Introduction to ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”
Now, what is there to say about such a writing? Can we believe that what it claims and says? If it can be substantiated with various recorded and supported facts there would be a fair possibility that there is at least some truth maintained in its claims. The only way we can determine a matter like this is to investigate what it says and study the references that it refers to. This
SO ED (Sea Org Executive Directive) is interjected with various lengthy and short quotations supposedly written by L. Ron Hubbard. The first one we see already on the first page of this writing:
“‘The actual situation is that you had a bird dog right in the middle of the control room: David Mayo. He was sabotaging execs by wrecking their cases. None of this was by accident or incompetence. Of all the crazy, cock-eyed sabotage I've ever seen, man, he was at it. He was not doing Dn and Scn. He was just calling it that and using the patter. His obvious intention was to wreck all cases of persons who could help others.’ (LRH)”
A note can also be made here about the actual authorship of these quotations. We simply have too many references released around that time which authorship is, to say it gently, questionable. It appears that an obscuring of authorship is not only excused it is promoted by notices found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. It forwarded a guideline that has been in use ever since, and its measures were extended as time progressed (consult study here, separate window). Then this also conforms with that L. Ron Hubbard had disappeared from the public view at that time. Therefore these interjective quotations supposedly deriving from L. Ron Hubbard have to be judged by what they actually say.
The SO ED can be consulted in full here (pop-up window). Particular sections of this SO ED have been taken and are analyzed in the following chapters.
“Mixing Rundowns”? & “Torpedoing of a Qual Division”?
Further some comments can be made of the section of the SO ED headed “MIXING RUNDOWNS”. It says there that:
“Probably the last thing Mayo expected was that a Class 4 auditor would find this out tech or, upon finding it, would report it. Fortunately the auditor did report it, applying the HCO PL 22 July 82 KNOWLEDGE REPORTS, to keep Scientology working. LRH then called for more pc folders that Mayo had been C/Sing and more of the same hideous squirrelling was found.”
It goes on with quoting from HCOB 28 Sept 82 “Mixing Rundowns & Repairs” which supposedly was “written by LRH to correct severe out tech that had been committed ... by Mayo”. It then amongst other quotes in the SO ED from this particular HCOB: “Recently one particular (now removed) C/S was found to have an ‘anything goes’ pattern of C/Sing and programming cases. This C/S mixed rundowns one with another into hash and did not do the standard rundown or repair it standardly as its own rundown.”.
2 comments can be made here:
Firstly one can ask why it required some “Class 4 auditor” to get the ball rolling prior to discovery? Bad C/Sing is identified by a consistent track of bad results. Any person subjected to such would display obvious symptoms, he would get stuck in his progress, he would get troublesome, he will catch the attention of various. It says in the section headed “TORPEDOING OF A QUAL DIVISION” (directly following “Mixing Rundowns”) that:
“Mayo directly supervised the delivery and tech quality of a Qual Div in the area he worked in, which was responsible for the auditing and enhancement of some 200 staff.” and “By actual survey of their pc folders, these staff had made little or no progress up the Bridge for a period of 3½ years -- the time period that Mayo was over the area.”
A whole 3½ years prior to discovery and it required a report from a Class 4 auditor to get it started? And by the way we have not calculated with the period 1973-78 in which David Mayo was posted as Flag C/S.
The SO ED notes further:
“The cases of these staff had been mis-programmed; the auditors had mostly either given up auditing or had been blown off the lines, and those that remained in the Qual Div were found to be running squirrel ‘pilot’ and ‘repair’ processes that had been invented and C/Sed by Mayo.”
The “stable datum” given by L. Ron Hubbard in the SO ED would have been a indicator sufficient enough: “‘A SENIOR C/S IS KNOWN BY HIS NEAREST QUAL’ (LRH)”.
Secondly it is noteworthy that this HCOB 28 Sept 82 “Mixing Rundowns & Repairs” is signed at the bottom with ‘L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER’ followed by ‘Data collected by Cmdr R. Mithoff, Snr C/S Int’ . This is the same person that actually has put together the SO ED and he is also represented in the composer initials of the HCOB with ‘RM’ (please note that the version of this HCOB as found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes have his name & initials deleted, they are only found on the original mimeo print-off). Many references released in these early 80's have it confirmed that they were not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard or that he even knew about them being issued (see my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”, chapter “Introduction to this page” for further information). For that reason this relates also here. This HCOB may as well have been wholly devised by Cmdr Ray Mithoff. Could it be seen as queer that this HCOB and the SO ED both have the same person involved?
It was found that Mayo had worked industriously and by various means to make the subject of Scientology Ethics and Justice totally confusing for other Scientologists, hoping to make this LRH technology appear to be unworkable (and thereby even further foul up people's progress up the Bridge.) For example, Mayo put out falsely signed issues and communications that conflicted one with the other -- such as on the one hand ordering or advising from his post incorrect or overly-harsh ethics actions on certain staff and public, and on the other hand issuing material generally instructing staff to NOT use ethics. It took some doing to get this straightened out and get his off-Source despatches, issues and verbal tech traced down and off the lines.
An HCOB was written by LRH entitled ETHICS AND THE C/S, HCOB 13 Oct 82, C/S Series 116. Mayo is the “C/S” described in the opening two paragraphs of this HCOB:
“It has just been brought to my attention that over the last few years a C/S had been advising staffs that C/S approval was required before somebody could be handled in Ethics!
“Mayo had a very interesting criminal trick going here: He was pretending that he had discovered that sec checking and ethics were out when as a matter of fact he was only covering his tracks: He was the one who threw it out. And when [later someone was] requiring some sec checking, I suppose in a panic he ‘discovered’ that ethics had not been used for a long time. He was the one who had pushed it out.” (LRH)
The first paragraph in the respective chapter carrying above title in the SO ED we find basically only a summarizing outcome. We can't actually do very much with this text, it is giving various generalizations and conclusions but does not directly base it on anything. It is all very much accusative. Then it goes on quoting 2 paragraphs from HCOB 13 Oct 82 “Ethics and the C/S”, the second paragraph is about further evaluations and conclusions at the address of David Mayo. Its first paragraph however gives a little clue, it talks about “that over the last few years a C/S had been advising staffs that C/S approval was required before somebody could be handled in Ethics!”. So what are the specifics about that? We find a clue about that in the chapter in the SO ED entitled “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS”, the applicable section reads: “authored and falsely signed a C/S Series HCOB [C/S Series 114, since cancelled] which was a covert alteration of Source material and was intended to confuse auditors and C/Ses so that they would follow Mayo's “discoveries” about ethics and neglect the Source material on the subject, thinking that they were following Source material.”.
The HCOB referred to was issued also as an HCO PL, same date and title. Which is HCOB/PL 30 Oct 81 “C/S-ing for the PC”. One may wonder why the SO ED does not say that right away! Anyway, more data is found in the reference that cancelled that which is HCOB 30 Oct 81 (Cancelled 7 Nov 82) “C/S series 114 Cancelled, KSW Series 28 Cancelled”. It reads:
“HCOB 30 Oct 81, ..., also issued as an HCO PL of the same date, is hereby CANCELLED, because of the false and arbitrary data it put forth regarding ethics actions on pcs.
This issue, never seen by myself and assisted by another, contained paragraphs not written by myself, one of which stated unequivocally that ethics-type case actions were not to be done in or out of session on persons on any major rundown or grade.
This is a FALSE DATUM and conflicts with the TRUE DATUM that TECH WILL NOT GO IN WHEN ETHICS IS OUT. This false datum served to cut the line for any needed ethics action a pc might require in order to actually make it on a major rundown or grade.”
Further it refers to HCOB 13 Oct 82 “Ethics and the C/S” that would contain “the correct data for both C/Ses and Ethics Officers on this subject”. It then also gives notice of the “issues it references”.
The applicable section in HCOB/PL 30 Oct 81 “C/S-ing for the PC” written by David Mayo then reads:
“In the HRD [Happiness Rundown] Series it is pointed out that one must not depart from the rundown into other actions. Whether these are other audited actions, a different rundown, ethics-type case actions done in or out of session, makes no difference. They violate C/S Series 38, under ‘Interjected Programs’ and ‘Cross Programming’ and they violate C/S Series 29, CASE ACTIONS OFF-LINE. These rules apply to any major rundown or grade, not just the HRD. Yet some persons recently suggested (incorrectly) that pcs on the HRD could, even should, be given ‘ethics handlings’ during the rundown; some asserted that HRD C/Ses were ‘operating on false data’ when these C/Ses objected to such off-line case actions! (By ‘ethics handlings’ they meant: 3 May PLs, O/W write-ups, ‘un-metered confessionals,’ extensive Word Clearing and False Data Stripping on a pack of Ethics and Justice PLs, Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics - each of which is a major action.)” David Mayo
These references referred to here in the above are HCOB 8 Mar 71, C/S Series 29 “Case Actions, Off Line” & HCOB 26 May 71, C/S Series 38 “TRs Course and Auditing, Mixing Major Actions”. You may consult these at your own leisure, but they are pretty straightforward regarding this.
There are 2 references that I wish to quote here and these are listed here below. There is:
“Cases undergoing Ethics actions, Comm Evs*, amends projects or low conditions should not be audited until the Ethics matter is cleared up and complete. It only louses up their cases to audit them when under such stress.” LRH (from HCOB 29 Mar 70 “Auditing and Ethics”)
Which gives the message that, as far as it is possible, you handle any such matters that could interfere with your auditing PRIOR to stepping into the auditing room. Then in the case that something would surface AFTER you stepped into that auditing room and thus have started some auditing cycle, we have the following:
“There is no direct routing of preclears to the Ethics Officer through the channels of the Qualification Division and Review.” LRH (from HCO PL 30 Jul 65 “Preclear Routing to Ethics”)
Now, there is an additional paragraph found in HCOB/PL 30 Oct 81 “C/S-ing for the PC” under the heading of “6. MISROUTING OF PCS TO ETHICS” that reads:
“While there are valid routings of pcs to Ethics as contained in OEC* Vol V under PC ROUTING TO ETHICS, these are for very specific reasons and are always via Review. But routing a pc to Ethics is no solution to BPC [Bypassed Charge]; an accurate repair of errors and BPC and a correct program and C/S are the solution.” David Mayo
After having gone over these matters in little more details, now how much is left at present of this accusation directed at the person David Mayo regarding this matter? You'll be the judge of that!
Basically all the other fingers pointed at David Mayo, about how bad his ethics is and all that, they are simply missing out on specifics. The one that could be tracked down I have addressed in the previous. Now if that one did not turn out to be anything, then how are we going to regard all the remaining defamations and accusative outbursts about the matter of ethics that we find all over the place in ‘FCO 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare David Mayo” and ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”, that were issued about this person?
And finally this chapter closes with one more nice opinionated evaluations, a text that is attributed to L. Ron Hubbard:
“‘Mayo had a very interesting criminal trick going here: He was pretending that he had discovered that sec checking and ethics were out when as a matter of fact he was only covering his tracks: He was the one who threw it out. And when [later someone was] requiring some sec checking, I suppose in a panic he ‘discovered’ that ethics had not been used for a long time. He was the one who had pushed it out.’ (LRH)”
Rather unsupported all that, and it is as we are accustomed to by now, failing to provide for the specifics. So it was David Mayo that had pushed out Sec Checking? Well, there really is lot of attention on this Sec Checking and as far as I recall it was L. Ron Hubbard that had abolished it all back in 1968. See HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” (pop-up window).
‘FCO 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare David Mayo”:
Though the route to Full OT is exactly mapped by LRH, Mayo could always be found incessantly trying to alter it in an effort to achieve notoriety as a “source” of tech.
Lest there be any who may wonder, there is only ONE Source of the technology in Dianetics and Scientology - L. Ron Hubbard, Founder.
‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”:
Instead of carrying out his post duties, Mayo spent a large part of his time working out various ways to communicate to staffs and public the idea that he was “Source” --- an idea that he had entertained for some time and still does to this day --- whether by getting his name in print, his face featured in promotional pieces or other means. Recently, for example, Mayo had such delusions of himself as being the “Source of tech” that he was negotiating with a dwindling squirrel group (Riverside, California) to sell them the rights to promote their tech as “Mayo tech” instead of “L. Ron Hubbard's tech”. ...
He was trying to set himself up as someone whom others would look to for interpretation of Scientology tech materials, rather than working at getting actual Scientology tech applied by others exactly as written in Source materials.
Mayo's hat when he was in the employ of the Church was to safeguard and ensure standard application of the tech, and to assist in compilations of LRH technical materials; NOT assume the hat of Source. His expressed intention was to “take over” the hat of the SOURCE of Scientology and Dianetics tech. Such a concept is so outrageous and ridiculous it defies comment.
Falsely attributing or falsely representing oneself or others as Source of Scientology or Dianetics technology; or using any position gained with staff and/or public to falsely attribute non-Source material to Source or to falsely represent non-Source material as authorized Scientology or Dianetics technology.
(Spread lies that he had “invented” various Scientology processes which were in truth developed entirely and completely by Source, not by Mayo; wrote squirrel programs in pc folders [this was while he was holding a staff position] and sent these to certain orgs, telling the C/Ses at these orgs that the programs and rundowns were from Source, when they were not -- they were completely manufactured by Mayo by illegally taking bits of one rundown and bits of many other rundowns and mushing them together [results in restimulating different areas all at once without completing the handling of anything and can make a pc think that auditing doesn't work]; and many other incidents similar in nature to the above, intended to make others think that he was “so close to Source that he must be Source”, and gradually bring about circumstances which [he hoped] would culminate in his being able to “take over” this hat altogether and “rule” all of Scientology internationally via tech lines.)
There is an obvious irony regarding this. There was a time that L. Ron Hubbard introduced new releases all by himself and in person. Then in December 1972 he suddenly disappeared for a period of 9½ months. The person that returned in September the following year in fact we see is actually shunning the public. Rumours went around that were saying: “Where is L. Ron Hubbard?”. Since that time, new releases that were said to be creations from L. Ron Hubbard, were not anymore released by him in person. The official release of New Era Dianetics (NED) passed by rather silently. We only find a minor notice about an official release in ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78), it is from here we get the release date 30 July 1978. It was not presented by L. Ron Hubbard however, we then only find some articles in the various Scientology magazines. David Mayo turned Senior C/S International a few months after that in September 1978. Basically from here on out he was the person to present new major releases. He did so for NOT's and Solo NOT's, the person of L. Ron Hubbard however was never present. Anyhow it would be rather logical that quite some attention was drawn to the person of David Mayo, this however was due to the position he held. It does not mean however that he was suffering from some megalomania as the SO ED was claiming. Thus far I find no support nor indications for that evaluation. In fact rather the contrary according to people I have been in communication with that had known David Mayo, and they tell me that he was humble and very polite as a person.
The SO ED further claims in the section heading: “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS”: “Spread lies that he had ‘invented’ various Scientology processes which were in truth developed entirely and completely by Source, not by Mayo”. I find no support for that claim either. Probably/possibly the SO ED refers here to the Happiness Rundown and the NOT's materials. Regarding these we have at present rather definite information that he at least wrote them down, and that it would be very probable that at least in part he actually developed and/or had worked them out and made these ready for release. I fail to find any confirmed sources, including published materials, magazines, and testimonies from individuals, in where he would have taken credit or boasted about these things. Thus if the SO ED wishes to claim these things then it better backs up these very claims.
The SO ED then makes the claim in the section heading: “MEGALOMANIA”: “Instead of carrying out his post duties, Mayo spent a large part of his time working out various ways to communicate to staffs and public the idea that he was “Source” --- an idea that he had entertained for some time and still does to this day”. It was at the end of July 1983 that David Mayo established his own group the Advanced Ability Center (AAC). This group had been having Sunday meetings on a weekly basis, we also see there David Mayo having these small talks lasting 20-25 minutes. At least 38 of these meetings have been taped and are made available by this group and are today available at places. In addition to this there exist a couple of video's, and also an interview. It becomes rather obvious when listening to these that David Mayo does not do the things he is accused of doing. The credit is persistently given to the person L. Ron Hubbard, he says that he only assisted him.
On the other hand one should be very clear about that he was directly responsible for a variety of changes that finally caused a significant technical turnaround. It is simply like this that you can not hide behind or blame another person for carrying out orders. Here the consequence has turned to be that David Mayo had functioned as being the actual instrument that set the new direction of that technology. Being posted as a top technical person for some 10 years carries with it various responsibilities. See for details about these changes the “Main index & introduction” page for David Mayo at “Technical matters”.
Mention however also has to be made here of some other things relating that David Mayo has been saying. It is stated in his “An Open Letter to All Scientologists” issued in July 1983, but it also has been captured on tape and even video. He wrote:
“In April of 1982, I received a long and detailed letter from LRH. It assigned me the full responsibility for the tech and for his technical hats for the next 20 to 25 years. (After the passage of this 20-25 years, he stated that he would return in his next lifetime to reassume his tech hats).”
In his series of short lectures given at the Advanced Ability Center he addressed it in more detail on 18 November 1984:
Sound snippet (3:52)
One of the problems with that letter is that it never has been produced. It was send at the time to some 20 persons according to David Mayo, but till date no copy of it has surfaced. Another point is that the outset as laid out by this letter never materialized. The group of David Mayo survived, as far as known, only until 1993. Basically since that time we don't know about his whereabouts nor of his wife Julie Mayo/Gillespie, or even if they still would be among the living so to say.
“Deliberately mis-C/Sed the auditing of his wife, Merrill Mayo”?
‘FCO 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare David Mayo”:
It was even found that Mayo, having long term upsets and conflicts with his wife (now divorced) C/Sed and programmed her for continued upper level squirrelled processing and mixed R/Ds in attempt to evaluate and invalidate her in hopes of “getting back at her” and to keep her at effect. He hand picked and coerced his wife's auditor to enforce these processes upon his wife and would keep the PC folder under lock and key refusing to have it reviewed by an outside technical terminal for correctness. It is of note too, that Mayo himself was “interested” in another woman—who happened to be his wife's very auditor who he put onto the case. While the wife was in tears asking “her C/S” to please sort out the second dynamic troubles out of session with a Chaplain or Ethics Officer, Mayo (the C/S) refused and just continued enforcing his brand of processing on the PC over an obvious ethics situation and physical universe present time problem.
His handling of this one case exemplifies a number of “horror story” case handlings Mayo busily worked at by way of squirrel auditing procedures.
You can always tell a squirrel because both his advice and his Pcs don't get better.
‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”:
Deliberately mis-C/Sed the auditing of his wife, Merrill Mayo, on a squirrel mixture of Audited NOTs, HRD commands and highly invalidative processes that Mayo had invented --- all done over the top of a heavy pressing present time problem consisting of the “C/S” [Mayo] telling the pc between sessions that he planned to marry another staff member, Julie Gillespie --- with the commands of the “processes” that Mayo made up and C/Sed to be run on the pc [his wife, Merrill] designed to introvert the pc and convince the pc that she herself was the source of this “2nd dynamic problem” --- and all during this time period, which went on for months, Mayo saw to it that the pc never went to an Examiner after any session, and kept the pc's folder locked in a file cabinet to ensure that the other tech personnel around would never see the pc folder or discover what was actually going on.
This is quite a rumour that was passed on by the Scientology parishioners at the time. I got to hear this still during the late 80's. The problem here is that his previous wife Merrill Mayo does not confirm it. There is this 26 minutes long recorded interview with her dating to July 1983 that tales about that David Mayo was being set up. All we can confirm regarding the texts found in the SO ED and the FCO regarding the matter is that David Mayo did divorce her, and that he did marry some time later Julie Gillespie. All the rest is just unsupported stories and claims.
There is Merrill Mayo's Open Letter (December 1983) in where we find a whole paragraph in where she addresses the SO ED. In there she amongst other directly makes the following comment about the supposed mis-C/Sing:
“David certainly did not deliberately mis-C\S my case nor did he do any of the other points stated in that paragraph, nor was there any sexual misconduct.”
Now, when she herself denies this then where does that leave the claims raised in that SO ED and FCO? Mind also that Merrill Mayo was a Class XII auditor, now would such a person suffer from mis-C/Sing? Well, not very likely so.
Then in that interview given on 4 July 1983 she is commenting on the Flag Condition Order that was issued on David Mayo. She said:
“All of the things which came out in David's SP order was completely a false report, every bit of it, with absolutely no grounds at all on it. It was made up to make David look as bad as they possibly could.”
Sound snippet (0:16)
Ah, you say, well, may be you wish to propose that that was all faked. That wasn't Merrill Mayo talking, or they got to her and made her say and write these things, or something. It could be, really not so very likely though, but let's assume that. Then what do we actually have?
Well, try this one:
“When writing an Ethics Order, don't ARC Break its readers by leaving out the data.
Don't create a mystery. ... Where did it happen? Is it in our area? What did he do? Who did he do it to? What's the evidence? ...
Don't be unspecific or you leave people in a huge mystery.
Ethics Orders are supposed to run group engrams out, not in!
Always put in what you know, nothing you don't know, and only what you have evidence or witnesses for. Ethics Orders are issued on real data, not opinion. ...
Write a nice informative Ethics Order. Don't leave anyone in mystery. Mysteries cause trouble and the purpose of Ethics is PEACE IN WHICH WE CAN GET IN TECHNOLOGY.” LRH (from HCO PL 2 Jun 65 “Writing of an Ethics Order”)
Attempting to overrule ‘Religious Technology Center’?
The section of the SO ED entitled “FUTURE” makes “an aside” comment at (3):
“Back when the Religious Technology Center was being formed Mayo tried desperately, on several occasions, to get himself posted in RTC --- he perceived it as a position of power from which he could wreak even more havoc on tech lines --- but his attempts to gain this posting were unsuccessful. He is now attacking RTC, as his squirrel practices are diametrically opposed to the aims and purposes of RTC which are simply to get LRH tech standardly applied.”
It is an odd claim as David Mayo is found on the RTC incorporation papers as an actual co-founder, one of the trustees. Meaning he was already involved into it so to say up to his neck. It makes this claim made here above look a bit ludicrous.
One of the articles of the incorporation papers state very clearly:
“The Corporation's affairs shall be regulated and managed by a Board of seven natural persons who shall be designated ‘Trustees’ which Board shall have and exercise all powers given to ‘Directors’ by the California Nonprofit Corporation Law.”
One of these “seven natural persons” being David Mayo! Therefore it becomes an absurdity to claim in the SO ED that David Mayo “tried desperately, on several occasions, to get himself posted in RTC ”!
The document can be consulted in the below link (pop-up window).
There is a further apparent irony involved with this as the first Condition Order that was issued by this corporation (RTC Condition Order #1) involved a Comm-Ev on amongst other David Mayo and various others posted in the Office of the C/S International. By then he was already pulled of post and the whole of the Office of the C/S International was under investigation. All this apparently done by a corporation that David Mayo had actively participated in and actively had supported in putting together!
“further information on what Mayo did” and “many other crimes”?
The section of the SO ED with above title says:
“The above data has been made available to give some idea of what this person was up to. It is not by any means a full and complete account of all his destructive actions.
There are other HCOBs and HCO PLs written during the past year that give further information on what Mayo did and the actions that have been taken to handle these messes. These include HCO PL 29 Sept 82, MISREPRESENTATION OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY and the HCO PL of 12 Oct 82, CORRUPT ACTIVITIES.”
And somewhere in the section entitled “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS” it says:
“(Note: There are many other crimes which Mayo committed, both while on staff in the Church and since his departure, which can be read about in FLAG CONDITIONS ORDER 7138 and in other issues; the above partial list was included here simply to give an idea of the type and magnitude of his destructive actions.)”
One would expect that the SO ED listed various of the worst of these so-called crimes. Either way the SO ED does make a note on something here that is in actual fact a generality. The question is if this is proper to do. Another angle of this is the consideration that the idea is being given in this SO ED and subsequently some additional issues that his infiltration was indeed quite widespread! The obvious incongruity here is then why was it not exposed at a much, much earlier date? Changing workable processes or adding unworkable processes will give unsatisfied customers, these customers will then complain. How come that no one responded to all that more rapidly? This observation is an inconsistency that seriously bothers me!
The ‘scare’ factor
Selected text from the section of the SO ED entitled “FUTURE” as written by Mr. Ray Mithoff reads: (underlining is mine)
“He (David Mayo) knows that there are many new OT levels above Solo NOTs which have been fully researched, and knows that he does NOT have any of the data on these nor has he ever seen them.
He knows very well that anyone involved in a squirrel group or psychiatric group or any anti-Scientology activity will never, ever be permitted to receive these services. He knows that when the Founder donated the trademarks of Scientology and Dianetics to the Religious Technology Center, RTC in turn promised to safeguard the tech against misuse and to make sure that, in accordance with long-standing policy, the upper levels are kept secure and out of the hands of anyone intending to use the materials to harm people or for some purpose other than spiritual gain.
The actions of Mayo and the little group he has joined amount to not only an attempt to lure some people off the Bridge, but an attempt to deny that Bridge to them for eternity (because once they become involved with this squirrel practice they will thereafter be denied access to the upper levels). And he knows this too. And those few who might fall for his PR should be forewarned.”
A clear message is given in the above. If you leave us or go some place else you will not be permitted to ... (fill in). I draw the attention to this as this is a frequently used argument to keep people quiet but also close around to you. The question to ask is how do we know the claim that “he (David Mayo) does NOT have any of the data on these nor has he ever seen them” to be actually true? If we think about it David Mayo in fact was the Senior C/S International, he was entrusted with the so-called NOT's materials (which as per the indications we have he factually compiled), why would he not have been entrusted with or had access to these proclaimed “many new OT levels above Solo NOTs which have been fully researched”? As early as 1973 messages appeared about some higher OT levels:
“There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people's full attainment of OT VI & VII.” LRH (from HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”)
Nonetheless it is then claimed that David Mayo would know nothing about them?
A note may be made here as well concerning Mr. Pat Broeker who spoke at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles on 27 January 1986. This was at the event that announced the passing of L. Ron Hubbard. He said: “New OT IX and X have also been finished and written up. There are several other OT levels that it is my job to compile.”. Then ‘SPD 145’, 15 Jul 86 “Issue Line for Source Data” also made him ultimately responsible for the further development of the technology as compiled from LRH notes, directives etc. Nonetheless this was all denounced by Mr. Miscavige in April 1988 in ‘FO 3879 Cancelled’, 18 Apr 88 “The Sea Org & The Future, Cancelled” in where he writes: “when he (Pat Broeker) was with LRH prior to 1986, he was there only as domestic staff, not in any technical or administrative capacity”. Mind that David Mayo was actually placed as the highest technical terminal after L. Ron Hubbard. And he was surpassed somehow by Mr. Pat Broeker just like that? We find ourselves on sort of unconfirmed and shaky grounds in regards to the statements made concerning these matters as it appears.
The “Religious Technology Center, RTC” may very well have “promised to safeguard the tech against misuse and to make sure that, in accordance with long-standing policy, the upper levels are kept secure and out of the hands of anyone intending to use the materials to harm people or for some purpose other than spiritual gain.”. The RTC however did not come into being as late as 1982. In addition David Mayo had not been considered until later to “intending to use the materials to harm people or for some purpose other than spiritual gain.”. It may be noted here as well that David Mayo actually is found on the incorporation papers of the RTC itself as one of the co-founders.
The clear warning “And those few who might fall for his PR should be forewarned.” may cut from 2 sides as the claim made in the SO ED may be considered PR all by itself. Besides that realization are fear or dependency not very reliable or worthy advisers, especially not when it concerns a subject that is supposed to be about achieving freedom. Do note also that the group with which it is claimed that David Mayo has joined forces is belittled as a “little group”, one can question the choice of words, as they relate more than one message. Facts are as facts are, let's face these and not implicate something more by our choice of words.
Such a harsh tone coupled with this scare factor is also found in this speech of Mr. Ray Mithoff held at the US Mission Holders Conference in San Francisco on 17 October 1982. This can be consulted here (separate window).
Final comments about this SO ED ...
Now we have come to a final word about this SO ED. What else is there to say? Some of the claims made in the SO ED indeed may have some truth contained within, various other claims may be questioned as per my findings. Either way David Mayo was an authority to be reckoned with. There may have been the fear that people would follow him if he was to leave the church. To prevent this from happening the tactic may have been used as in to put his head on a pike, and in a rather severe way warn and inform those who may be prone to do so. It would have been a fairly justifiable reason. And
it would also explain the use of the scare factor (see previous chapter) that was reverted to at around this time.
One may consider the kind of language used in these quotations as found in the writing of this SO ED, and I mean especially the parts that are claimed to be deriving from L. Ron Hubbard. They are sort of hateful I would figure. They really attempt to relate the message about how truly bad and evil this David Mayo must have been. But there is also the matter of being effect, one can notice this blaming tone seeping through in these quotations.
Selections from these quotations attributed to as deriving from L. Ron hubbard:
“‘He is a very clever fellow in that he could lie to me consistently, convincingly report, this that or the other thing.’”
“‘Mayo could not have done a more vicious thing than that.’”
“‘Thinking it over, I would say that Mayo is a covert NCG, for if he were ever audited by somebody whose TRs were out, not even his suppressive curves would permit him to make such a horror of a scene.’”
“‘... Mr. SP Mayo, the darling of the psychs, ... .’”
“‘Mayo is a very clever cat. Although he did not succeed in the long run in fooling me he could nevertheless put up a pretty good show. This means that he is a very clever fellow. He showed one face in one direction and quite another face in another direction.’”
Now, how could L. Ron Hubbard have been fooled at all and at any time? David Mayo was Flag C/S since 1973, promoted to Senior C/S International in 1978 which position he held for about a whole 4 years (at least during October ’78 to late August ’82). All this surely sounds like a fairly long time to me. We should
also not forget that L. Ron Hubbard is considered the source of Scientology. If someone understands it and its application it should be him. He is then not likely to be led behind some curtain. If he could be, then we have valid reason to start to put some very serious questionmarks about this would-be valuable technology he then developed. This deduction is simple plain logic.
It is reported by some that ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” (Broad Publication Issue) was issued to calm down the Scientology public (after all we had already ‘Flag Conditions Order 7138’, 2 Mar 83 “Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare Declare: David Mayo”, conveying a very similar text although with a more limited distribution). Then when this sort of failed a mission was send out to inform even further. Its main message seems to have been that “the reason why LRH did not discover that Mayo was an SP, was that LRH was such a big thetan, that all SP tendencies and case would vanish in his presence. Therefore it was not possible for LRH to discover that Mayo was really an SP.”. Please bear in mind that these are rumours that went around, I can't confirm these personally for their accuracy. I however do have some memories from the late 80's that these stories conveying such a concept went around (at Flag and AOSH EU in Denmark). Either way it
is of interest though as at least it attempts to explain something, and it's the only one that I could find, for which reason I forward it here.
the explanation plausible? I don't think it is. Increased awareness simply does not culminate into having blind spots. Becoming more aware is about becoming more cause, where having blind spots are about being effect. In
addition one only has to watch for indications in the physical universe, for which it is claimed there were very many in regards to David Mayo. How many persons around David Mayo then will actually have had such blind spots making them unable to spot these obvious signs? Then lastly its concept is not supported anywhere in writings from L. Ron Hubbard, in fact quite the contrary. And when we think about it, if L. Ron Hubbard was such a “big thetan, that all SP tendencies and case would vanish in his presence”. Then why did David Mayo not “vanish” from his vicinity? Who needs then to discover some suppressive person, they would blow away all by themselves.
I can sum this up with concluding that no logic whatsoever is found in the argument. This then forces us to actually think in a different direction. L. Ron Hubbard did not spot it apparently. Then what was L. Ron Hubbard actually doing, was he actually still around for real? If we assume that he was still around for real then it raises some issues in regards to the validity of the technology he actually developed. Some have claimed that the abilities that could be achieved within Scientology could as easily get lost again. These are the 2 main options that we have here.
You will have to figure out for yourself if any of the claims made are plausible and if in fact this is L. Ron Hubbard speaking here. Would it be logical to assume that he would express himself like that? The year 1983 was a very odd year in more than one way. Proof was required by court to confirm that he was actually still alive. Letters with special ink were to confirm this. You can read about all that on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order”, chapter “‘L. Ron Hubbard Breaks Silence’ (February 1983, Rocky Mountain News)”. We also have the story of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, for which L. Ron Hubbard's authorship has been seriously questioned (see my page “Scientology:
‘Practice of Disconnection’”).
As I said earlier it will not be in the liking of various that I tell these things, but honestly what options do I have?
‘Affinity, Reality, Communication’. A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.” (LRH Def. Notes) 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 PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked. BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red 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 Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked. checksheet:
A list of materials, often divided into sections, that give the theory and practical steps which, when completed, give one a study completion. The items are selected to add up to the required knowledge of the subject. They are arranged in the sequence necessary to a gradient of increasing knowledge on the subject. After each item there is a place for the initial of the student or the person checking the student out. 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) 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) FCO:
‘Flag Condition Order’. Sea Org* issue-type reserved for ethics matters. Equivalent to Ethics Order (Condition Order) as used in lower classed Scientology organizations. floating needle (F/N):
The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V) F/N:
‘floating needle’. See at that entry in vocabulary. 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). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. M1 or M1WC:
‘Method One Word Clearing’. See at ‘Method One Word Clearing’ in vocabulary. Method One Word Clearing: 1. by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N*. 2. assess, take the reading items from the best read on down and with E/S (earlier similar) pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject. End off with a win on the subject. 3. the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied. It is done by a word clearing auditor. The result of a properly done Method One word clearing is the recovery of one's education. Abbr. M1. misunderstood(s) - Mis-U(s) - MU(s):
Refers to a word or words that have not been properly understood, and therefore one is unable to duplicate, understand or apply. MU(s), Mis-U(s):
‘Miss Understood(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. NCG:
‘no-case-gain’. Means no-case-gain despite good and sufficient auditing. (HCO PL 16 May 69] OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. See at that entry in vocabulary. ‘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 PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's 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). O/W Write-up:
‘Overt/Withhold Write-up’. Basically writing down overt acts and withholds in a particular format on a piece of paper that is then forwarded to the Ethics section of a Scientology organization. It's purpose is to relieve the conscience of the person, and make him feel better. It is also a standard practice to be done prior to receiving auditing, as one is told that it will save the person costly auditing hours. preclear (pc): 1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20) 2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69) 3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62) PRD:
‘Primary Rundown’. The Primary Rundown consists of word clearing and study technology. Consists of Method 1 word clearing and Method 8 on on study tapes and the Student Hat course materials.
(Method 1: by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N; Method 8: Usually an alphabetical list of every word or term in the text of a paper, a chapter or a recorded tape is available or provided. The person looks up each word on the alphabetical list and uses each in sentences until he has the meaning conceptually.) 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). pc folder:
‘preclear folder’. The preclear is the person receiving Dianetics or Scientology processing. The folder contains all information relating to the processing the person is receiving. PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’. 1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08) 2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I) 3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68) Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’. SO ED:
‘Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology. squirrel: Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working) ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's 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). tone arm (TA): 1.Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64) 2.Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38) 3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6) 4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)