Scientology pages index  |  Contact

The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology (4)  or      A closer look at 1972, 1977 & 1982 (L. Ron Hubbard or not? (1979-86): Fiction writing, Dianetics after the grades, RTC, Original OT levels, Breaks Silence, Death of L. Ron Hubbard)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> 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.

The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology  (page 4)

Go to ‘The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology’ index

L. Ron Hubbard's return to fiction writing since the late ’70s

The question that can be raised here is the matter if this would have been a logical development. L. Ron Hubbard did perform and finance his research into Dianetics and Scientology by himself. This way he was able to perform this independently without any need to have funds approved for this research and controlled by outer entities. In his own words he expresses this as follows:

	“I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.
	I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.
	Under other ‘systems of research’ it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to western were consumed in a large part by this research - - but it was free to act if not free from sweat.
	No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertizing - - another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was here to interject their ‘America First’ philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn't own it. The work stayed free.”          LRH (from ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One’, “Introduction” (1957))

This fiction writing was ongoing during 1932-50, after which time it abruptly and completely was put to a halt. A given reason for this was that the research could continue without having the need to have additional funds coming from fiction writing. Thus it can be interpreted here that the fiction writing was only a means to do what L. Ron Hubbard really wanted to occupy his time with. And thus when this research into Dianetics was financing itself there was simply no need anymore to uphold the writing of works of fiction.

It could be considered a bit odd when we then see a return to this fiction writing some 25-30 years later in time. Most particularly since 1980. This therefore has been looked into.

Non-LRH turns LRH or The quest for the Cramming Series  (1981)

“It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it. 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.”          LRH (from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

Many references received this fate. I have documented and researched in particular these references relating to 2 vital matters. Which are the subject of study and cramming. The below 2 sections address these:

Part of the Study Technology worked out by others turn L. Ron Hubbard  (Jan/Oct 81)

The basic line may have been set by L. Ron Hubbard, the various details however will have been worked out and were documented by other persons. This may concern matters such as pink sheets, checksheets, demonstrations, checkouts, claydemos, and more such things. In particular during July/August 1981 we see the release of various HCOBs and HCO PLs concerning these matters that although worked out by others now had been accredited solely to L. Ron Hubbard.

The 1981 Cramming Series  (Aug/Sept 81)

It is noted that no particular research has been carried out by L. Ron Hubbard in the area of cramming. Basically all we got is some notes and advices that appear on tape lectures and some other places. The actual bulletins that lay out the administrative specifics about cramming had been compiled by other persons. The fact is that there exist only a couple HCOBs from the hand of L. Ron Hubbard that in particular deal with the subject of cramming. The bulk of the original Cramming Series references had been HCOBs, signed underneats by other persons and nothing “For L. Ron Hubbard”, that a couple years later were reissued as BTBs (a non-LRH issue-type). This is a simple fact.

Dianetics to be received after the grades  (Nov-Dec 1981)

Witch hunts (2) (early ’80s): The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management  (1982-83)

In the history of Church of Scientology there have been 2 particular time periods in where matters had turned very rough in regards to the Scientology parishioners. In that first occurrence one was hunting for so-called Rock Slams in an initiative that became known as ‘List 1 Project’. See for details at “Witch hunts (1) (late ’70s): ‘List 1 Project’ & ‘Rock Slams’ (1977-78)” at index.

In this second occurrence the hunt was in for so-called ‘squirrels’. As a Scientologist, particularly a practicing field auditor, times were not safe. One could perceive it as a time in where you your rights as a Scientology got rescinded. If you were targeted you better kneel down and ask for forgiveness (or something) and do as you are told or else... These were all part of the times that the Religious Technology Center (RTC) and new management were coming into place.

	“Wins against squirrels. RTC has also been the major driving force behind handling squirrel groups internationally so that Scientologists are protected against those who deal in shoddy substitutes for personal gain.” ...
	RTC currently has a number of missions out in 16 locations all over the world which are directly handling squirrel groups to get them handled and closed down. ...”

But why hunting them down if “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. Wouldn't they disappear all by themselves because of no income? So, why the effort and focus on this?

Then we have the run for expansion and more income through the creation of the Birthday Game (‘LRH ED 339R Int’). For this an enormous control is placed on Scientology staff around the globe, all under the direct demand of international management.

With the RTC also the licensing came particular in vogue. It is being pushed to get licensed, although according to US copyright laws one can not take a copyright on a practice. At the same time that a mandatory 10% tithe is enforced on any and all auditors. Also we see that the line “The Church of Scientology is a non-profit organization.” disappeared from being printed in the books. Are all these things a coincidence? Was the new management with its RTC the beginning of turning the Church of Scientology into a business as a for-profit organization?

Original OT levels (OT IV, OT V, OT VI & OT VII) dropped  (Jan-Mar 82)

Abolishing these levels may very well violate HCO PL 17 Jun 70 “Technical Degrades”.

Sec Checking (2):  ‘No-Interference Area’ outruled?  (since Mar 82)

	“From R6* Solo to OT III one does not do anything except keep the pc winning for R6 Solo to OT III.
	This is the critical band of the Gradation Chart.
	On Flag it was learned the hard way that you don't do other major auditing actions between these two points.”          LRH (from HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area”)

* R6.  Routine 6 or Grade VI.

“A long series of tests and many case results have for some time demonstrated that there is a NO INTERFERENCE AREA between R6EW and OT III.”          LRH (from HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”)

‘L. Ron Hubbard Breaks Silence’  (February 1983, Rocky Mountain News)

• Overview
• Three letters

“Son of Scientology believes Hubbard dead or ill   Petition filed requesting estate trustee The oldest son of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, believes his father is either dead or mentally incompetent, according to a petition filed in Riverside Superior Court. The son, Ronald E. DeWolf, also claims in the court papers filed Wednesday that officials in the church have stolen millions of dollars, gems and securities either from his 71-year-old father or from Hubbard's estate in the last 12 months. DeWolf, 48, of Carson city, Nev., is asking the court to appoint him as trustee of his father's affairs to protect the assets. ... ‘I am not attacking LRH (L. Ron Hubbard) in a legal sense,’ DeWolf said yesterday in a telephone interview, ‘because no one has ever been able to do that successfully . . . The only way he can contest all of this is to show up physically in court. But I expect he may have trouble doing that because I don't think he is alive.’ The son said he has not seen his father since 1959, but DeWolf said he has kept track of the inner workings of the secretive church ‘through conversations with attorneys, friends and a loose-knit network of former cult members.’” (from ‘County, Press-Enterprise’, 13 Nov 82)

 
Overview

I offer here the full interview and the 2 articles as they appeared in this reprint of the Rocky Mountain News, as reissued by the Church of Scientology of California. They are being offered for their obvious historical interest, them being virtually unknown and also due to their unavailability. Various questions can be asked regarding to the things that they relate. A question that some have asked is why L. Ron Hubbard had broken every contact with his wife and children (this being in diametrical contradiction of the communication formula's that he developed), but instead only was in contact with the Broekers and David Miscavige? Somewhere during 1986 the Broekers also had disappeared from the scene, and we don't know their whereabouts. Another question is forwarded in one of the articles: “The question of his existence could be easily settled by a public appearance before the court.”. The article itself replies with saying: “But his attorneys have contended that he is too busy writing a 10-volume sequel to ‘Battlefield Earth’ to appear in public to settle the controversy.”.

From ‘Rocky Mountain News’, 20 Feb 83, front page:

Scientology founder speaks out     L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer and founder of the Church of Scientology, is one of the most controversial recluses of the 20th century. Adding to his mystery has been Hubbard's refusal to be interviewed for 15 years.    But he recently broke that self-imposed silence when he agreed to answer written questions submitted to him by Rocky Mountain News staff writer Sue Lindsay.    He continues, however, to decline face-to-face interviews.    In this edition, Hubbard — shown here in Ireland during a 1965 trip — discusses his latest novel, “Battlefield Earth,” which is set in Denver, his life as an author, the Golden Age of science fiction writing and its imprint on today's society and some of the controversy surrounding the church.    The articles also explain the procedures by which the Rocky Mountain News obtained Hubbard's responses and the unusual way his attorneys authenticated them.

 
Three letters

All of them are claimed written on 3 February 1983.

• One of them was send to Rocky Mountain News reporter Sue Lindsay which was accompanied with answers to a list of questions that had been submitted at an earlier date during attempts to arrange a person-to-person interview with L. Ron Hubbard. We find the letter reproduced in this newspaper. Another article lists the questions and their answers.
• A second letter was basically a response to the actions of his estranged son Ron DeWolf who in November 1982 had filed a petition in a California court asking that his father be declared dead or mentally incompetent. I don't find this letter reproduced anywhere although various quotations of this appear in one of the articles that were published in the Rocky Mountain News. (see “L. Ron Hubbard breaks silence to release 3 handwritten letters”)

• A third letter was a response to legal matters relating to one Gerry Armstrong who had taken materials belonging to either the Church of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron Hubbard was ordered to appear in court to basically prove he was still alive and well. Instead of showing up this letter was brought into the court matters. It urged the court to return these materials that Gerry Armstrong had taken. During 1983 the President of the Church, Heber Jentzsch appeared in various television programs and showed this letter. Reproductions of the letter appear at some places.
  Regarding this affair an article appeared in the ‘Los Angeles Herald’, 11 Feb 83 making it rather clear that the letter send did not turn matters into favour of the Church of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard. It stated: “A Los Angeles Superior Court judge says that a letter purportedly written by Church of scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard can't be used in a legal battle to regain thousands of his personal papers.”. Further the article said: “‘If Hubbard wants to be heard as to what should happen with these documents,’ Bunch [Armstrong's attorney] said, ‘Hubbard has to present himself and appear.’”. The article further noting: “But Hubbard has consistently avoided doing so, in this case as well as in another case filed by his oldest son, Ronald DeWolf.”. Appearing at court may have made a difference, but that never happened in spite of that which was at stake. The refusal of L. Ron Hubbard to appear in court may indeed, because of its consequences, be considered being rather suspect!

My article about Gerry Armstrong can be consulted here (separate window).

Sec Checking (3):  ‘False Purpose Rundown’ (FPRD)  (Jun 84)

At its release we find it being marketed as “another incredible technical breakthrough!”. Promoted as “a dynamic new auditing procedure and a mighty new Rundown”. These announcement notices continue with stating that “this Rundown includes new LRH breakthroughs direct from the realm of high level OT Research!”. (from ‘The Auditor 193 (US Edition)’, [Sept 84])

The purpose of the rundown is briefly laid out in HCOB 5 Jun 84, False Purpose Rundown Series 1 “False Purpose Rundown” that says: “Recent upper-level research breakthroughs have led to the development of a new rundown designed to slash straight through to the root of such false purposes and unwanted intentions and BLOW them.”.

The question is if it would ring true about it being so new. In the past we have already had seen developments like for example Expanded Dianetics (released in 1972) that offered a full handling of these matters. There are indications that this False Purpose Rundown would just be some quickie version extracted from Expanded Dianetics. The reality is that, after going over the list of questions of the FPRD procedure and its technique, that it resembles a typical Sec Check type approach. There is basically nothing here that would indicated that this would be something new.

It has been proposed by some persons that this FPRD had been devised as an attempt to recuperate or bring back those persons that had previously been scared away or were expelled for reason of a rather harsh treatment suffered from International Management, this in the 2 years preceeding the FPRD (see previous section “‘The dawning of ‘Religious Technology Center’ and new management (1982-83)’”. Hence we may have ended up with the FPRD to take care of that. Also considering that those that became aware of that they had done wrong would be fairly easy to manipulate and get back into line. It could have been a measure to get control over this thus created situation.

The official version of the death of L. Ron Hubbard  (Jan 86)

	Official announcements and referrals from the Church of Scientology
	The ‘last’ Flag Order
	The incidence of the three wills (1979, 1982 & 1986)
	A few things to ponder about ...
		- 1) Mary Sue Hubbard not considered as a Trustee or other on any of the wills - 2) Mary Sue Hubbard entitled to “all ... tangible personal, residential and household effects of every kind” in 1979 will, but dropped in 1982 and 1986 will - 3) No display of the physical remains (not even for Mary Sue Hubbard) - 4) An autopsy first prohibited in late 1983, and again in the 1986 will - 5) The fingerprints issue - 6) Pat Broeker versus Mr. David Miscavige - 7) The 1986 will details about copyrights/trademarks contrasting with HCO PLs from 1958

 
Official announcements and referrals from the Church of Scientology

There is also ‘SPD* 145’, 15 Jul 86 “Issue Line for Source Data” (issued by then Snr C/S Int Ray Mithoff) that relates directly about these matters. It was revised reissued on 17 Jul 87 by the then Snr C/S Int Jeff Walker. These relate some interesting information. Amongst other it relates about the creation of the LRH Technical Research and Compilations (RTRC) unit. Further the issue lays out how things were to develop from there on out. It set the line to follow. Does anyone have any of these for me in the original English? Then please contact me!

It may be seen as odd that no notices or messages appeared in any of the other Scientology periodicals about this happening. About all we see is that Write to L. Ron Hubbard is replaced with Write to ED Int notices.

 
The ‘last’ Flag Order

More notes about Pat Broeker in the next section.

 
The incidence of the three wills (1979, 1982 & 1986)

	15 December 1979 Will

	10 May 1982 Will

	23 January 1986 Will

	20 January 1986 Certificate of Religious Belief
This directs: “Based upon my religious beliefs, I object to any and all post mortem anatomical dissections or other autopsy procedures being conducted on my body. Such autopsy procedures would violate my religious convictions.”.
Witnessed by Patrick D. Broeker, Anne M. Broeker, and Stephen J. Pfauth (signatures).

As it seems, at such time that the Trustee changed a new will was drawn up.

 
A few things to ponder about ...

• 1) Mary Sue Hubbard not considered as a Trustee or other on any of the wills
• 2) Mary Sue Hubbard entitled to “all ... tangible personal, residential and household effects of every kind” in 1979 will, but dropped in 1982 and 1986 will
• 3) No display of the physical remains (not even for Mary Sue Hubbard)
• 4) An autopsy first prohibited in late 1983, and again in the 1986 will
• 5) The fingerprints issue
• 6) Pat Broeker versus Mr. David Miscavige
• 7) The 1986 will details about copyrights/trademarks contrasting with HCO PLs from 1958

These various surrounding incidents and recordings relating to these matters are not particularly consistent. I only touched some of the issues that it proposes. In regards to Pat Broeker and Mr. David Miscavige we get the impression of some sort of power struggle taking place.

	Mary Sue Hubbard not considered as a Trustee or other on any of the wills

	Mary Sue Hubbard entitled to “all ... tangible personal, residential and household effects of every kind” in the 1979 will, but dropped in the 1982 and 1986 will

	No display of the physical remains (not even for Mary Sue Hubbard)

Argument #3:  For which reason was Mary Sue Hubbard not invited for identification or seeing the physical remains of her husband, or if she would be unable to do so, any of the children? It is reported that the body had been cremated less than 24 hours after his passing. This is indeed rather quick, in fact it may be a little too quick. It is a rather usual procedure to have a display of the body prior to a cremation in where family members would have been invited was given the opportunity to pay the last respects, and to say farewell to the deceased. For which reason was all this omitted? The second article of the 23 January 1986 will reads:

“I hereby direct that my body be cremated and the ashes be buried at sea. I direct that my Personal Representative take all steps necessary to carry out the foregoing as soon as possible following my death. Under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy.”

In fact this is all it says in this article, it says nothing about skipping the usual procedures earlier mentioned. Nonetheless at the event at the Hollywood Palladium, 27 January 1986, in where the passing of L. Ron Hubbard was revealed to the Scientology public, we have this attorney Earle Cooley announcing:

“It is not surprising that when LRH discarded the body that had served his being well for almost 75 years in this lifetime, he left some very specific instructions for its handling at its disposition. Thus, last Friday night I was furnished with a copy of his will in which LRH provided that he was to be cremated promptly and his ashes scattered at sea. I was accorded the honor and the responsibility of making certain that these instructions were carried out. ... I personally made all necessary arrangements and by 3:40 p.m. on Saturday, January 25th. Less than 24 hours after LRH discarded his body. I bore personal witness to the fact that his instructions were precisely carried out. ...”

	Sound snippet
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

These “instructions” however were not that “specific” as this attorney wants to make us believe. It is rather a free interpretation that was made from these few lines in this will. Do mind that “as soon as possible” is not synonym to “promptly”. The former does allow for flexibility in regards to paying respect to the deceased by the direct family and have a display of the body, where the latter does not. That which was resorted to in fact sounds suspect.

But then if there was no actual body to be shown, indeed you may have a reason to handle as has been done.

	An autopsy first prohibited in late 1983, and again in the 1986 will

Argument #4:  An issue may also be why we suddenly have this 14 November 1983 addition to the 10 May 1982 will, this about. If this was an obvious matter then why was it not included from the start in the will?

“I hereby direct that my body be cremated and the ashes buried at sea. I direct that my personal representative take all steps necessary to carry out the foregoing as soon as possible following my death. Under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy.”

Then we have the 20 January 1986 ‘Certificate of Religious Belief’ that says:

“Based upon my religious beliefs, I object to any and all post mortem anatomical dissections or other autopsy procedures being conducted on my body. Such autopsy procedures would violate my religious convictions.”

It does eliminate the possibility here to actually verify that we had the real L. Ron Hubbard here. These last 6 years of his life there had been quite some controversy about if he still would be alive. Then at his supposed deathbed we are once again left with questions. Rumours could have been enervated so easily. Some people as it appears went through a lot of effort to keep various things in mystery. We have two options here of how to interpret this, fairly evident options. It was L. Ron Hubbard or it was someone else. But ... there is even a third option. There may not have been a body at all. The question here is if L. Ron Hubbard would have opposed to the possibility to actually expose a possible imposter. Obviously there was a lot at stake here. Strictly taken which “religious beliefs” exist that would oppose to an autopsy? The subject of Scientology is about the spirit, then what significance does a body (as for autopsy) actually have? The physical remains have no effect on the spirit. Then the spirit has left the body, why having concerns about some ‘body’? In addition a proper and standard autopsy may easily expose a possible imposter. Then which is preferable, a body verification (autopsy) or not?, this taking in consideration the consequences and that which was at stake.

	The fingerprints issue

Argument #5:  We have the matter of fingerprints. It has been reported that fingerprints had been taken from the deceased and compared with those that the FBI had on file. The outcome of this however may not be so reliable. There are also various issues with it. For example, why were fingerprints taken? It is not clearly explained. Per what is known this was also not performed in any official sort of capacity at all. It for sure was not in an autopsy. A report about “Lafayette Ron Hubbard” from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated 10 Dec 1986 reads: “HUBBARD's fingerprints were obtained, were compared to those previously on file at the FBI, Washington, D.C., with a determination made that the fingerprints provided were identical to those of LAFAYETTE RON HUBBARD.”. Question is why the FBI would have had his fingerprints on file? It would imply that this FBI would have a record of documents that would thus deem this a necessary measure. Were there may be FBI records that show that he was under investigation or sorts that would require his fingerprints to be taken? It is unfortunate that the FBI can and may use its authority (i.e. force) to get documents and information on people without their prior consent. The FBI is an intelligence agency that can and does spy on its own citizens and groups it feels may pose a threat to national interests. The coroner's report (signed Don Hines) dated 30 Jan 1986, reads on last page:      “At 1300 hours xxx Attorney xxx arrived at the Sheriff's Department with the documents. Received from xxx were documents described as:        1. A Certified copy of a latent fingerprint card from the F.B.I.     2. A United States Navy Certificate of Satisfactory Service card depicting the decedent's name and right index print.     3. A Special Officer identification card depicting a photo and right index fingerprint, issued by the Office of the Chief of Police, Los Angeles.     4. A United States passport dated April 12, 1984, issued by the passport agency in Los Angeles.     These items were presented to the I.D. Technician, Detective xxx for comparison.”     (take note that xxx means details that is blacked out in the archival copies of these documents)   Only #4 gives us an actual date. #1 they could have gotten from anywhere. #2 would be from the US Navy but the official Navy Separation Document has no prints, but that the supposedly fake Separation Document does have some which calls the reliability of the prints into question. #3 would have been when L. Ron Hubbard was a volunteer police officer in Los Angeles and would have had this on file there. In essence any of these could be faked, but it is further pending the fingerprints taken from a supposed body. It is then interesting that we do not even have the name of the “Detective” performing that fingerprint control in January 1986. His name is blacked out on the archival copies. We only learn about the name of the Chief Deputy Coroner (Don(ald) Hines).      “xxx examined these documents and found them to compare to the prints obtained from the decedent. Det. xxx further reported that he had confirmed all 10 fingerprints in a telephone conversation with the office of the F.B.I.”      Detailed information about this (if you want to call it that with all the blacked out areas) is recorded in this “Supplementary Report” from the Sheriff's Office, San Luis Obispo, California (dated 29 Jan 1986, but signed 30 Jan 1986), consult here (scannings of archival copy, pop-up window). Additional observations:   ♦ Curiosity exists about why on date December 16, 1952 that the US Navy had any card on him at all? He was out of the Navy by then. Again with another date of March 18, 1983 from the FBI Assistant Director of ID, Nick Stames.   ♦ The dates for his time in the US Navy are incorrect technically [on the FBI report] since his active duty was also in 22 Sept - 6 Oct 1941 and again 21 Oct - 11 Nov 1941.   ♦ Independent research in actual US Navy files has thus far not brought to light a single fingerprint. Of course there is the possibility that it is somewhere else, so in any case one has to assume it is not comprehensive. But it is odd that nowhere else fingerprints have been found.   ♦ Regarding the volunteer police dates, some oddities are found in archival reports. The date of Jan 7, 1948 has him at 8250 Lankersheim [sic, should be Lankershim] which is in North Hollywood. But documents from the Navy dated from November 14, 1947 to at least May 1948 gives an address in North Hollywood as well, but is a PO Box 297. Granted, he wasn't living in the Post Office, but it's a bit odd that he would list that for the Navy and the Veterans Administration (VA) if he was trying to get benefits, but lists his ‘real’ (if it was) address with the police. Just some inconsistencies. All to be looked into more closely. One has to consider that any sort of scene can rather easily get staged, which undoubtedly will deceive the lesser bright and the non-questioning ones among us. It may accordingly be presented something as follows: “An independent medical examiner took a blood test and fingerprints. From these, we know for a fact it was L. Ron Hubbard.”. Ah, I guess these words (all that they are) settles it then... But why, in the first place, did this needed to be determined? See, please keep in mind that various things were at stake here. A lot of value in money was involved. It becomes a matter of asking the right questions.

	Pat Broeker versus Mr. David Miscavige

	“In a further attempt to boost his status, Broeker had claimed to have worked closely with LRH during several years prior to January 1986. Thorough investigation has since revealed the fact that during the time period Pat Broeker asserted he was ‘working close to LRH’, Broeker was absent for extended periods of time under false pretenses and was in fact almost never at the same location that LRH was.
	Additionally, when he was with LRH prior to 1986, he was there only as domestic staff, not in any technical or administrative capacity.”

These various wills do span the period December 1979 to January 1986. A case can also be made with ‘SPD 145’, 15 Jul 86 “Issue Line for Source Data” that made Pat Broeker ultimately responsible for the further development of the technology as compiled from LRH notes, directives and such. And last but not least that what is quoted in ‘International Scientology News 8’ [ca Feb-Mar 86]: “There are several other OT levels that it is my job to compile. It essentially consists of taking what LRH has written, putting it into paragraph form and adding the appropriate HCOB references that go along with each level.”  (Pat Broeker at the Hollywood Palladium, 27 Jan ’86).

	The 1986 will details about copyrights/trademarks contrasting with HCO PLs from 1958

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.
     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 PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     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 HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     Clear:
1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16)  2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
     Flag Order (FO):
This is the equivalent to a policy letter (HCO PL) in the Sea Org (senior organization within the Church of Scientology). Contains policy and sea technical materials. They are numbered and dated. They do not decay, HCO PLs and FOs are both in effect on Sea Org orgs, ships, offices and bases. Black ink on white paper. Distribution to all Sea Org members. It is vital for SO units to have master files and quantity of FOs from which hats can be made up for SO personnel and courses. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     FO:
Short for ‘Flag Order’. 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’.
     Operating Thetan (OT):
1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)  3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10)
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
     Snr C/S Int:
‘Senior Case/Supervisor International’. The highest ranking technical (relating to auditing) person within the Church of Scientology after L. Ron Hubbard.
     SPD:
‘Scientology Policy Directive’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).