Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> 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.

	“This cancellation is contemporary with the justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person.
	The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
	It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)

This page will give you the details about this infamous Fair Game Law as it was in use within the Scientology organization, and various other matters relating to this.

 
Index:

		Foreword
	Beginnings of ‘fair game’
		Events leading up to the term coming into being
		The matter of ‘fair game’ defined and clarified
	Cancellation
		(1) The cancellation of the practice of ‘fair game’
			— HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” — - “Penalties for Lower Conditions” & “Hat don't hit” - A brief history of “Conditions, Awards & Penances” - The matter of HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”
		(2) Cancellation of declaring people ‘fair game’
			— HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” — - What does that mean?
				(Includes:  (a) “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”;  (b) The anti-Scientologist is saying: “A trick is being played!”)
			- The ‘old green volume’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in these volumes) - The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in this dictionary) - What happened with the policy letters making mention of ‘fair game’?
	Further particulars
		Various elements and behaviours at work one should be alerted to
			- 1) Old habits die hard - 2) The Qual Library - 3) Keeping Scientology Working - 4) Infiltration
		Questions raised
			-  (proposal 1)  Does it carry any weight if lawyers representing the Church of Scientology state in court that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation? - (proposal 2)  In what way are Flag Orders different from HCO PLs? Was ‘fair game’ ever cancelled through a Flag Order and does that bear any significance?
		Afterword

Foreword

For sure this matter about this Fair Game Law is a rather charged subject. The Church of Scientology has been accused of still exercising such practices till this very day. My little write up is not aiming at defying that or justifying any of that. It is not my intention to forward an opinion as such concerning if this be true or not true. It is just not that which motivated me to compile this information and look into this matter. In all these matters regarding ‘fair game’ however it has generally been neglected to find out what the Scientology published writings actually say about these things. Or how the whole thing came into being. Various things are just being assumed, just too much has been assumed. Purposely also improper interpretations have been drawn which can not actually be defended when we check up on what the writings actually say and when we view its track in Scientology history. Not any of these things can be properly adjudicated if one has not properly studied and consulted these writings themselves.

There is also the matter of even if it may be true that the ‘practice of fair game’ in some form still would be exercised, and if this seems so, to then look into what the reason is for that? Is it advocated by Scientology writings? Are Scientology staff working from and consulting old now cancelled policy letters? Has a trick been played as some claim? Is it just plain misunderstanding of some person(s) within the Scientology organization? Is it intent? On this page I have attempted to collect various information about the matter. I have attempted to objectively force some logic on to this. You however have to decide for yourself what to think of it all.

Events leading up to the term coming into being

The early ’60s were turbulent years. Apparently various individuals were creating troubles on the lines of the Scientology organization. Further there were indications of various security risks. Various of these matters are addressed in issues of the periodical Ability from that time. E-Meters were being confiscated, unfavourable propaganda about Scientology hit the media, and more such things.

	“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.
	To foil these, all staff members must be alert to attempts of this nature and it is their duty to inform the Technical Director, or above, of any doubts they may have and to see that the necessary action is taken.”          LRH      (from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 I “Security Risks Infiltration”)

“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .”          LRH     (from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)

‘Ability 146’, Feb 63:
	“Legal Information” “The DC Situation” by L. Ron Hubbard* “Our Role in the World” by L. Ron Hubbard*

* & * The Ability periodical does not mention it, however these particular articles have been first issued as follows:  (them being identical in text)      HCO Information Letter 15 Jan 63 “The DC Situation”      HCO Information Letter 16 Jan 63 “Our Role in the World”

Various of these happenings are also recorded and confirmed in Omar V. Garrison's ‘The Hidden Story of Scientology’ (1974). It was found at that time that certain measures had to be taken to counteract amongst other this.

Here under I give a selection from HCO PL [7] Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” (later reissued and more commonly known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”). It is this reference that actually introduced the term and the first to make mention of it. The publication history of this reference can be consulted here (separate window).

	“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
	The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.
	A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc* yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.
	A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
	SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.
	A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. ...
	Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. ...
	This policy letter gives the means and provides the policy for getting the above situation handled. ...
	A Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game’.”          LRH

The matter of ‘fair game’ defined and clarified

	“When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.
	It does not make sense to extend the protection of the group to the person seeking to destroy the group. That's like encouraging a disease.
	Hence we have a Fair Game Law.”          LRH          (for more quotations from this HCO PL please click here (pop-up window))

The above quotations of these 2 references give us a basic layout of what it is actually about. There is a practicality involved with all this. More quotations are found here below.

	“Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90 percent of the population. So we get them aside for another day.
	We get them off lines, out of orgs* and to one side.”          LRH

	“..., no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.
	The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.
	A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.”          LRH       (the text added in the 23 Dec 65 revision of this policy letter are given in this typestyle)

(1) The cancellation of the practice of ‘fair game’
— HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” —

• “Penalties for Lower Conditions” & “Hat don't hit”
• A brief history of “Conditions, Awards & Penances”
• The matter of HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”

 
“Penalties for Lower Conditions” & “Hat don't hit”

It is hard to come by an actual copy of this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. In fact it appears only available as an original mimeo print-off*, meaning it is not found in any book volume or compilation pack. In Scientology publications its existence can be verified in the “Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter Subject Index” (issued 1976). It is found in “Appendix A”, which is a chronological and “complete list of Policy Letters written by the Founder [L. Ron Hubbard] or ordered by him”. On page 215 we find the entry:

“ENEMY - Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org.”          LRH (from HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”)

It can be seen here that this is not in accordance anymore with the fair game as we find defined in for example ‘World Book Dictionary’ (1974 edition). This practically would mean that a practice of fair game was cancelled with the issuance of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. The rule is: “HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters.”   LRH . This would mean that if certain data in earlier issued policy letters is contradicted in policy letters issued at a later data, that the data that is contradicted as found in any other earlier policy letter is not to be followed or put to use! In this particular instance the actual description for the condition of Enemy was revised. Only a policy letter issued at a later date can then reinstate that and they have to specifically clarify what exactly is being reinstated.

Some persons however argue about “May be restrained or imprisoned.”. The question is if you would stop some person who is physically assaulting someone or is going berserk and starts throwing rocks through windows (or something). Security agencies also have the legal right to stop such persons, to actually physically restrain such a person, lock him up in a room for the time being where he can do no harm to anyone till the cops arrive to collect this person. Nonetheless it has been an argument from various critics of Scientology out on the Internet that “restrained or imprisoned” would be synonym to ordering to practice fair game, they would then forward the claim that the revision made no difference. It is here that ordinary dictionaries say against this claim.

	“This cancellation is contemporary with the justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person.
	The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
	It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH

“The enemy attacks are yesterday's news. He's dead. Now you HAVE TO OPEN UP YOUR AREA AND GO GO GO!”          LRH (from ‘LRH ED 120 Int’, 27 Aug 70 “Auditors Association Project In YOUR AREA for Class IV Orgs”)

As a side note one should however realize that this administrative technology at the time was still in development. Naturally if an organization is being under attack one need to figure out how to effectively handle that situation. At that time the organization endured various hazardous attacks, a handling for that was needed, and quick. Also as a result one of the most vital policies of them all was written and issued: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”. Various quotations from this HCO PL can be consulted here (separate window).

The story does not end here. This HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” was itself in turn cancelled in 1971. Various more references released replaced the previous ones. A chronology of all of these are found in the here directly following section.

 
A brief history of “Conditions, Awards & Penances”

In below table I have listed in chronological order the references that have been released about these Penalties for Lower Conditions and point out their relation and publication history:

 
Reference index:

	HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)”
	HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
	HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
	HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”
	HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corrected and Reissued 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated”
	HCO PL 16 Nov 71 “Conditions: Awards, Penances”
	HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Revised 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”
	BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”
	HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”
	HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”

	HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)”  (complemented by next)

	HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  (replaced by next)

	HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”  (replaced by next)

	HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”  (cancelled by next)

	HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corrected and Reissued 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated”  (replaced by next)

	HCO PL 16 Nov 71 “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  (replaced by next)

	HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Revised 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  (replaced by next)

	BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”  (replaced by next)

	HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”  (cancelled by next)

This policy letter cancelled and replaced BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 Sept 75) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”. It says:

“This policy letter is an update and streamlining of the awards and penances for conditions. It supersedes earlier BPLs on awards and penances, application of which has at times caused bad public relations.           Those issues which remain cancelled are:       HCO PL 26 Sept 67           HCO PL 21 Jul 68   HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV   HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III   HCO PL 19 Oct 71 CONDITIONS, AWARDS & PENALTIES PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS ETHICS PENALTIES ETHICS PENALTIES REINSTATED”

It lists here above references that “remain cancelled” (underlining is mine), which would imply that they already at a previous date had been cancelled. HCO PL 19 Oct 71 (Corrected and Reissued 22 Oct 71) “Ethics Penalties Reinstated” had reinstated the previous 4 listed references (see in above table). Then per the guiding rule established in 1972 that “Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.”  LRH , it must then have been HCO PL 16 Nov 71R (Revised 16 Nov 73) “Conditions: Awards, Penances” that thus had retracted that.

This HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances” was quite extensive, it had turned into 5 pages of text. All the different conditions had rather gentle rules, it can not be compared with the 1967 rules. Then it added various lengthy explanations. It was attributed to “L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER” and “As assisted by Real Laplaine, Int HES [International HCO Executive Secretary]”. Which actually meant that it was written/compiled by this “Real Laplaine” as per HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”: “If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by_____’”  LRH.

	HCO Admin Letter 30 Sept 91 “Cancellation of Issues”

 
The matter of HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”

(2) Cancellation of declaring people ‘fair game’

• What does that mean?
          - (a) “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”
          - (b) The anti-Scientologist is saying: “A trick is being played!”
• The ‘old green volume’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in these volumes)
• The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in this dictionary)
• What happened with the policy letters making mention of ‘fair game’?

 
What does that mean?

• (a) “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”
• (b) The anti-Scientologist is saying: “A trick is being played!”

	“The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
	This P/L* does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP*.”          LRH (from HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” - full text of the policy letter is given)

 
(a) “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.”

	“The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.
	Don't for heaven's sake mistake alter-is by somebody as evidence of a hidden line.
	There is no hidden data line.”          LRH (from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)

 
(b) The anti-Scientologist is saying: “A trick is being played!”

Out on the Internet this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” is as a rule not cited by the anti-Scientologist. They would say then that the actual practice of declaring someone fair game was still secretly in use. There are guidelines that point out how the policy letters system actually works and is to be dealt with, which the common anti-Scientologist is not at all familiar with or just does not want to acknowledge. Anyhow the existence of this reference has been forwarded to these persons that still made that erroneous claim on their website, but the bulk of them still chose to ignore it. Since it has become a matter of prestige.

 
The ‘old green volume’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in these volumes)

At the time of the issuance of this 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes these references mentioning fair game in them had not been revised yet, and have the fair game removed out of them. This should be understandable as new policy letters and revisions were frequently written and issued, matters were still under development, and you can't incorporate changes in any and all of these already existing references when something changed and reissue them immediately. It would be a confusing and also a very expensive affair. It also would have been a time craving matter. But it may have been a good decision if at least in the case of some of these policy letters making mention of this fair game that they would have been updated and reissued as soon as possible. Unfortunately this had been passed by. To inform the readers anyhow it was necessary to include these fair game is cancelled notices. This was also done in various course packs that listed these references on its course checksheet.

 
The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument  (referencing to ‘fair game’ as found in this dictionary)

 
What happened with the policy letters making mention of ‘fair game’?

Reference index:

1.	HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”
2.	HCO PL 7 Mar 65 III “Offenses & Penalties”
3.	HCO PL 17 Mar 65 II “Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source of the Fair Game Law”
4.	HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology”
5.	HCO PL 5 Apr 65 “Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity”
6.	HCO PL 16 Aug 65 II “Collection from SPs and PTSs”
7.	HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”
	Annotations

	1.  HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”

Although the revision notes say nothing about fair game, nonetheless any and all referrals to fair game were in fact removed (including deleting it from its title). It in addition deleted the following paragraphs:

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

	2.  HCO PL 7 Mar 65, Issue III “Offenses & Penalties”

	3.  HCO PL 17 Mar 65, Issue II “Fair Game Law, Organizational Suppressive Acts, The Source of the Fair Game Law”

	4.  HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology”

	5.  HCO PL 5 Apr 65 “Handling the Suppressive Person, The Basis of Insanity”

	6.  HCO PL 16 Aug 65, Issue II “Collection from SPs and PTSs”

	7.  HCO PL 18 Oct 67, Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”

	Annotations

It's a little odd if you think about how much time it took till these issues were actually stripped from their fair game referencing, and reissued without it. Especially this is in fact a shame for HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”, which is a very frequently used reference when putting together Ethics Orders. It may have added to the confusion about the subject as found out on the Internet, but even within the Scientology organizations.

Various elements and behaviours at work one should be alerted to

• 1) Old habits die hard
  
• 2) The Qual Library
• 3) Keeping Scientology Working
• 4) Infiltration

 
1) Old habits die hard

In the same that it is said that “The fox may lose his hair, but not his cunning,” it would be equally true that traits or habits once acquired and accustomed to will take time to change or get rid of. The term fair game had gotten around within the organization and thus there was a habit to use the term even if there was no practice anymore as instructed by some policy letter. This in turn may result in that otherwise well-intended staff-members may unintentionally do the organization instead a disservice.

It is this that will have given cause for the issuance of HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game”. A reference that had focused on to forbade any continued use of the term itself, after that the practice already had been surpassed through the release of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”.

 
2) The Qual Library

Question: “Technically is there a reason or justification that can be brought forward that will excuse staff-members for not being aware of references that are in use and references that are not in use anymore?”

I fear there is not. L. Ron Hubbard has long since established the so-called Qual Library: “Information! Where can the guy go to see it - not to be told verbally it - where can the guy go to see it and so on? Well, that is Department 14's Library. That’s the knowledge center. And so, you don't get verbal data lines or anything of the sort.   LRH” . This area will have stored everything that has ever been published, cancelled and not cancelled references. The cancelled references however will be clearly marked “CANCELLED” with a big red stamp in bold lettering, and it will be noted on them which reference replaced it or cancelled it.

A guideline that the present organization has chosen to fully ignore and even act against. Each time a new Ideal Org* is established or announced some place, the old files (if that org had any left) are systematically gotten rid of. The only files you find in a Qual Library today are the latest revised versions and prints of the books. In this digital age though it would be easy to establish a digital library containing everything. Unfortunately the present official Scientology organization has not ever expressed any intention to realize any such thing. The focus has rather been on limiting access to information with which the organization did themselves a disservice in regards to for example having easy access to references like HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”.

 
3) Keeping Scientology Working

This being the case what can we expect to have gone wrong, not just five years later, but five decades later?!

 
4) Infiltration

It had been observed that people were send out to infiltrate the organization who accordingly did things in order that the subject matter could be discredited.

“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.”          LRH     (from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 I “Security Risks Infiltration”)

“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .”          LRH     (from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)

• (proposal 1)  Does it carry any weight if lawyers representing the Church of Scientology state in court that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation?
• (proposal 2)  In what way are Flag Orders different from HCO PLs? Was ‘fair game’ ever cancelled through a Flag Order and does that bear any significance?

I did encounter some claims and statements in regards to fair game that were being forwarded on a forum on the Internet. Here I take the opportunity to respond to these.

 
(proposal 1)  Does it carry any weight if lawyers representing the Church of Scientology state in court that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation?

	“Partially in response to the discussion on Marty's site I've tried to dig through the history of the policy.
	Wise Old Goat has a claimed history but he admits he can't find a lot of the docs in the chain.
	Additionally, Scientology's own lawyers in the GO* trials admitted that ‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation:
	[link]
	From various leaked GO materials, it is clear that there are a lot of confidential policies that only apply to GO (and no presumably OSA*) that pretty definitely encourage illegal activities.”

In the 2nd line it makes reference to my website and seems to try to imply something when writing: “he admits he can’t find a lot of the docs in the chain”. See, it doesn't even matter if I can't find every reference in the chain. It suffices when I have access to all the significant ones and additionally at least have a confirmed publication record of any remaining ones. And I do have access to these in this matter and I do list all of these.

In the 3rd line it offers the proposition as if it would carry any weight if some lawyer (here presenting the Church of Scientology) may have admitted “‘fair game’ was still practiced long after the public cancellation”. Now does anyone need to address this even? Of course people may practice nasty behaviour, even if not operating from some cancelled reference. It is what man may resort to doing. In any group you get these ‘agreements’ inciting these behavioural patterns, and this is what people will follow up on. Was there a reference secretly in use? I would seriously doubt that. I have been at various places, and have observed this sort of behaviour of staff, but nonetheless I never saw them operating from some cancelled reference.

Its 4th line offered a link to such a court document in where some lawyer admitted that something. Linked to is the court file: “SENTENCING MEMORANDUM (16th day of December, 1980)” of “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JANE KEMBER & MORRIS BUDLONG a/k/a MO BUDLONG - Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)”. In this court document we find the passage:
	“Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early August, 1980, only after the defendants' personal attack on Judge Richey.”
Is this actually convincing to anyone? These sort of passages are then frequently forwarded by anti-Scientologists and various persons as evidence that the actual practice of fair game had been in use regardless of its cancellation. The policy letter and reference system is rather strict and precise. If some reference is cancelled it is this, according to the rules, is then enforced on every level. I have worked in the area that issued and printed these references and I know this being the case! You just do not operate from a reference that has been cancelled! The hierarchy concerning these matters is very clearcut and applied very strictly indeed within the organization, it was simply how the system was setup.

 
(proposal 2)  In what way are Flag Orders different from HCO PLs? Was ‘fair game’ ever cancelled through a Flag Order and does that bear any significance?

	“I would like to point out, that Sea Org members have as higher orders the Flag Orders*, CBOs* and Rons direct references.
	In hat packs, the ratio of FOs to HCO Pls is about 2:1 in favor of FOs.
	In Flag Orders, the Fair Game policy was issued and was never cancelled as a Flag Order – the only reason why every ex-SO* from mgmt can quote it isn't because they found out about it after they left – they were taught it, in FOs and not HCO PLs.
	Try to keep this in mind – Marty nor the Church will ever argue with the Flag Orders or bring them up – because they contain the worst of it.
	Remember, Scientologists and staff adhere to HCOPLs and SO Members to FOs. Only SO members are Mgmt or OSA*.
	Messengers for example in their hat packs through the CMO* EPF* and Basic Modified Product One Series of training have a ratio of messenger orders, FOs/CBOs and HCO PLs of about 4:2:1.
	In other words, HCO PLs are for the people, but FOs are for the Princes.”

I would not say that Sea Org members “have as higher orders the Flag Orders, CBOs and Rons direct references”. Flag Orders are actually only listed as the equivalent of HCO PLs in the Sea Organization. They are not more, less, or senior. They are equivalent!  The same applies for these CBOs and even any “direct references”. The matter is only that the duties of these Sea Org members are different but also senior to those staff in lower classed Scientology organizations. Flag Orders deal with matters that Sea Org member need to know and operate on. However, the bulk of the references where they operate on are still HCO PLs. HCO PLs are basic and carry information which Scientology staff and Sea Org members have to abide to. Flag Orders are policy letters that carry specified information on a need-to-know basis for that Sea Org member. This is then the only difference. They are not supposed to relate conflicting information or policies. The Sea Org issue-types are simply an addition for use by Sea Org members. Therefore the ratio of how many HCO PLs and Flag Orders that would appears in so-called hat packs is entirely pending which hat/function it is for. It carries little to no weight.

Now the other side of the angle: (1) The practice of fair game once was incited by issuance in an HCO PL, it was however never (to my knowledge) separately addressed or issued through Flag Orders (contrary the claim of this ‘aaron saxton’). Now, per the reasoning offered by this individual wouldn't that mean that there was thus no fair game practiced by Sea Org members?; (2) Furthermore the actual reference that cancelled the practice of fair game, HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” had in fact simultaneously also been issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. May be this ‘aaron saxton’ cares to explain this? But quite frankly I don't think that this person actually knows what he talks about at all.

So, don't believe all that you read. Many persons out there think they know something, assume a lot of things (habitually not getting their facts properly lined up) and then tell stories guided by their personal misconceptions and preferences.

Afterword

In the final end it may not seem at all plausible that the anti-Scientologist has that much of an argument left regarding this. Considering that the Scientology organization was run only by valid, meaning not cancelled, policy letters. Those persons that have been more closely involved in the organization know this being the case. Then we have some persons talking about that some section of the organization (Guardian Office) was operating on their own policies. And these persons that tell that, where do they come from? Right, the Guardian Office. Here one should wonder what they themselves were actually involved with! Operating on cancelled policy letters? These same persons also relate about unsigned despatches that they received and that they believed having been written by L. Ron Hubbard. This they say was occurring during the late ’70s. Then again, what sort of persons would operate on orders like this, in particular if existing valid policy letters contradicted them?

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.
     ARC:
‘Affinity, Reality, Communication’. A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.” (LRH Def. Notes)
     ARC break:
1. An incomplete cycle of some kind or another. It's a lowering of Affinity, Reality and Communication, so we call it an ARC break. (SH Spec 65, 6507C27)  2. A sudden drop or cutting of one's affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication or understanding. It's called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person's state of mind. (LRH Def. Notes)  Abbr. ARCX
     CBO:
‘Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
     CMO:
‘Commodore Messenger Organization’. A senior entity within the Sea Organization of the Church of Scientology.
     Comm Ev:
‘Committee of Evidence’. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)
     Committee of Evidence:
1. A committee of evidence is not a court. It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the facts and clean up the ARC breaks (breaks in communication) caused by rumor. (HCO PL 27 Mar 65)  2. A fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a convening authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action. (HCO PL 7 Sept 63)  3. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)  4. A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action. (HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III)  5. A Committee of Evidence is convened by the Office of LRH through the HCO Secretary and is composed of staff members. Its purpose is entirely to obtain evidence and recommend action which the Office of LRH then modifies or orders. (HCO PL 10 Apr 65)  Abbr. Comm Ev.
     CSW:
‘Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     EPF:
‘Estates Project Force’. New persons that joined the Sea Organization are put on this. Here they are learning the basics of the Sea Organization combined with physical labour, maintenance and cleaning of the estates. After completion and attestation of the courses they will be assigned a post in the Sea Organization.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     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.
     GO:
Short for ‘Guardian Office’.  See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Guardian Office (GO):
In 1966, the Office of the Guardian was established. The purpose of the Guardian Office was to help enforce and issue policy to safeguard Scientology Churches, Scientologists and Scientology, and to engage in long term promotion. (from publication ‘The Guardian Office’, released 1978). It dealt particularly with the legal affairs concerning the Church of Scientology. In 1983 rechristened as ‘Office of Special Affairs’ (OSA)
     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).
     Ideal Org initiative:
Is an initiative from International Managment of the Church of Scientology ignited in 2004 that basically intended purchasing buildings which the Scientology parishionars were asked to raise the funds for. This was achieved through so-called fundraising happenings. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
    Pol Ltr:
‘HCO Policy Letter’. See at entry ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     PTP:
Short for ‘Present Time Problem’.
     PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual Library:
‘Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     RTC:
‘Religious Technology Center’. The highest echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     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.
     SO:
‘Sea Org(anization)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.