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)

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.

	“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”

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 synopsis - (a) The Franchise or Mission holder (since 1959) - (b) The Field Auditor (the individual or free auditor), in or out of groups - (c) Dianetic Counseling Groups (DCG) (since 1969)
	‘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))

 
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.

“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’.

	“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”)

 
The Field Auditor and the Franchise/Mission holder identified

“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.

 
Franchises/missions (1959- )

• A synopsis
• (a) The Franchise or Mission holder (since 1959)
  (What is it, what are the rules, and its tithe)
• (b) The Field Auditor (the individual or free auditor), in or out of groups
  (Its relation to Franchises/Missions specified)
• (c) Dianetic Counseling Groups (DCG) (since 1969)
  (Its relation to Franchises/Missions specified)
  

 
A synopsis

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.

	“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”)

Access to the original references explaining these matters are at present made unavailable within the organization. You can see this for example in the information that is supplied in the 1991 set of volumes for ‘The Organization Executive Course’. To find out about the previously in use franchises/missions you need to have a set of the old volumes (1974). See table in chapter on this page “‘I HELP’ versus ‘Field Auditor Fees’ (1982- )” section “Presentation in ‘The Organization Executive Course, Division 6’: 1972 vs 1991 edition”.

 
(a) The Franchise or Mission holder (since 1959)
(What is it, what are the rules, and its tithe)

“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.

“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”)

“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.

 
(b) The Field Auditor (the individual or free auditor), in or out of groups
(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.

“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.

	“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”)

	“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.”

	“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”)

 
(c) Dianetic Counseling Groups (DCG) (since 1969)
(Its relation to Franchises/Missions specified)

	“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.”

“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”)

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

	“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)

	“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”)

Prior to September 1973 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.”.

“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”)

 
‘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”

 
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:

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.

 
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.

	“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”)

L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER     for the     BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY   BDCS:LRH:jk

	“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.”

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? Please note that a typo appeared in the signature as it is supposed to say “BOARDS” and not “BOARD”.

Significance

 
‘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

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

A new creation was the ‘I HELP’ organization that was incorporated 24 Nov 82. 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.

	“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)

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

“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)

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[S] 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”

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!

 
‘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!

It appears that I HELP is also rather strict, controlling and demanding as we see in ‘I HELP Information Letter 2’, 5 Sept 96 “Your Training and Field Auditing” that states: “You can audit when you have the certificate for it, and when you are an I HELP member. I HELP licenses you to use the tech”. Thus no certificate (for that you service), no I HELP member and no license and you may not audit (or do other things) in the field.

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.”          [attributed to 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!

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

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])

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

‘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 ones 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.

 
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)

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

Appendix

“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 PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     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 EDs 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 EDs (Secretarial EDs). 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 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)’.
     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 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).
     World Wide:
Located in London, England. The corporation that (in the early days) owned and controlled Scientology organizations. Currently under the advices of the Sea Organization. (HCO PL 9 Mar 72 I)