanced Ability Center (AAC) lecture #1, “The Quality and Standardness of Tech”, given on 4 Dec 83)
Sound snippet (1:38)
Now, the question is what actually is he saying here? First we get this about “HCOBs or PLs that have come out over L. Ron Hubbard's name.”.
Indicating references that would seem to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard but that were not.
Then he goes on to say “if I or somebody else was ordered to write an HCOB by LRH that it should state assisted by...”, “and who it was assisted by”, “...at the bottom of it.”. Is he saying here (1) that if it was by order of L. Ron Hubbard, that the actual writer should then be indicated as an assistant and not as the writer? Or is he conveying (2) that L. Ron Hubbard would have been the actual assistant? It is the 2 options that we have.
Next he says: “In other words if it was written by LRH it should state so and if it was written by somebody else it should state that.”. Here it gets sort of contradictive in regards to what he said directly before that.
Now, thus far the practice had always been to just state what the actual situation was. In the few occasions in where a reference was ordered by L. Ron Hubbard to be written it thus simply said at the bottom: “Ordered by L. Ron Hubbard.”, and the actual author indicated as the author, with his name and post title. Now, is it this that we see David Mayo recommending?
A problem we are facing here is that we find some 90 references that did receive the notification that they were “Assisted by Senior C/S International”, with initials ‘DM’. All these references since have been either (1) reworked and reissued under L. Ron Hubbard's name, (2) not reworked but reissued under L. Ron Hubbard's name, or (3) they were cancelled. About these references we received repeatedly referrals (in the references that were revising/reissuing/cancelling them), that it was David Mayo that had actually written them, and without the knowledge or approval of L. Ron Hubbard. Which was thus the given reason why they were now being revised/reissued/cancelled.
[Various examples here: KSW references by David Mayo; and here: column “Notices”, page “Chronological David Mayo reference list”, David Mayo regularly is referred to as “written by another” or similar (all separate windows)]
Mind here that the rule of issuing references in where authors were indicated as assistants was established by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” (explained here, separate window).
The question to ask here is how much David Mayo himself actually has lived up to his preference that “... if it was written by LRH it should state so and if it was written by somebody else it should state that.”?
The matter of “misdefinition of the State of Clear”
David Mayo had been accused of having “broadly published a misdefinition of the State of Clear” as per ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. He in essence can be held responsible tough for the changes in the definition of Clear as it was carried through during the time he was posted as Senior C/S International (1978-82), which in effect represents the top-tech terminal after L. Ron Hubbard.
The matter directly associated with David Mayo and as addressed in ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” can be consulted at link here below: (separate window)
The source of ‘NED for OTs’ (NOTs) and its direct consequence (1978)
We have rather strong indications that this New Era Dianetics for OTs (NOTs) was established particularly because David Mayo condoned and approved it. Followingly it is of even more significance according to what it actually caused. Which is that ‘any Clear’ is not to be run on ‘any form of Dianetics’, and caused then the issuance of HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”.
“In a review of the Happiness Rundown issues I have found that the tech of the HRD, as originally developed and written by me in late 1980, had been covertly sabotaged. Numerous instances of suppressive technical alter-is have been found in the issues of the 1981 HRD Series. These writings were not seen by myself and were falsely and illegally issued over my name.” (attributed to L. Ron Hubbard) (from HCOB 15 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Additives”)
The above supposed findings caused the Happiness Rundown Series issues to be reissued. The blame for all this was put on the person David Mayo.
The Happiness Rundown was a usage directly based on the Way to Happiness booklet. It had 21 chapters that carried 37 precepts (although chapter 20 is treated differently). The basic routine of this rundown was Security Checking procedures. The concept was to become clean (and thus happy) basically by unburdening your conscience. Its steps consisted of these ever repetitive and recurring series of questions of which a variety of them were these typical Sec Check type questions, that were asked for each of the 37 precepts. Therefore a person that has had a lot to withhold may experience some benefits from this, but the person that has a pretty clean conscience overall may soon get into an overrun and become very upset indeed.
This may account for some people reporting that this rundown would have been the cause for people leaving their staff position and/or the organization during the time of its release. If this rundown really was the reason then they would have left because of the wrong action applied to them. See, people leave if they are not sufficiently satisfied with services received. People that improve, get wins and such, their first notion would not be to leave. If staff personnel got better because of the rundown and would have become aware of any overall non-optimum situation, they initially would want to stay and improve matters as they will have risen in responsibility and strength.
One should thus not forget that this rundown in essence would be an ethics measure taken! It should be clear here that this rundown was just not for every person a correct action or gradient. Nonetheless it was advertised at its release as something that everyone could/should do. An example of such a promotional advertisement:
“A new rundown from Ron is producing immediate, life-changing gains in OTs and non-OTs alike! Rave successes have been pouring in from the AO HGCs where highly trained OT auditors are now delivering this action.” (from ‘Advance! 74’, [ca Mar-Apr 82], page 2)
Now, why would it be targeting OTs in this promotion here above? It can be questioned very much what they would benefit from this, as after all they would have passed this level long long since! The rundown would simply not register anything with these people.
It appeared first listed on the Grade Chart issued in January 1982 implementing it as part of the Bridge to be received prior to ARC Straightwire pretty much as a mandatory action. The Grade Chart issued in October 1983 then moved it to ‘Routes onto the Bridge’, basically this meant that the action had turned optional. We also have HCOB 12 Nov 81RB (Revised 2 Oct 83) “Grade Chart Streamlined for Lower Grades” that was issued “to specify that the Happiness Rundown is not to be delivered to Clears” (thus including OTs). It thus took almost 2 years to figure that one out, after the rather extensive promotion to put everyone on it.
In the interim however newcomers would have been put on this rundown, Now, was this an appreciated action? Well, obviously not if they were leaving again. The issue here would be if new public should have been/be subjected, as in standard approach, to something that involves that type of ethics actions? It had been a long standard rule in Scientology saying that “Well, when you've got technical in, why, ethics—that's as far as you carry an ethics action.” LRH (from SHSBC lecture #61, renumbered 1991: #424 “Organization and Ethics”, given on 18 May 65), more about the purpose of ethics in Scientology is found here (separate window).
An additional bother is that the rundown, as it was originally promoted, changed the sequence in which the processes should be received. Per the original Grade Chart you would start with Dianetics, when successfully completed you would go on to the Grades (which is Scientology), arriving at Grade II you would deal with that which is addressed with this Happiness Rundown. For the ordinary person it would thus be advised to simply follow the steps as they appear on that Grade Chart.
Now there is something that is called Life Repair Program. This however is for people that have particular attention on some areas in their life in present time. Here, and only here this Happiness Rundown may apply, if the right action for that particular person, and allow him/her have some benefits from it.
Some observations made while comparing the 1980-81 with the 1984 version
So, we have this HCOB 15 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Additives” that “listed the major outpoints of false data, technical perversion and alter-is that have been been cancelled and deleted in restoring the HRD to standard tech.”. This is thus the claim being made. You will not be able to find this reference included in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, probably because by then it was considered a done and closed cycle. It will have been found and decided that there was no reason to keep alive the explanation of how faulty and incorrect these previous series of these references must have been. After all we had a new 1984 Series. Hence we don't find it in these 1991 volumes. It just became a record of history.
On the overall it can be said that in essence it is pretty much the same rundown with only some minor changes and adjustments here and there that however do make a difference. Although the HCOB names “Numerous instances of suppressive technical alter-is have been found in the issues of the 1981 HRD Series.”. Various of these would however not interfere directly with the auditing/Sec Checking procedures themselves. I will address here the ones that do interfere and thus do carry a particular significance.
As a first main observation we see that the 1984 series removed 3 of these typical Sec Check type questions for each of these precepts. Remind that that we had here a total of 37 precepts (entries), that had been set up in the same line of questioning but was just changing its precept.
(1) It lists in HCOB 16 Feb 81 “Happiness Rundown Command Sheets”:
“How have others transgressed against the precept ‘... (fill in)’?”
“Is there an earlier time when others transgressed against the precept ‘...’?”
“How have you transgressed against the precept ‘...’?”
“Is there an earlier time when you transgressed against the precept ‘...’?”
* optional auditing question
The 1980-81 series as per HCOB 24 Feb 81 “How to Audit the HRD” runs these “transgressions” from “E/S” (Earlier Similar) to “F/N” (Floating Needle). This means that the 2nd question listed at each Question # was optional (). This question was run (and repeated) until no charge was left and the needle thus was floating. This is actually good as it will release the person of the mental charge it had, including earlier similar's. This is what can be regarded as erasing charge from incidents, thus resulting into case gain.
Now, when we look in HCOB 19 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Command Sheets” we see that this 2nd question is dropped from mention. Then HCOB 18 Jan 84 “How to Audit the HRD” notes: “the rundown is begun, starting from the top of the command sheets and carrying on through them step by step”, it makes no mention anywhere here of running any earlier similar. Which is actually typical for so-called Sec Checking approach, as it will not run earlier similar, and will thus not result in erasing incidents, it will only relieve (unburden) the person, leaving earlier similar's fully in place. This is not the sort of auditing that will result in case gain.
Therefore, in this sense the earlier 1980-81 approach is actually preferred. But this does not mean either that everyone had to run the Happiness Rundown, after all this rundown was on a very basic (beginning) level indeed.
Rather interesting here is that the corrective HCOB 15 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Additives” does NOT EVEN MAKE MENTION OF THIS OBSERVATION!
(2) We see that HCOB 19 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Command Sheets” also dropped Question 7a:“Have you thought of something you didn't tell me?”. This we find is actually addressed by the corrective HCOB. It states that the question should not be actually asked but that “This however does NOT give the HRD auditor any license to miss withholds.”. It goes on with: “If any missed withhold symptom is present in the session THE AUDITOR MUST HANDLE IT BY PULLING THE MISSED WITHHOLD ...”. Thus although it is not being asked for with a question the withhold(s) must be found nonetheless. A minor observed change.
(3) Whereas the original version of the Happiness Rundown insisted that every question should be run on the pc: “None of these questions or actions are omitted. Provided the auditor
follows the command sheets, without omission nor introducing any other action, the HRD is
one of the smoothest and most rewarding rundowns to audit.” (from HCOB 24 Feb 81 “How to Audit the HRD”:). The 1984 reissue instead promoted the contrary. The corrective HCOB 15 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Additives” considers the original routine: “One of the blatantly destructive points of technical alter-is”, which is “the idea that one should run every single question of the HRD procedure on every pc doing the RD, even if it were an unreading question.”. The HCOB further states that “there were quite a number of auditors who wondered about it, since it is contrary to tech fundamentals.”. The only technical reference it forwards however is dating to 1980, HCOB 23 Jun 80RA “Checking Questions on Grade Processes”, a reference with a rather curious history.
* [A history that is told at the beginning of that HCOB, and that we find preserved even in the version of that HCOB that is included in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. The original version of that HCOB, per the RA-version, “incorrectly stated that an auditor was not to check the processes of a grade for read before running them.”. Rather interestingly we find here thus a similar battle that is also fought in the HRD!]
Either way HCOB 18 Jan 84 “How to Audit the HRD” states that “There are questions in the rundown which ask for false data and these are not tested for read.”. Here it thus does not make a great deal of difference concerning these particular questions if you run an unreading item or not, as these are not tested for a read anyway!
The rule is:
“Never list a listing item that doesn't read.
Never prepcheck an item that doesn't read.
These rules hold good for all lists, all items, even DIANETICS. ...
A preclear's case can be gotten into serious trouble by listing a list that doesn't read or prepchecking or running and item that doesn't read. ...
ALWAYS TEST A LISTING QUESTION BEFORE LETTING THE PC LIST. ...
THINGS THAT DON'T READ WON'T RUN.” LRH
(from HCOB 27 May 70 “Unreading Questions and Items”)
Per this the corrective HCOB 15 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Additives”, at least regarding this matter, was correct in its judgment. From this then follows that, if it be so that the original Happiness Rundown did run everything either way, then this would tend to result easily into an overrun. This in turn would explain why people on staff would have left. In part however this would be pending also how proficient and sensitive the auditor is, as a skilled auditor can limit and even prevent any damages if any overrun tends to occur. But that then will be the merit of the auditor, not of the routine of the Happiness Rundown. In essence thus the outset of the original Happiness Rundown would be destructive, in particular if run by a rather newly trained and inexperienced auditor.
It would thus appear that both the versions of the Happiness Rundown have their downsides. The original version (1980-81) tends to go into overrun, and the revised version (1984) skips the E/S.
Thought provoking may as well be that the line of questioning, that involve false data stripping procedures and withhold pulling auditing procedures, these are all put together in these Happiness Rundown auditing sessions. Is this mixing practices? Now which questions do have to be listed for a read, and which do not? It all adds to an uncertainty factor with the auditor, in particular with the revised 1984 version. Which is thus creating an arbitrary.
Notes about authorship
The references as found in the Happiness Rundown Series that make up this Happiness Rundown (HRD) witness of an obvious involvement of David Mayo. This is confirmed by the composer/typing initials in these references, but also because the bulk of them mentioning ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’ in the signatory area. Mind that this ‘assisted by’ according to new rules introduced by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” refers here to the actual composer of the reference (see here, separate window).
A major inconsistency however can already be found in these composer/typing initials in the original Series. A total of 5 references (of the 9) that we find in the Happiness Rundown Series carry incorrect initials (HRD Series 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8). Because these list ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’ together with ‘dm’ (‘LRH:dm:ljb’). Just ‘dm’ would indicate a typist, as opposed to ‘DM’ that indicate the composer.
The HRD Series 6 & 9 should have it correctly indicated as they do note ‘DM’, in combination with ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’.
HRD Series 1 & 2 is a different story. Here it does indicate a ‘dm’, but they also fail to note ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’. Presumably here it would still mean that these initials stand for David Mayo, but that he had only transcribed it. There is some information that tells that the L. Ron Hubbard from that time was recording everything on a dictaphone. This was relayed to me by Pierre Ethier who prior to becoming a Flag auditor was stationed and worked in Flag Mimeo.
The only checksheet that I have been able to consult of the original Series also have ‘dm’ in combination with ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’, which is deemed being incorrect. The 3 remaining checksheets probably may also have it incorrectly indicated like that.
The specifics about these signatories and its controversies are all indicated on my HRD publication list, consult here (pop-up window).
Merril Mayo's Open Letter,
ca. 1983. Extract from a letter
which was received from Merrill Mayo that I found posted on the Internet. I don't know to whom it was send and can also not vouch for its authenticity, but it probably is authentic.
“In late 1980 and early 1981, given the data of the Happiness Rundown, David assisted LRH in getting this data put into an auditable rundown, testing it and piloting it until it was ready for public. He personally, for 6 weeks, trained auditors and C\Ses from all over the world. This produced a huge resurgence in the Orgs. These are a few of the specific products David has helped LRH with. The tech is LRH's. The exact implementation of that tech is what David has done.”
She was the wife of David Mayo at that time and also functioned as his assistant.
A communication from Julie Mayo, dated 28 April 1996, which is found on the Internet posted on a newsgroup amongst other relates:
“In late 1981, LRH began communicating with David Mayo, Senior C/S INT, and the CMO and his personal accountants. From 1981 until August of 1982, David Mayo and the Senior C/S INT Office received many messages and letters from LRH. Amongst other things, LRH suggested that David develop a Happiness Rundown, which David did. When the rundown and course were completed, auditors and C/Ses from around the world came to ASHO in LA. David personally taught the course and internship. It was a huge success.”
Note: At the time she was known as Julie Gillespie, it was not until later that she married David Mayo.
Please realize that I can not vouch for the reliability or the source of this data, but it is probably authentic due to the detailed nature of these messages.
Did David Mayo cause sequence change: First grades then Dianetics? (Nov 81)
A first attempt for change was attempted in November 1969. It was proposed by a policy letter not written by L. Ron Hubbard, it however never solidified and this policy letter as it appears was taken out of use quickly. The proposal forwarded by that now obsolete policy letter still left you with an option. You still could first do Dianetics and then Scientology if you chose to do so or if warranted for, however not so in the second attempt for change made in November 1981.
This was an attempt for change, and a successful one, by a policy letter written by David Mayo. This was HCO PL 12 Nov 81 “Cancellation of Class 4, NED Prereq”. It directed: “NED now comes after Expanded Grade 4 on the Grade Chart”. This reference was signed with ‘Assisted by Snr C/S International’, and composer initials ‘DM’. Per the guidelines as found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” this basically meant that he actually wrote it.
A detailed study of this can be consulted at below link: (separate window)
‘No-Interference Area’ interfered with & stiffening Sec Checking procedures implemented by David Mayo? (Mar 82)
Through 6 to 10 Mar 1982 a total of 6 references were issued relating to increasing control over the phenomena of Security Checking alternatively Confessionals and its use on people where each of these references carried an authorship initial of David Mayo.
The most significant one of these references being the one that effectively interfered with this so-called No-Interference Area, which name speaks for itself. It was first established with HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area” . Then 10 years later this was replaced with HCOB 8 Mar 82 “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone” which does indeed carry his authorship initials (do also note the different reference date!). Just one year later it was, slightly revised, reissued as HCOB 8 Mar 82R (Revised 24 Apr 83) “Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone”. This time around however it had been stripped from any reference to David Mayo in the signature area and now seemingly appeared to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard. It is the very version of this HCOB that remains in use till this day!
But there is more. Another of these references was for instance HCOB/PL 6 Mar 82 “Confessional Tech Policies” that directed that “Anyone who refuses a Confessional or who refuses to answer a reading question should be turned over to the Ethics Officer and the Guardian's Office notified then and there.”. Things were really stepping up quite a bit with various of these new HCOBs that in effect were allowing increased control of the Scientology parishioner and also staff.
Each of these 6 references can be consulted in great detail in link here below:
The ‘David Mayo Bridge’, established 1978-82 and still going strong this day...
This time frame signifies the time that the present day Bridge or Route to Freedom as offered by the Church of Scientology was physically established. This is the tale of kicking a guy, but adopting basically all that was established while he was the top technical person (after L. Ron Hubbard). People probably don't want to hear about that, although it is simple proven fact. It is effectively proven by my documentation and published studies into these matters.
Specifics and evaluations about this can be consulted at below link: (separate window)
Course checksheets and some peculiarities concerning the ‘Hubbard Solo Auditor Course’
In his capacity of Senior C/S Int naturally David Mayo was involved in various compilations of so-called checksheets. Some notes can be made about these. All the ones that I know about are listed in the below overview:
In use as HCO PL 25 Sept 79R III (Rev 5 Apr 89) “same title”
HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup” said in the revision notes: “BPL 18 Oct 7 6RD, Rev. 10.9.78 URGENT IMPORTANT, SUCCESSFUL TRAINING LINEUP is canceled because it dropped Method One Word Clearing out of training. It sought to solve students on Academy courses being held up due to incomplete Method One, by no longer requiring Method One. As a result Method One Word Clearing dropped out of use and Academy students and interns are now being delayed in training because they haven’t had Method One. The ‘problem’ of incomplete Method One isn't even a problem, all one would have to do is complete the Method One!
Method One Word Clearing is now being reinstated by HCO PL 25 Sep 79 II METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING.”
Hubbard Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential) Part One & Two
The periodical ‘Advance! 74’, [ca Mar-Apr 82] tells that “Ron's new Grade Chart(released March 1982)has brought the Solo Auditor Course closer to home. You can begin you Solo Training right at your Class IV Organization. Solo Training is now in two parts. Part One is done at the Class IV Orgs and Part Two is done at the Saint Hill or Advanced Orgs.”.
HCO PL 6 Dec 79
“Hubbard Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential)”
Assisted by LRH Technical Compilations I/C
and Kathy Stewart CS3-4
and Snr C/S Int
for the BDCSC
HCO PL 6 Dec 79R I[?]
HCO PL 6 Dec 79RA I[?]
HCO PL 6 Dec 79RB I
(Rev 25 Nov 81)
“Hubbard Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential) Part One”
Assisted by Senior C/S International
This checksheet was previously in use as BPL 12 Dec 71RD (Revised 24 Jan 78) “The Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential)”. It appears that this HCO PL was simply replacing the BPL and that it was split into 2 parts at that time.
HCO PL 28 Jan 82R I
(Rev 27 Mar 82)
“The New Hubbard Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential) Part One”
(Cancels & Replaces HCO PL 6 Dec 79RB)
Assisted by Senior C/S International
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 23 Feb 84 I “same title”
(although above issue was never cancelled the one presently in use is HCO PL 13 Jun 96R (Rev 23 Sept 96) “same title”)
Revision notes of HCO PL 28 Jan 82R I said: “(This checksheet was redesigned by LRH to include basic books, theory, L & N and more thorough meter trilling. It is now possible to make a far superior solo auditor than ever before.)”.
Revision notes of the replacing checksheet (HCO PL 23 Feb 84 I) said: “CANCELS HCO PL 28 JAN 82R Same title, which was written by another. Arbitraries and complexities entered into the structure of the checksheet resulted in an overlong course, and extended the length of time on Solo training and the road to OT. It is replaced with this new streamlined Solo Auditor course.”.
Some peculiar notes concerning the Part One checksheet
An interesting note can be made with HCO PL 2 Oct 83 “Solo Course Part One, Prerequisites”. It noted: “(Modifies the prerequisites as given on page one of HCO PL 28 Jan 82R, Issue I, THE NEW HUBBARD SOLO AUDITOR COURSE -- PART ONE)”.
It basically means that it positively confirms that in October ’83 (i.e. 6 weeks after the issuance of the SO ED 2344, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”), a checksheet is being upheld that was compiled by David Mayo as was clearly indicated on that very checksheet. A checksheet which less than 4 months later was cancelled and replaced because of “Arbitraries and complexities entered into the structure of the checksheet resulted in an overlong course, and extended the length of time on Solo training and the road to OT.”.
David Mayo was already removed from post late August ’82. A Condition Order declaring him a Suppressive Person was issued on 2 Mar ’83. Still one had somehow missed this Hubbard Solo Auditor Course, it was only found necessary to update its prerequisites.
It seems quite odd to me that if it was found that David Mayo was such a bad dude as has been proclaimed, then one would have expected that anything in which he was involved would have been withdrawn immediately or at least be subject to thorough review and investigation. A vital course such as this Hubbard Solo Auditor Course was allowed to be in actual continued use up to at least one whole year later. Why had one missed this?
About that “the checksheet resulted in an overlong course, and extended the length of time on Solo training and the road to OT.”, it can be confirmed that the indication of “LENGTH OF COURSE” changed from “4 weeks full time” in HCO PL 28 Jan 82R I to “2 weeks full time, 4 weeks part time” in HCO PL 23 Feb 84 I.
Odd is also that this HCO PL 2 Oct 83 “Solo Course Part One, Prerequisites” is actually found in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Technical Division, Volume 4’ (1991 release) on page 663. It is odd because it is referring to this 1982 Solo Auditor Course, that was already replaced as early as 1984 with HCO PL 23 Feb 84 I “The New Hubbard Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential) Part One”. In fact I found that the data as given in HCO PL 2 Oct 83 “Solo Course Part One, Prerequisites” was fully incorporated in this replacement HCO PL! This simply had turned this HCO PL 2 Oct 83 superfluous, although even as late as today (August 2006) I have found no record of it being cancelled, which is what should have happened already in 1984.
HCO PL 28 Jan 82 II
“The New Hubbard Solo Auditor Course (Non-Confidential) Part Two”
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 23 Feb 84 II “same title”
I have not been able to consult any actual copy of any version of this checksheet. although the 1982 version is assumed compiled with the involvement of David Mayo.
OT III Class VIII Course Checksheet
HCO PL 2 Feb 80
C o n f i d e n t i a l
“The Confidential - OT III Class VIII Course Checksheet”
As assisted by Kathy Stewart CS-4 and
Snr C/S Int
This is likely revised or at least reissued since, no data however has been found.
CS-4:‘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’.
Survival Rundown Checksheets
HCO PL 13 May 80 II
“Survival Rundown TRs Checksheet”
Both of them Cancelled by HCOB/PL 3 Apr 90 “Cancellation of the Survival Rundown Series”
It is not very likely that David Mayo was involved in these 2 checksheets, although it is likely that Merrill Mayo was involved. Unverified as yet though.
Hubbard Happiness Rundown Courses
HCO PL 2 Mar 81
“Hubbard Happiness Rundown Auditor Course”
as assisted by Senior C/S Int
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 22 Jan 84 I “same title”
HCO PL 3 Mar 81
“Hubbard Happiness Rundown Auditor Internship”
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 22 Jan 84 II “same title”
HCO PL 4 Mar 81
“Hubbard Happiness Rundown Case Supervisor Course”
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 22 Jan 84 III “same title”
HCO PL 5 Mar 81
“Hubbard Happiness Rundown Case Supervisor Interneship”
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 22 Jan 84 IV “same title”
All of these are also cancelled by HCOB 15 Jan 84 “Happiness Rundown Additives”
The whole of the Happiness Rundown indicates David Mayo involvement as does the only checksheet I have been able to access. It is assumed that David Mayo was responsible for these other 3 as well.
Hubbard Professional TRs Course Checksheet
HCO PL 17 Jun 81
“Hubbard Professional TRs Course Checksheet”
Assisted by Research and Technical Compilations Unit
Cancelled by HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”
Replaced by HCO PL 7 Aug 83 “The New Hubbard Professional TR Course”
Presently in use is HCO PL 7 Aug 83RB (Rev 10 Sept 98) “The New Hubbard Professional TR Course”
There is no indication of David Mayo involvement in compiling this issue, although a quick glance reveals that 3 David Mayo issues are listed on the checksheet. For which reason it must have been replaced since by HCO PL 7 Aug 83.
Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course
HCO PL 3 Dec 81 I
“Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course (Prov)”
Assisted by senior C/S International
Accepted by the
HCO PL 3 Dec 81R I
(Rev 3 Mar 82)
“Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course (Prov)”
Assisted by senior C/S International
Cancelled and Replaced by HCO PL 3 Oct 83 “Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course Phase-Out Per New Streamlined Grade Chart”
HCO PL 3 Dec 81R I said: “The purpose of this course is to train a Scientologist to be able to deliver Expanded Arc Straightwire and the Happiness Rundown so that he can start auditing as a career.”.
..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. Advanced Org(anization) (AO):
The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AOs. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization. AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’. See at that entry in vocabulary. BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked. C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) Clear: 1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16) 2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111) Comm Ev:
‘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) earlier similar (E/S):
Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from rudiments or a prepared list it must be carried to an F/N. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn't F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning. (HCOB 14 Mar 71R) E/S:
‘earlier similar’. See at that entry in vocabulary. Free Zone: Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). HCOB:
‘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). HGC:
‘Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing. LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. Operating Thetan (OT): 1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09) 3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10) ‘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). OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary. original mimeo print-off: Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window). Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor. Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’. SH (org):
‘Saint Hill (organization)’. A Saint Hill organization applies to any organization authorized to deliver the advanced level Scientology services. May also be referred to as an AO (Advanced Organization). For example AOSH UK or AOLA. The first AO was located in Saint-Hill, England. SHSBC:
‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary. squirrel: Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working) stat(s):
Short for statistic(s). ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).