Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

A ‘science of mind’ vs ‘licensing and regulation’  or    
     Can/should the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology be legislated?
(What has the future in stock for these subjects)
(to other Scientology pages)

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

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

        
“It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics.”
        
 
“... if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; Book Three: Therapy; Chapter I: The Mind's Protection; 1950, 1973 edition, p168)  


The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters  (page 2, Licensing)

Go to the main page of “The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters”



 
About licensing a practice

Back to Main Index A ‘science of mind’ vs ‘licensing and regulation’  or  Can/should the subject of Scientology & Dianetics be legislated?

L. Ron Hubbard lays out these matters and says no to legislation ...
The Field Auditor and the Franchise/Mission holder identified
Franchises/Missions (1959- )
           - (a) Franchises/Missions, a brief overview
- (b) Franchises/Missions, what is it, what are the rules, and its tithe
- (c1) The Field Auditor (in or out groups), and its relation to Franchises/Missions specified
- (c2) Dianetic Counseling Groups (DCG), and its relation to Franchises/Missions specified
‘Certificate of Ordination’: Limiting the freedom of the auditor to audit (Sept 1973- )
‘non-profit’ versus ‘for profit’, and a 10% remittance for Field Auditors (1979- )
    - The disappearing of the ‘non-profit’ notification in publications
- HCO PL 9 Feb AD29(R) “Dianetic Counselling Groups (and Field Auditors), 10% Remittances to WW”
‘I HELP’ versus “Field Auditor Fees” (1982- )
    - ‘I HELP’ (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors)
- Was HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” issued to give this matter an LRH authority?
- ‘I HELP’ for profit?  &  ‘Ron's Journal 38’ (31 Dec 83)
- Presentation in ‘The Organization Executive Course, Division 6’: 1972 vs 1991 edition
Can a process or procedure be protected by a copyright?
    (Includes:  “©opyright and Trademark Issues for Independents” by Hank Levin (1989))

 
Go back L. Ron Hubbard lays out these matters and says no to legislation ...

Legislation basically would mean then that one can then demand that one would need a license prior to employing or using these subjects. Which in turn would mean that some person or group that claims to own these subjects can exert control on that person and can outline what demands can be enforced on that person accepting that license. And if some person doesn't comply to these rules this license can then be revoked.

Obviously some dangers could be involved with something like this. L. Ron Hubbard must have been aware of some matters as he stipulated as early as 1950 the following:  (red emphasis is mine)
        
“Again, dianetics is not being released to a profession, for no profession could encompass it. It is insufficiently complicated to warrant years of study in some university. It belongs to Man and it is doubtful if anyone could manage to gain a corner on it for it does not fall within any legislation of any kind in any place and if dianetics were legislated into a licensed profession, then it is to be feared that listening to stories and jokes and personal experience would also have to be legislated into a profession. Such laws would put all men of good will who lend a sympathetic ear to a friend’s troubles inside the barbed wire. Dianetics is not psychiatry. It is not psycho-analysis. It is not psychology. It is not personal relations. It is not hypnotism. It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics. Those things which are legislated against are a matter of law because they may in some way injure individuals or society. Legislation exists about psycho-analysis in some three states in the Union, legislation against or about psychiatry exists everywhere. If an auditor wishes to constitute himself a psychiatrist with the power of vivisecting human brains, if he wants to constitute himself a doctor and administer drugs and medicines, if he wants to practice hypnotism and pour suggestions into a patient, then he must square it with psychiatry, medicine and the local laws about hypnotism, for he has entered other fields than dianetics. In dianetics hypnotism is not used, no brains are operated upon and no drugs are given unless the local medico is part of the staff. Dianetics is not in any way covered by legislation anywhere for no law can prevent one man sitting down and telling another man his troubles, and if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”          LRH
(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’;  Book Three: Therapy;  Chapter I: The Mind's Protection; 1950, 1973 edition, p168)
        
All the above is pretty straightforward. This same text appears to this day in the latest edition of this book ‘Dianetics’.

In May 1969 at a time that L. Ron Hubbard released its near final release of the Dianetics technology, called Standard Dianetics he basically repeats and confirms what he initially had written in the book ‘Dianetics’. He writes:
        
“Dianetics was first conceived in 1930 and the developments in 1930 and the developments of 39 years have gone into producing Standard Dianetics. …
        
 
The present release of Standard Dianetics is a near final product. …
 
 
Standard Dianetics is almost as great a breakthrough in 1969 as the Original Thesis in 1949. …
 
 
The subject owes no allegiance to anyone but itself. It has no commitments to anyone. It has no politics. It belongs to those who use it.”          LRH
(from HCOB 22 May 69 “Dianetics, Its Background”)
 

 
Go back The Field Auditor and the Franchise/Mission holder identified

A Scientology practitioner could go about giving services to public in various ways. He could practice as a Field Auditor, he could become a Franchise holder or he could join staff in a Scientology org. There were different rules for each of these.

        
“A FIELD AUDITOR professionally processes preclears up to his classification but not Power Processing or above. He can run study courses.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Oct 66 II “City Office System”)
        
Basically a freelance auditor with no particular obligations organization-wise. He is his own.

        
“Franchise Holder: A professional auditor, with a classification to Level III or over, who practices Scientology full or part time for remuneration, who conducts processing and training privately or to groups, whose understanding and experience of Scientology is sufficiently broad for him to be publicized to others as a stable terminal, who has signed a Franchise Agreement, who receives Bulletins, Policy Letters, advice, advertising, technical information, services and administrative data from HCO WW, and who, in return for same, maintains regularly a weekly report and a weekly payment of ten percent of his gross income to HCO WW.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 2 Jan 65 “Franchise: Who May Have It and How to Maintain It, AD 15”)
        
Works in group context and has a close cooperation with the Scientology organization, Worldwide (WW). Nonetheless he is in full control otherwise of his Franchise/Mission.

Mind that Franchise was renamed Mission in 1971.

 
Go back Franchises/missions
(1959- )

Reference sources:  (pop-up window)
    “Franchise / missions - A chronological overview in quotations (1959-71)”

 
Go back
(a) Franchises/Missions, a brief overview

The original creation of franchising appears closely connected to the issuance of a new HAS course (Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist), which release was announced in HCOB 25 Mar 59 “H.A.S. Co-Audit & Comm Course”. Two days later followed by the release of HCO PL 27 Mar 59 “Franchises”, that says: “ At once take steps to put every field auditor on an HCO Interim Franchise”. It further stipulated: “A guarantee ... to teach an HAS Co-Audit Course”   LRH.

Its qualifications stepped up with HCO PL 15 Jun 62 “Current Franchise Policy” that guided: “Must be a valid HCA/HPA (minimal) certificate-holder” and incidentally “have International Membership in force, and in good standing with the org.”.
* HCA/HPA.  ‘Hubbard Certified Auditor/Hubbard Professional Auditor’. An early course taught in Scientology Churches only. At one time HCA and HPA were equivalent certificates, HCA being the American designation and HPA, the British.

It went through various phases during its years of development (1959-71), after which time its rules and qualifications were firmly established. Also since 1971 it was not referred to anymore as Franchises, they called it instead Missions for reason:
        
“In the United States, the word ‘franchise’ whose original meaning was ‘right or privilege’, has become associated in common usage with mere commercial or business activity. Since the Church is not, and never has been concerned with that type of activity, this word will no longer be used to describe its religious field activity.
        
 
From this date, any legally chartered Scientology field activity will be properly designated only as MISSION OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY.”
(from HCO PL 12 Apr 71 II “Mission Designation”)
 

At this instance in time the flow of references towards these matters basically stops. We don't find many additions listed either even in the new set of volumes making up ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (1991 edition) at respective places. (see for extract section “‘I HELP’ versus ‘Field Auditor Fees’ (1982- )” at “(c)”)

 
Go back
(b) Franchises/Missions, what is it, what are the rules, and its tithe

Basically Franchises are presented as an opportunity for the Field Auditor. Its purpose was to get a vast dissemination line going of new people into Scientology through the use of Field Auditors that closely worked together with the HCO's (Hubbard Communication Office). These Field Auditors received various advantages (technical and dissemination materials and updates, newsletters, discounts on books and tapes, help from trained experts, etc.), and in turn they were required to pay a tithe of 10% of their gross income from services that they had delivered.
        
“This 10% buys the right of use of Dianetics or Scientology as a centre. Any service rendered a franchise holder is gratuitous.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 1 May 59 “HAS Certificates”)
        

Initially this tithe of 10% are circumscribed in HCO PL 28 May 59 “To All Franchise Offices” as: “Field Auditors should be informed that the 10% they are paying in is going to be spent in services for them. This is our way of disseminating Scientology.”   HCO Continental Sec WW. Then HCO PL 18 Jun 59 “Correction of HCO Policy Letter of 28 May 1959” clarified that it “is to be used in the dissemination of Scientology in the field”   HCO Continental Sec WW.

And during 1962-65 it adds mention of a research factor:
        
“This money is used in developing Scientology techniques and training, and for service to you.”          HCO Franchise Sec WW
(from HCO Newsletter 7 May 62 “Franchise Newsletter No.5.”)
        
        
“remit 10% of all Scientology income to keep the service and research going”          HCO Franchise Sec. WW
(from HCO PL 15 Jun 62 “Current Franchise Policy”)
        
        
“This percentage is a royalty and is intended expressly for the use of the Scientology Research Foundation.”          HCO Franchise Secretary WW
(from HCO Info Letter 18 Jun 63 “About Franchise”)
        
        
“To remit 10% of my gross income from Scientology and/or Dianetics as my contribution towards research and World Wide dissemination.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 1 Jan 65 “Franchise Application and Agreement”)
        
        
“to help defray the expenses involved, to help pay for the advertising and to help pay for the research involved in the development of new technology.”          Mary Sue Hubbard
(from HCO PL 2 Jan 65 “Franchise: Who May Have it and How to Maintain, AD15”)
        

During 1970-71 it extended the object towards public defence:
        
“Scientology Orgs and Franchises play an important role in the expansion of Scientology. Their 10%s go to WW for THE PUBLIC DEFENCE AND PUBLIC ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY.”          Diana Hubbard
(from HCO PL 28 Apr 70 “The Dianetic Counselling Group Programme”)
        
        
“6.  To remit 10% of my Gross Income from Scientology and/or Dianetics training and processing, realizing that this remittance is for the use of the name and copyrighted materials and is my contribution towards the Public defence of Scientology.”          D/Distribution Aide
(from HCO PL 11 May 71 IV “Mission Application and Agreement”)
        
        
“These 10% remittances are used for the Public advancement and Public defense of Scientology.”          D/Distribution Aide
(from HCO PL 20 Sept 71 II “Mission, Basic Definition of”)
        
That it says in the second quotation here above “for the use of the name and copyrighted materials” can be considered awkward, as this is not where it was for. This according to 2 reasons: (1) the non-profit status of the organization (mind HCO PL 12 Apr 71 II “Mission Designation”, only issued one month earlier that directed: “Because In the United States, the word ‘franchise’ whose original meaning was ‘right or privilege’, has become associated in common usage with mere commercial or business activity. Since the Church is not, and never has been concerned with that type of activity, this word will no longer be used to describe its religious field activity.”), but also because (2) this would be entirely contrary to each and every previous statement regarding what it was used for. The third quotation here above seems to correct that as it dropped that.
That it had dropped the mention of research should not be considered strange as ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases” had since announced “So technical progress has been: CLASS VIII - 1968. COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”   LRH. And so it does not sound like there was much research left to perform.

 
Go back
(c1) The Field Auditor (in or out groups), and its relation to Franchises/Missions specified

The offer of a Franchise does not mean, that it was illegal for a Field Auditor to deliver Dianetics or Scientology services without one. A Franchise was basically a written agreement between an organization and the Field Auditor. The mailings send to Franchise holders (newsletters, information letters and so on), at times these clearly distinguish between these. But it can also be seen from the routing indicated on these communications which you find in the left upper corner. It will list Franchise (or Franchise holder something) and Field Auditor (or Field). (see my reference source list at the beginning of this section at: “Franchises/missions (1959- )”)

This Field Auditor may even work in group coordination without being prompted to have to pay some tithe. The references that promote working as a group and pulling things together with others don't mention anything in regards to that one has to pay some percentage, as clearly opposed to Franchises and Organizations. Such a group coordination effort (pulling together) is even strongly recommended.

Below reference for example does not refer to Franchises and it directs:
        
“Those individual auditors that have been in an organization's control area, and have been remitting 10% of their incomes to that org, need no longer do so.
(from HCO PL 20 Mar 64 “District Office & Org Control Area Policy Revised”)
        

Then we have as another example HCO PL 20 Sept 71 III “Advantage of Missions” that although it urges “All Field Auditors and DCGs should be actively encouraged by established Missions and Orgs to apply for Mission status.” (since 1971 Franchises were referred to as Missions). It does rather clearly distinguish.

Further we have activities such as:
        
“To: All Scientologists
        
 
For Scientology to go well in any area, it is only necessary for the trained auditor in that area to follow the following steps:
 
 
1.  Get good results on every pc processed individually.
 
 
2.  Operate a group and do PE and Group Processing.
 
 
3.  Keep the group recruited.
 
 
It is not necessary that a field auditor has great sums of money to finance his activity. All successful Scientology activities have financed themselves. In extreme, an auditor with no pcs to keep him going can get a job and run a group evenings until the income of the group activity makes the job unnecessary.”          LRH
(from HCOB 6 Jan 59 “Field Activities”)
 

Since 1968 there was also something that is referred to as a Gung-Ho group.
        
“GUNG-HO GROUPS are composed of local Scientologists in the field, any friends who are interested and general public members. ...
        
 
GUNG-HO means ‘Pull Together’ in Mandarin. It pulls together other groups in the community to work towards the betterment of society and of the area. ...
 
 
The Group's purposes are:-
 
 
1.  To discover the purposes and targets the citizens as individuals in its area consider most desirable to improve the area.
 
 
2.  Co-ordinate these targets into long range community objectives and publish and arouse interest in them.
 
 
3.  Work with other civic groups to co-ordinate action on these targets by means of planning of short range targets each civic group is to do ... .
 
 
4.  Study and use Scientology to improve the reach of one's own group and the leaders of other groups.”
 
Further saying:
        
“A Franchise Centre is different entirely from a Gung-Ho Group.
        
 
One can easily benefit from the other.
 
 
But the Gung-Ho Group is there to speed up and smooth out the society and civic organisations and make a better community atmosphere directly.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 2 Dec 68 “Gung-Ho Groups”)
 

 
Go back
(c2) Dianetic Counseling Groups (DCG), and its relation to Franchises/Missions specified

Dianetics had been reissued in April 1969 as Standard Dianetics. This was found to be of such a significance that Dianetic Counseling Groups were called into being. L. Ron Hubbard speaks about this in a lecture given on 29 May 1969 entitled “The Dianetic Program”. A series of issues were released during June/July 1969 to lay out its scheme. See below:
    Dianetic Counseling Groups series of issues and related (Jun-Jul 69)  (pop-up window)

        
“The potential of application of Dianetics in society is so phenomenal that an urgent need for basic organization has arisen.
        
 
DIANETIC COUNSELING GROUPS have been created to fill that need. ...
 
 
STANDARD DIANETICS is much simpler in application and has far greater results.”
(from HCO PL 25 Jul 69 “Dianetic Counseling Groups 1; Introduction”)
 

        
“The purpose of the Dianetic Counselling Group programme is to boom Dianetics in the field. It can be delivered in high volume to the masses anywhere and everywhere.
        
 
The more Dianetics there is in the field, the better!
 
 
The programme is designed so that people can operate and run Dianetics FREELY. Dianeticists are given a free rein to expand and operate on this planet everywhere. There are no stops or limitations. ...
 
 
“DIANETIC COUNSELLING GROUPS DO NOT PAY 10%s to WW OR SCN ORGS.
 
 
There are no tithes for Dianetic Counselling Groups; its income is its own.”
 
As opposed to:
        
“Scientology Orgs and Franchises play an important role in the expansion of Scientology. Their 10%s go to WW for THE PUBLIC DEFENCE AND PUBLIC ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY. This contribution to the team is very vital and appreciated. The above is an important factor in Scientology's existence on the planet.”         Diana Hubbard
(from HCO PL 28 Apr 70 “The Dianetic Counselling Group Programme”)
        

        
“5. TITHES
        
 
A DCG does not pay 10% to WW. It may, however, pay a tithe IF IT SO DESIRES. In this case the DCG is granted the right to remimeo like Franchises and receive new P/Ls and HCO Bs from WW.”         Diana Hubbard
(from HCO PL 20 May 70 III “Further Clarifications DCG Programme”)
 

 
Go back ‘Certificate of Ordination’: Limiting the freedom of the auditor to audit
(Sept 1973- )

We find the introduction of the following rule:
        
“All Auditors must hold a valid Certificate of Ordination in order to practice auditing, whether for a Church, a Mission or as an independent missionary in the field.
        
 
The Certificate granted upon completion of any training course (HDC or above) does not entitle one to practice pastoral counselling (auditing) unless the individual satisfactorily completes the requirements for Ordination and has in fact been ordained.
 
 
The student, HDC or above, may elect to become a Minister of the Church in which case he completes the Minister's Course and is ordained as a Minister. Upon proof of ordination, he is granted permission to practice by the local Church.”         Robert H. Thomas, Deputy Guardian US
(from HCO PL 24 Sept 73 III “All Auditors - Ministers, Ministerial Board of Review”, full text of this reference can be consulted here, pop-up window)
 

Which in a sense would clash with this directive:
        
“The Field Auditor has a right:  ...
        
 
7.
To respect for his training and experience.
 
 
8.
To respect for his certificates.
 
 
9.
To have and to hold his certificates without cancellation by anyone forever.”          LRH
 
  (from‘PAB 112’, 15 May 57 “The Rights of the Field Auditor”, also issued as HCO PL 2 Oct 69 “same title” & HCO PL 28 Apr 82 “same title”)  

Particularly because the HCO PL further directs (underlining is mine): “All Minister's Certificates are annually renewable by the recommendation of the Ministerial Board of Review and are validated by the issuance of a new Minister's Card which shall expire one year from the date of issuance.”.
Additionally a consideration should be made for if this was enforced retroactive.

Prior to Sept ’73 it basically would have sufficed to have completed studying your course materials. Suddenly now you had to be “ordained”. One had to become a “Minister of the Church”. This new rule could be perceived as an invalidation of the certifications one already had received for finishing the course, because as long as you hadn't complied with, and had not done that “Minister's Course”, it prohibited you “to practice pastoral counselling (auditing)” although you had already qualified yourself being able to audit.

Another point is that it would imply that one would not be allowed anymore to be a free independent auditor. As the requirement was to become this “Minister of the Church” which can be seen as that every auditor had to become an outward face of sorts presenting that very “Church”. Here it then would clash with the US law on this that directs “(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” (see further later chapter on this page “Can a process or procedure be protected by a copyright?”).

It is then claimed in this HCO PL that the purpose for getting “ordained” was “to help LRH safeguard Scientology, Scientology Churches and Scientologists by ensuring that Ministers of the Church are and remain of good moral character, continue to uphold the Codes of Scientology and apply standard technology in their counselling of parishioners.”.

The matter however here is that:
        
No squirrel has lasted more than 2 or 3 years in the past sixteen years. And there have been many. That they squirrel shows enough bad faith to drive away the public the moment the public hears of the original.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Dec 66 “Expansion - Theory of Policy”)
        
It appears that there already was a system in use that would simply regulate and correct itself. If an auditor wished to have an income then he better be a good one!
It would appear that the HCO PL was complicating matters. It was adding an unwarranted control factor that rather seriously was limiting the freedom of the auditor.

This HCO PL was in 1975 reissued as follows:
    BPL 24 Sept 73 (Revised 15 May 75) III “All Auditors - Ministers, Ministerial Board of Review”
I have been unable to find any information that this reference in turn would have been cancelled, although by 1980 all BPL's were considered void anyhow. To my knowledge there hasn't been a demand for becoming a “Minister of the Church” since at least the early 80's, in present time however there is a demand from the Church of Scientology for being licensed (see here below).

 
Go back ‘non-profit’ versus ‘for profit’, and a 10% remittance for Field Auditors
(1979- )

 
Go back
The disappearing of the ‘non-profit’ notification in publications

Various notices accompanying the noted copyrights (see backside of the title pages), that can be found in various publications during various time periods read as follows:

Mid ’50's:  (underlining is mine)
        
“The Hubbard Association of Scientologists International. The Association is a non-profit organisation devoted to carrying forward the aims and objects of Scientologists which are a completely free, sane and able world. The Association concentrates on bringing the many benefits of Scientology to as many people as possible and acts as a central dissemination point for Scientology throughout the British Commonwealth and many other countries.”
        

Throughout the later ’50's till at least 1980 we find:  (underlining is mine)
        
“Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.
The Church of Scientology of California is a non-profit organisation.”
        
In particular it is noted that these lines appear throughout in all editions in both ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes (issued 1970-76) and ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes (issued 1976-80). These same lines notices continue to appear in early re-prints of these original volumes, but they are skipped in the 1986 re-print. (as I haven't been able to check all re-prints, and if you would have some volumes re-printed in the period 1978-1985, please contact me and tell me your findings!)

However as time reveals we were in for a change. It roughly started with the release of a recompilation of ‘The Management Series’ (part of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes) that was now issued in 2 volumes of which the first one was issued in 1982 and is skipping the line “The Church of Scientology of California is a non-profit organisation”. An interesting change and this line was not to return in any following release. Would this be an indication of it not being non-profit anymore, but instead turned to for profit? Incidentally in the year 1982 we do see also the creation of the ‘I HELP’ corporation that introduced licensing and was asking for a 10% tithe from every Field Auditor (according to HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees”).

Per the above it would seem that since 1982 it swapped from non-profit to for-profit.

 
Go back
HCO PL 9 Feb AD29(R) “Dianetic Counselling Groups (and Field Auditors), 10% Remittances to WW”

In brief this would mean that on 9 February 1979 Dianetic Counseling Groups had to pay a tithe of 10%, then 9½ months later on 29 November 1979 the same was ruled for Field Auditors that run a group and sorts. Let's have a closer look at this.

A tithe of 10% was put on Dianetic Counseling Groups since February 1979 as follows:
        
“It is hereby firm policy that all Dianetic Counselling Groups must pay 10% to WorldWide.
        
 
This means 10% of Gross Income less FSM Commissions, Refunds/ Repayments and Books/Meters.
 
 
This does not include Dianetic Study Groups so long as the Study Group simply does programs furnished them by their local org, but it does not permit the Study Group to train or process.”
(from HCO PL 9 Feb AD29 “Dianetic Counselling Groups, 10% Remittances to WW”)
 
Signatures and initials found are:
  
       L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
    for the
    BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
  BDCS:LRH:jk  
The signature does carry a particular significance as will be explained. The mention of this “BOARDS OF DIRECTORS” is there simply because they are involved. By far not all policy letters carry this.

Now let's look at the revision from November that same year of this policy letter. This had become HCO PL 9 Feb AD29R (Revised 29 Nov 79) “Dianetic Counselling Groups and Field Auditors, 10% Remittances to WW” (do note that it also changed title). The revision notices found on this read: “Revised to include Field Auditors who run groups in 10% remittance to WW.”. Alright, I indicated the changes in this type style (as was done on the HCO PL). It thus reads:
        
“It is hereby firm policy that all Dianetic Counselling Groups and Field Auditors who also run a group or have meetings of peoples for other than study, or who run co-audits, must pay 10% to WorldWide.
        
 
This means 10% of Gross Income less FSM Commissions, Refunds/ Repayments and Books/Meters.
 
 
This does not include Dianetic Study Groups so long as the Study Group simply does programs furnished them by their local org, but it does not permit the Study Group to train or process.
 
 
If a Dianetic Study Group engages in processing or training for fee it then becomes a Dianetic Counselling Group and must pay 10% of its income to WW.
 
But let's now look at the signatures and initials:
    
       BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
  BDCS:dr  
The original version of this HCO PL indicated as if it was written by L. Ron Hubbard and for this “BOARDS OF DIRECTORS”, then 9½ months in its revision suddenly it is fully attributed to a “BOARD OF DIRECTORS”. L. Ron Hubbard is not found nor at the signatory area, nor with the initials. Factually this is rather remarkable, so what happened here? Ah well, at least they corrected “BOARDS” into “BOARD”.

On this one it would be interesting to see what reference had cancelled it and hopefully to find information why it was cancelled, but I failed to find any such reference. It is clear however that today this HCO PL is not in use. I have it confirmed however that its revision was listed as a valid reference at least until September 1983.
We can rather safely assume here though that both the original and its revision were actually written and issued by this “BOARD OF DIRECTORS” (whomever they are), and that it was taken out of circulation because it (the revision) did not carry an LRH signature. There may exist a reference that cancels it, and tells the reason. May be something in the order of that “None of these issues were written by LRH and were falsely issued as policy.”, as a variety of HCO Admin Letters (link, pop-up window) and also HCO PL's say. May be, may be not. Or it was just silently taken out of circulation, as we have that possibility as well (my database information is pretty accurate overall, in particularly after 1980). But another reference, filling the same purpose, had taken its place, which is HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” (see later section “‘I HELP’ versus ‘Field Auditor Fees’ (1982- ) ”).


Significance

The release of HCO PL 9 Feb AD29 “Dianetic Counselling Groups, 10% Remittances to WW” and its revision have a rather large significance. Because it reverted utterly the previous status quo regarding these matters. The strange affair with these signatures for that reason is highly suspect. What else did this release accomplish publication wise? Well, it cancelled 2 BPL's:
(1) Rather interestingly it specifically cancelled BPL 20 May 70RA (Revised 3 Sept 75) “Further Clarification DCG Programme”, which was a revision of the HCO PL same date, same title, that previously had confirmed that “A DCG does not pay 10% to WW.”. Well, since February 1979 it was now ruled that they “must pay 10% to WorldWide.”.
(2) It also cancelled BPL 20 Sept 71 II “Advantage of Missions”, which was a BPL reissue of the HCO PL same data, same title, that was urging “All Field Auditors and DCGs should be actively encouraged by established Missions and Orgs to apply for Mission status.”. Of course this had become superfluous now as there was no such choice anymore.
Nonetheless this second BPL had also said: “This is not to discourage the formation of DCGs for they fill a very valid purpose”, but it did not prevent that since February 1979 this option of having a free Dianetic Counselling Group was abolished by this “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”. Then since November that same year the same was abolished for Field Auditors that “also run a group or have meetings of people for other than study, or who run co-audits” by this same illusive and unknown “BOARD OF DIRECTORS”.
The rule ever since has been that everyone pays their tithes! Such a demand however also has been seriously lacking all legal ground!

 
Go back ‘I HELP’ versus “Field Auditor Fees” (1982- )
 

 
Go back
‘I HELP’ (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors)

A new creation was the ‘I HELP’ organization that was incorporated 24 November 1982. It was pretty much all about licensing (‘Licensing body for Field Auditors’). This corporation decided who was allowed to work as an auditor in the field and who was not. Part of its rules were an annual fee and 10% of gross income. In turn it would provide for guidance and help to operate successfully in the field.

Some further explanations can be found in Church of Scientology publications:
        
“It provides Field Auditors with the needed guidance and help to operate successfully as auditors in the field. It is the responsibility of I HELP to see that trained auditors in the field are actively auditing in volume planetwide.
        
 
I HELP also sees that all Field Auditors are properly licensed and that the licenses are adhered to in full.”
(from ‘The Command Channels of Scientology’ booklet, 1988,  p19)
 

        
“Field Auditors and Dianetics Counseling Groups are assisted by the International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors (I HELP). I HELP, located in Los Angeles, California, was created to provide auditors who deliver services outside organized churches and missions with the guidance they need to operate successfully. It aids auditors in the field to minister to the public by providing them with materials, publications and consultation services. It also offers assistance with any administrative or technical difficulties they may encounter. I HELP ensures field auditors maintain high standards of application and discipline.”
(from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), p350)
        

 
Go back
Was HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” issued to give this matter an LRH authority?

A curious reference can be found issued in 1982. It reads:  (full text of the policy letter is given)
        
“A field auditor, professionally auditing or hanging out his shingle, is required to pay 10 percent of the fees collected for auditing to I HELP (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors), which is the central organization in charge of field auditors.”
(from HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees”, see ‘The Organization Executive Course’ (1991 release), Volume 6: p734)
        
[Does anyone have the original mimeo print for me, then please contact me! In addition I have a record of HCO PL 23 May 82 “Field Auditor Fees” (note the different date), I am also looking for a copy of that one.]
It is curious because (1) it was written and issued about 7 months prior to I HELP having been incorporated; and (2) it set forth the line that was first incited by HCO PL 9 Feb AD29R (Revised 29 Nov 79) “Dianetic Counselling Groups and Field Auditors, 10% Remittances to WW” written and originated by some “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”; and (3) the signatures found in the reference are wrong, they denote it was not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard; and (4) it appears to be an isolated reference that is not supported by any other valid reference, rather the contrary.
So, we have:


1:  At the time of the release of this April 1982 HCO PL the ‘I HELP’ corporation was still awaiting to be incorporated, which occurred a whole 7 months later. This is a rather strange sequence that is not explained and accounted for.


2:  Per the data at hand however this datum that all Field Auditors pay a tithe of 10% of gross income was first incited by HCO PL 9 Feb AD29R (Revised 29 Nov 79) “Dianetic Counselling Groups and Field Auditors, 10% Remittances to WW” that was not indicated to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard but by some “BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”. What was wanted and needed at this point in time however was an issue that carried the authority of L. Ron Hubbard on the matter. And thus the earlier HCO PL from 1979 had to go, and a new one, accomplishing the very same thing, was written up and issued with the given authority L. Ron Hubbard. It all seems to be a bit too obvious what happened here!
Last but not least there is no information available that this reference ever has been cancelled. Nonetheless it is exempted from inclusion in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. This reference just very silently disappeared out of existence ...


3:  Now what about the signatures found on the 1982 release? We find:
        
“L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

        
  Assisted by
Div 6 Internal
Executive International”
 

The incidence of these signatures found on HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” needs some explanation. The applicable reference for that is HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”. That first says: “It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.”. Then followed by a next sentence that contradictorily says: “If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by _____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.”.  The matter of these “directions” appears also to be rather shady. Besides that some “directions” do not change the actual authorship. Some “directions” or suggestions do not substitute these into assistants!
It does appear though that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” actually confused the actual authorship designations. Practically the “Assisted by” designation meant that this person was the writer and/or compiler of the reference. That would thus conclude that L. Ron Hubbard did not actually write it. And then, does one really need an ‘assistant’ to issue an HCO PL carrying just ONE sentence? It simply does not add up to anything.
I address this matter about these authorship designations in the greatest detail in my analysis about this in the link here below:  (separate window)
    “Authorship designations according to HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’”


4:  It does appear that the release of this HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees” is an isolated release, there is no other policy letter in existence that is attributed to L. Ron Hubbard that confirms the data it relays. This is suspect for various reasons, as this little reference of just one single sentence that thwart a previous status quo that was fully established and in use for such a long time. So, just one single sentence supposedly from L. Ron Hubbard about such an important matter that involves such a radical change and that then would have been given to an assistant that issues it? No explanation, nothing!

 
Go back
‘I HELP’ for profit?  &  ‘Ron's Journal 38’ (31 Dec 83)

It can also be concluded that we now had entered a new era in where the creation of the ‘I HELP’ corporation indicated that from this time forward the matter of Dianetics and Scientology was not anymore for non-profit. And indeed this is also my personal observation within the present organization. A lot of pressure is put on being licensed, to have paid your dues and all that. The regulation and the control exercised by the organization is surely felt.

“..., and if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”          LRH
(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’;  Book Three: Therapy;  Chapter I: The Mind's Protection; 1950 and any edition)

A monopoly would indicate no provision for exceptions! And this is factually that what we see in this whole new set up. An auditor is not free anymore to audit, if he wants to practice his skills he is required to get licensed, and if he gets licensed he has to fully conform to the rules of and the versions of the tech that ‘I HELP’ presents and supports! There is simply no way he can go round this. If he doesn't conform and does what they tell him to do, then his license will be withdrawn/cancelled in a blink of an eye. This is what one would call a monopoly!

Now, principally a license should only be asked for if it would involve a service that the organization actually delivers this day. Remember that a license would buy you help and support from this ‘I HELP’ corporation, but if you wish to offer a service that they don't deliver then how can ‘I HELP’ guide or help you? This being the case, then where is the exchange for the 10% remittance?
And let there be no question about that there are services that at present are not being delivered by the Church of Scientology. We can quickly come up with examples such as Standard Dianetics (as opposed to New Era Dianetics), we have the Primary Rundown, and we also have the original OT levels 4-7. Mind also that “Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.”  LRH  (from HCOB 26 Feb 70 “Standard Tech and Invalidation”).
An issue could also be which materials you are using. Are you using the materials copyrighted in the name ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ or are you using those that are copyrighted in the name ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’? As there is a particular difference here.


We have this tape recording where we hear a monotone voice giving further information. We are being told that it is L. Ron Hubbard talking, however a voice analysis applied to this found serious inconsistencies. Here however we just take notice to what it says.

        
“Trademark protection. There are currently 885 officially registered trademarks internationally which is an increase of 35% in this area this year. RTC also licenses SMI missions, WISE members and field auditors, as part of our help, so that they can use the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology.” ...
        
 
My earnest advice is: Only deal with or associate with those organizations licensed by RTC and auditors in good standing with the Church.”          LRH
(from ‘Ron's Journal 38’, 31 Dec 83 “Today and Tomorrow: The Proof”)
 

Here it is told that any person that practices Scientology needs to get licensed. And the public is only supposed to deal with licensed (church approved) practitioners. So, what happened with all that talk about that a Scientologist (a practitioner) is a free being? Here he is urged to submit to utter control!

So, what happened with?
        
“It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics.”          LRH
        

And of course if one only goes to a licensed practitioner the church will get all these 10% remittances.

Remember though:
        
“... if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit.”          LRH
        

Ah, well... hmm... ok then... ugh...

By the way, you don't even need trademarks to work as a Scientology practitioner. After all they are spiritual counselors, and you can't trademark that denomination.

“For no man has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.”          LRH   
(from “My Philosophy” [ca 1965])

 
Go back
Presentation in ‘The Organization Executive Course, Division 6’: 1972 vs 1991 edition

We find:
  
‘The Organization Executive Course, Division 6’
1972 edition (Denmark)  (first USA release: 1974)
Contents: page IX-X
1991 edition (USA)
Contents: page [XVIII-XIX] (unnumbered in volume)
Department 18
Department of Clearing
 
[Division 6B: Department 18B
Department of Clearing ]
 
FIELD AUDITORS FIELD AUDITORS AND FIELD GROUPS
Lists references from 1957 to 1970
Covers the same years only adding:
HCO PL 28 Apr. 1982 The Rights of the Field Auditor 
(taken from Professional Auditor Bulletin from 1957; observe that this was already previously issued as policy in HCO PL 2 Oct 69 “same title”)
HCO PL 29 Apr. 1982 II Field Auditor Fees  
(it commands that every Field Auditor pays a 10% tithe, not only the one's that are connected up with a mission)
  
FRANCHISE
The Franchise Programme
MISSIONS
Lists references from 1959 to 1971
Lists references from 1959 to 1970 (many references were cancelled since). Adding only:
HCO PL 24 Oct. 1976RF I Ex-Staff Free Service
(acts against the practice that org staff had joined missions without completing their staff contract)

We can conclude that the only addition of significance in these volumes is HCO PL 29 Apr 82 II “Field Auditor Fees”. A second observation is that HCO PL 9 Feb AD29R (Revised 29 Nov 79) “Dianetic Counselling Groups and Field Auditors, 10% Remittances to WW” is not listed here.

 
Go back Can a process or procedure be protected by a copyright?

(Includes appendix:  “©opyright and Trademark Issues for Independents” by Hank Levin (1989);  The legal situation)

We find in about all Dianetics and Scientology releases the following phrase:
        
“Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.”
        
This phrase should be considered rather significant. As this is what these subjects ARE about! It is not a theory, it is an actual application! And taking a license for an application is not covered or protected by any law. In fact it is quite the contrary. The US Code lays it out as follows at (b):
    “(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”
US Code:  Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use & Notes (external links) (last checked: 23 Mar 2015)

Per this it does not appear that a license can be taken on a practice.

So, if the question being asked:
    “Does copyright protect techniques or methods?”
One can then safely answer with:
    “Copyright protects only expression, not ideas. So while copyright might protect one author's description of an organizing method, it does not prevent others from using the method or copying the forms needed to use it.”

You can however charge a person for services (C/Sing, training) or other help that is being provided to you, i.e. if you choose to receive and take advantage of these! This in case of signing a license agreement. Therefore you can only demand license fees if the person agrees to signing that license agreement. But according to US law you can not demand people to take licenses when the person wishes to become a Scientology practitioner.
It does seem as well that L. Ron Hubbard must have been aware of this, for which reason he has addressed the matter in detail in ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ (1950) (see at the beginning of this page, chapter “L. Ron Hubbard lays out these matters and says no to legislation ...”).


Appendix

It was in the ‘The Free Spirit Journal’, Dec 89 that an interesting article regarding these matters was published. It goes into rather great depth. It is here offered as is. The full article can be consulted in link here below:  (pop-up window)
    “©opyright and Trademark Issues for Independents” by Hank Levin (1989)

Some consequences to watch out for in regards to these copyrights, claimed copyrights and the matter of application.  (separate window)
    “The legal situation”


“For no man has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.”          LRH   

(from “My Philosophy” [ca 1965])


Vocabulary:

     ..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.
     AD..:
After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     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.
     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)
     ED:
Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH ED's are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
     FSM:
Field Staff Member’. FSMs get people into Scientology by disseminating to bring about an understanding of what Scientology can do thus creating a desire for service, and selecting the person for that service. (BPL 15 Jun 73R I)
     HAS:
Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist’. This level teaches about elementary communication and control. Processes taught are training drills on communication and to put the student at cause over the environment (TRs 0-4).
     HCO (Division):
Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     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).
     I HELP:
International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors’. It provides Field Auditors with the needed guidance and help to operate successfully as auditors in the field.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     ‘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).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     PAB:
Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘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).


Go to top of this page


Advertisement