Seattle Ethics Orders Project |
 |
Exposing Suppression in Seattle
How To Disconnect |
 |
Since it seems like we’re getting more and more notices to disconnect from someone, we thought it would be good to consult LRH to find the written policies. We’ve included some useful references below, hopefully you will find them helpful when deciding whether or not to disconnect from someone.
HCO PL 27 March 1965
“The Justice of Scientology, Its Use and Purpose, Being a Scientologist”
If a person is to keep the law, he or she must know what the law is. And must be protected from viciousness and caprice in the name of the law. If a person doesn’t keep the law, knowing well what it is, he or she hurts all of us and should be handled.
Whether you think the person in question is an SP or not, it is certainly your right to disconnect from anyone you feel you need to, per the reference below:
HCOB 10 Sept 1983
“PTSness and Disconnection”
THEORY
Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the right to communicate. Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate.
Communication, however, is a two-way flow. If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the right to not receive communication from another. It is this latter corollary of the right to communicate that gives us our right to privacy.
But if you are asked to disconnect from someone that you don’t want to disconnect from, you should certainly query it. There is no requirement that we disconnect from anyone unless they have actually been declared to be an SP by HCO. If you “hear” about someone being declared or in “bad standing” you should apply the verbal tech checklist, especially points 1-3:
HCOB 9 Feb 1979R, Issue II, revised 23 Aug 1984
“How to Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist”
1. If it isn’t written it isn’t true.
2. If it’s written, read it.
3. Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?
4. If you can’t understand it, clarify it.
5. If you can’t clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.
6. If the Mis-Us won’t clear, query it.
7. Has it been altered from the original?
8. Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.
9. IF IT CAN’T BE RUN THROUGH AS ABOVE IT’S FALSE! CANCEL IT! And use HCOB 7 Aug 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING, as needed.
10. Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.
L. Ron Hubbard
Founder
On point #8 above, be sure to compare the written ethics order with HCO PL 2 June 1965, Issue I “Writing of an Ethics Order” (long excerpt included below) to be sure it is standard. If you don’t believe it is standard it should be queried per HCO PL 15 Dec 1969, “Orders, Query of”.
If it turns out that your friend or family member has validly been declared an SP then the penalty for remaining connected to them is to be suspended from auditing and training while you handle the situation:
HCO PL 20 Oct 1981R, Rev 10 Sept 1983
“PTS Type A Handling”
The person who is PTS should be declared as such by Ethics and should not receive Scientology training or processing until the situation has been handled.
However, you should work with a trained ethics officer who should coach you through the standard handling described by LRH:
HCOB 10 Sept 1983
“PTSness and Disconnection”
HANDLE OR DISCONNECT
In the HCOBs on PTS tech you’ll see the phrase “handle or disconnect.” It means simply that.
The term “handle” most commonly means, when used in relation to PTS tech, to smooth out a situation with another person by applying the tech of communication.
The term “disconnection” is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line.
Although it is true that continuing to be connected to an SP would eventually be considered a High Crime, there is no urgency required in disconnection as each High Crime described below allows the PTS person unspecified time to apply a standard handling (i.e., applying the tech of communication) before disconnecting:
HCO PL 23 Dec 1965RB, Rev 8 Jan 1991
“Suppressive Acts; Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS
Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group by HCO.
Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts.
Any PTS who fails to handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a suppressive act.
Also, an SP declare based on one of the above charges is subject to the justice process and would be based upon the Findings and Recommendations of a properly convened Committee of Evidence.
HCO PL 29 April 1965, Issue III “Ethics Review”
Potential Trouble Sources
Staff members found to be potential trouble sources are handled like any other potential trouble source—but, unless Provisional or Temporary, may not be affected by this in their staff post.
They are of course denied auditing or training until they handle or disconnect but this may not also suspend, transfer or dismiss them (unless of Provisional or Temporary status.)
This ethics action (the potential trouble source) is in lieu of any discipline, and disciplinary actions that go beyond temporary suspension of training or processing, until the matter is settled, must be undertaken by a Court of Ethics or a Comm Ev.
In fact, Ron has several references urging us to handle the antagonistic or SP person:
HCO PL 20 Oct 1981R
Revised 10 Sept 1983 “PTS Type A Handling”
In the original (now reinstated) policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect before he or she could continue with training or processing.
In the original (now reinstated) policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect before he or she could continue with training or processing.
HCO PL 23 Dec 1965RB
Revised 8 Jan 1991 “Suppressive Acts; Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”
Potential Trouble Source
A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of suppressive acts is known as a potential trouble source or trouble source. The history of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a suppressive person at every turn, they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If they would act with determination one way or the other—reform the suppressive person or otherwise standardly handle the situation—they could then make gains and recover their potential. If they make no determined move, they eventually succumb.
Some LRH advice on how to handle your friend/family member (whether declared an SP or not):
From Introduction to Scientology Ethics:
HOW TO HANDLE FALSE DATA AND LIES
In some cases antagonism stems from false data or outright lies that the antagonistic person has heard or read.
The handling for this is based on the datum that truth must exist before lies, and truth blows the lie away as it is later on the chain.
The handling for a person who has false data on Scientology is to fill in any vacuum of missing data with factual data about Scientology and to prove any lies, rumors and false data encountered to be false.
Any lies are disproven by documenting the truth. For example, if the lie is that “Scientology is not a religion,” this can be proven to be false with court decisions or documents clearly stating that Scientology is a religion. Packs of such current materials can be obtained through one’s local Ethics Officer or the Director of Special Affairs in your local Church of Scientology.
The truth blows the lie away. And the source of the lie is rendered unbelievable and any other utterances by that source will then be discarded.
Also note: We could find no reference to penalties for being connected to a PTS (i.e., being connected to someone who’s connected to an SP.)
Please send us any wins or feedback that you have from this!
HCO PL 2 June 1965, Issue I
“Writing of an Ethics Order”
When writing an Ethics Order, don’t ARC break its readers by leaving out the data.
Don’t create a mystery. Example of wrong phrasing: “Woody McPheeters is declared a suppressive person. He stopped a student from coming on course.” That leaves out all the data. Leaves questions—Where did it happen? Is it in our area? What did he do? Who did he do it to? What’s the evidence? Correct example: “WOODY McPHEETERS in Baltimore, USA, is declared a suppressive person. On (date) he discouraged Fred Fairchild from taking the Saint Hill Course by writing to him lies about the course, well known by said McPheeters to be false statements. Evidence: Letter from McPheeters dated ____ to ____ now available in Ethics Files. Charge: Suppression of a Scientologist and barring his way to Release and Clear. Findings by former evidence of course record, and this: suppressive person. All certs, etc.”
Don’t be unspecific or you leave people in a huge mystery.
Ethics Orders are supposed to run group engrams out, not in!
Always put in what you know, nothing you don’t know and only what you have evidence or witnesses for. Ethics Orders are issued on real data, not opinion.
WHAT THEY DID
Don’t issue orders saying “made derogatory statements about Ron” or “suppressed Scientology.” Obviously that’s quite impossible as a charge.
1. No statement could possibly injure Ron. It’s quite impossible to “spoil Ron’s reputation” or “upset Ron” by some suppressive utterance. Ethics weren’t made to defend Ron. Statements “about Ron” are just indications of suppression. This is never used in an Ethics Order. Just omit statements or charges about Ron.
2. Suppressives can only restim people’s banks. They have no power at all. To infer one could do much to Scientology is silly.
All such charges are based on a suppressive’s actions against other persons and Scientologists or groups. These can be restimulated and can be made to wobble about. Some man forbidding his wife auditing is pronounced suppressive “for forbidding his wife auditing on date ____ by _____.”