Scientology pages index  |  Contact

The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) (Jan 74) (An infamous part of the Scientology (Sea Org) culture, what is it, why are they having it and who thought it up?)

(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.

	“REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE,  brought into being in Div 4 FSO*. To it are assigned: (1) R/Sers* (2) low OCA* non-producers (3) repeated stat* crashers (4) overt product* makers. The stable datum for the unit and for its individual sections is one job, one place, one time. Its sub-products are completed cycles of action. The 5-hour daily study period for the RPF is devoted to tech. In this period, the RPF is to learn tech and get themselves handled in co-audit to fun clean-up and release. The RPF has been created by the Commodore so that redemption can occur. That is basically its only purpose. (FO 3434)”
	(from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition)

 
Index:

	The various ‘Project Forces’ explained
		Introduction and FO 3434
			- Redeem thyself... - A redemption unit that belonged to a ship is established onshore? - Referencing
		Its origins...
			(Includes:  Rocks and Shoals, Mud Box Brigade & Rehabilitation Unit)
		‘Deck Project Force’ (DPF) & ‘Estates Project Force’ (EPF)
	Who is responsible for the creation of the RPF outfit?
		Authorship of FO 3434, was it L. Ron Hubbard? (problems arising)
			- Rumours, word of mouth, public relation, and ‘if you like what is told then you will adopt’... - Conflicting circumstances: A “Code of Reform” (1968) - All the gullible people that criticize Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard?  (a ‘conspiracy’) - The 1997 re-release of the RPF series of issues were L.-Ron-Hubbard-ized...
		Ken Urquhart (1), the creator of the RPF? (an awkward situation)
		Ken Urquhart (2) and ‘The Missing Ten Months’ (4 Dec 72 - mid-Sept 73)
		Who wrote the subsequent RPF series of issues (1974-80) ?
	Various specifications of the RPF routines
		RPF working conditions
		‘RPF’ versus ‘Confessionals’
		A final note

 
The various ‘Project Forces’ explained

Introduction and FO 3434

• Redeem thyself...
• A redemption unit that belonged to a ship is established onshore?
• Referencing
  

Sea Org logo This RPF is one of these things that has given Scientology and also L. Ron Hubbard a particularly bad name. This RPF however is exclusively for use in the senior organization of the Church of Scientology, the unit that is referred to as the Sea Organization. Even if you would be a Scientology parishioner visiting a senior organization you would still not find out (much) about it. It is a redemption unit within the Sea Org and only its staff will know about it and only they can be subjected to it. It has been claimed that L. Ron Hubbard would be the source of the establishment of this RPF. The question is if this is actually true? First one should establish if there is actually anything found in the writings or the subject matter of Scientology that would actually justify the existence of such an outfit as this RPF, or rather that what the RPF since had turned to be!

How for example would you reconcile it with the policy letter that was issued for “cancellation of Ethics penalties”:

	“The target of Ethics is any neglect of org boarding or hatting and training an activity.
	The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
	It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)

This policy letter was written 3 years prior to the establishment of that RPF. So, how do all these things fit together?

 
Redeem thyself...

The rules for the RPF claim that one of its purposes was to give the person the opportunity to redeem him/herself for supposed wrongdoings, at the same time as one received relevant auditing and a study program. The problem however is that one could end up on this RPF, as history has witnessed, a bit well easily. It is quite true that for some rather insignificant reason you could be send to this unit the RPF. There was this frequent reoccurring habit to threaten persons with ethics handling or even to be send to RPF if one did not comply with some demand. This did not result in a particular pleasant working situation. It caused this shadow of constant pressure or this sword of Damocles hanging over you. Some missionaire or some person from a senior Scientology organization could just come into the area doing some inspection, and then some things may start happening. Generally these persons did not have a very gentle way of going about this either. They certainly did not make you feel appreciated. Agreed is that for example at the Flag Land Base, a senior Scientology service organization located in Clearwater, Fl, that there were particular expectations and as a consequence much pressure was placed on staff to provide exquisite service to that public there. Especially at such places, as a staff member you see the shadow of that sword of Damocles floating around you, and staff may be wondering when their head was going to roll. I am likely to exaggerate a bit here in the above, however a particular pressure was felt. I do remember very well the general working atmosphere that evidently was present.

I recall an incident at this Flag Land Base during the late ’80s. We had this Word Clearer/Course Supervisor in the Staff College. Suddenly one day I saw her wearing black clothes and running around (those on the RPF were not allowed to actually walk, you stood either still or you run and had to wear black clothes). It appeared that she had joined the ranks of this unit the RPF. Some week or so later she was back on post again. What had happened? There were some issues about that she had questioned the routine in the course room to clap and thank L. Ron Hubbard after each study period. She simply inquired what the reference was for doing so! (there does not exist such a reference by the way)  And indeed for a such wishy-washy reason one could end up on this RPF. Anyway she was returned to post rapidly as the statistics had crashed in the Staff College after that she had been send to this RPF. Instances as these may however not have been so common during the time that I was there, but I do recall this particular incident. Unwise RPF assignments apparently did occur. One could say that this confirms that “man cannot be trusted with justice.”. So then what called for or justified this RPF to actually come into existence?

 
A redemption unit that belonged to a ship is established onshore?

A qualified question to ask here is why the existence of such an outfit was re-established or prolonged after one had moved onto land? After all we were not at sea anymore where such a strict discipline would be deemed necessary. As a crew member you can not ignore if you for example see some water leaking into the vessel as it might sink and thus endanger everyone on the vessel. Why then are we bringing it into land? May be for fear of a possible tsunami hitting the beaches of Clearwater or something?

See, an obvious incongruity surfaces if you actively work on to establish a redemption unit, that was exclusively was meant for use on a ship at sea, when preparations were already ongoing to move the Flag Service Organization ashore! Preparations were ongoing at least since September 1973, and the RPF was established through this FO 3434 that was published in January 1974, which is 4 months later. Why would you establish such an outfit for use on land that belongs on a ship at sea?!

 
Referencing

(Includes:  Rocks and Shoals, Mud Box Brigade & Rehabilitation Unit)

Frequently 3 supposed forerunners of the RPF are being referred to at various places out on the Internet. Usually represented rather unfavourably. I give a detailed overview of each of these in the below. Noted are also any misconceptions that have arisen about them.

	Rocks and Shoals:

When L. Ron Hubbard founded the Sea Organization (Sea Org) on 12 Aug 1967 and went out to sea he adopted a variety of naval terms. In a Flag Order from 1967 he makes mention of Rocks and Shoals as follows: “in most Sea Organizations a list of penalties is called rocks and shoals and is read out to the crew at muster.”.  It also appears to be an old military naval term as we find them in ‘Articles for the Government of the United States Navy’ (ca 1930). Article 4 lists various motivations for punishment that may be inflicted on any person in the naval service. #10 of these says:

We can understand here the source of the term Rocks and Shoals and how it had come about as general naval rules.

In this Flag Order it simply used the expression to say: “The conditions are our rocks and shoals.”. Referred is to the conditions* related to ethics. This is all that it says.

Out on the Internet we then see this associated with as if the US Navy Rocks and Shoals (list of penalties) were in use like that on the Sea Organization vessel Apollo. It should be understood that ‘FO 87’, 2 Sept 67 “Titles of Address (Add Etiquette)” did not “established a list of ‘ethics conditions’ and penalties assigned to Sea Org members which was read aloud on the ship during muster”. Please note that it simply does not say that! FO 87 was about Titles of Address! Mind also the correct title of this FO 87, which is not “The Rocks and Shoals” as some people refer to it! It appears confused with the Rocks and Shoals that is claimed to have been established with FO 3434 RPF Series issued 7 years later during 1974-80.

“..., members of the RPF have found the simple use of running laps around their work site, or doing push-ups or sit-ups, to be an easy and effective means of maintaining discipline. This is their system of ‘Rocks and shoals’.”

This Flag Order then lists 15 misdemeanors such as “NONCOMPLIANCE”, “FALSE REPORT”, “MOVING SLOWLY, WALKING INSTEAD OF RUNNING”, “BACKFLASH”, “LATENESS”, etc. Each disciplined with either of the following:

	“ONE LAP:  This is about 1/8th of a mile (660 feet) in length and is run in a circular route.
	ONE LONG LAP:  This is between 1/8th and 1/4th of a mile (between 660 feet and 1320 feet) and is run in a circular route.
	ONE BIG LAP:  This is about 1/4th of a mile (1320 feet) and is run in a circular route.”

Please note that the penalty is just one lap for each violation.

“Minor corrections on the spot can be done with ten or more push-ups or sit-ups right then and there and back to work. Anything which fits into the categories above are handled with laps.”

The reference made to FO 87 in the second account is thus incorrect. It even got the title of the reference wrong. Penalties as described here above were not in use until 1976 with ‘FO 3434R-34’, 18 Aug 76 “RPF Rocks and Shoals”.

	Mud Box Brigade:

Mud Boxes are referred to as “those areas in the bilge which collect the mud out of the bilge water. Bilges means the inside bottom of the vessel where water collects.”  (from OODs* 29 Sept 71).

Persons who were caught “loafing on post and drifting with the wind” and “invisible on post, and really goofing up on one's job” were appointed to “clean mud boxes, fuel lines, water lines, bilges, etc.”  (from OODs 4 Jan 68 & ‘FO 1701’, 5 Jan 69 “Mud Box Brigade”).

This Brigade may be at times referred to as some sort of forerunner of the RPF, but is that justified? I don't actually find anything insensible in this Brigade. After all you were at sea, not ashore.

	Rehabilitation Unit:

“It absorbs the old mud box brigade which is cancelled. Those removed or comm eved* as ineffective or trouble are send to the Rehabilitation Unit via the examiner. The Examiner looks them over for outnesses in (1) case (2) ethics (3) training (Scientology and Sea Org ship training) (4) knowledge of policy. He then makes specific recommendations which if followed will rehabilitate the individual as a highly effective and worthwhile Sea Org member. The unit is worked hard during the day on a rigorous schedule on jobs assigned by the Review Chief handling corrective areas and jobs needing remedy and repair. The unit itself is thus made into an effective ship's review team. It works on a one job, one time, one place formula completing each job before moving into the next. Each individual thus earns the right to the remedial services he or she will receive.”

Here indeed we can find some resemblances with the infamous and later developed RPF. Still that does not make them the same or necessarily a forerunner. There is also one particular and explicit difference. We were at sea! These guidelines were developed for life on a ship. People's lives could be depending on if some safety rule was not attended to. After all you are out there on sea, a place where safety is an issue of the highest order. Being ashore is really quite a different matter. Therefore it should not be passed over and adopted to living on land.

The RPF should not be confused with DPF or EPF. They have a very different purpose.

“An objective of the DPF is to keep a recruit or non-producer out of vital FSO and FB* lines until he can pull his weight and is valuable. The main objective is to furnish valuable SO members to the SO.”   (from ‘FSO* 559’, 24 May 72 “Deck Project Force”) * FSO, Flag Service Org;  FB, Flag Bureaux;  SO, Sea Org;  * FSO, Flag Ship Order.

“At this point in Sea Org development, there are two categories of DPF members: new recruits and clinical. Clinical personnel include out-ethics cases, tiger types, persons who need extroverting from their environments, and the like. Not to put ethics in on these guys is very cruel indeed. Ethics is what is needed most; ethics and good 8-C*.” (from ‘FO 3126’, 20 Feb 72 “Shipkeeping Series No. 1 - Duties of the DPF MAA*”)

“People who are just coming into the org could also come in through an Estates Project Force. So there's an Estates Project Force. Category A are people who are just coming in and getting in their basics before you let them onto a post and then there's Category B; those who have had a chance and they're put back there until they're handled. Do not allow these Category B's back in on your lines before they are handled.”          LRH (from Establishment Officer lecture #4“Evaluation and Handling of Personnel, Part II”, given on 2 Mar 72)

“An Estates Project Force is established in lieu of a deck project force. Such persons do grounds and buildings maintenance at any of the SO properties under the direction of the Estate Manager and supervised by an EPF MAA as assigned by the LRH Comm.” (from ‘FO 3118R’, 4 Mar 72 “Continental Recruit Training”)

I recall from the late 80s that the AOSH EU located in Copenhagen, Denmark had its use and denomination a bit confused. They had an EPF for new Sea Org applicants, and they also had an RPF. But then they also had something they called a DPF, which was in their practice defined as a unit for persons that had failed to function properly as a staff member. For this reason it was figured they should be redoing the EPF. I would regard it as a gentle approach to redeem yourself as normally (per the rules) an assignment to the RPF would be the measure taken. Interesting is that the EPFers and the DPFers worked together in the same outfit. The EPFers ran the standard courses whereas the DPFers had an adjusted tailor-made study and hatting program they ran. At some point this use of DPF was discontinued as it was found that the references did not support it.

At the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Fl. they had in the same time period created an FRU which stands for Flag Readiness Unit. Basically this was an extension for the EPFers. Those persons that did not manage to finish the EPF study and hatting program within the expected time were send to the FRU. Although the rule of the game was that those persons that could not finish the EPF in the expected time frame (no longer than 6 weeks) were send away as they were simply not found qualified to be in the Sea Organization! They were so to say, ‘fitnessboarded out’. As it appeared, there was an unwillingness to send people away (there was a lack of sufficient staff at the time) and therefore the rules got stretched a bit... I have seen persons on the FRU for 6 months or longer. (FRU was referred to and pronounced as the ‘fru’, as in one word)

Authorship of FO 3434, was it L. Ron Hubbard?  (problems arising)

A frequent and for all blunt claim made is: “The RPF was concocted and ordered into existence by L. Ron Hubbard!”. Then, how true and verifiable is this claim really? Here there are some things to consider:

• Rumours, word of mouth, public relation, and ‘if you like what is told then you will adopt’...
• Conflicting circumstances: A “Code of Reform” (1968)
• All the gullible people that criticize Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard...  (a ‘conspiracy’)
• The 1997 re-release of the RPF series of issues were L.-Ron-Hubbard-ized...

 
Rumours, word of mouth, public relation, and ‘if you like what is told then you will adopt’...

Often you will get referred to this ‘Flag Order 3434’ (published 7 Jan 74), the reference that called into being this Rehabilitation Project Force, that it made reference to that the Commodore (=L. Ron Hubbard) had created the RPF. Indeed this Flag Order does say: “The RPF has been created by the Commodore so that redemption can occur.”. Although it is easy to print such a phrase, it fails however to explain when or how this would have occurred. The third revision of FO 3434 from 30 May 77 then makes mention that it was “Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE”, which is the notice that we find on this revision of this Flag Order. Approving something also automatically means that it is admitting that L. Ron Hubbard did not write it, which is a first interesting clue that we get.

Although there is the possibility that this notice may only affect this particular revision of this FO, common practice however, according to Mimeo(graph) printing rules, revisions replicate the information that was printed in the earlier versions. Then if it was revised re-released, information about the person who was responsible for revising was simply added in the signature area of the reference. Because of this we can sort of safely assume that also the original version would have said “Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE”, still this is confirming that he thus did not write it! So, then who wrote it? It is probably also proper to ask that if “the Commodore” had “created” it then why was someone else writing it? What specifications were relayed to the person writing the actual Flag Order?

I have not been able to personally consult earlier versions of the FO then this third revision. If you would have an original release, the ‘R’ or the ‘RA’ version of FO 3434, or any other documents and references relating to the RPF then please contact me!

Other claims that I find being made by persons out on the Internet are that
	►	“Hubbard assigned people to the RPF personally and arbitrarily, and was the only person who could arbitrarily remove people from the RPF.”. I am unable to get this actually confirmed by fact anywhere;
	►	Then we have “From 1967-1969 Sea Org members, at Hubbard's whim, were ordered to the ‘Mud Box Brigade’ or to the bilges of the ship.”. This can also not positively be confirmed by fact. There have been some people that had been on the ship and that have since made various claims that in turn did not get confirmed or were countered by other people that also had been on the ship;
	►	And there is a claim made in regards to ‘CMO* ED 411’, 29 Aug 79 “Re: Cadet Org” that is claimed to contain the ‘Hubbard’ quote: “Make it known to the children that any act of vandalism, theft or out-ethics or any crime committed by a child will be immediately followed by placing that child on the RPF under severe restrictions.”. Indeed that is quite a claim. CMO EDs however are not actually known to have been authored by L. Ron Hubbard! Did the CMO ED may be quote from L. Ron Hubbard, if so then what would be the source of that? These sources are not provided for and thus unconfirmed for their correctness nor authenticity.

We have had quite a few people making all sorts of claims during the years. Stories that, for the larger part, only can get confirmed by opinion.

 
Conflicting circumstances: A “Code of Reform” (1968)

The insurmountable problem with the RPF is that it just did not appear in the right time frame! This is because the approach towards and the application of ethics action or justice actions was dramatically changing. It was simply found that man could not be trusted with ethics or justice. It gets misapplied, it get misinterpreted, in the end harsh actions simply do not work and create instead a damaged public relation. It was among other the reason back in 1968 that a “Code of Reform Questionnaire” was send out.

“Code of REFORM
On August 1st 1968 Scientology organizations in the UK began mailing a Code of Reform Questionnaire. One million questionnaires were sent out containing 4 questions as follows:
(1)What reforms if any would you like effected in what you may have heard of or know of Scientology Organizations or policies?
(2)What changes in conduct or what conduct would you suggest to Scientologists?
(3)What services would you like Scientology to perform in the community?
(4)How could Scientology better fit in with the aims and purposes of your area of interest?
The response by the general public was intelligent and constructive. Some reforms have been implemented already.”
(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

Leading to:

“Policy Changes by Scientology Organizations
1968
Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.
Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
Cancellation of condition known as fair game.
Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down or otherwise recorded.”
(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

Now, for what logical reason are you then installing something like an outfit as the RPF? If you do that then was the lesson not learned?

	“The target of Ethics is any neglect of org boarding or hatting and training an activity.
	The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
	It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)

Surely you can say “Now wait-a-minute the RPF is about hatting, training and even auditing!” But how are you going to defend that about that “man cannot be trusted with justice”?

I ask again, the times they were a-changing in matters in regards to ethics and also justice. How does something like the RPF fit in here? Well, it just doesn't! Then why was it called into being just about three years later? Why do you take something this rough a routine, base it on disciplines that belong on a ship and move it onshore? Why would you do such a thing?

 
All the gullible people that criticize Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard...  (a ‘conspiracy’)

 
The 1997 re-release of the RPF series of issues were L.-Ron-Hubbard-ized...

It is rather noteworthy to observe how much effort is put in to make it appear as if the person L. Ron Hubbard created all of these things, wrote the issues and designed the outfit. The present Church of Scientology operates on the dogma that no other than L. Ron Hubbard has any authority. Only L. Ron Hubbard could do these things. To promote this concept they have been sifting through all references that were written by others, then they either cancelled them, or if the information contained in them was for some reason considered essential, they were rewritten making it appear as if L. Ron Hubbard had written them. Original writers or compilers were then in the signature area demoted to ‘assistant’. I describe this in great detail elsewhere on this website (see here, separate window).

Now, this 1997 release is to say it gently deceptive. See photographs here below:

[copyright notices are found at the bottom of the first page of this reference]

See it gives the impression as if originally released “10 June 1974”, we see no other date at the headings of this release. The problem is that this was never seen prior to 1997, which is the year indicated as when it was copyrighted. By the looks of it they are a fabrication forged by LRH Technical Research and Compilations. If it existed back in the days, then why was that not used for FO 3434, instead of having someone else writing their version? That just does not make very much sense!

It be noted that in the original series FO 3434 laid out the routine, its specifics, its reasons. In the re-release from 1997 this turned to be FO 3434RE-1. FO 3434RE now was used to give an overview of the references that appear in the new series which was signed with LRH Technical Research and Compilations and dated 8 May 97.

Here an example of how sloppy the re-attributing is done at times. See photographs here below:

It states that this motto “was originally issued as FO 3873”. It fails to list the date of the FO, however we know that FO 3863 was issued 10 Mar 84, and FO 3874 & 3875 were issued 19 Jan 85. Herewith we can safely date FO 3873 to have been issued late 1984 or Jan 1985.

We have a copy of FO 3434RB (its third revision) that is issued 30 May 77. We find that this exact motto is printed in there. Mind that this third revision is already predating FO 3873 with more than seven years! Now, FO 3434RE-3 is dated 7 Jan 74, and we find it is also copyrighted just for the year 1974, it says “created” in the photograph. We can thus safely assume the motto was included in the first original release of FO 3434.

Now why would you say that “This FO [the motto] was originally issued as FO 3873”, issued 1984-85? When it was already included in FO 3434, issued 7 Jan 74? Something that was actually known because of the date given to FO 3434RE-3 and its year of copyright. So might it have something to do with that FO 3873 was issued as if written by L. Ron Hubbard and the original FO 3434 was not? This is obviously a miss! A miss of more than 10 years...

 
Ken Urquhart (1), the creator of the RPF?  (an awkward situation)

Ken Urquhart at the Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara, California in 1984

In 1957 he was invited by a friend of the family to come to London where he started to first practice Scientology processes. He was very appreciative towards this and during the years following he did a lot of basic training and received some auditing. He wanted to be an auditor but was not accepted for professional training because of a low result he had on the OCA test.
In 1963 he was asked to fullfil the function of butler (‘Household Officer’ in charge of domestic arrangements) of L. Ron Hubbard, which he accepted.
By 1965 he requested to move up the ranks to an executive position in the organization at Saint-Hill. Since then he held various functions, mostly though LRH Comm at Saint Hill and World Wide*.
During 1968-78 he held the position of LRH Personal Communicator.

	“‘LRH Personal Communicator’. This person coordinates communications from all sources to LRH. The LRH Pers Comm has full control of the Household Unit and LRH Personal Pro and all equipment, vehicles, gear, material and spaces. Thus the hat breaks down into five functions: (1) coordinating and rerouting traffic so it will be handled, (2) logging, nudging and keeping track of LRH projects, (3) library and filing, (4) keeping Household Unit matters up to the mark and the personnel busy and accounted for, (5) setting up schedules and events and getting things coordinated for them.”
	(from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976), page 313)

In regards to above description one may have to wonder how much of a promotion it is to go from ‘Household Officer’ to ‘LRH Personal Communicator’?

“The RPF came into existence while he was in his cabin after the accident [late ’73 L. Ron Hubbard had a motor cycle accident]. A guy called Gary Watson, who was the port captain, sent in some kind of programme of action to the Commodore and the Commodore set up a unit to take care of rebellious people or those not fitting in. I set up the RPF but it became very much different from what I envisaged - which was a place where you could be removed from the stress and strains of bureaucracy, with some physical work every day to take their attention off themselves and in the other half of day they could audit each other on problems they had.”   (from Transcript of interview with Ken Urquhart, McLean, Virginia, Apr/May 86)

It would be justified to make an annotation where he says “I set up the RPF but it became very much different from what I envisaged”. It is contradictive as when one goes through the actual regulations for the RPF as found in FO 3434, that appear pretty rough and restrictive, then what do you actually expect to happen? If you would have some foresight it would be fairly easy to envision what people would turn it into! Ken Urquhart was listed as a trained auditor (Class IX auditor), this raises the question if he somehow had not yet understood how the mind of man works! The things that man is capable of doing, how easily he sways, gets manipulated and gives matters a blind eye for things gone wrong? I would find that the comment of Ken Urquhart is rather ignorant in this respect. It was bound to get out of control.

A few notices relating to composer initials as they appear on FO 3434

Another annotation can be made there it says in FO 3434RB: “These policies and regulations may only be put aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of LRH Pers Comm*.”. The LRH Pers Comm was Ken Urquhart. It appears that he then could work on this wholly on his own authority without needing Commodore interference or approval of anyone.
It is noted that this FO 3434RB revision does indicate as if it would be “Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, COMMODORE”. Ken Urquhart on the other hand, at least in this revision, is not even indicated by his name in the signature area. We only find him in the composer initials that are listed at the bottom of the Flag Order as ‘KU’. Now the rule has always been that if you put such composer initials in references, that you also mention the person by name or at least what his post title would be. Technically because of this the Mimeo(graph) section should not have approved it and it should accordingly have been send back to the originator to have them correct this and then reapply for printing.

Coincidentally Ken Urquhart was also identified as one of the three persons present when L. Ron Hubbard 'supposedly' boarded a plane on December 4, 1972 and then mysteriously disappeared till mid-September 1973, where a very changed person was re-emerging.

Ken Urquhart does admit that he had accompanied L. Ron Hubbard to the airport. Present were also two other persons that travelled with L. Ron Hubbard and stayed with him during that time span. There were Jim Dincalci, a Flag Medical Officer and Paul Preston, a steward and body guard.

There were only three witnesses to this event, and it is particularly noteworthy because the L. Ron Hubbard that returned after these 9½ months was a very changed man.

The circumstances are to say the least suspect. This also in regards to that Ken Urquhart over time has been changing his perceptions of the happenings, the nature of the changes in his narrative has been making him suspect.

We have the original reference which was FO 3434. Then we had a whole array of references specifying various matters of this RPF that were published at a later date. These all appeared with a dash following a number, it goes FO 3434-1, FO 3434-2, and so on. There were 56 of them in the original series and some of the dashes had further dashes, for example FO 3434-22RC-1R.

These additional guidelines were written, at least the bulk of them, by a variety of persons that for the most part were running the RPF outfit (RPF I/C). They had been making various observations, and they were implementing various specifications that were facilitating them in running the outfit smoothly. Neither of these were written or showed any involvement of either L. Ron Hubbard or Ken Urquhart. I went through the lot of them one time at the Mimeo(graph) section located at the Flag Land Base, Clearwater, Fl. They had most of them in their filing cabinets.

A mention also has to be made here that various of these issues could make reference to so-called LRH advices. In the original series they appear not specifed in where they came from and are lacking a date. LRH advices could be anything like telex messages, despatches, some notes scribbled on some piece of paper and so on. None of these carry any particular authority as such and are very hard indeed to authenticate, they are a hidden source so to say, nonetheless they have been gathered and are implemented in among other these RPF series.

RPF working conditions

	“SCHEDULE
	The schedule for the RPF is to be worked out in detail by the RPF MAA around 7 hours sleep, 5 hours study or auditing, 30 minutes for each meal, 30 minutes for personal hygiene, per day.” (from ‘FO 3434RB’, 7 Jan 74 (Re-Revised 30 May 77) “The Rehabilitation Project Force”)

It would appear though that conditions indeed are very strict at the PAC base and Scientology International (located in Los Angeles). They appear much lesser strict at for example Flag, and in Europe the conditions appear quite livable and reasonable. At Flag one still saw the RPFers running, at AOSH EU* in Copenhagen I actually could see them walking from time to time. With other words, the further you get away from the headquarters of the Scientology organization the less strict the rules appear abided to.

Summary RPF rules, walking not allowed...

This not walking we find phrased as follows in the later released 1997 RPF Series. “Must move quickly and run on the decks on Sea Org bases. ... Shuffling, half running and walking have no part in this. The RPF must be snap-and-pop in all its actions (which includes running) ... .”  (from ‘FO 3434RE-23R’, 27 Mar 75 (Revised 2 Jul 98) “RPF—Rights and Restrictions”)

The CESNUR study

Most affirmatively we can conclude that “man cannot be trusted with justice.”. We should have learned this datum already from tracking the walk of man throughout history. Considering the subject matter and the aims of Scientology would it have been probable that L. Ron Hubbard would have set forth and created such an outfit as the RPF and have it onshore? Whatever for? It was simply destined to get misused!

This article is just an effort trying to establish what happened and that which can be confirmed. Recorded is what is found. It is not written to excuse L. Ron Hubbard.

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.
     8-C:
‘Routine 8-Control’.  1. Essentially and intimately the operation of making the physical body contact the environment. (5410CM08)  2. Name of a process. Also used to mean good control. (HCOB 23 Aug 65)
     AOSH EU:
‘Advanced Organization Saint Hill Europe’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located in Copenhagen, Denmark.
     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.
     CMO:
‘Commodore Messenger Organization’. A senior entity within the Sea Organization of the Church of Scientology.
     condition (ethics):
In Scn the term also means the ethics conditions (confusion, treason, enemy, doubt, liability, non-existence, danger, emergency, normal, affluence, power change or power). The state or condition of any person, group or activity can be plotted on this scale of conditions which shows the degree of success or survival of that person, group or activity at any time. Data on the application of these conditions is contained in the ethics policies and tapes of Scn. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)
     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)
     FB:
‘Flag Bureaux’.  1. The Flag Bureaux manages orgs. It does not just execute orders of others but initiates orders based on evaluation that directs orgs, handles situations and ensures continued growth. (CBO 435-3R)  2. The international management body of the SO with additional advisor and management activities. (HCO PL 9 Mar 72 1)  3. The external org taking care of the international and SO orgs over the world and planetary actions. (OODs 8 May 72)
     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.
     FSO:
‘Flag Service Organization’. Senior Scientology service organization located at Flag in Clearwater, Fl. Here the highest Scientology services are being delivered.
    HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH Pers Comm:
‘LRH Personal Communicator’. This person coordinates communications from all sources to LRH. The LRH Pers Comm has full control of the Household Unit and LRH Personal Pro and all equipment, vehicles, gear, material and spaces. Thus the hat breaks down into five functions: (1) coordinating and rerouting traffic so it will be handled, (2) logging, nudging and keeping track of LRH projects, (3) library and filing, (4) keeping Household Unit matters up to the mark and the personnel busy and accounted for, (5) setting up schedules and events and getting things coordinated for them.
     MAA:
‘Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     ‘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.
     OCA, APA:
‘Oxford Capacity Analysis’. The OCA (Oxford Capacity Analysis) is the English version of the American Personality Analysis (APA). The OCA (or APA) consists of 200 questions. These 200 questions are divided up into series of 20 questions, each of which measures a single personality trait. Thus ten traits are measured in all. (HCO PL 3 Nov 70 II)
     OODs:
‘Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.
     overt product:
These are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves-such as inedible biscuits or a “repair” that is just further breakage. (HCOB 10 May 72)
     PAC (base):
‘Pacific Area Command (base)’. The former Cedars of Lebanon Hospital complex, a Hollywood landmark, will now serve as the Church's national seminary headquarters housing ASHO, AOLA (Advance Organization), Publications Organization, Los Angeles Class IV Organization, Guardian's Office, and Flag Operations Liaison Office. (from The Auditor 133, US Edition)  May at times also be referred to as the Cedars Complex.
     R/S:
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Rock Slam (R/S):
1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials, p. 17).  2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
  Rock Slammer:  It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04)
     Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
     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)