Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology (1)  or      How ‘Confessionals’ were regarded as the years passed by (‘Sec-Checking’ 1959-77: Beginnings, abolishment and Integrity Processing)

(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.

	“1.	We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no use for them.
	2.	Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the person feels better and so became overrun.
	3.	Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person's case.
	4.	Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the ‘security’ furnished is often a false security.”
	L. Ron Hubbard
	(from HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”)

Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology  (page 1, index page)

A complete overview of all the phases of so-called Sec Checking as developed, practiced, used and ordained within the Church of Scientology.

 
Index:

		Introduction (page 1)          - ‘Security Checking’ and ‘Confessionals’, their differences explained and misuse - Technical specifics
	Pre-studies and findings
		1959/62:	Boundaries of the overt-withhold mechanism identified & prelude
				(Includes: HCO PL 22 May 61 “The Only Valid Security Check”)
	Security Checking abolished
		1968:	“Security Checks Abolished”  (Aug 68)
		1970:	“HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’”; “HCO may only do meter checks.”  (Nov 70)
		1972:	Development of Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn or XDN)  (Mar-Apr 72)
	Matters are getting reversed
		1972:	Implementation of Integrity Processing Series & Forms  (Dec 72)        - ‘Integrity Processing’ versus ‘Sec Checking’ - A rather arguable accredited authorship... - Integrity Processing Series & Forms (Dec 72) - Reissue of Integrity Processing Series (May 75)          (Includes:  Some inconsistent historical claims  &  Who was responsible for Integrity Processing?)   - Correction Lists (Mar 72)  vs  Integrity Processing Lists (Dec 72) - Final notices
		1974:	“HCO does do Meter Checks. HCO may also need to ask questions”; Officially reinstating Sec Checking & 1968 HCO PL cancelled  (Sept 74)
		1977:	“‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure”  (Jan 77)
	The David Mayo episode (Sr. C/S Int. 1978-82)
		1980/81:	Establishment of the Happiness Rundown (HRD)  (Nov 80-Mar 81) (page 2)
		1982:	A package of changes - Brief overview and authorship  (6-10 Mar 82)
		1):	“Anyone who refuses a Confessional ... should be turned over to the Ethics Officer”  (6 Mar 82)
		2):	“Confessionals Included in Expanded Grade 2 Processes”  (7 Mar 82)
		3):	“SHSBC checksheet has been revised to require that SHSBC students give and receive a successful Confessional”  (8 Mar 82)
		4):	“No-Interference Area” outruled?  (8 Mar 82)        - Interfering with the ‘No-Interference Area’, gradiently extending its actions as the years went by before finally settling itself (Mar 82 - Apr 83 - Oct 83 - Mar 84 - Jul 85 - Aug 90) - The transitions of HCOB 23 Dec 71 “The No-Interference Area” (publication history) - ‘New OT VII’ and the ‘6 month check line’ (since 1982)
		5):	“Confessional” required for “Eligibility for OT Levels”  (9 Mar 82)
		6):	“Confessionals - Ethics Reports Required”  (10 Mar 82)
	A matter of ‘confidentiality’
		1984 1):	Written confessionals (O/W write-ups) send to person's auditing folder  (Mar 84)
		2):	Establishment of False Purpose Rundown (FPRD)  (Jun 84)        - First mention of FPRD & introduction  (includes notes on ‘Expanded Dianetics’) - ‘Senior Security Checker’ versus ‘FPRD’ - Further annotations on the FPRD & studies
		1985:	“Overts disclosed in ... Confessional ... are ... subject of Knowledge Report to HCO and are actionable on the person.” & “Evidence of a crime...” (“gotten off in routine auditing”) “...knowingly withheld by a pc until he is in session is actionable by HCO.”  (Jan 85)        (A thin line between that which is revealed in auditing sessions and may turn actionable on the person is getting thinner and thinner)
	Epilogue
		Reflections          - Finding the criminal vs Case benefit for the individual - Publication history of HCOB/PL 30 Jul 70 “The Tech and Ethics of Confessionals” - A satire

Introduction

• ‘Security Checking’ and ‘Confessionals’, their differences explained and misuse
• Technical specifics

 
‘Security Checking’ and ‘Confessionals’, their differences explained and misuse

This is another of these matters that have been given a rather negative media presentation of Scientology overall. It is this thing referred to as Security Checking (usually shortened to Sec Checking). It is a term that we recognize from for example in regards to safety precautions that are taken in various companies. These companies of course want to protect their products that may have cost a lot of money to research. These companies then also would usually require you to sign an agreement in where you promise to not reveal company secrets and more such things. If you do violate that it then may result in you being sued by that company. This however is not really what Security Checking within the Church of Scientology was about.

The purpose for the information found in this study is simply to fold out what the original outset was, and more interestingly, what it, through time, turned to be. One should mind here that the term Security Checking actually implicates something done for security reasons. As opposed to the term Confessionals that would have been intended for case benefit of the person. So essentially Security Checking and Confessionals although they use the same auditing technique they have a distinctly different purpose. However one will find in this chronology that each of these terms tend to being used interchangeably at will! I have found that one within the organization may refer to Confessionals when in actual fact it's outcome is used for security reasons, someone intends to find something that can be used against you.
An important difference between the terms is also that information gotten from a Confessional is classified information and may not leave the folder it is kept in. On the other hand Security Checking is commonly done by order of the Ethics Division of the organization, and the information gotten will be send to that unit and they may use it against the person. It is unfortunate that at present the use of the terms are seriously confused within the organization! In the church history we see the expression ‘Security Checking’ getting changed to ‘Confessional’ (1970), then to ‘Integrity Processing’ (1972) only to have it later changed again to ‘Confessional’ (1977). Then we see that, as an example, that BPL 9 Feb 77R “The Handling of Confessionals Course Checksheet” was replaced with HCO PL 16 Jun 84 I “Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course” (underlining is mine). If you switch it around like this then in the final end it just gets rather hard to distinguish what the difference in purpose and area of use would be. This would thus indicate that there is an incorrect use of these terms themselves. Which is interesting, as this way it can also be misused so very easily.

 
Technical specifics

The matter of getting off overts and withholds for the case benefit, in regards to the Grade Chart*, would have been dealt with in Grade II, incidentally Grade IV. If this wouldn't have done the trick it would have been addressed with the conditional action Expanded Dianetics which was developed during March/April 1972. Nonetheless we see the appearance in December of that year that on a grand scale starts with that which is called for Integrity Processing, which was later (in May 1975) claimed to have been a “new technology”. In regards to processing for the case benefit however this would have been a thus apparent superfluous cause of action. Interesting it gets in January 1977 when we are informed regarding that: “In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name ‘Security Checking’ was changed to ‘Integrity Processing.’. Here it is thus admitted (just 2 years later) that it was not a “new technology” after all! Which basically admits that the term Integrity Processing was an actual misnomer. But then Security Checking had been cancelled previously by HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”. There was thus here an apparent violation of this policy ongoing!

One can further observe in this chronological overview that as soon as matters were going in a reverse direction that the liberties assumed by the organization and HCO were getting more and more restricted and demanding as the years passed by. The actions permitted were stepping up by a gradient, and everything went into the direction of more and more control, and less freedom for the Scientology parishioner.

“F 1, FLOW ONE, something happening to self.   F 2, FLOW TWO, doing something to another.   F 3, FLOW THREE, others doing things to others.   F 0, FLOW ZERO, self doing something to self.”          LRH (from HCOB 4 Apr 71 “Use of Quad Dianetics”)

Focusing on just this one flow could have the consequence that not all mental charge on incidents that have been contacted is gotten rid of or run out. Which in turn increases the potentiality that the person gets an overrun, or cultivates by-passed charge, and thus will get upset. You may after all just be running the wrong flow. This is a problem with the in 1984 released False Purpose Rundown (FPRD). It just runs this one flow. This FPRD as well had been promoted as a “incredible technical breakthrough!”, which is thus a serious misnomer, technically it was thus rather a downgrade (it was extracted from Expanded Dianetics (XDN) that runs all the flows). (see for details chapter on FPRD)

Another vital technical aspect would be the running of an Earlier Similar*. The typical procedure of Sec Checking would for, as it says, Security Checking. In essence it is just not interested in case gain, someone just tries to find out something about you. What you have been up to, and that is not deemed permitted for some reason at some place at some time. Earlier Similars is all about case gain. You need to run these as otherwise the person will still be stuck in some restimulation as the mental charge in an earlier similar incident has not been released.

1959/62: Boundaries of the overt-withhold mechanism identified & prelude
(Includes:  HCO PL 22 May 61 “The Only Valid Security Check”)

	“Before I would permit you to believe that the overt-withhold mechanism was a total way of life, I would point out that it applies only to a strata of existence and that it stems from failures to help. ...
	The reason we run O-Ws is that most pcs are on O-W by Transfer, which is to say, when they kick George in the head they get a headache themselves. This makes them think they are George. We use O-W since it explains phenomena found at a low humanoid level.”          LRH (from HCOB 22 Dec 60 “O-W a Limited Theory”)

HCO PL 22 May 61 “The Only Valid Security Check”

This was written by L. Ron Hubbard. It “(Amends all existing data on Security Checks)”.

It directed: “Since a Security Check failure can compromise or injure a person's position or economics, and because we are not moralists, it is better to be more positive on the subject of a Security Check failure, leaving no part of it up to judgment.”.

It established a variety of restrictions in what for evaluations or what for conclusions can be drawn from the process.

Then a listing was following it with about 90 questions. The status quo for 1961. It is the format that is often referred to as ‘The Joburg’ or Johannesburg Confessional List (HCO PL 7 Apr 61).

1968: “Security Checks Abolished”  (Aug 68)

	“1.	We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no use for them.
	2.	Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the person feels better and so became overrun.
	3.	Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person's case.
	4.	Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the ‘security’ furnished is often a false security.
	5.	There is public criticism of security checking as a practice.
	6.	The existence of lists of crimes in folders often makes it necessary to destroy the folders which may contain other technical data which is constructive and valuable.
	7.	If a person is a criminal or has overt acts which affect his case, and speaks of them to an auditor of his own volition, the auditor is bound by the Auditor's Code not to publish, use or reveal them.”          LRH

This is not actually to be taken very lightly. It would propose the idea and concept that “standard grade processing or rudiments*” would actually be sufficient. And why wouldn't it?

* rudiments (ruds):  1. Setting the case up for the session action. This includes ARC (communication) breaks, PTPs (Present Time Problems), W/Hs (Withholds), GF (Green Form) or O/R (Overrun) listing or any prepared list. ((HCOB 23 Aug 71)  2. The reason you use and clean rudiments is to get the preclear in session so you can have the preclear (1) in communication with the auditor and (2) interested in his own case. The purpose of rudiments is to set up a case to run, not to run a case. (HCOB 19 May 61)

1970: “HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’”;
“HCO may only do meter checks.”  (Nov 70)

	“HCOs may not do Confessionals or ‘Sec Checks.’
	HCO may only do Meter Checks. This consists of putting the pc on a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc.”          LRH

“An R/S* still means crimes. All the other data is true and should be known but POLYGRAPHS, LIE DETECTORS, METERS ONLY REGISTER AT THE REALITY LEVEL OF THE BEING, and the reality level of a criminal is too bad for reads to occur in a majority of cases. Thus the guilty are falsely freed and the innocent are subjected to annoyance and upset.”          LRH

* R/S: Rock Slam.  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)

“4.

Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the ‘security’ furnished is often a false security.”          LRH

This is a conditional action and it was all for the benefit of the person. We thus can't call this for Sec Checking, it basically goes deeper into a person's case to address and handle that which the Scientology Grades failed to satisfactorily relieve in a person. It could be a recommended action by the C/S, but it could also be requested by the person.

The principles of this were later used as a base for the False Purpose Rundown (FPRD) that was released in 1984. There are however some specific differences. This FPRD could easily be seen as a quickie action as it didn't use the full arsenal of tools provided for by Expanded Dianetics. I address this in chapter “1984 2):” in this chronology.

Various further information about Expanded Dianetics can be found here (separate window).

1972: Implementation of Integrity Processing Series & Forms  (Dec 72)

• ‘Integrity Processing’ versus ‘Sec Checking’
• A rather arguable accredited authorship...
• Integrity Processing Series & Forms (Dec 72)
• Reissue of Integrity Processing Series (May 75)
          (Includes:  Some inconsistent historical claims  &  Who was responsible for Integrity Processing?)
• Correction Lists (Mar 72)  vs  Integrity Processing Lists (Dec 72)
• Final notices

 
‘Integrity Processing’ versus ‘Sec Checking’

 
A rather arguable accredited authorship...

 
Integrity Processing Series & Forms (Dec 72)

 
Reissue of Integrity Processing Series (May 75)
(Includes:  Some inconsistent historical claims  &  Who was responsible for Integrity Processing?)

	“DEVELOPMENT
	In the early ’60s LRH developed the technology known as Sec Checking. As issued it was used for two purposes: as a general processing tool to clean up a pc's overts and withholds and as a security tool to detect out-ethics persons and security risks.
	In 1970 this technology was refined and issued under the name of Confessionals.
	In 1972 a complete update was done of basic O/W tech and the earlier procedures of Sec Checking and Confessionals. A new technology emerged—Integrity Processing.
	Recently Integrity Processing has been reviewed as to its workability and most optimum usage by LRH and certain revisions have been made.”

I find no data that in 1970 or thereabouts “this technology” would have been “refined”. There are no references from L. Ron Hubbard nor others about these matters in this time period in this regard. Quite the contrary in fact as we do have this reference from L. Ron Hubbard issued that year that actually limited the use of confessionals rather considerably. This is HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”, which basically is abolishing confessionals to be done by HCO. The advice given is “HCOs should learn Investigatory procedures”  LRH.

This 1972 “update” had no involvement of L. Ron Hubbard that could be confirmed, and this is not stated in this reference either. Thus this “Integrity Processing” appears, per the indicators and the data at hand, to have come about, to have been worked out and pushed entirely by others.

It is claimed that “Integrity Processing” was a “new technology” which is a serious misnomer! This is rather clearly confirmed by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that says: “There should be no further confusion in this matter. ‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.”.

The line “Recently Integrity Processing has been reviewed” must be referring to the time that this BTB was issued as this paragraph was newly added in this revision, thus May 1975. The bulk of the references in these series appear to have been revised on 13 May 1975. Here the BTB does make the claim that this was done “by LRH” in regards “to its workability and most optimum usage”, I was however unable to find anything that would confirm any involvement of the person L. Ron Hubbard for this later reissue in May 1975.

 
Correction Lists (Mar 72)  vs  Integrity Processing Lists (Dec 72)

Correction Lists are of an expertise nature (your skill in regards to applying the procedures correctly), whereas Integrity Lists are of a personal nature. These are not the same.

Only the 2nd one appears to have been an LRH original. The release history of each of the above can be consulted here (pop-up window).

In essence what reason was there to put together such Integrity Lists if there were already Correction Lists available? One has to consider that a so-called auditor is as said placed above his reactive mind*. If you use cramming* for correction his skill will show result, this would be in total disregard of his personal problems or own case. This is what I always used to hear, then in regards to this, why do we have Integrity Progressing Lists and why the excessive use and attention on Integrity Processing/Confessional Lists?

 
Final notices

The bulk of the references that we find in the Integrity Processing Series & Forms appear to have been compiled or written by ‘Brian Livingston’. Where it has to be commented here that various later BTB reissues from the mid-’70s either removed his name and turned it to just mention of the composer initials ‘BL’, or his name and initials disappeared all together. The question is why. In 1983 then we find him listed in ‘SO ED 2192 Int’, 27 Jan 83 “List of Declared Suppressive Persons”, that lists 607 names who were declared during late 1982 and early 1983, we also find a ‘Vicki Livingston’. We also find him (but not Vicki) listed in ‘Flag ED 2830’, 10 Sept 91 “Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups List”. Well, it means that he was not in so-called good standing anymore with the official Church of Scientology for whatever reason.

Security Checking as such had been abolished in 1968. Why then do we see an upsurge of Confessional auditing procedures during Dec 72-Jun 76? What justified it? Why was it done on the sly? (calling it something else) Why does it coincide with the exact time that L. Ron Hubbard boarded a plane and was not to be seen or heard from for about 10 months? These are obvious and logical questions to ask. There are simply no LRH references that condoned or asked for such a reinstatement since December 1972. After all HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished” did not even get cancelled until a whole 2 years later in HCO PL 13 Nov 74 “HCO May Do Confessional Lists”.

1974: “HCO does do Meter Checks. HCO may also need to ask questions”;
Officially reinstating Sec Checking & 1968 HCO PL cancelled  (Sept 74)

“HCO may only do meter checks. This consists of putting the pc on a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc.”          LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70 “Confessionals”)

“HCO does do Meter Checks. When meter checking the public or a large group of staff this consists of putting the pc on a meter and noting down the TA, state of needle and attitude of pc. When meter checking a small number of staff on a specific investigation HCO may also need to ask questions to get data on Crimes or Whos or specific events.” (from HCO PL 15 Nov 70R (Revised 21 Sept 74) “HCO and Confessionals”)

An interesting additional side note is that the original version and title of this HCO PL were restored at a later date. As such it was included in ‘The Organization Executive Course’, see ‘Volume 1, 4 & 5’ (1991 release). It must have been restored somewhere between 1980-91. This however was not the end of this merry-go-round. This HCO PL 15 Nov 70R (Revised 21 Sept 74) “HCO and Confessional” got reverted back once again on 16 July 1998. The revision notices on that said: “It was ... revised in 1974 at LRH's directions to include specific data on HCO Meter Checks. This revision was incorrectly cancelled by another with the data on meter checks deleted.”. Annotations on this: (1) the original 21 September 1974 revision said nothing about “LRH's directions” and indicated no other person that would have revised it using these directions; (2) the focus in these revision notices are put on that “data on meter checks”, the real issue is in fact that it allowed HCO to do more than just meter checks, i.e. “may also need to ask questions”.

Anyone have a copy for me of HCO PL 15 Nov 70(R) “Confessionals” (reissued and restored between Sept 74 and 1991), then please contact me!

	“The right to do Integrity checks is given to HCO.
	Any data, HCOBs, tapes relating to ‘security checking’ or ‘Integrity Processing’ may be done by HCO.
	The practice of doing only meter checks is no longer required.”

	“THE MAJORITY OF THE TROUBLES ORGS HAVE, TEND TO VANISH, WHEN HCO DEPT 3 USES CONFESSIONALS AND INTEGRITY LISTS CORRECTLY AND OFTEN WHENEVER TROUBLE MOUNTS UP IN THE ORG. ...
	When such checks went out, HCOs tended to disappear.
	So the tech and use of checks are vital.”

It was thus deemed that “doing only meter checks” was not being sufficient. Mind that in the above here then is referred to actual Sec Checks.

	“No meter or Sec Check or Confessional is sufficiently valuable to use in detection of crime. The state of the meter itself is of value since it tells one whom to investigate.
	Thus neither Tech nor Qual should assist investigations but should work on the case against proper C/Ses to get off the overts and withholds for the case benefit.”          LRH

“HCOs should learn Investigatory procedures when looking for criminals. Confessionals and Sec Checks will fail them and they also mess up cases. Investigatory procedures are quite good enough.”          LRH

But this too was to be reversed years later in 1985. See in chapter “1985:” in this chronology).

Various interesting clarifying notices are found in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”:

	“E: SEC CHECKING AND INTEGRITY PROCESSING
	Sec Checking means, unfortunately, ‘Security Checking.’ That it was so misnamed in its origins obscures the fact that Confessionals have been part and parcel of religion nearly as long as religion has existed. ...
	In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name ‘Security Checking’ was changed to ‘Integrity Processing.’ This was also a PR error because the actual truth of the matter is it originated as ‘Confessional’ and should have simply been changed back to ‘handling of confessions.’ ...
	There should be no further confusion in this matter. ‘Sec Checking,’ ‘Integrity Processing’ and ‘Confessionals’ are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.
	The materials when all recollected and consolidated and reissued will be under the title of ‘Confessionals.’ But even before that reaches you, you had better determine to become an expert in it, since an auditor's inability to handle this is a fast route to ‘how to win enemies and wrongly influence people.’”

Most interesting here in paragraph 2 is that it refers to a “PR error”. Thus saying that Sec Checking should have continued to be referred to as Sec Checking back in 1972. Mind however that previously in 1968 Sec Checking got actually ABOLISHED for various clearly circumscribed reasons that were listed in HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”. Basically HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” tells us here that the previously given justifications and reasons were not true!

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.
     ASHO:
‘American Saint Hill Organization’. A higher level Scientology organization residing in Los Angeles.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     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)
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     Earlier Similar (E/S):
Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from rudiments or a prepared list it must be carried to an F/N. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn't F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning. (HCOB 14 Mar 71R)
     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)
     Expanded Dianetics (Ex Dn, XDN):
(1) “its results are freedom from cruel impulses and chronic unwanted conditions and ability to act in an optimum manner without restraint.”;  (2) about the course: “Trains a person to understand and handle irrational behavior in others and chronic unwanted conditions.” (What Is Scientology? (1978), p 10 & 12)
     FPRD:
‘False Purpose Rundown’. A specific auditing action aiming at disclosing hidden ‘false purposes’ of which the person him or herself is not aware of, but is undermining this person's own survival in various ways. The FPRD is basically an extension of Expanded Dianetics.
     Grade Chart or Gradation Chart:
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO)
     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).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     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-withhold mechanism:
‘overt-motivator sequence’:  1. If a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. (Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress, Lecture #2, 6012C31)  2. The sequence wherein someone who has committed an overt has to claim the existence of motivators, the motivators are then likely to be used to justify further overt acts. (The Phoenix Lectures glossary)
     O/W:
Short for ‘Overt/Withhold’. See at ‘overt-withhold mechanism’ in vocabulary.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     PR:
Short for ‘Public Relations’.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     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)
     R/S:
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
     SO ED:
‘Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     ‘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).
     Withholds, W/Hs:
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (from Marriage Hats booklet)
     XDN or Ex Dn:
Short for ‘Expanded Dianetics’.  See at that entry in vocabulary.