WHAT WENT WRONG?  WHY DID THE CHURCH ATTACK ME?
 
                       Executive Summary:  Anyone who follows the current state of Scientology will note that the church and the          
          philosphy itself is in severe trouble and decline.  To determine the "Why" of that extreme fall from popularity, one
          need only refer to the very unpopular and hated policy of DISCONNECTION which is the enforced stopping of      
          communication.  Since his first words about Dianetics and Scientology in the 1950's, L. Ron Hubbard has told  
          the entire World that COMMUNICATION is the most important factor in bringing about solutions to the problems
          of Mankind.  But in recent years, by forcefully  cutting communication with thousands of formerly loyal members,          
          Scientology is committing organizational suicide.  The following story is one example of the church's folly.
       
          Hello.  My name is Skip Young.  I would like to tell you a story of my involvement with the church of Scientology.  It’s kind of a long story which begins in 1963 but the significant part of the story, the part where, after more than 40 years of loyal service, my church turned on me, subjected me to a "trial" for crimes and the loss of loyalty and admiration of my two daughters, only recently occurred in 2014.  Since 2014 I have been trying to get the church to modify or stop enforcing some of its terrible policies and actions against those who dare to disagree, but I found scientology officials to be very stubborn people.  You see in Scientology EVERYONE must follow the rules without question.  And boy do they have a lot of rules. 
  
          I first heard of Dianetics and Scientology in 1963.  I was in High School and was dating a girl whose mother was into Scientology.  My girlfriend’s name was Sharon.  Often when I would go to her house for a visit or a date, I would spend time talking with her mother, Betty, about Dianetics and Scientology.  Betty told me these great stories about going to see L. Ron Hubbard give lectures in various cities in the United States.  Sharon and I eventually married and I joined the police department.  A few years later, in 1973 I found myself beginning an adventure studying Scientology for the next 40 years.
  
          When I listened to his lectures on tape and read the books Hubbard had written, I got the idea that Scientology was a philosophy that would help FREE mankind from the negative and faulty thinking and illogic I saw in the world.  He promised that by applying Scientology principles and practices to our lives that we would be better people, our families would survive better and the overall condition of mankind in general would improve greatly.  Eventually, if enough people became Scientologists and gained the State of Clear and Operating Thetan -- “OT,” Hubbard claimed, the World would never again see any war, criminality or insanity.  When I was younger, those platitudes sounded great.

          In the 1970’s and early 80’s, everyone at the Scientology churches I went to was [were - grammar police where are you?] so welcoming and helpful; the people in the training department and the personal counselors… all great.  All churches had their “Ethics” departments, the section that is supposed to keep people “on the straight path,” and not wandering off committing the Scientology version of “sin,” and even the Ethics people (the Scientology Police) in the early days were friendly and helpful.  Back in those days, one could actually have a two-way conversation with a church minister and gain understanding of what Hubbard was preaching.
  
          But over the last 30 years, or so, things have dramatically changed within the church.  Mr. Hubbard died in 1986 and the person who took over the church, David Miscavige, has made many radical changes to both the writings of LRH and the whole “spirit” and “tone” of the organization.  Miscavige re-designed all the training procedures and they are now very “robotic” and significantly lack a “human” touch.  The “public” areas of the church are still open and welcoming, but once a person has signed up and is in the middle of their “Bridge” to Total Freedom, one is often treated with a harshness that bears no resemblance to the way things used to be. And paritioners are constantaly hounded for money donations to this "project" or that.  The Ethics personnel often display a stern, hostile “my way or the highway” attitude, as I found out in October 2013. 
   
          Sharon and I had divorced in 1975, incidentally the same year that each of us had attained the State of Clear.  And by the way, that divorce never made sense to me.  What was promised by Hubbard about the State of Clear is that one no longer had those “mental obstacles” to clear thinking and one could now communicate with anyone on any subject easily, especially after taking the Communications Course.  That was the whole “goal” of “Clearing the Planet,” to get most people on Earth to stop fighting, stop disagreeing, stop killing each other in War, stop stealing from each other and stop acting so CRAZY and just get along - ala Rodney King.

          In lectures, Hubbard called Communication the “Universal Solvent” [to cure Man’s ills].  Yet shortly after going “Clear”, my wife Sharon said she didn’t know how to communicate with me anymore and wanted a divorce.  She claimed that she had fallen “out of love.”  That confused me, but at the time I didn’t blame Scientology.  I chalked it up to “women.”  (Ladies, please don’t get mad at me for that.)

          A few years later, while taking a course which used as a reference  The Scientology Handbook, I discovered something very puzzling.  In that book, which contains a lot of statistical measures of the success of Dianetics and Scientology, it actually says that although Scientology has processes that can help a marriage, the rate of divorce among Scientologists is about the same as it is in the non-Scientology world.  That shocked me for I had spent thousands of dollars trying to keep my marriage to Sharon together, but she simply would not change her mind.  She wanted out.  Although I said earlier that I had chalked it up to “women,” I actually felt that with her new State of Clear, she now wanted to chart a new “self-determined” path for her life.  What used to be a light and loving, friendly young woman had turned into a dedicated Scientologist Hell-bent on getting everyone's "ethics" on the straight path to a New Civilization.  Her whole demeanor had changed.  I thought the attitude shift had only happened to her, but I was wrong.

          That was a lesson learned, but not learned well enough, because I would find out over the next 30 years that there are many people who study Scientology who COMPLETELY CHANGE very key and important aspects of their personality and their spouse or family members have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over these changes.  Scientology, the ORGANIZATION, not necessary the philosophy, drills into people the idea that the most important thing one can achieve in Scientology is SELF DETERMINISM and one's goal in life is to " Clear the Planet."  And once the person is very certain they have reached a state of Self Determinism, the next thing to do is to turn ALL of one’s efforts toward achieving the GOALS of Scientology by helping The Group – which means the church.  And spouses and sometimes even children better not get in the way of their “Mission.”
  
          Most Scientologists who come to this realization will borrow money, mortgage their homes, neglect their duties as a spouse (sometimes even parental duties) and make supreme personal sacrifices (while at the same time adversely affecting those around them) to donate time, money and “life energy” to the church.  This is exactly the change of heart that Sharon had which resulted in the divorce.  She didn’t feel she could communicate with me anymore because all she wanted to talk about was Scientology.  She had totally immersed herself in the philosophy and I hadn’t gone that deep.  I still had outside interests.  And unfortunately for me, it would not be the last wife to “dump” me in favor of more intimate relations with the legend and goals of L. Ron Hubbard.

          When I discovered Scientology in the early 1970's, it presented itself as non-judgmental relative to other religions.  I was familiar with the moral codes of Christianity and Judaism and those codes didn't appear unreasonable to me, but they always seemed like "orders" from God.  I didn't mind taking orders, but I always considered myself a rather "independent" spirit and if I was to take orders from a superior being, I wanted to first verify that the being had earned his or her position of superiority based on performance; not on mere assertions of rightness or tales of having done miracles.
  
          Sharon, Teresa and others who were more thoroughly indoctrinated into Scientology, seemed TOTALLY to believe everything they read or heard L. Ron Hubbard say.  They didn’t seek to question some of Hubbard’s assertions as I did.  Many Scientologists accept the philosophy and technology from LRH as if it is coming from the Supreme Being.  In the church, it is referred to as coming from “ Source,” a term of high reverence.

          I my early years receiving Dianetics and Scientology “auditing” (counseling using two-way communication procedures), I got quite a few gains; also called “ Wins.”  These were often realizations about things I had done in the past which I had regretted doing and really didn’t know why I had done, or failed to do.  I profited from both Dianetics and Scientology.  I am not posting this website to complain about MY gains or path in Scientology.

          The purpose of this website is NOT to discourage anyone from studying Scientology or from joining church staff or any similar negative things, although the church will accuse me of what they call “ Suppressive Acts.”  More on that below.  The purpose of this site is to alert OTHERS who may be thinking of getting into Scientology to some potential trouble spots along the path and to help you avoid those, if possible.   I may be dreaming the impossible dream, but I (and many other people who speak out about this issue) hope to encourage the church of Scientology to finally, after many years of not doing so, engage in a practice of FULL DISCLOSURE.
    
          I have many years of experience in the insurance and investment securities industry (after leaving police work).  My training there taught me that licensed agents and brokers had better disclose to their customers many important features, both positive AND negative, about the product they are selling to the customer.  One cannot just push the positive features of a stock or bond or insurance product and sort of gloss over or completely LEAVE OUT, the possible negative things that could happen.  People lose licenses and sometimes go to jail for doing such things.

          But those who promote Scientology are completely free to tout all the positive aspects of it, without being required by any law to touch on what could happen if things go wrong.  The reason there is no such requirement is because years ago, Scientology was given recognized “religious” status by the Federal government in the United States.

          Since Scientology is considered a religion, they can promise that with their counseling you will be able to "rehabilitate" certain abilities that you USED to have thousands or millions of years ago when you lived a more powerful life.  Don't get me wrong, I am not denegrating the idea of past lives.  I still believe in them.  I believe that there is a BIG difference between a person as a "spirit" and that piece of meat (body) they get up every morning, feed, dress and use to get work done.
  
            There are some states of spiritual achievement that Scientology promises that many people find intriguing and want to try to obtain.  And they end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours (should I say “person-hours”?) to obtain these new (old) “states” of existence.  My opinion is, if you have the money to spend on that and really want it -- go for it.  You won’t find ME trying to discourage anyone from engaging in Scientology.

          But here are some things you should know up front and I will include some Scientology nomenclature:

          Attention citizens of the United States: as a Scientologist, you give up many of your guaranteed Constitutional rights.  One of the rights you give up is Freedom of Speech.  As a Scientologist, you may not tell other people about certain Confidential materials that you are exposed to.  I am not complaining about that rule.  I think it is a good rule and I support it.  However, your limitation on Free Speech goes MUCH further.  As a Scientologist you MAY NOT talk about the mental, physical or attitudinal changes you had (if any) from the counseling.

          In fairness, you may describe your “ Wins” in general terms, but you can never say that any particular process DID NOT WORK on you or that you had a lot of difficulty getting through a particular series of counseling actions.  You must keep anything negative to yourself.  Many people can live with that and I did too for 40 years.

          Then there is the Scientology "Justice system."    The word " justice" in Scientology parlance means that a certain section of the organization has decided that you did something against its codes and it then empanels a group of other Scientologists to judge whether or not you did something worthy of punishment.  Interestingly enough, they don't look at it as punishment.  They think they are doing something good for you because you are unable to see the "truth" and appreciate the seriousness of what you did or failed to do.  But in my case, as with many others, the end result in 2014 was a severe punishment, which changed my life in a major way.
    
          Later in this essay I will describe how the so-called “Justice” system of Scientology looks and behaves NOTHING like the justice system we are used to observing in Western society.
   
          More on nomenclature: in Scientology the word "cycle" simply means a series of activities that have a start, a middle or ongoing action, and an end all related to one topic, issue or product.  The formal term is " cycle of action."  The reader can find the definitions of many Scientology terms on the church's website(s); but be careful, as I found out, simply Googling the word "scientology" can result in viewing church-authorized sites and many un-authorized sites as well.  That's how I ended up in the soup, read on.

            "Outpoints" are things that stand out as being bad, not belonging there or are unworkable.  Here is an example: "As the motorist approached the intersection, he saw that the stop sign was covered by a burlap sack."  The fact that a stop sign at an intersection is covered - by anything - is a problem to motorists and therefore is an "outpoint" to the scene being described above.

            On the other hand, an outpoint can be turned into a pluspoint (a good thing), as follows:  "Upon seeing the burlap sack covering the stop sign as he approached, the motorist then noticed a road repair crew working in the intersection and a flag man directing traffic.  The motorist stopped and waited for directions from the flag man."

          The "Sea Organization" is the management level in the Church of Scientology in which members join to commit a lifetime – and more – of full-time dedicated service (see the Internet for more on this).  I have a great deal of experience doing volunteer (often of a very confidential nature) work (hundreds of hours) for several of the branches of the church, including the former Guardian’s Office and its replacement, The Office of Special Affairs.  I have also donated many hundreds of dollars to help the church recruit new staff members.

            The purpose of this writing is to help the reader understand why, after more than 40 years of involvement in Scientology, I would only recently start to try to find out if some of the many criticisms of the church had merit.  For many years prior to 2012 I had heard statements from detractors but generally ignored them because church officials assured me that those complaints were all or mostly unfounded.  And due to the fact that the results I had gotten from the auditing (counseling) and training were very good, I didn't particularly have anything to complain about regarding Scientology.  I had always been treated well by every staff member at every level with whom I had dealt.
 
  
A New Philosophy of Life

          As I mentioned earler, I became interested in Scientology by first hearing about Dianetics and later started studying and applying Scientology.

          Like many young adults, I had a yearning to understand life and a desire to help fix the problems that were manifest in society: crime, war, poverty, racism and the threat of the decline of democracy via the spread of International Communism (remember, I'm referring to the 1960's).  I postulated (Scientologists use that word a lot) that helping others started with getting one’s own mental processes in good working order, so when the state of “ Clear” was described to me, it sounded fascinating.  I wanted to know more.

          Since adolescence I had sought an answer to the old Meaning of Life question posed by many of the great philosophers, including Monty Python.  I had thought for many years that I was more than just a body going through the daily routines of self pleasure.  My religious background was Christian and I had a vague notion that I had a spirit or was a spirit or something like that, but I wasn’t exactly sure of what a spirit really is or why it was important to think in those terms.  I was pretty sure a spirit wasn’t Casper the Friendly Ghost or a “full-form floating phantasm” as depicted in the movie Ghostbusters , but what was it?  And why should I even care?  After all, as a young man, all I was interested in was getting laid, then eating something that tasted good and kicking back to watch TV, in that order.  In fairness, I wasn’t a totally sex-crazed couch potato as I also enjoyed playing sports and many other activities.  I even enjoyed my college studies and my job.  But the primary goal in life was getting as many young woman interested in me as possible and I did pretty well at that.

          So why the need for an epistemological or ontological search when my basic needs were being met?

          After college, as an adult, I had a good job as a Police Officer.  Earlier I had experienced an excellent childhood, with terrific parents, a solid middle-class lifestyle and a good education.  I never had to endure many great stresses in life; no significant illnesses or any of that travail.  I was smart, good looking and had excellent genes, thus was highly sought after as a mate.  I never did drugs (smoked pot twice and both times decided it did nothing).  In the 1970s I had a decent income and the world by the tail; so what did I need Scientology for?

          There is an Ancient Greek aphorism to which I have heard referenced many times.  It is " know thyself."  According to Wikipedia, it was one of the Delphic maxims inscribed in the Pronaos (forecourt) of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.  At some point in my spiritual evolution, I realized that Mr. Hubbard had envisioned the State of Clear based on that Greek maxim. The evidence is apparent; he named the Flagship of the Sea Organization "The Apollo"  and the Scientology organization spun off a school that uses LRH " Study Tech" exclusively to teach children.  Its name: The Delphi Academy.  So my ultimate goal in Scientology was to know myself and figure out why I did certain things in life.
    
          Prior to Scientology, I had a vague idea of what my life's path should be, more on that later; but I thought it would be OK to consult what appeared and sounded to be an expert: L. Ron Hubbard.
It was 10 years between my initial introduction to Dianetics and when I once again picked up the book and actually read it.  After making it all the way through and looking up a lot of words (I had not taken the Study course yet, but a friend warned me to make sure I understood the words), I decided that I wanted to know more.  Scientology detractors minimize the importance of looking up words, but I think it is very important to understanding any subject.  And it is immaterial to me that Mr. Hubbard "borrowed" the practice from others.

           Dianetics didn’t really speak about the whole spirituality thing.  In essence, Hubbard keenly described the differences between “ the brain” and “ the mind.”  In my college studies in Criminal Justice, I had been exposed to theories of criminal causation and social pathologies.  The so-called “experts” taught us that there was a combination of genetic and environmental factors (nature or nurture) that were at the root of most anti-social behavior.  The professors never spoke about spiritual things.  We studied Materialism.

          But for years, I nevertheless wondered if I was really a “Spirit” or was I simply a (humble) Adonis.  In my youth I had not had a vigorous or committed religious upbringing.  My parents went to a Methodist church and dragged me to Sunday school; and once there, I spent most of my Sunday mornings trying to act silly in order to get attention from the girls in the class.  I didn’t learn much from the teacher, who I wish I could meet once again and deeply apologize for driving her a bit crazy.

          In 1973, after reading Dianetics all the way through and finishing one of the introductory books of Scientology, I decided that I wanted to go through all the steps to be " Clear."  According to representations in the book, the State of Clear meant that I could be free of my unwanted emotions and compulsions.  Frankly, at that time, I didn’t think I had a lot of unwanted emotions.  I lost my temper sometimes, but not any more than anyone else.  I did, however, have a severe streak of jealousy.  I could not stand any other guy flirting with my girlfriend and I would get very emotional when it would happen.  Also I thought about sex almost constantly, but this seemed normal, accepted male behavior for a guy in his 20’s (and, as I would soon learn, in his 30’s, 40’s & 50’s too).  [Don't forget 60's.. Editor's note]

          And I did not believe Mr. Hubbard's other representations that a “Clear” would have perfect memory and could do all kinds of other supernatural stuff.  I didn’t need that.  My girlfriend, soon to be wife (Sharon) at the time was my “memory” department and warned me that she would tell me anything I needed to remember, because her memory was flawless (especially about anniversaries, outfits she and I wore on prior dates and all manner of minutia).  I had a terrific memory for California Vehicle and Penal Code Sections; that was what was important to me.

          I took my initial quest to be “ Clear” somewhat seriously at first, but still budgeted for a great deal of spending on acquiring material things and deriving pleasure from my environment.  Like most Scientologists, I borrowed the money to pay for The Grades (introductory levels of Scientology counseling) through Clear package.  The cost seemed high at the time, but the registrar (salesperson) at the church asked me regarding the price: “high compared to what?”  Many of my cop-buddies spent gobs of money on “toys” like off-road vehicles, handguns, shotguns and women of all shapes and sizes, so spending several thousand dollars on my own self-improvement did not seem too out of line.

          I went Clear in 1975; Clear number somewhere in the low 4,000’s (what’s the figure today: 50,000?, not sure).  I did it the old fashioned way, by taking the courses and auditing myself to Clear (Mr. Hubbard used the term “auditing” to refer to the process of a trained counselor sitting across from a person and asking him/her key questions the answers to which are supposed to help relieve the person of unwanted “stuff”).  When I went Clear, it was done solo; the person is his/her own auditor.  Today most Clears achieve this state while being audited (counseled) by someone else.  I’m not certain if there is any difference in the state depending upon the path taken, but I do know that in recent years there has been considerable controversy that the “definition” of Clear has changed over the years; allegedly changed by the church officials to get more people to qualify.  Critics say it was what they call a “Stat Push,” but I have insufficient facts to form an opinion on that.

          Beginning around 1978, I heard rumors among Scientologists that a fairly high number of people who had attained the state of Clear after I did, had their certification challenged and then reversed by church officials.  As I would learn from later research, someone (perhaps more than one person) in very high technical position had changed some of Mr. Hubbard's original processes and people had thereby falsely attested to the state without really achieving it.  That was the “cover story” anyway.  Maybe the truth is that a person or persons in high technical positions discovered some flaw in Hubbard's technique and sought to correct it.  Due to the secrecy of the inner workings at the top of the church, it is impossible to ever get real truth on many Scientological subjects.  It’s a lot like dealing with the CIA.

          In the 1980's, this series of technical errors, omissions or, perhaps intentional sabotage (as the church seeks to portray the situation) resulted in quite a few people becoming upset, leaving Scientology and starting a grass-roots movement against the church, the Scientology technology and even Mr. Hubbard.  I will delve into this much more below as it was the beginning of some of the “doubts” of hundreds of other Scientologists, who wondered how the technology could have gotten so fouled up by so many for so long.  Hundreds of disaffected have since become thousands, many of whom are currently very vocal about their discontent with church management.

          My view is, either Mr. Hubbard “discovered” a state that he labeled “Clear” and documented it after extensive research, or he didn’t.  Why the hell would it change in approximately 1978?  Anyone who reads L. Ron Hubbard’s written works can plainly see that he has an excellent command of language.  If he completed his research and wrote up exactly what the characteristics of a Clear are, why would that change after 28 years?  I wanted to find out, but I delayed my search for many years… mostly out of fear and frankly, being busy with life.

          No one can shake the certainty I had at the time and still have that some incredible state exists because what I achieved was BIG !  The actual moment of going Clear (or whatever I achieved) consisted for me of a very significant physical (electronic) manifestation accompanied by massive spiritual release and freedom (immense spatial size-shift and exteriorization).  I walked around for days greeting everybody I passed just like George Bailey in the final scenes from the movie It’s a Wonderful Life.  It was unforgettable.  I had certainly been cleared of something.

           For months after going Clear, I no longer had any attention on problems or sexual urges or bills or that pain-in-the-ass Captain I worked for.  I seemed very free and willing to communicate about anything to pretty much anyone.  I was spiritually much “lighter.”  I even handcuffed prisoners in a more gentle and caring manner.

           I was Gandhi with a badge.
  
          In an upcoming YouTube video, among other topics, I will attempt to explain what I NOW think the phenomenon was that I experienced.  I have done considerable research into quantum physics, something scientists call “ The Field,” described in an excellent book by Lynne McTaggert.  It is fascinating and I recommend you read it.

          Scientology’s skeptics and detractors often state that major meter (E-meter) reads and the resulting cognitions (new awarenesses about life) are simply caused by a series of suggestions made to the student or pre-Clear and then fed back to the auditor (trained counselor) by the PC (pre-Clear).  Looking back on my auditing, I have concluded that “programming” or “suggestions” from others could never have prepared me to auto-generate such an experience (going Clear).  Frankly, there could be some of that going on with others, I suppose, but I'm not interested in arguing the point.

          I have known many Scientologists over the years and I've heard a fair number of their cognitions.  A lot of them sound suspiciously alike.  If you hear enough of these "cognitions," a discernible pattern soon emerges, but I always chalked up those similarities to the basic patterns of life.  Over many lifetimes, most people have made exactly the same mistakes and committed the same transgressions over and over.  So why wouldn't their new realizations about how to correct these errant patterns sound suspiciously similar?  To me, it seemed logical and did not present a problem.

          One of the difficulties in assessing the workability of Scientology processes is that the results are unique to each individual.  Unfortunately, there is NO STANDARD for what is a Clear, or OT I, OT II, OT III and on up.  Yes, there are some indicators that the technical people look for before allowing the person to “Attest” to the level, but the feeling inside the Mind, or Spirit or Thetan or wherever you feel things, can be totally different within each person.  Each Scientologist has his or her own "reality" on the states of Clear and OT.  On page 376 of his book Creation of Human Ability, Hubbard says: "Operating Thetan is merely a state of mind.  It is a contest between being an OT versus an inmate of the MEST universe." - LRH

            Scientology management will allow paritioners to have their own reality of the wins and gains they have achieved.  But according to church management everyone MUST share the same REALITY on the "workablility" of "the tech."  It works 100% of the time on EVERYONE.  (Until you discover that there are hundreds and hundreds of people out there on whom it didn't work) (Or at least that's what they claim).
  
            Don't get me wrong, I never thought Scientology was perfect or that there had not been any foul-ups by staff members; but by and large, I was a satisfied customer.  In fact, in addition to receiving service, I provided service.  Over many years, I have done many hundreds of hours of volunteer work for the church.  In the 1970's, while still a member of law enforcement, I engaged in some volunteer work that ended up costing me very dearly. 

            While taking courses and receiving auditing in my early years in Scientology, I was recruited by the then "Guardian's Office" (the legal branch of the church) to help them with certain "projects."  I was told by my handlers that ever since Mr. Hubbard announced his book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Modern Health to the public in 1950, the medical and psychological establishment had declared war on him.  They determined that his new methods would potentially eliminate their monopoly on mental health treatment and thus decrease profits.  To me, this explanation seemed plausible.  According to my self-acknowledged Mission in Life, I wanted to help "good" guys and inveigh against the "bad."

            My church "handlers" further explained that the very powerful medical and psychological establishment was closely linked with big "Pharma" and this monster industry did not want any "philosophy" around that did not believe that pushing drugs on people was the way to "solve" their psychological issues.  Big Pharma and the Psych-establishment had corrupted certain members of Congress and had also developed a cozy relationship with the Department of Justice, they explained.  The Food & Drug Administration had waged a war on Scientology, beginning in the 1960's.  It raided churches and seized many materials, including E-meters, alleging that the church was making claims of medical cures using this electronic box.  The charges were substantially false, they said, but it took the church more than 10 years and millions of dollars in legal costs to prove their case. 

            Being part of government at the time, I understood heavy-handed tactics -- to a degree.  Law enforcement, in its various branches, iterations and incarnations can exhibit a great amount of "tunnel thinking."  So when they are told "Scientology bad" - "Psychology good." they just march toward the battle, well armed, with great intention to eliminate "bad."

            The handlers told me that in the 1970's, the FBI had a plan to use local police departments to find known criminals and run them into Scientology churches in order engage in "black ops."  These "plants" would secrete drugs on staff members or intentionally allow themselves to be arrested in or near churches while "holding" illegal drugs and then blame it on church members having sold them the goods.  So as a police officer in San Diego, my Guardians Office handlers asked me to run "records checks" on suspicious people hanging around the church to head off infiltration of the local church.  I willingly volunteered.

            Of course, 30 years later, I found out from the Internet that the church itself had placed clandestine "operatives" in many government agencies to gather intelligence and when necessary, engage in misdeeds.  What a game.  I was oblivious.  I should have been smarter, but like a man with a new "love," one ignores the apparent "out-points" in favor of the "rewards."

            The police department had a policy that said officers were not to access the police computer files or paper criminal records files for "personal use."   That was the rule.  I should remind the reader that in the 1970's, most criminal records were still on paper and not computerized.  I justified what I was doing on two grounds.  First, I was not running checks on people for "personal" reasons.  My checks weren't doing me any good.  I was doing it to prevent crime.  After all, conspiring to plant drugs inside of a business or non-profit organization in order to get innocent staff members arrested is a felony: conspiracy - resulting in false imprisonment (another felony).  So I thought that helping a local San Diego business or church was consistent with my police duties.

            Granted, per police policy, I should have written up the project and gotten permission from my superiors prior to engaging in it.  But, I didn't.  My second "justification" was that other cops ran computer checks for personal reasons, including guys who owned rental property.  They would definitely check out prospective tenants before allowing them to move in.  One Captain I knew of was a multi-millionaire in real estate rentals and ran unauthorized checks (actually he had staff do it for him) on all of his tenants prior to letting them sign a lease.

            Over the course of about one year, I ran probably 50 or 60 names through the computer or paper records to see if any of the names I was given had criminal records (or were "Feds").  As I recall, only 4 or 5 had records of any kind and I found no government agents (that I was aware of).  I also ran checks on auto license plates, mostly to see if any belonged to a government agency.  In fairness to my employer, I realized I was leading a "double life."  I had mixed loyalties.  I wanted to be a good officer and obey all the rules, but at the same time, I wanted to protect the church from what I believed was an unwarranted covert investigation and potential "set-up."

            One day my church handler came to me and said they had a "special" case for me.  They wanted me to check on a guy who they though may be a Federal Criminal.  Blithely naive, willing to please and armed with false bravado, I ran the guy's name through the NCIC (National Crime Information Center).  I wasn't prepared for what happened next.  It came back with a "hit" and unbeknownst to me, bells and alarms began ringing all over Washington DC.  When the computer operator asked me over the police radio if I still had the guy - because he had a Federal warrant.  I lied and said that I had let him go. 

            In the mid-1970's, NCIC checks were not fully computerized and could often take 20 or more minutes to come back.  Frequently, officers would talk to the person for 10 or 15 minutes or so and get a "read" for the guy.  If he looked non-criminal, we would assume he wasn't "wanted" and let him go before the results came back, especially if the officer hears a radio call he wants to go on.  Despite suspicions that all cops are control freaks, most officers do have people's civil rights in mind and try to balance that with public safety.  Most officers try not to detain people any more than is necessary.

            Nobody at my department thought anything of this encounter of mine, but the Feds went to DEFCON 2 (from a normal of 5).  (I know, it's odd.  The military adopted the DEFCON system in 1959 and set it up so that the higher the number, the safer the condition; seems counter-intuitive, but that's the military).  The next day I was visited by two FBI agents, who showed me a photo of a guy named Michael Meisner.  They asked me if this was the guy I ran the check on.  Like an idiot, I said "Yes" even though I had never seen the guy in my life.  I was unprepared with a cover story, as my church handlers had withheld some vital information from me.  After the Feds left,  I took a couple of days off work and travelled to Los Angeles to find out from officials at the Guardian's Office what the hell they had gotten me into.


Operation Snow White

            I invite the reader to go onto the Internet and research this at the Wikipedia site:

                                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White. 

          The quick version of this story is that Operation Snow White was a program written and executed by officials at the Guardian's Office section of the Church of Scientology on orders of L. Ron Hubbard (although the current church denies Hubbard's involvement).  The "snow white" moniker was a reference to the goal of the program: to completely clean all the investigative files of any law enforcement agency: federal, state, county or city, of any country on planet Earth that wanted to build a case against L. Ron Hubbard for anything. 

            Those who have investigated this program that lasted several years, have different views on the amount of planning and direction from Mr. Hubbard.  But as with all such extremely powerful people, all he would have to have ordered was this: "Clean all police files anywhere of my name and make sure no agency wants to arrest me for anything."  That's it.  That would have been the totality of the order.  The soldiers do all the rest, including surveillance, infiltrating government agencies, breaking into offices, stealing files and many other crimes.

            "Snow White" had spin-offs too.  One was the "All Clear" program described very adequately in books by ex-Sea Org members.  Another part of Snow White was taking on the IRS.

            During the 1970's the church also had an ongoing battle with the Internal Revenue Service regarding its tax exempt status.  Operatives from the Guardian's Office apparently infiltrated government offices in Washington DC and other locations and copied thousands of pages of internal investigation files regarding the church.  I found out that this Michael Meisner person was one of the church operatives from DC.  The Feds had discovered what he and another person, Gerald Wolfe, had been doing and they wanted them both in custody.

            Operation Snow White was in full action in 1975 (when I was asked to do a "little" work for the church) and had been for years.  I was oblivious; not to mention naive and stupid.  Had I known about the clandestine black ops and criminal behavior on the part of my "fellow" Scientologists, I would have been an operative for law enforcement, instead of the other way around.  I was up to my eyeballs in a conspiracy, but in all honesty, I had been warned.  A very seasoned Sergeant in the Intelligence Unit of a police agency said to me: "Stay the hell away from the Church of Scientology; these are ruthless and devious people."  Of course, I knew better.  Don't we all at age 29.

            A career that I had worked hard for, had schooled for and really wanted, ended in January 1978, after only 10 years on the force.  I had no pension benefits, but I had plenty of shame and regret.  I had had a terrific resume, but it was all geared to law enforcement jobs, which were now off limits for me.  Career-wise, I was starting over.   Luckily, I had a very loyal wife (wife #2 - Christine) who stood by me through the very difficult times.

            I knew I had been lied to by the Guardian's Office, but it wasn't until 36 years later that I would find out the depth of the deception.  At the time I still believed the story my handlers had told me that, we had all been caught up in a sinister plot by government agencies to shut down Scientology and put as many Scientologists in jail simply for practicing a "new religion;" a philosophy that dared to challenge the medical / pharmacological monopoly.  They justified their misdeeds by telling me that I would not want to be part of the police culture anyway, as it was "suppressive" to such "truth" as Scientology offered.  At the time I bought their argument and was glad I was out of such a thought-controlled environment.  It wasn't until 34 years later that I discovered that government agents are not the only ones who can create a suppressive environment of "mind control" and fear.

            In later years, I read many references by Mr. Hubbard in which he paints a picture of his opinion of law enforcement; and it ain't pretty.  He claims to have been a volunteer officer for the LAPD in the 1950's and he therefore understood police culture; I don't believe it.  Granted, he could have been the equivalent of what a police "reserve" officer is today... possibly.  Or he could have been one of those civilian assistants that ride around in differently marked cars and act as sort of citizen patrols or neighborhood watch types.  That I would buy.  But he didn't know a damn thing about real cops.
  
          After reading & listening to a lot of what Hubbard wrote and lectured over many years, about 95% (not a scientific study) of his words regarding the police are negative.  What I learned from reading articles on the Internet in 2012 and since has enlightened me about why he was so negative about law enforcement.  More than once in his life, he had been a wanted fugitive.  He passionately feared arrest and imprisonment for conspiracy and other crimes related to Snow White and prior infractions.  In fact he was so paranoid about being arrested that in the last several years of his life, rather than spending time writing up and perfecting the steps of OT IX, OT X and other upper levels, he lived life as a recluse out of communication with nearly everyone in the church - strike that - THE WORLD !  That's not OT!  See my bibliography for links to learn more about all of the above.

            L. Ron Hubbard says repeatedly that if people in society would simply apply Scientology to their lives and move toward the State of OT, police would not be needed.  However, it should be noted that Scientology has its own "police force" consisting of uniform security officers (some of whom are armed) and investigators called Ethics Officers.  One has to ask: In light of your statement above Mr. Hubbard, why do OTs need to be policed?

            In the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures, Mr. Hubbard speaks extensively on the importance of a (spiritual) being creating space.  One's power depends upon the ability to create and alter space and the things in it.  One's level of ability as a being is dictated by how much "space" he or she can control.  Yet in the later years of his life, Mr. Hubbard's space was confined primarily to a single-wide trailer (it was reportedly a Bluebird bus retro-fitted for self-contained living).  He lived way off the beaten path, in hiding with guards to protect him.  That is an inconsistency between his philosophy and his practice, but alas, one of many regarding Mr. Hubbard.

            Due to my involvement with "Snow White," in January 1978 I was out of a job.  But when we are young we are resilient are we not?  In the 1980's I re-tooled and re-schooled and became a Certified Financial Planner.  I got real estate licensed, insurance licensed and securities licensed.   A few of my cop buddies told me they thought it was a demotion to be a mere "insurance salesman" vs. a Police Officer, but I ended up making a lot more money than they did, so I had the last laugh.  I hooked up with some partners who knew what they were doing in finance and together we made one hell of a lot of money in the 1980's.   Within 4 years of losing my police job, I owned a couple of houses; I drove a Mercedes, my wife (#3 by now) drove a BMW and I had a Porsche in the garage as my weekend car.  Life was good and I didn't miss working nights, pulling over drunk drivers or that pain-in-the-ass Captain.

            But I missed the excitement and challenge of police work.  Selling life insurance and investments was not as fulfilling as putting bad guys in jail.  Since I had expertise in investigations, surveillance and even serving of legal papers on people, in the early 1990's I began once again to help the church deal with several people who were improperly violating the Trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology.  In Scientologese, these are called "squirrels."  I also helped put out of business something called the Cult Awareness Network, an organization that was a major thorn in the side of the church.  And I tracked down some well know "deprogrammers" and tried to put them out of business.  Interesting side note, one of them is now a FaceBook friend of mine.

            I spent hundreds of hours surveilling, video-taping and gathering intelligence about those who the church determined to be "enemies."  I never asked questions about motivation or intent of my handlers.  They told me in general terms why the guy or gal (Yes, I know the term is outdated, so sue me) was bad and I accepted their word.  I trusted them.  Notwithstanding the major screwing I had gotten from the church just a few years earlier, I was still a good soldier.

            I remember one day on assignment walking onto the campus of UCLA and through trial and error finding the office of a professor named Dr. Louis Joyon  "Jolly" West, a well-known psychiatrist (check him out on Wikipedia).  In my pleasant and affable way I asked: "Hello... Dr. West?"  He said, "Yes" and I said "...legal papers for you, Sir"  He took them with a very surprised look on his face; I turned and walked away.  As I left I thought "Gee, the guy looked like Berl Ives; he didn't look like the kind of guy who would purposely kill an elephant (see Internet story)."  I didn't know any significant details about Dr. West at the time; details for example of how in 1980, he had stated in a textbook on Psychiatry that Scientology was cult.  All I knew is what my handlers told me that he was a "Suppressive Person, a "Psych" and, in fact, one of the "head" Psychs and had to be taken out.  That was all I needed to know.  I was only too happy (robotically) to oblige.

            Like most people who do so, one of the reasons I got into law enforcement in 1967, was to get rid of "bad guys" and make it safe for the good.  And that's the same reason I got into Scientology: to eliminate evil and increase "good."   And that's what I thought I was doing by helping the church.

            Of all the volunteer work I did for the church of Scientology, one of my highest achievements was tailing a senior IRS agent for days and days in an effort to serve him with a subpoena in one of the civil cases the church had against the IRS.  This guy had over 20 years experience in law enforcement (not sure if it was all with the IRS) and he was "slippery."  He was a "gold badger" (No, not a short-legged omnivore in the family Mustelidae, which also included polecats, weasels and wolverines).  This "weasel" was in the enforcement bureau of the IRS (the CID) and I knew he was armed.  He knew we were after him and took extreme counter-measures.  I staked out where he lived (a very nice house, worth over $900,000.00 at the time - 1991) and watched for him there a few times, but he rarely came home because he figured that would be an easy "get" for us.

            I had already served another IRS agent by going to his home and pretending to be a claims adjuster from Allstate investigating a minor crash down the street..  When he came out to help me, I handed him his stack of legal papers.  You should have seen the look of shock and surprise on his face to realize that I had deceived him in order to get him to lower his defenses and come out from behind his locked door.  All's fair in "the game" of cat and mouse.

            On a tip from an informant, I staked out on a very nice restaurant in Sherman Oaks, CA on a cold January evening.  I knew what kind of car the "polecat" had: a Mercedes (of course, why would a public official drive a Ford, like me?)   Once I spotted him in the restaurant dining with two other men in suits, I fanned out, block-by-block looking for his car.  I found it four blocks away.  I guess the parking in the restaurant parking lot was really tight, huh?

            For the next two hours I stood between some tall bushes, about 30 feet from Mercedes, FREEZING MY ASS OFF; while he was in having a lovely meal, no doubt paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.  I swear, it was like a scene from the movie The French Connection (absent the pizza and cold coffee).  Anyway, at about 10:00 pm I finally saw him strolling down the sidewalk looking back over his shoulder once in a while.  Just as he got to the driver's door (he was parked on the street) I walked over and handed him the summons (I think the church was suing him as an individual defendant as well as many others).

            Seeing my approach out of the corner of his eye (all that 'fat cat' living as a senior bureaucrat hadn't totally washed out his law enforcement skills), he braced for some kind of "in coming" threat, and when he saw me pull a white envelope (rather than a blue-steel handgun) out of my coat pocket, he knew right away what it was.  He looked at it, then at me and said: "What?... is this that Scientology shit?"  I politely said, "Yes, Sir, it is." and left.

            Another satisfied customer.  Thank God he had absolutely NO idea who the hell I was.  I sort of anticipated an IRS audit after that, but it never materialized.  Anyway, this "win" on my part, coupled with the actions of many other dedicated Scientologists, came to result in the granting by the IRS of full tax-exempt status for all the churches of Scientology in the United States.  We all celebrated this achievement at a big event (gathering) in Los Angeles in 1993. 

            Unfortunately, in recent years, my research has informed me that the IRS probably should not have granted full tax-exempt status to the church, because by doing so, certain high church officials have been able to acquire huge sums of money to engage in non-church-like activities.  In hindsight, it turns out that once again I had been conned by church officials into helping them engage in activity that turned out to be... ill advised (I'm being polite).

            After the big win against the IRS in 1993, church external investigations tapered off and I was not called on to do much volunteer work.  I do remember surveilling a guy named Steve Hassan in Glendale, CA.  My handlers told me he was an evil "deprogrammer" and had to be taken out.  I had legal papers, including a summons and subpoena duces tecum for him.  It took me 4 or 5 days to catch him coming out of his apartment to let the dog take a pee, but when he did I offered him the papers.  Steve held his arms in, refusing to take the documents, so I nailed him by throwing the papers at his feet (although the dog, oblivious to the legal scuffle above, had not yet finished his call of nature).

            Backing up a few years, as of 1988 I was no longer involved in the real estate and investment business, thanks primarily to the idiots in the US Congress that passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 resulting, in a real estate market crash in 1987.   I lost over $1,000,000.00 in assets; including the houses, the Mercedes and the Porsche, and a very fine looking wife (#3; she kept the Beemer, however) ((oh, yes, and that giant ring)).  I seem to have gone through a lot of wives.  Apparently like running shoes, I sort of wear them out.

            Now single again, feeling depressed and having been forcibly "down-sized," in late 1987 I decided to join the Sea Org.  My enlistment lasted slightly less than 2 1/2 years; 1988, 89 and part of 90.  While there I got married again to Teresa (you have met her on the previous page), a wonderful woman who I met in the Sea Org (Hey, easy! I couldn't help it, she was damn cute -- check out my video on YouTube).  Shortly after we married she soon discovered that her "biological clock" was ticking so loud that people down the street could hear it.  She REALLY wanted children.  We were keenly aware that Sea Org members are not permitted to have children, therefore Teresa was heavily pressured by her seniors to reconsider those "suppressive" desires to produce off-spring.  Fearing that we would get pregnant any moment, we left the Sea Org, had two beautiful daughters and stayed happily married (we had our ups and downs) for (a shade less than) 20 years.  [That's a record for me this lifetime -- Editor's note]
  

What went wrong?
  
            As alluded to earlier, my problems with the Church of Scientology began in January 2012 after I had received an unsolicited email from a woman named Debbie Cook, a 29-year SO (Sea Org) veteran, who at the time of her email, was in good standing with the church.   She was now a public (as opposed to being a staff member) Scientologist living in Texas.  When I read her rather lengthy email, I treated the revelations as though they were coming from a whistleblower who had intimate, inside information about problems at high levels in the church.  I didn't automatically accept her allegations as true, nor did I robotically dismiss them as untrue.  I sought to apply the correct LRH data evaluation technology to the points she raised.

            I had known Debbie Cook for many years and I liked her and trusted her judgment on things.  I also knew that she had been at very high levels in the church for many years and if she had something to say, it was worth my attention.  She said that she had observed many, many instances of failures among church officials to apply standard LRH technology.  She gave specifics of over-regging [the act(s) of severe "hard-selling" of Scientology services]  of the public (people both new to Scientology and those who have been on the "Bridge" for a long time) and fundraising that was inconsistent with LRH's writings on finance.  She alleged that the founding of the International Association of Scientologists in 1984 had not been done in keeping with LRH policy and the contribution requirements and "status" levels of IAS memberships had  never been contemplated or authorized by L. Ron Hubbard.

            She said that the fairly new "Ideal Org" Program had many off-policy aspects to it.  She pointed out a problem that I had heard about years ago (referenced above), and that is many Clears  were being told that they were actually not Clear.  They were then forced to repeat many steps and do other actions that should not have been necessary.  She also pointed out that she had witnessed Technical Degrades at Flag as part of a program to deliver "fast grades at Flag."  She mentioned that Solo NOTs (a very advanced counseling level that wife #4 desperately wanted to get onto) solo Auditors were told they needed to re-do their Objectives (very basic counseling processes), but could not co-audit the Objectives, instead having them to be delivered by a Class IX auditor (a highly trained advanced counselor) at great expense.

            Debbie spoke about many positions at Int. (a large complex of buildings located near Hemet (Riverside County), CA where the highest levels of Scientology international management work), such as the Watchdog Committee, having been disbanded and many posts going unmanned for long periods of time.  As a result of the personnel downgrades, there were hundreds and hundreds of unanswered letters from lower org staff and public with no one to answer them.  Note: failing to promptly answer a communication was something Mr. Hubbard said an organization should NEVER do, because it upsets people and creates a vacuum of information.  There are parts of the "Mind" that he says will then fill that vacuum with data that may or may not be accurate.

            Debbie's email called for all Scientologists who were now reading it to focus their attention and financial resources on their next Bridge action and not on other fundraising activities.  To me, this sounded like good advice, as I had been following this self- generated policy for several years.

            After I read her email, I spoke to one of my Scientology friends about it, a woman who I have known for years.  She had received the same email and was also intrigued and concerned by the data it contained.   She too sought answers, and so we both went looking on the Internet for any evidence that these problems were happening or that Debbie was somehow wrong about all this.  Little did I know at the time that less than two years later, the mere act of communicating with my friend would be classified by Scientology as a "high crime."

            It never occurred to me to ask someone at one of the Orgs if any of what Debbie said was true because staff members at local orgs don't know what goes on at "Int" (the International base near Hemet, CA) from day to day.  Few Sea Org members at PAC (a large complex of buildings on L. Ron Hubbard Way in Los Angeles) or FSO (the Flag Service Organization in Clearwater, FL, mentioned earlier) are familiar with activities at the Int base.

            I sent Debbie an email saying Hello and asking if she remembered me.  She replied that she did remember me but the rest of her email seemed like a "canned" response to hundreds of emails she had received.            

          After that, I did not further communicate with Debbie on any matter and did not know what happened to her until I read an article in an on-line newspaper that she was involved in a lawsuit with the church.  Apparently, upon seeing her email sent to thousands of Scientologists, the church attacked her and sued her.  She counter-sued the church.  I followed the back-and-forth of the legal proceedings which resulted in her receiving a monetary settlement from the church. 

          As I followed the matter, I learned that many months after I emailed with her, the church declared Debbie to be a Suppressive Person, something which I have since learned has become a rather common occurrence in recent years.  I have read many stories about the church declaring as "SP" anyone who attempts to bring to broad public attention improper things that are going on in the church.  The church claims that the Scientologists utterances are a form of heresy, but the "whistleblowers" believe it is their duty to all of mankind to bring forth the hidden "truths."  For me, the task was to separate fact from fiction, so I dove in with the zeal I usually attack important subjects.

            During 2012 and 2013, I read books written by ex- Sea Org members Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Jeff Hawkins, Amy Scobee, Nancy Many, Jenna Miscavige Hill and  two others written by non-Scientologists;  Janet Reitman was one.  I wanted to know what people were saying about my church and the upper administration thereof.  Do I have a right to know these things?  Should I have the personal freedom to search out these opinions, read them and evaluate the validity or frailty of their arguments?  Yes, I think so.  But as you will read below, the church considered my looking and discussing what I had found with others to be Suppressive Acts.

            In his very famous essay called " Personal Integrity," Mr. Hubbard says the following:
        
                    What is true for you is what you have observed yourself.  And when you lose that you have lost everything.  What is
          personal integrity?  Personal Integrity is knowing what you know - and to have the courage to know and say what you have
          observed.  And that is integrity.  And there is no other integrity...  Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
          unless you have observed it.  And it is true according to your observation.  That is all. - LRH

            The trouble started for me when I went into the church's Flag Service Org in Clearwater in October 2013.  My interviewer (called a Director of Processing or D of P) wrote in great detail what I had told her about my viewing many things on the Internet.  She promptly reported me to the Ethics department and I was called in to explain my actions.  I spoke to a very attractive young woman named Slavka Bottomly, who is an MAA (Master at Arms) or Ethics Officer.  I have known her for many years as I have been receiving services at FSO since about 1978. 

            I first met Slavka in about 2005, perhaps earlier, I don't recall.  I note this point because by October of 2013, she should have known me well enough to handle the situation much differently than she did.  I had just been into see her one day earlier and all was well.  I handed her a stack of written Commendations I had received from a Sea Org member in Los Angeles at the PAC Base.  During 2011, 12 & 13, I had been helping this staff member raise money to fly people from all over the world to Los Angeles to join the Sea Org.  Funds are always short (despite the top church officials controlling hundreds of millions of dollars in accounts all over the world) and are very much needed for Sea Org recruitment activities, so I volunteered to help.  As you now know, in prior years, I had done many other volunteer actions for the church.

            But when Slavka met with me after reading the report from the D of P, she was visibly angry with me.  She told me that going onto the Internet and reading things that are "anti-Scientology" were considered by the church to be "suppressive" acts.  I told her that I had not been searching for "anti-Scientology" material, I had been searching to find out if certain things said by Debbie Cook about key staff members were true.  According to the writers of these books and articles, Scientology wasn't the problem, I said, certain people within Scientology are allegedly fouling up and giving it a bad name.  I wanted to know Who and Why?  Not only that, but I wanted details about the TomKat divorce.

            She said that rather than going onto the Internet and reading books written by "suppressives" (the former Sea Org members and others) I should have come to her or some other church official to make such inquiries.  I asked her how I was supposed to know that these people had been declared as "suppressive" when the church does not communicate those "declares" broadly to its parishioners.  She had no answer, but just glared at me. 

            She then said that she wanted me to study several LRH references on this subject and complete a study (re-education) program.  Scientologists just call it a "program."  I told her that I would begin and complete the program once I got back to California and do whatever she needed me to do.  I further assured her that I was not disaffected with Scientology or upset with anyone; I had just been curious and seeking more information to clarify questions initiated by Debbie's email.

            When I arrived back in California and went to the LA site - Advanced Organization Los Angeles - I learned that this "study program" was not all they had in store for me.  I was to be subjected to Scientology Justice!


My Study Program

            Below is the list of study items Slavka wrote out for me:

HCOPL (Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter) 27 Oct 63 – The Magic of Good Management, OEC (Organization Executive Course) Vol. 7, pg 628

HCOPL 30 Jul 63 – Current Planning, OEC Vol. 4, pg 61

HCO Info Ltr – 10 Dec 63 – Scientology Zero, The Dangerous Environment, Tech (Scientology Technical References) Vol. 7, pg 356

HCOPL 27 Oct 64R Policies on Physical Healing Insanity and Sources of Trouble, OEC Vol. 4, pg 880.

HCOPL 7 Jun 65 – Entheta (Entheta is a written or oral statement that is harsh or abrasive) Letters and the Dead File, Handling of, OEC Vol. 1, pg 970

HCOPL 23 Dec 65RB – Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, OEC Vol. 1,pg 873

HCOPL 14 Feb 65 – Safeguarding Technology, OEC Vol. 0. Pg 21

HCOPL 7 Feb 65 Keeping Scientology Working, OEC Vol. 0, pg 11

HCOPL 4 Aug 66 – Clearing Course Security, OEC Vol. 4, pg 792

            The study order (the reader should know that when you get a program from an Ethics Officer, it is not a recommendation; it's an "order") required me to read these policies using the Method 9 Word Clearing technique.  This is a very lengthy and arduous process where the student (me) sits across a table from a coach (another Scientologist) and reads the material aloud word-for-word.  If the student hesitates, pronounces a word incorrectly, stumbles during reading, hiccoughs, gets dry mouth, looks away from the material, coughs, clears his throat or anything the coach is suspicious of , he is asked to find the word he has misunderstood.  Then there is a lengthy process for looking up the word in a dictionary, using it in sentences, etc.  I am not making any comment or judgment about the validity of this Method 9 word clearing process, but suffice it to say, it took me over 25 hours to complete these 9 references.  At that rate, "learning" is arduous.  In my opinion it is twentieth-century technology attempting to generate results in a 21st Century world.

            Since I lived in San Diego at the time and was doing the study cycle at the Advanced Org in Los Angeles, I had to drive there and back four separate weekend days to do it.  But at the time, I did not consider what I was ordered to do and the cost of compliance to be "punishment."  Not yet.  We Scientologists are used to complying with (often very heavy) Ethics and no-nonsense Ethics Officers.

            The MAA I met with at the Advanced Org Los Angeles was named Theresa, a young woman about 25 years old.  In our first meeting she seemed friendly and gave an air of understanding and willingness to help me get though this cycle.  She convinced me that by "coming clean" and telling her "all," things would go much better for me, than trying to withhold certain information.  I told her that I had nothing to hide as I considered that I had not done anything wrong; perhaps ill-advised, unwise, but not against any existing rules.  She wanted to know the names of all the websites I had visited over the last two years and I told her that I could not remember more than one or two.

            She convinced me to allow her to actually log on, using a computer at the church, to my three email accounts (two Gmails and one Yahoo).  As an aside, if you are at all interested in the Bill of Rights or your guarantees of privacy under the US Constitution or outmoded concepts such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, what ever you do, NEVER EVER get hooked up with the church of Scientology; because they do not grant you such "rights." 

            The MAA and I sat side-by-side in the computer room and she methodically went through all my emails (about one hundred) for as far back as they went on all three accounts.  She found three emails that she thought to be objectionable.  She printed these off and took them into the bowels of the Ethics department.  I waited patiently for the verdict.

            I must point out to you non-Scientologist readers that people who are adherents to the policies of L. Ron Hubbard and study the material for many years, get used to dealing with very probing, intrusive Ethics Officers.  They often demand to know information of a very intimate nature about many aspects of a person's life, including sexual activity and other things.  One just sort of becomes accustomed to permitting warrantless "search and seizure" and invasive interrogation as being part of the church's job to keep you morally "clean."  After all, they are engaged in the Mission of the Sea Org, to put Ethics in on planet Earth.  More on that daunting task (as they see it) later.

            After more than an hour, she emerged and took me into her small, cramped office.  She said in a very strong, stern voice: "Skip, I hereby order you to stop committing suppressive acts!"  Now, it should be realized that this phraseology is an important one, as the reader will soon learn.  It is part of a rote procedure that must be followed in order to bring sufficient pressure onto a Scientologist to enforce compliance.  It also puts the Scientologist on official notice that he is under investigation for what are called "High Crimes" in Scientology.  For a full description of these crimes, please refer to HCOPL 23 Dec 65RB – Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, described in limited detail below.

            Somewhat confused, I asked her to what "suppressive acts" she was referring.  "Communicating with known SPs" was her response.  "Who are you talking about?" I asked.  She answered by giving me three names: Debbie Cook, a woman named Tamara (who I barely knew) and the operators of a website called "Free and Able."  I asked her the same question I had asked Slavka in Clearwater, "How was I supposed to know these people have been declared" (as it turned out, two of them had not been as of the date of my infraction and the third one wasn't even a PERSON; it was a website) "as suppressive?"  That information is not widely known or publicized by the church.  She ignored the question and proceeded forward, but notably failed to produce any written evidence that any of these people had been officially declared suppressive at the time I had communicated with them.  Note: the time line becomes a key factor - read on.

            It seems the "evidence" Theresa had seized in her search of my online accounts yielded two emails from Debbie Cook and one from me to Debbie Cook, two emails to and from a former friend with whom I had since not communicated in over 18 months (Tamara) and my having gone onto a website and exchanged an email with a former Scientologist who is now critical of certain church officials.  I told Theresa that the third piece of "evidence" should not count against me because I had only contacted that site called  " Free and Able" in order to find some LRH references on whether it is forbidden to read material written by those critical of Scientology.  Not only that, but in the email from the guy on Free & Able, he had a sort of snotty, snarly tone, so I did not further email with him.  In fact in my parting email to him (I think his name was Steve Hall), I told him to go fuck himself.  I pointed this out to Theresa as evidence that I was definitely not joining his group.  This fell on deaf ears, however.  Apparently, if one is in sufficient communication to TELL someone to Fuck Off, then you are for all time connected to them... (insanity!)

            To understand the problem I now had, the reader should know that prior to completing the Method 9 word clearing, I had read each of the 9 references contained in the study order.  Not one of them said that reading things on the Internet about Scientology or Scientologists was against its rules (see below for more details).  These references were written by Mr. Hubbard in the 1960's and '70's, so how could he have known about the Internet?

            Two of the 9 references did contain prohibitions against "connecting" up with "known" suppressive persons, but the key words are "connecting" or "connection" and "known."  In pleading my case to Theresa, I maintained that I had not "connected" with any suppressive persons because the act of reading is a one-way flow.  A "connection" requires a two-way flow and I also believe that to establish and prove a "connection" the prosecution needs to establish more than just a casual acquaintance or readership.  "State of mind" is important to establish. 

            The several dictionary definitions of "connection" all require some "relationship" or "association."  All one has to do to test the plain meaning of "connection" is to plug a lamp into the wall and turn on the switch.  It lights up.  Now take the plug out of the socket, snip off one of the two prongs and plug it back into the socket.  Turn on the switch and see if is lights up.  It will not.  Why?  No "connection."  No two-way flow!  Mr. Hubbard even defines communication as requiring a two-way flow in at least one reference I know of, perhaps more:  Philadelphia Doctorate Course - Lecture 43 - On Auditing: How to Succeed / Fail, Assess :  "Communication is a two-way proposition and it's never a one-way proposition." - LRH.  See also HCOB 10 Sept 1983 - PTSness and Disconnection : "Communication, however, is a two-way flow." - LRH

            I had been active in Scientology for over 40 years.  I had completed many, many courses and advanced to the 5th highest OT level (out of 8 at the top).  During those years,  I had listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of lectures by L. Ron Hubbard about all aspects of life.  What impressed me most about the man and his discoveries was that in order to seek and know "truth" one should seek to know and understand the basic and plain definitions of words.

            So I assumed that Theresa and the senior officers to whom she was reporting, understood the true definition of the word "connection."  Surely they could see that merely reading a book, an essay or an email written by someone and never getting into a dialogue with that person could never mean that you are now "connected" with that person.  The act of reading words written by another does not mean agreement.  And telling some guy to go fuck himself CERTAINLY does not show any agreement with his line of reasoning.  But at no time did Theresa ask me if I agreed with any of the things that were being said on the Internet or in the books.  She was just robotically following orders; there was no thought or analysis involved.  To the originator of these orders, my "intention" or state of mind was of no concern.  (see "mens rea" below)

Mens Rea - The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.


Technology from the 1960's meets the 21st Century

            Most of the material of Dianetics and Scientology was written in the late 1950's, the 1960's and into the early 1970's.  This is a period in which Mr. Hubbard was reportedly conducting daily research and was writing, lecturing and publishing.  In the mid-1970's and up until his death in 1986, Hubbard was embroiled in a lengthy battle with government agencies that were out to put him and as many other Scientologists in prison as they could.  They succeeded with the Scientology 11 (look this up).   I spoke earlier on the Operation Snow White saga and will provide more details below.  Years of black ops and criminal activities on the part of church officials as well as the clandestine nature of his existence in the final years of Hubbard's life, generated many levels of secrecy within the organization.  This very badly damaged the original notion of free and open communication as being the " universal solvent" (Mr. Hubbard's term used in several lectures).

            The techniques of both Scientology training and administration were well written and proved very successful in use in Scientology's heyday in the 1970's, but even today they continue to use communication and training modalities that were from the 1960's which in the modern era have proven to be cumbersome and outdated.  I have personal knowledge, having worked in the church's computer division (called INCOMM) for two years, the organization strove to improve the speed and accuracy of communication among staff members and with their parishioners, but it was difficult.  The main reason for this is that there are very strict rules in Scientology about following the absolute LETTER of what LRH wrote on any particular subject.  For example, if in a written policy he said "Send X a telex and say the following..." a staff member was not authorized to use email, even if it was faster and more accurate.  Also, Scientology has very precise Command channels in which certain materials and subjects written by Mr. Hubbard were not authorized to be shared with anyone below a certain level in the organization.  This policy is not significantly different from the so-called " stove piping" communication strategy of the military or CIA.  Many labeled this "hidden data" as Scientology's "secrets."  However, with the advent of the Internet, this wall of secrecy has become embarrassingly transparent.

            As in Debbie Cook's email, some of the points critics have raised are very serious.  Most commentators today are centered on criticism of one person: David Miscavige, the current leader of Scientology.  I am not going to go into all the points here, for to do so would take too long.  The reader can check this out on line for him or herself.  But suffice it to say that as a public Scientologist, I wanted to know whether or not these allegations of mismanagement (and some past and present criminal behavior) were true.  To quote that famous line voiced by Tom Cruise in the movie A Few Good Men: "I want the truth!"

            During my recent struggle with church Ethics personnel, I found out, however, that the church takes the position voiced in that same movie by Jack Nicholson: "You can't handle the truth!"  The church's position is that only they can be the arbiters of what is permissible to read or hear.  Their "truth" (substitute "reality") is that any Scientologist who hears anything negative should immediately come in and have it explained by a church official and never seek any outside opinion or cross-check the data in any way.  Furthermore the parishioner should believe utterly and without question whatever the church official tells them.  I'm not sure about people from other countries, but Americans, in general, are not built like that.  Most of us don't like being told what to do or how think (note the results of the last Presidential election).  We're sort of an independent lot, brainwashing by the main-stream media and political hacks can be resisted.

            Scientologists, especially Sea Org members, are trained to believe that they have ALL the answers to life because these "answers" originate from "Source."  The axioms on which they operate emanate from the indisputable FACT that L. Ron Hubbard developed the best and most workable technology of the mind anyone had ever used.  By simply knowing it well, applying it exactly and getting others to do the same, all the evils (well, most) in the world will be corrected and solved.  They absolutely believe that datum and resist any scintilla of doubt raised by anyone that the "tech" could be incomplete or flawed in any way.  And they are highly sheltered from any contrary facts.

            One big problem is that, although some of the technology of LRH is capable of helping people solve many of life's problems (in my opinion it is mostly the lower Grades), it is not flawless and some of his “tech” has proven harmful to certain people.  In fairness to him, Hubbard never claimed the tech to be flawless; only "workable."  The trouble is, many people in the church read right over his claim of it only being "workable" and consider that to be false modesty.  To them, both it and he are flawless and worthy of unquestioned loyalty, allegiance, devotion and defense. 

            And frankly, if someone is considering getting into Scientology and using the technology to improve his life and the lives of those around him in his family, his city, his state, his country and even the World, that person should compare Scientology to other "philosophies" and religions to see if Scientology is, indeed, better and more able to produce the needed results.  But if the only promise is that the technology is "workable" one could say "So What?" Christianity is WORKABLE.  Judiasim is WORKABLE.  After all, some of the greatest civilizations have been developed and run using Biblical principles.  A Christian might certainly ask why would he abandon Christianity which has a more than 2,000 year track record in favor of Scientology?

            The Christian might argue to the person trying to persuade him to get into Scientology that if Scientology technology is so "workable," why in recent years have some of the most highly trained Scientologists left the church and are now complaining about how the technology isn't being used correctly?  I acknowledge that Christianity too has had its schisms over the centuries.

   
Back to - My Study Program

            I got a bit carried away talking about errors committed over the years by the church, but I want to clarify the actual study program I was given to show the reader how it was very confusing to me.  Remember, I was routed into Ethics for reading things on the Internet that were supposedly "forbidden."  After completing the study program, however, I discovered that the materials I was given to study don't mention a thing about the Internet and don't even say that a Scientologist should not read certain things.

            Note: HCOPL stands for Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter


HCOPL 27 Oct 63 – The Magic of Good Management , talks about the finances of Scientology organizations.  It is OK to make money, Mr. Hubbard says.  A Scientology executive should make sure his org is making money, follow established work patterns, see that there are competent personnel on staff and that they are doing their jobs, make sure there isn't a lot of criticism coming from disaffected staff members and other similar points.  He says nothing about what to do about a "little" criticism and there is certainly no reference to the Internet or a "forbidden reading" list.
 
In HCOPL 30 Jul 63 – Current Planning, Mr. Hubbard says that we have a hard job ahead of us [Clearing the Planet] and there is no time for "natter" (a British word for critical comments), doubts or maunderings.  I took this as good advice, but did not think he was saying that if one reads some criticism (without necessarily agreeing with it), that it would be considered a "High Crime" or that they should be disciplined for it.
 
HCO Info Ltr – 10 Dec 63 – Scientology Zero, The Dangerous Environment , warns about "The Merchants of Chaos" within "The Dangerous Environment."  It says that there are people in the world who profit from stirring up controversy and chaos.  This was not news to me; I was a cop, for Pete's sake.  I met "chaos merchants" all the time.  Some years ago, Time magazine published a hit piece on Scientology and the church spent hundreds of man-hours writing then publishing a lengthy response in an effort to put out the "truth" as they saw it.  But again, the 10 Dec 63 Info Ltr did not provide any sanction for listening to such Merchants of Chaos.  It only recommends to avoid them.
 
HCOPL 27 Oct 64R Policies on Physical Healing Insanity and Sources of Trouble, is a very lengthy reference that took me many hours to get though while doing the Method 9 Word Clearing.  This is the policy that describes the types of people who have given Scientology trouble in the past.  The policy was written by Mr. Hubbard in 1964, one year after the church in Washington DC was raided by Federal Agents for allegedly trying to "treat" medical conditions using the e-meter.  The material covered in the policy letter describes who will be accepted for auditing and training in a Scientology organization.  It defines what mental "healing" is and differentiates it from attempts to heal physical ailments.  It says that if someone comes into an organization complaining of some physical ailment, that person is to be referred to medical professionals for evaluation and treatment prior to being accepted as a student or PC (pre-Clear).  The policy then states that persons with a "proven record of insanity" are not to be trained or audited in a Scientology organization.  The last section is devoted to "Sources of Trouble."  This section describes 10 categories of people who have approached Scientology in the past and "caused us considerable trouble."  The 10 classes of "sources of trouble" are noted A to J.  In practice, when a new person comes into any Scientology Org, they are routed to an Ethics Officer who puts them on the meter (E-Meter) and asks them questions.  This is called an "A to J" check.  If any of these items "read" on the meter, the person is denied auditing or training until the situation is corrected.  I considered this policy to contain interesting data, but since I had been receiving auditing and training on and off for over 40 years, I did not consider myself to fit into any of the A to J categories.  Besides, the MAA Slavka gave me two metered A to J checks and Theresa gave me one followed by a "tailored" set of more specific questions.  I think I passed all of that because neither of these women queried any of my answers.  Little did I know at the time I read this HCOPL, that the church would later decide that I fit into category "J"; read on.
 
HCOPL 7 Jun 65 – Entheta  Letters and the Dead File, Handling of , ("Entheta" can be roughly defined as a written or oral statement that is harsh or abrasive).  This policy tells Scientology Org personnel what to do with letters or other written documents that come in containing insulting, discourteous, choppy or nasty phrases or comments.  These types of words and phrases are considered "entheta."  In Scientologese "entheta" means enturbulated (all mixed up and therefore detrimental to sanity) "theta" (theta is a coined term for "life force" or "spirit").  As I see it, one of the big problems with this policy letter is that it is vague.  What is or is not "entheta" is subject to very wide interpretation.  One could say in a letter to an Org: "The last auditor I had was terrible because he picked his nose in session."  Some staff reading that would consider it to be a valid complaint (and seek to correct the errant auditor), others would consider it to be "entheta."  Once it is categorized as "entheta" the entire communication is ignored and routed to the "Dead File" (even though it may contain other important criticisms from which the Org could improve its service).  So during my study cycle, I read this policy, but it did not change my viewpoint on doing my research because, armed with The Data Series (polices written by LRH), I am competent enough to sort out and distinguish "valid" data from "invalid" data, even though some of it is communicated with some negative emotion attached.  As a married man, one learns to deal with negative emotions from wives and children while not letting them ruin your day.  It's just part of life.
 
HCOPL 23 Dec 65RB – Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists , is a very long policy letter.  It contains a lengthy list of actions that Scientologists can be accused of committing which are labeled as "Crimes" and "High Crimes."  "High Crimes" are determined to be "Suppressive Acts" (or conversely Suppressive Acts are considered to be High Crimes) and are dealt with very harshly by Scientology.  This 16-page document is like the " Penal Code" of Scientology.  If they ever charge a person with a crime, it will come from this list.  Nowhere in this document, however, does it say that reading material on the Internet is against this code.  It is true that being "connected" to a known SP (Suppressive Person) is a crime, but the key definitive words here are "connected" and "known" and the policy does not give unique definitions for either word.  So the reader is left to consult common usage regarding the meaning of these two words.  I assert that at no time did I have a "connection" to a "known" suppressive and even assuming I did, any connection I had to an SP was brief and inadvertent and I had no idea the person had been labeled suppressive by the church.  More on those technicalities below.
 
HCOPL 14 Feb 65 – Safeguarding Technology - This is an interesting 2-page policy letter that warns every Scientologist that failing to follow LRH policy will not lead to  "the road out" of the mess that the world is in and has been in for millions of years.  It contains an interesting phrase which I found out the hard way, is completely ignored by present day Scientology Management: "People have following the route mixed up with 'the right to have their own ideas.'" "anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others." [emphasis in the original]  During my many years in Scientology I have found out that a person's "cognitions" (sudden realizations about life brought about by auditing or training in Scientology) are closely "monitored" by personnel in the organization.  If you say something or take a position that they do not approve of, they will often call you in and "re-train" you on the proper way to voice such new awarenesses.  They will even help you re-write your Success Story, if the wording does not suit them.  In fairness, there is nothing wrong with the idea of protecting the technology against improper use, but in Scientology today, there is no tolerance for independent thought or questioning of something that did not seem to work as advertised.  As an interesting side note, what I have learned from this multi-year "trauma" is that while they try to "safeguard" Scientology from outsiders' mis-using it, high (and even medium-) level Sea Org members are violating policy on a daily basis.  As I found out, the Internet is loaded with "horror" stories from former Scientologists and ex-Sea Org who give details of such policy violations.  My Committee of Evidence was loaded with them.
 
HCOPL 7 Feb 65 Keeping Scientology Working - I mentioned that one of the policy letters noted above is like the "Penal Code" of Scientology.  The Keeping Scientology Working policy letter is to Scientology what the 10 Commandments are to Judaism & Christianity.  And just like the words of the 10 Commandments have been questioned and challenged over the centuries, the KSW policy is fraught with vagaries.  To a loyal, dedicated Christian or Jew, the 10 Commandments are clear and unambiguous; but to many others, there are some questionable areas, such as "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  One could ask, "Well, are there any?" "If  so, what are the features and benefits of their belief system?"  "How do you define what a 'god' is?"  The same questions could be asked about other Commandments, such as the "graven Image" prohibition, taking the name of the Lord in vain, honoring thy father and mother, etc.  Everybody understands "thou shalt not kill" (or do they? some biblical scholars say the ancient Hebrew says "thou shalt not murder" because to outlaw killing would mean every Jew would have to be a vegetarian).  Anyway, my point is that the 10 Commandments are written in such a way as to leave some room for "interpretation."  So too are the KSW 10 items (isn't it interesting that Mr. Hubbard wrote exactly 10 items that all Scientologist must do?) ((What a fascinating coincidence...))  By the way, I am not stating here that I disagree with having a policy that says try to follow policy as best as you can.  I do not disagree.  But to me, they are not Commandments, but guidelines and are worded as such.  What I disagree with is the significant amount of "force" used by the organization to keep all Scientologists thinking in certain specifically designed patterns of agreement.  There is nothing in KSW that specifically prohibits a Scientologist from reading anything he or she wants to.  The "crime" evolves from one's interpretation of the code; and the crime is compounded by DEMANDING children disconnect from their father.
 
HCOPL 4 Aug 66 – Clearing Course Security - This policy seems to say that if a student on the Clearing Course receives an unsolicited "mailing" from a Suppressive Group, that person will not get in trouble with Scientology if he or she turns it in "unread to the Ethics officer."  But there is a problem with this "law."  If you can't read the unsolicited mailing, how do you know it's from a Suppressive Group?  The policy assumes that the name of the Suppressive Group is known to the person and that the name of the group is on the return address of the envelope.  This procedure may have worked in 1966 when this policy was written and communication was done via snail mail (with return addresses on the envelope), but in the 21st century, one comes across communications, many unsolicited, on the Internet and in emails and you can't always tell WHO they are from until you read them and find out what is being said.  Not only that, but the policy is specifically directed at students on the Clearing Course, not broadly to all Scientology parishioners.
 

Study Program - Final Thoughts

            My study program appears to have been cobbled together (perhaps months or years earlier) by senior management in an effort to "re-train" and "re-educate" errant Scientologists who have dared to read things on the Internet that the church finds objectionable. Since my situation began in October 2013, I have asked around and learned of other Scientologists who have been disciplined for reading forbidden things.  As mentioned, the policies cited are more than 50 years old and although they may have some application to the present and since it is forbidden to re-write them, the church should interpret them in light of today's customs and practices so as to be fair.  For example, many people today have jobs that require them to work on Sundays.  Would a Christian be prosecuted by his church for failing to keep the Sabbath "holy?"  I doubt it.

            Even after I completed the study program, however, they weren't happy.  They hit me upside the head (figuratively, of course) with a 2 x 4.  You see, people who spend a number of years in Scientology soon learn that when dealing with the Ethics Officer, one must NOT argue back or respond in any way other than: "Yes Sir (even if it is a female), I was wrong, what do I need to do to make it up to the organization."  Any other comment is considered "backflash" and is evidence of "withholds."  There is no "free-flow of ideas" in Scientology.  There is no nuance.  These people are not subtle.  They speak (or point you to an LRH reference) and you listen and read.  Then you shut up and APPLY.  It is a North Korean model of social intercourse.

            In my case, the Scientology "Justice" they had in store for me was called a Committee of Evidence.  A Comm Ev (as it is called among the flock) that was impaneled to prosecute me interpreted these LRH policies as literally as the most strident radical Muslim interprets the Koran.  Scientology's version of cutting off your head is called "disconnection."  Humm, actually Islam's version of severe discipline is also a form of disconnection (head from body) isn't it?  But let's not quibble with mechanics.

  
The Committee of Evidence - Scientology "Justice"

            As noted above, Scientology has its own, unique system of justice.  Webster defines "justice" as:
1,a: the maintenance or administration of what is just; especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments; b: judge; c: the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity.  2,a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair; b(1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal: Righteousness; c: the quality of conforming to law.  3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason: Correctness.

            In a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter entitled The Justice of Scientology - Its Use and Purpose - Being a Scientologist, Mr. Hubbard says this:

                    "The reason we have Justice codes is to have Justice.  We don't want or need injustice.  When we have no codes,
          'Justice' can be anything any authority cares to make it.  We have had too much caprice passing for justice.  It is time we
          had justice.  Committees of Evidence work." - LRH

            But when he said: "Committees of Evidence work," Mr. Hubbard left out an important protection, which is: they only "work" if the committee members are truly impartial and are free to engage in independent thought (my words).  Today, it is well documented, they are not; especially if they are manned by Sea Org members.  Staff members, especially the SO, do and think what they are expected to by their superiors.

            Later in that same policy letter Mr. Hubbard declares that the justice system in general society is severely flawed.  He maintains that "there is no just civil law left [in society], really."  He further claims that the Scientology justice system is superior to that used in civil society.

            In my early days in Scientology, even as a law enforcement officer I used to think that was true, but in the last year I came to be very disappointed to find out that statement to be very untrue.

            In the above referenced policy letter, Mr. Hubbard also says:

                    "A Committee of Evidence is not a court.  It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the
          facts and clean up the ARC breaks [Scientologese for 'upsets'] caused by rumor... ...Our justice really rehabilitates
          in the long run.  It only disciplines those who are hurting others and gives them a way to change to they can eventually
          win too - but not by hurting us." - LRH

            I hope the reader can see how some of Mr. Hubbard's writings can be confusing at times.  In the reference above, he says that "a Committee of Evidence is not a court."  And then he immediately follows that with the statement that it is "a fact-finding body with legal powers;" What??? 

            Merriam-Webster defines a court as: "an official group of people (such as a judge and jury) who listen to evidence and make decisions about legal cases."  Sounds like a "Committee of Evidence" to me.  Again, this points out what one is up against when battling with the forces of "certainty" and "truth" called Scientology staff members.  They have been trained, especially Sea Org members, that their opinions are not opinions.  They are exact statements of fact emanating from "Source" - L. Ron Hubbard.  They have it right and you have it wrong and you simply need to change your viewpoint on the matter to get along.  And if they are trying to "correct" your thinking on something, they are usually not satisfied with a light touch.  Sometimes they figure they need to hit you upside the head with a baseball bat (Yes, a 2 x4 will do) to get your attention (see above).  They apparently forget all about the many lectures in which Mr. Hubbard says that using "force" on someone is counter-productive.

            Adding more confusion to the mix, in another HCOPL called Board of Investigation , Mr. Hubbard again references Committee of Evidence and says this: "A Committee of Evidence is convened on the subject of a known Crime or High Crime, as it has come to be looked on (and is) a trial by jury, there being a charge."  It was clear that Scientology put me on trial for reading stuff on the Internet.  The effort to "re-train" me with the Study Program turned out to be a "misdirection" much like a magician uses; a stalling tactic, while Theresa got approval for the "trial."

            In my case, despite the fact that I had willingly completed the Study Program given to me by the Ethics Officer, the MAA petitioned her superiors to call a Committee of Evidence  on me.  I was notified by telephone of the Comm Ev on December the 13th, 2013, a Friday (gee, what luck).  As a side note, if the reader does not know the historical significance the superstition of Friday the 13th and why it is deemed to be an unlucky day, you should look it up on Wikipedia.  It's interesting.

            As with many things in Scientology, the Scientology Ethics and Justice system is based on "Gradients" or "Gradient Scales."  I will provide a partial list of these ethics gradients below.

            I was unprepared and very hurt by the content of the Ethics Officer's call, as it was completely "out-gradient" as Scientologists like to say.  There is an HCO Policy Letter called Levels of Ethics and Justice Actions .  It lists 36 levels of ethics and justice actions that can be taken against a Scientologist for breaking the rules.  Here are excerpts:

"Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:

#1 Noticing something nonoptimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

#2 Noticing something nonoptimum and commenting on it to the person.

... (other steps in between omitted for brevity, but you can find them in the Ethics book)

#7 Investigating in person by Ethics.

... ( 14 other steps)

#22 A Committee of Evidence ordered."
 
            So when the Ethics Officer called me and told me that she had ordered a Comm Ev on me, I was shocked.  In that same policy letter referenced above, LRH says: "A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action."  Later in that same policy it says: "Scientology Ethics are so powerful in effect, as determined by observation of it in use, that a little goes a very long ways."  Obviously someone felt they needed to hit me really hard. 

            I asked the MAA why she had failed to follow the policy (noted above) and had jumped steps 8 through 21?  She had no legitimate answer, only stating that what she was doing was completely "standard policy."  That, of course, was a lie.  And it would not be the last lie told to me during this process.  In that same phone conversation (actually not much conversing went on) she told me that I would not be allowed to attend the "event" on Saturday.  Each year Scientology has about 6 major assemblies of members, called "events."  December 14th, 2013 was one such major event, but according to Theresa, I wasn't allowed to go.  This was another failure on the part of the organization to follow its own policy because there is no rule that someone on whom a Comm Ev has been called is prohibited from anything in Scientology.  See below a reference to the actual "innocent until proven guilty" policy.

            The above was also not the first lie this Ethics Officer had told me.  When I first met with her in October 2013, she spoke in nice, pleasant tones and promised to "help" me complete the Study Order that had been written by the EO at Flag.  As earlier covered, she asked me to "come clean" about all the websites I had visited and all the emails I had received or sent.  As noted above, she convinced me to let her actually log on to my three email accounts, right from a computer at the Advanced Org in Los Angeles, called AOLA.  As I thought I had nothing to hide, I agreed and for nearly two hours I sat next to her watching her read all my emails on the three accounts.  In that time, she could only come up with 3 emails that she deemed "objectionable."  Several paragraphs above, I describe what happened next.  She wasn't trying to help me any more than a Homicide detective is trying to "help" a suspect.  He is there to gather evidence and hopefully a confession for the purpose of prosecution.

            I objected to the Comm Ev because this high level of sanction was not necessary in my case.  Although I did not think the policies in the Study Order specifically prohibited a public Scientologists from reading anything they want, I wasn't going to fight against this "rule."  In October I had agreed with Slavka at Flag that I would remove all those sites from my computer and further agreed not go onto any such sites.  Once home, I had complied with her request and took all those sites off my computer.  I had completed the Study Cycle, so what the hell were they doing putting me on "trial?" 

            My error was looking at this matter in terms of this cycle only.  As it turned out, my problem had been replicated hundreds of times across the Planet.  Scientologists all over were going onto the Internet, reading stuff, finding out that they had been lied to and deceived for many years and were bailing out of the church.  And sometimes they would convince other family members to leave also.  The church (read: David Miscavige) had forcefully to put a stop to this exodus with what they called a "head on a pike."  (actually many heads, many pikes)

            Can you imagine, dear reader, a large corporation upon finding out that millions of its customers have read various Consumer Reports articles stating that its product was defective or gave less-than-promised results, then sets about to punish its customers who stop using the product?  Of course, that is unheard of in the real world, but Scientology exists in its own unique bubble.

            But not knowing the full scope of the attack against me, I blithely wrote to several church officials higher up the chain of command, but to no avail.  I was ordered (oh, Yes it's an order you cannot ignore, lest they increase the gradient of discipline) to appear before the Committee.  When I was called by the Committee chairwoman directing me to show up, I asked her to send me a copy of the Bill of Particulars (list of the charges) so I could prepare.  Even though LRH policy requires it, she refused to send it.

            On Saturday January 4, 2014, I met with the Committee.  There were four people, one male and three females.  Right away I knew I was in trouble because all of them were Sea Org members.  So much for a "jury of one's peers."  Above I invited you to go onto the Internet and read up on what the Sea Org is and you should do that.  But the quick version is that they are a highly dedicated group of people who have joined a "para-military" organization called the Sea Organization.  They are "career" Scientologists, who spend nearly every waking moment, practically 7-days a week managing the various organizations of the church.  I was actually in the Sea Org for about 2 1/2 years, so I know what life is like there.  It's tough; but in fairness to them, they LOVE it and they are a very productive group.

            With the exception of pointing out how they can be very tunnel-visioned and stubborn when they think they are right, I have nothing else bad to say about the Sea Org or any of its personnel (with a couple of exceptions).  They are among the most hard-working, dedicated people on earth.  However, as individual human beings, few of them have (are not allowed to have) any independent thoughts.  They are trained rigorously to think only as a "group" member.  In my time in the Sea Org, I have participated in various "drills" which are designed to help increase unit cohesiveness and the spirit of working together as a member of a team.  In civilian work environment, this is called "Team Building" and there is nothing wrong with it.  Military, police and fire units engage in team building exercises on a regular basis.  It is very important.

            But in civilian life, one can go home after the "Team Building" exercise and kick your shoes off, sit on the couch, drink a beer and watch a ball game.  You can go on the Internet and read any damn thing you want.  Or you could go into the bathroom and jerk off if you want to; no one gives a crap.  But in the Sea Org, you are a "group member" 24 / 7 and not only are you not allowed to drink beer, watch TV or masturbate (I could go on, the list of "can't do" is endless), but as a Sea Org member you must think that time spent as a member of "The Middle Class" is wasted because your Mission is to get Ethics in on Planet Earth.  For example, each Sea org member is supposed to be allocated one or two or perhaps more weeks off per year for vacation.  Most of them NEVER even apply for leave because they won't get it.  "We're short-handed and can't spare you right now" they are told.  And the "right time" rarely comes along.

            As I mentioned, when I sat down in the small Committee room and saw that my "jury" consisted solely of Sea Org members, I thought: "this is gonna be a 'tough room'" (a stand-up comedian's nightmare).  I immediately tossed out any possibility of charming them, so I promptly went into "defense" mode.  The chairman (chairperson, to be politically correct) was a pleasant woman of about 30 to 35 years.  I recognized her from having been around AOLA for many years.  She had been very friendly to me on the phone when she "invited" me to come meet with the Committee.

            She introduced the other members: a man about 40, a young woman who was no older than 20 and another woman who was about 48 to 50.  I recognized the three older members as having been in the SO for many years.  The three "members" did not speak; only the Chairman spoke.  She handed me a piece of goldenrod-colored paper, foolscap size (roughly 8.5 x 13).  On the top it said HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE and all the standard wording I had seen on similar documents for years.  It went on for a page and a half to list the allegations against me and the official charges called the " Bill of Particulars ."  When I was finished reading it, I asked if this was my copy.  The Chairman said, "No you can't keep it."

            In preparation, I had studied quite a bit on the Scientology Justice procedures prior to just showing up for my "trial."  So I knew that according to LRH policy, they were required to give me a copy of the Bill of Particulars ( HCOPL 7 Sept 1963).  But she ignored my objection and discounted my vague policy reference (I hadn't said the magic words: " HCOPL 7 Sept 1963").

            You see, in Scientology, if someone spouts an order at you and you respond that the order is against LRH policy, the person simply has to say "Show me the reference!"  And if you can't instantly state it orally or pull a policy letter out of your back pocket, they are free to then try to make you do what they want you to do.  It's definitely a one-way flow.  if they are Sea Org, they are right and you are wrong.  To them, "justice" is composed of using enough force on you to get you to comply.  It's that simple.  Civilian notions of "equity," proportionality or "fairness" do not exist.


The Civilian Justice System

            I want to jump around a bit here for the purpose of showing the differences between the civilian justice system and the Scientology system.  In both the civil and criminal justice systems in America, there are several levels of process.  There are also procedural protections that are built in to try to prevent injustices from occurring.  In both civil and criminal cases, defendants have what is called rights of "discovery."  To be fair to a defendant, the system allows someone who is accused of a "tort" (a civil wrong) or a "crime" (needs no explanation) to be allowed to know the charges, and inspect in detail, the evidence against him (including prospective witness testimony) so he can prepare an adequate defense.  Such is definitely not the case in Scientology.  I had to walk in blind to defend myself.

            That is absolutely unheard of in the US system of justice.  Ask any attorney and they would say that for that reason alone, lack of the process of "discovery," the Scientology Justice (so-called) system is nothing more than the proverbial "kangaroo court."  There were many other procedural anomalies (I'm being kind) that I encountered.  Read on.

            I was not allowed to interrogate witnesses against me.  In fact, there were no witnesses present in the hearing room.  I was given written "reports" written by an Ethics Officer on what I had allegedly done.  But that EO was still in Florida, at Flag.  No chance to cross-examine her.  The other report was written by the local EO Theresa, who was in Los Angeles and just about 100 feet away from the hearing room, but I was not allowed to call her for cross-examination either.

            The Committee Chairman simply wanted me to submit a plea to each of the charges one by one, then I could give a statement of explanation, which would have been the sum total of my defense.  It was as if I was to give my "Opening Statement" then put on my Defense "Case in Chief" and then make "Closing Arguments" all at the same time.  To me it was a circus.  But since I am a Scientologist, it is supposedly my circus too.  It is assumed by Mr. Hubbard that once someone "signs up" into Scientology, they accept all of these rules and procedures (even if they don't know about them beforehand).  Thus my demand for FULL DISCLOSURE, noted above.

            Well, I did the best I could.  I explained that prior to January 2012, I had not gone onto the Internet looking for anything about Scientology - good or bad.  I had been a loyal Scientologist since 1973 and never had reason to "inquire" about any perceived outnesses.  But when I received that email from Debbie Cook on 1/1/12, I became curious.  I went on the Internet to see if I could find any info to either prove or disprove her allegations.  I told them that the first place I looked was the few authorized Scientology websites.  The problem is that when you "Google" Scientology, you get good stuff and you also get bad stuff.  And you usually don't know if the articles are pro or con or even neutral until you read quite a bit of it.  You see, many of the disaffected and former Scientologists are not particularly upset with Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard.  Most of them still feel the tech works and are still using it.  They are just upset with current management, especially David Miscavige.

            The Committee asked me how much time I had spent looking at websites about Scientology or reading articles or books written by critics.  I estimated it to be 20 hours per month at first, decreasing to a very sporadic search in 2013.  They also wanted to know who I spoke to about this critical information.  I said that there were only two people who I spoke to, both personal friends who had been in Scientology each for many years.  And each of them had received and read Debbie's email.  They too were inquisitive and had checked out some things on line as well.  I told the Committee that our conversations were not "the church is bad and Scientology is bad" or anything like that.  The subjects we discussed were more like "What's going on in the church?" "Why are so many high level Sea Org members leaving and writing 'tell all' books?"  And "why did Katie Homes really divorce Tom?"  Stuff like that.

            The meeting with the Committee lasted nearly two hours and I was then dismissed.  If anyone is interested, I do have a copy of the Bill of Particulars, but it is not the actual Bill of Particulars, because, as I mentioned above, they wouldn't give me that.  But while I did have it in my hands, I made them sit there silently for 15 minutes while I copied word-for-word the entire B of P.  So what I have is my word-processed version from my notes.

            The first sentence of the B of P says: "Per reports to hand, in January 2012, Skip responded to a comm [communication] he received from a declared SP instead of reporting this to HCO."

                  Editors note: That two-word phrase "to hand" is such a perfect example of Scientologese Robot-speak.  
                           Everyone in the entire world says "reports  at hand" or "reports  in hand," but  because LRH used the phrase
                           "to hand" every staff member, especially Sea Org uses the phrase "to hand."  It's part of the Vulcan Mind Meld
                           or "group-think" with which they engage.   It is documentary evidence of a complete inability to engage in
                           independent thought.

            Right away I noticed a problem with this allegation.  The so-called "reports to hand" had not come from anyone but ME!!!  In other words, there were no Scientologists writing reports to Ethics saying "Skip is constantly bothering me with crap he has read on the Internet and he's bad-mouthing so-and-so."  That never happened.  Ethics had not received any "reports" about my so-called suppressive activities.  Instead I had WALKED into the Flag Land Base and TOLD THEM WHAT I HAD DONE!!

            To me, this seemed like a major defense point.  Every year, tens of thousands of civil matters are resolved even before legal action is threatened because the tortfeasor admits what he did and offers restitution to the victim.  The same thing occurs in the criminal justice system.  If somebody backs into your unattended parked car, but then leaves a note or drives to a nearby police station to report the accident, he cannot be charged with hit and run.  The rules are a bit different if there is an injury at the scene, but let's not get too technical here.

            The point is that in the civilian justice system, one is rewarded (penalties are mitigated) for self-reporting.   But apparently that is not the case in Scientology.  Church officials urge you to "come clean" but if you do, you are penalized just as much as if you had withheld.

            Another outpoint contained in the first sentence of the B of P was the part about "...this person responded to a comm he received from a declared SP instead of reporting this to HCO."  As noted above, the "comm" I had received was an email from Debbie Cook, a person who I had known for many years.  I knew this woman and knew that she had been in the SO for more than 25 years.  Prior to receiving her email on 1/1/12, I had not seen her for years and the last time I saw her she was still in the SO the "Captain" of the Flag Land Base.  Not only did I not know she had left the SO prior to 1/1/12, the assertion that she was an SP (Suppressive Person) was not accurate as of 1/1/12.  I have since learned that the church declared her to be an SP, but that was done sometime in mid-2012, many months after she sent me the email.  Another lie disguised as a factual allegation in the Bill of Particulars.

            In civilian courts, in most cases, the prosecution must show and then prove "intent" on the part of the defendant before a conviction can be obtained.  In most civil cases, all one needs to prove is "negligence" and this is true in some criminal matters too.  But part of the negligence to be proven is a "willful disregard" of known facts, or facts that the person should have known.  An example of this would be a man is visiting his buddy who is a gun collector.  The man walks into the friend's den, sees a handgun on the table, picks it up and without checking first, points it and "dry fires" it.  The weapon discharges killing the friend.

            This was both a criminal act and a civil wrong because the man should have known that there was a high likelihood that the gun could have been loaded.  He acted very negligently but if criminally prosecuted, the defendant would be charged with manslaughter, not intentional murder.  And if he "self reported" by turning himself in, his sentence would most certainly be lighter than if they had to chase him down for the arrest.

            In my case the issue of "intent" was not even addressed.  Apparently in "Scientology Justice," only your perceived bad actions are judged, not your intentions.  You can have a good and pure heart and simply use poor judgment, yet you are assumed to be in league with and in agreement with the most strident attackers against the church and against Mr. Hubbard.  In Scientology, there are no rheostats, only on / off switches; the only labels: "friend" or "foe."
 
Findings and Recommendations

            In the Scientology Justice system, the results of the Committee of Evidence are called
"Findings and Recommendations." 


            I found out the hard way that neither of the terms "findings" or "recommendations" are accurate and true to their respective dictionary definitions.  In my case, the so-called "findings" were based on supposition, speculation and alteration of facts; and the "recommendations" were not recommendations, at all, but orders.  One is not free to disregard, alter or modify them, lest he be subjected to harsher penalties. 

            The harshest penalty one can receive in Scientology is being declared a "Suppressive Person."  Its near-equivalent in Catholicism is excommunication.  But it's worse than excommunication, because in Scientology, being "declared" means that one is banished from the church and no Scientologist will have anything further to do with you.  Nobody wants that "sentence," so when someone is subject to the " Findings and Recommendations" of a Comm Ev, one is forced to comply with whatever they say to do.   And when the Church of Scientology has someone under Comm Ev, like the line from Locomotive Breath , by Jethro Tull,  they have "got him by the balls."

            According to Wikipedia, the term "kangaroo court" was coined during the California Gold Rush of 1849, as a description of the hastily carried-out proceedings used to deal with the issue of claim jumping miners.  They describe the term as "a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice..."  Merriam-Webster defines it as "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted."

            Here is what the Committee "found":

            The first "finding" was that they determined I am what they called "PTS Type J" -- however there is no such thing in LRH Policies as PTS Type J.  Please read the section below on " Potential Trouble Source" to see how they fouled up their own "Findings" with a false and made up category.

            They also assigned me a Condition of Treason, which is defined as betrayal after trust.  The question they never answered was since there are no actual policies prohibiting reading material on the Internet, when was I supposedly trusted by the organization not to do it?

            One of the "crimes" they found me guilty of is " Being a known accessory to a suppressive act."  They based this on an email conversation I had in January 2012 with a former Sea Org member (Debbie Cook) who was acting as a "whistle-blower" to broadly publish activities within the church that were highly improper.  The church considered her revelations to be suppressive act(s) and anyone who read her email was an accessory to them.

Merriam-Webster defines an accessory as:
1
a :  a person not actually or constructively present but contributing as an assistant or instigator to the commission of an offense —called also accessory before the fact
b :  a person who knowing that a crime has been committed aids or shelters the offender with intent to defeat justice —called also accessory after the fact
 
            What the Committee failed to demonstrate is how I knew that "a crime has[d] been committed" (a Scientology crime, that is) by simply reading an email from someone on January 1 (it could have been Jan 2), 2012, and then I letting myself somehow become a party to the crime. 

            Years ago, Mr. Hubbard established a system for communicating with the public and staff regarding what are the policies of the church.  These forms of communication are called Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters or HCOPLs (mentioned above).   I tried to find an HCOPL that said in essence: if someone sends you and email (or letter) that contains criticisms of church procedure, that communication is automatically considered to be a suppressive act.  It doesn't even say that in the 7 Jun 65 HCOPL mentioned above regarding Entheta Letters.  It just says to put such letters into the "dead file."  It doesn't say the writer is automatically considered to be an SP without a trial and a verdict.

            According to existing LRH policy ( HCOPL 7 Sept 1963), no one is considered "guilty" of suppressive acts until they have been tried (Comm Ev) and convicted (Findings and Recommendations).  In January 2012, the woman who sent that email to me and about 10,000 other Scientologists had not been tried or convicted, so how could I have known that the data contained in her email constituted a suppressive act?  I couldn't.  But that didn't stop the Comm Ev from "finding" that I had committed a [Scientology] crime.

            The second "crime" they found me guilty of was " spreading destructive rumors about senior Scientologists."  (I never asked the Committee whether or not it was OK to spread destructive rumors about "junior" Scientologists, but that would be an interesting inquiry.  Remember, it was a "tough room.")  That "guilty" verdict was once again based on one private email I sent to a woman who was a friend at that time.  And remember, at no time during my meeting with the Committee did they allow me to examine any of the so-called "evidence" against me or call any witnesses (remember, there were no witnesses, but me).  And I no longer had access to my email as per my promise to Slavka, I had taken all that stuff off my computer when I got back to California from Flag.

            One more point about the comparison between the civilian justice system and the one used in Scientology (the one Mr. Hubbard calls the "superior" system).  Over the years in my professional life, I have had an opportunity to sit though parts of trials, both criminal and civil.  Court trials consist of various participants, all of which are very important to "fair" justice.  The judge is the final arbiter of all things legal and procedural.  The jury makes the final decision regarding all things "factual," including guilt.  The prosecution is represented by an attorney schooled in the law and charged with the responsibility of presenting the case against the accused.  The defense attorney, presumably equally schooled in the law, has an important job to pick apart the prosecution's case to find inconsistencies in the facts, to challenge incorrect applications of law and to explain to the jury another "viewpoint" regarding the allegations in an attempt to win an acquittal.

            The Scientology "justice" system doesn't resemble the civilian system in any way other than perhaps the people involved have on clothes and sit in chairs.  It is a mish-mash of mixed and missing "hats."  First of all, the judge and the jury are one in the same.  The "prosecutor" doesn't even show up, but simply puts all the so-called "facts" into written reports which, presumably, have the power of absolute truth.  And the defendant defends himself, whether or not he has any prior experience at this mock jurisprudence.  The process resembles the old "show trials" in the Soviet Union, yet the Sea Org members with whom you speak about this system, swear by it.  Not spoken about in polite company is the fact that any Sea Org member who has been Comm Ev'd based on little or no evidence but a mountain of emotion knows the process is very unfair.  Often the "verdict" is given to the Committee by senior Sea Org members before the trial is even held (my opinion - hard to prove).   Many Comm Ev'd staff have lost rank, lost pay and been sent to Scientology's version of a gulag called the RPF.  For more on this, simply Google "Rehabilitation Project Force."   You may be shocked at what you learn.

            I know of one attractive young woman, about 20 years old, who was the Book Store Officer at the Advanced Organization Los Angeles (approximately 2009 - 2010).  She had been in the Sea Org only a year or two (a time in one's career when the person's morale and work ethic are at their absolute high point) when she was removed from her post and Comm Eved.  There were many charges against her, but the main one was that her sales stats had crashed and remained down for many months.  What the Ethics personnel who called the Comm Ev failed to take into consideration was that this occurred during a period when the economy had crashed resulting from the real estate debacle one or two years earlier.  The poor girl couldn't GIVE books away because no one had money in their budget for those items.  They were too busy trying to find money for food and paying the rent.  Not only that, but just a few years earlier, thanks to Miscavige "re-write" and "re-publish" of all the Basic books, everyone who could fog a mirror was forced by group persuasion to purchase the full set of the new books at $3,000.00 a pop.  According to LRH policy, there are NEVER any excuses for your stats being down, so this young, enthusiatic Book Store Officer had to face her punishment and feel humilation for failing to sell books to people who already had two sets of them.  She had to be shown that her lack of performance let down the whole group.
 
            The Recommendations from my Comm Ev ordered the following:

            I have to undergo something called "Security Checking."  This is a process delivered by an "auditor" (counselor) whereby the subject is put on the "e-meter" and asked a long series of very probing questions to see if they represent a security risk to the church.  They want detailed information on whatever it is that you are "withholding" from them.  In my case, this process, which I would have to pay for myself, costs $14,000.00.

            Also I have to put in 175 hours of volunteer work at a church facility, called "amends."  Since "time" equals "money," at minimum wage, that penalty would cost me approximately $2,012.50.


          And I have to apply and go up through the "Conditions," which are a series of steps to get a person back up to the level of behavior that is acceptable to the loyal Scientologists.

            Frankly, I thought a "fine" of $14,000.00 was a bit steep for what I actually did.  I'm being too polite; it was fucking OUTRAGEOUS!  But to understand this harsh treatment, one must understand church management.  They are simply following the very harsh and retributive policies written by L. Ron Hubbard.  His public personae is one of friend to all mankind, but behind closed doors he had a foul temper and took out his vengeance on anyone who crossed him.

            The worse thing they did to me, however, was forcing my two daughters to "disconnect" from me.  The policy of "disconnection" is a control mechanism designed for force compliance with Scientology's rules.                   

Disconnection

            Probably the hottest topic on the Internet regarding the mis-deeds of Scientology is the policy on Disconnection.  There are many hundreds of postings and YouTube videos on this subject.  Former long-time Scientologist Leah Remini has created a multi-part documentary on this subject -- Scientology and the Aftermath -- recently shown on the A&E TV channel and just this week (8/15/17) began its second very successful season.  Those affected by disconnection, hate the practice.  It is cruel and suppressive, but oddly enough, enforced by the very people who label others as suppressive. 

            According LRH, the definition of "suppression" is: "a harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back.  Thus when one can do anything about it, it is less suppressive.  Suppression in its most fundamental sense is knocking out the beingness or location of another or others."  Source: PTS / SP Course Glossary, also page 172 of Introduction to Scientology Ethics.  And what is to "suppress?":  "To squash, to sit on, to make smaller, to refuse to let reach, to make uncertain about his reaching, to render or lessen, in any way possible by any means possible to the harm of the individual and for the fancied protection of the Suppressor."  Source: Introduction to Scientology Ethics, page 172.

            It is my opinion that ordering adult children not to communicate with a parent is itself suppressive: "refuse to let reach," "render or lessen in any way possible..."  Both Megan and Alexis stopped communicating with me in 2014.  Obviously that hurt me very deeply.  I tried to live a normal life without them, but it is like suddenly coming down with a breathing disorder that severly restricts the intake of air, but apply that same restriction to the feeling of love and affection.  One does not dare try to breathe deeply (analogy: feel positive emotion) because as soon as you do, the pain comes...  You remember all those wonderful times together with your daughters when you thought you were building and unkillable bond of love and affection and then realize that another entity was allowed to control that "bond" and now does.  In 2015 I learned that Alexis, who had just turned 20, was getting married to some fellow Sea Org member.  A friend of mine saw the announcement on a FaceBook page from which I had been blocked.  My friend showed me my new son in-law's picture and he looks like a nice-enough kid, but at least someone (Teresa or a friend of a friend) should have sent me an email informing me that the event was in the offing.  No; Scientology does not engage in such pedestrian dignities when they are at War with Suppressives!

            You see, the blocking of communication that "normal" humans have among each other is part of the "punishment" meted out by the church.  L. Ron Hubbard states in numerous references about how punishment is bad and is very counter-productive to a society, yet he built segments of the organization around the mechanics of devious, unrelenting, degrading gut-wrenching punishment.  It is the kind of punishment that is worse than physical; it is emotional & spiritual degradation.  On page 27 of his book Self Analysis , Hubbard says: "Knowledge does not destroy the will to live.  Pain and loss of self-determinism destroy that will." - LRH

            L. Ron Hubbard knows how important it is to a father (Yes, a mother too) to maintain that bond with his children.  If you want proof, simply listen to his lecture #29 of The Philadelphia Doctorate Course.  The lecture is called: Flows, Patterns of Interaction in which Hubbard speaks about the imporatance of having a family unit.  It describes the parent's "goals" as a parent -- without which he will "perish rather than work along for himself."

           And he also knows better than to program his "church" to mete out that kind of punishment, but it's done anyway.  It is devious and spiteful.  Here is another interesting quote from page 293 of  Self Analysis :  " Aberrated individuals use two distinct and very aberrated methods of controlling others.  The first consists of forcing the other person to do exactly what is desired with the mechanism of recrimination and denial of friendship or support unless instant compliance takes place.  In other words, 'You do exactly what I say or I am no ally of yours.'  This is outright domination." - LRH

            The disconnection policy was featured prominently in the HBO documentary based on the book Going Clear: Scientology and The Prison of Belief and has been very controversial since its inception.  The original policy was contained in HCOPL 27 March 65 and was supposedly cancelled by LRH when, in his words, it was being misused.  Then another policy was written called PTSness and Disconnection, HCOB 10 Sept 1983.  The term PTS stands for "Potential Trouble Source."  Regarding disconnection, the policy reads, in part:

            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 - LRH.

            The idea being promoted by Mr. Hubbard in this bulletin is that "communication" is a right!  [Incidentally, he doesn't address from where rights emanate: God?, the Universe?, Nature?, Xerxes?, Pan? the Democratic party?]  The above policy excerpt asserts that if a person has a right to communicate, that same person also has an equal right not to receive communication.  That is an interesting argument, but let's test it in real life.  First, let's examine the definition of a right.  Webster's defines a "right" as:

1:  qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
 
2:  something to which one has a just claim: as
a :  the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
b (1) :  the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural (2) plural :  the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
 
3:  something that one may properly claim as due
 
4:  the cause of truth or justice

            If one reads the words from the HCOB carefully, in light of the definition from the dictionary, one could conclude that this may present a situation of "conflicting" rights.  For example, if person "A" (a father, for example) wants to communicate with his daughter, according to Mr. Hubbard's proclamation above he has the "right" to do so.  It is "something that one may properly claim as due."  Yet if person "B" (his daughter, for example), chooses not to communicate with her father, she too is exercising a "right" she has.

            In the civilian world, when two parties of equal legal status attempt to exercise "rights" that conflict with each other, there is usually (or should be) a process of negotiation or even arbitration.  Without such an attempt at resolution, a conflict would continue to exist and in raw society, conflicts often fester and develop into hostility and violence.  Wars begin just this way and since Scientology has as one of its primary goals the end to war, it should practice what it preaches; to wit: conflict resolution.

            An example of such a minor conflict would be if a tenant "A" in an apartment building likes to play rock music but tenant "B" thinks it too loud, the apartment manager (and sometimes the police) will try to negotiate between the parties to resolve the conflict so that each can enjoy their respective property rights.  Perhaps a time schedule can be worked out so "A" plays his music when "B" is out shopping or at work.  But as my police experience has shown to me, sometimes an officer will intervene in such a conflict and "force" the music miscreant to cease and desist all of what they consider to be "noise."  In such a "solution" to the conflict, the process of negotiation is often replaced with brute force by police.  So it is with Scientology.

            In the example above, when "A" wants to talk to "B" (who incidentally has been ordered not to talk to her father since he has been convicted of committing Suppressive Acts against their church), then, according to the church, daughter's rights are superior to that of father.  Party "A" has no senior tribunal within the church to hear his appeal.  Not only that, the church officials adamantly deny that they ordered daughter "B" to disconnect.  "She did it of her own free will," they say.  But Dad knows that assertion is complete bullshit!  Of their own "free will," Cubans periodically re-elect one of the Castros, don't they?  The same goes for "elections" in other dictatorships.

            This control mechanism (Do what we say or we will do to you what was done to him) is something the church uses very successfully over its parishioners and staff to keep them in line.  It is very effective, but it is based on "group agreement."  If "B" (and hopefully  thousands of other "B's") should ever engage in "independent" thought, the game of control by the church is over.  And frankly, independent, self-determined "thought" (as opposed to stimulus - response mechanics) is what I got into Scientology to achieve and to see propagated around the planet.  As a member of a police agency,  I had seen enough "robotism" and arbitrary force used in city government (and other levels) to know that this was not an ideal way for people to act.

            The original "sales pitch" for taking courses in Scientology promised that it would help the individual become more "self-determined."   Mr. Hubbard refers to the value of self-determinism in many of his books and lectures.  The lecture series called " Milestone One " created in 1952 (check the date on that, I think that is correct), Hubbard gave a wonderful lecture called " Thought, Emotion and Effort."  In it Mr. Hubbard said: "A person is as healthy and sane as he is self-determined.  Self-determinism should be very free.  The environment should not affect an individual unless he expressly desires it to affect him. - LRH  Having just quoted that from Hubbard, please forget for a moment that in the last 10 years of his life, due to his complicity in the crimes of those under him, Hubbard was hiding out from the law and completely allowing the environment to affect him adversely.  (Don't mention this in polite company, however.)

             My observations have taught me that the "thought control" (reference The Wall by Pink Floyd ) by the church's Ethics department is anathema to "personal" or "spiritual" " freedom."  Thought control invalidates the postulates of the individual.  Mr. Hubbard cited this concept in his first book: Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health in which he says: "Invalidation is any thought, emotion or effort, counter-thought, counter-emotion or counter-effort which denies or smothers the thought, emotion or effort of the individual...  Any force which he cannot conquer or oppose invalidates him.LRH.  This seems to be a corollary to the definition of "suppression" noted above.

            The decision by my children to disconnect from me was not derived from a process of analysis and conclusion.  It was a complete stimulus - response product.  They simply acted out of fear of what whould happen to them if they did not comply.  Had they taken the time and mental energy to analyze the case against me, to investigate the circumstances and conclusions drawn by the Committee, they would have seen the errors and falsehoods, for they glare.

            For months I tried to get my children to "grow a pair" and push back against illegal orders; but instead they wimped out and disconnected from me.  I thought I had taught them better than that.  Unfortunately, they were simply following the same path as their weak, spineless  mother who did everything the church told her to do (divorce 6 years earlier), lest she lose her "eternity."

            Their loyalty to Scientology's doctrinaire pedagogy was superior to their fealty to me, despite my 20 years of devotion to their needs.  It ain't fair, but much of life isn't either.  Please note, however, that I am NOT upset with my daughters.  If a relative of yours was captured by, say North Koreans and forced to say things against the country or against your family, when they finally escaped, you certainly would not be mad at them.

            Looking back, I too made stupid mistakes when I was younger.  The reader will recall my biggest stupidity - described above - Left a good job in the City, workin' for the man every night and day...   Hindsight is a wonderful gift.  Unfortunately, it runs a tag-team with guilt and regret.

  
Why?

            If you are not a Scientologist (or former one) reading this, I'm sure you are wondering, why did the church do this to me and to others?  (others have gone through much worse -- please view Leah Remini's series of expose's)  Why the harsh penalties and the lack of traditional "due process?"  The simplest and most direct answer to that question is that in recent years, the upper administration of the church of Scientology has gone into a near-panic mode.   As shown in the recent HBO documentary and the series on A & E, the church has been covering up many secrets for the last 60 or more years and now that the Internet is causing these secrets to be exposed, the church is losing (correction - has LOST) its public relations image. 

            Events like Katie Holmes divorcing Tom Cruise caused a major flap (an even worse flap than the divorce from Nicole).  Celebrities who have recently left the church include Leah Remini, Nicole Kidman, Mimi Rogers, Jerry Seinfeld, Jason Beighe, Paul Haggis, Jeffrey Tambor, Lisa Marie Presley, Russell Crow, Michael Fairman, Larry Anderson, Isaac Hayes and others.  The main-stream media, who used to avoid making disparaging comments about Scientology out of fear of law suits, are not afraid any more.

            Unfortunately, according to Mr. Hubbard, a being (and an organization) becomes the EFFECT of the condition in which it finds itself.  And right now, Scientology is below "Non-Existence" in its operating condition.  And although it tries hard, it has no one to blame but itself (Senior Management).

            Many books have been written describing the horrible way in which Scientology Sea Org members are treated at the International Management site near Hemet, CA.  That is a major collective transgression against hundreds of very hard-working staff members.

            The senior management of the church feels under attack from all sides and, like a wounded animal, is in constant "fight" mode.  See a reference called "The Black Panther Mechanism" from the Dianetics book.  Per their training, top Scientologists do not flee, avoid, neglect or succumb to threats; they attack.  Unfortunately, in spite of their basic training in communication, they don't negotiate or attempt to see the other person's point, either.  And they never admit fault... for anything!

            At this stage of the life of the church the in-roads into mainstream society that were present in the 1970's and 80's are quickly disappearing; correction: all but gone.  Thousands of public Scientologists and Sea Org personnel, many from the most senior management levels, have left the church and are vocally protesting what is going on at the top.  The Internet is full of "whistle-blowers" exposing things that the church (specifically the leader, David Miscavige) does not want known.  He is the de facto "dictator" of Scientology.  He is currently under fire from many sources, but staunchly maintains a sublimely arrogant, self-righteous, bunker mentality about it all.
            Over the last 100 years or more, there have been many dictatorships that have fallen due to the broad mass of the people under it suddenly tiring of the horrible conditions under which they live and becoming fully aware of the true power they have.  When there is clear evidence that the "game" is soon to be over, the dictatorial regime resorts to the use of horrific force on certain key individuals in an effort to scare others to stay in line.  This strategy, however, only works for a while.  It forestalls the inevitable, but eventually the end comes for the tyrant.  Note the current posturing of Kim Jung Un in North Korea.

            Several written accounts by former Sea Org members who were posted at the Int base in Hemet, CA, tell of Miscavige "purging" many very seasoned and veteran Sea Org members.  Many of these people were much more highly trained than Miscavige and worked alongside Mr. Hubbard.  Miscavige's purges were done for the same reason that Stalin did so in 1937 to 1939; to protect himself from anyone who could challenge him or lead a coup.

See the following from Wikipedia:

The purge of the Red Army and Military Maritime Fleet removed three of five marshals (then
equivalent to five-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three- and four-star
generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of
exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),  50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out
of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.
 
            Those loyal Russian officers were either shot or imprisoned in gulags. 
          
            I have first-hand knowledge of the high level of disaffection among Scientologists.  As I mentioned above, I served in the Sea Org for about 2 1/2 years total time.  The first time was over 25 years ago for about 2 years 3 months, and the second time was in 2011 for only 3 months.  During my second "enlistment," part of my duties included helping to man "The Call Center."  This was a large room or series of rooms in one of the buildings on L. Ron Hubbard Way in Los Angeles.  Nearly every Sea Org member at PAC (the Pacific Base) had to work for 2 1/2 hours each day on the phones trying to recover people back onto the Bridge.  We were never told why so many people were disaffected.

            I spoke on the phone with many, many people who said they were upset with some aspect of Scientology and it usually had to do with one or sometimes two incidents where a staff member screwed up (according to the person on the phone).  Something was not handled right and they got upset (called an ARC break - a decrease in either Affinity or Reality or Communication).  They stopped doing what they had been trying to do and walked away, never to return to Scientology.  Many also spoke of the rampant mismanagement at senior levels in the church and what they called "over-regging," (heavy-handed sales techniques).

            These stories reminded me of something I had experienced in 2009.  After the 2008 divorce, I moved to Los Angeles and began to assist one of the volunteer groups at AOLA (Advanced Organization Los Angeles).  The group was called the Flag OT Committee.  Their job was to help the registrars (sales people for the church) find suitable people to pay money and then go to Flag in Clearwater, FL to take Scientology advanced services.

            My job was to select names from a long list (many hundreds of names) and go knock on the person's door to get them "active" in Scientology once again.  You see, this was a list of people who had done some service in the past, but were now inactive and not answering the calls from the church.  I did find several people at home and they often spoke to me.  They relayed stories of being mistreated, misdiagnosed and mishandled by church staff.  They also spoke about mismanagement at upper levels of management.  At that time, I didn't believe any of their stories.  It just wasn't REAL to me (there's that pesky notion of "reality" again) that any Sea Org member could foul up or behave in the ways these people were describing.  I understood complaints about over-regging, but we all just get used to that.  One has to build up some sales resistance to survive in Scientology (and also eat and pay the bills).

            Looking back on it now, I was soooooo niave.  Each time I went back to the OT Committee at AOLA and told them what people were saying, they would come up with some "reasonable" explanation and posit that the person had "overts" (transgressions against the church or its personnel).  Scientologists are trained over the years to recognize that when a person has a complaint, it is only due to their own "overts."  The church is not only without fault, but there is a "remedy" if one simply comes in, pays more money and gets back "in session."

            Frankly, there is enough "truth" in this statement to make it believable by most Scientologists because anyone who has been through a Sec Check knows there is ALWAYS something that comes up in that sort of a session.  Scientologists are heavily schooled to believe that they constantly commit transgressions against other people every day of their lives; many are oozing guilt.  It is their own transgressions against others that is the source of all their problems and they are convinced of that fact.

            Interesting anecdote:  Recently while in the Ethics department at AOLA, trying to handle the Findings and Recommendations described above, I saw a woman who I know.  She is about 50 years old, a pleasant person, friendly and affable; a well known Field Staff Member at PAC.  She has been in Scientology a lo-o-o-ong time and is OT VIII and fairly well trained.  But she was in the MAA's area DOING CONDITIONS !!

            Upon seeing her I didn't speak, because people who are in the Ethics department are not happy that they are there and frankly wish to be invisible.  But I thought to myself, Jesus Christ!!  Does it EVER STOP?  What's this "OT" state supposed to be, anyway?  Even though we spend 10, 20, 30 years, thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars do we EVER achieve a state of existence where we no longer accused of committing daily fucking transgressions against one another?  And why is the "solution" always pay more reparations to the church?
 
Why do Scientologists put up with such bad treatment?

            There are many, many videos on YouTube in which ex-Scientologists tell stories of how they were mistreated by the church.  Invariably during the Q & A period after their speech, the person will be asked by someone "Why do you guys put up with that abuse from the church?"

            For me the answer is simple, but multifaceted.  Once a person has had Scientology auditing and had major "wins" in auditing, they want more and more.  When you are in session and the auditor asks a particular question or has you [mentally] "look" at something and in that instant of realization about a particular "item." there is such a rush of relieve and pleasure; it is often overwhelming.  Medicos would say it is merely a rush of endorphins being released and I suppose physiologically, that is correct.  But in fairness to the auditor and the process being run, but for (a concept in the law) the command of the auditor those endorphins would just sit there, snoozing as endorphins do, waiting for a "trigger." 

            To anyone who thinks that a psychologist or psychiatrist could perform the same function in a counseling session I would offer this challenge: OK Mr. or Ms. psychologist, let's you and I sit across from each other and you say something to me that will cause 95 cc's of endorphins (I just made up that number as I have no idea of the quantity that are released) to flow through my brain within a millisecond of you saying "X."  Go ahead, I dare you.
            Yet a good Scientology auditor can do that several times per hour in a productive session.  THAT is what people get hooked on.  That immense feeling of release of what they call "mental mass."  For those who haven't experienced it, I can sort of liken it to a sexual release, but it is different because it is wholly within a spiritual dynamic, not a body thing.  And the most interesting part of the sensation is that the auditor IS NOT doing anything to you.  YOU are doing it to you!

            It is not significantly different from feeling a shot of some drug rushing through your body.  And at once, you are "Hooked on a feeling"... Blue Swede 1974; oogachacka, oogachacka, ooga-ooga oogachaka...

            And as with a drug addict, you will do anything to get your next "fix."  You will find the money somewhere, even if you have to mortgage your home or cash in your IRA.  And if some Ethics Officer is threatening to prevent you from ever getting your fix and the next one and the next one, you will do what EVER that person says to do, even if it means betraying a friend or relative.  Junkies have no loyalty or integrity.

            I can remember in 1975 when I was in Los Angeles doing OTIII at AOLA.  My favorite song on the radio was "Miracles" by Jefferson Starship.  I was full of optimism for the future because I knew I was on the right path.  Not only was I achieving these wonderful feelings on a daily basis in session, but I had the very positive attitude that by utilizing Scientology technology in the world, societies would improve, crime would decrease, there would be no more wars and my Captain would even smile on occasion.
 
Taking over Planet Earth with Closed Minds

            In his many lectures, Mr. Hubbard speaks about Scientology "taking over" the planet.  Unlike some others, I don't impute bad intentions to his statement.  He felt that his spiritual and management technology were so much superior to anything currently used in the world that people would discover it, use it and his goals of a world without war, insanity and criminality would become a reality.  And for many years, especially during its heyday, the 1970's, Scientology was well on its way to broad acceptance and use in society.  But its undoing came about at the hands of the very people who should have been the most highly audited and trained people on Earth.  It is an unfortunate fact that Scientology management creates its own enemies (like they are trying to do to me).

            Those at the very top of the organization, in the Sea Org, should have been the ones who represented the apex of perfection in competence and behavior.  But as the years have shown, many were neither competent nor well behaved.  Many so-called "OTs" allowed themselves to act worse than the most novice parishioner on his first course.

            A few months ago I watched to a rather lengthy video-taped story from a former very senior Sea Org member and his story was incredible.  In 2004, Mr. Miscavige rounded up 30 to 50 (this is an estimate by the story-teller) of the most senior Sea Org personnel at the International base in Hemet, CA.  As punishment, he locked them all in a large room or series of inter-connected rooms (called "The Hole") and had them engage in "mass confessionals" where each person had to stand and tell about all the bad things he / she had done (or even thought) that resulted in problems for management.  By Miscavige's order, many of these "overts" had to involve sexual thoughts or behaviors (apparently he has a very keen interest in hearing details of other people's sexual peccadilloes). 

            Members of this cadre were then baited and ordered to ridicule, yell at, curse at and physically threaten the person doing the "confessing."  After several days of pressure, these seasoned, well-trained and professional (not to mention fairly high up on the Scientology Bridge) executives behaved like participants in the 1971 Stanford Prison experiment.  Their basest animal instincts took over and all "OT-ness" went out the window (which, incidentally had bars on it).  Other very senior ex-SO personnel have told the same story about this event taking place.  The church officially denies it ever happened, however.  Apparently the church wants people to believe that these former Sea Org members just have very creative imaginations.

            This shameful series of episodes at the International base in Hemet, CA shows me that the so-called State of "OT" isn't.  In my opinion, whatever gains one achieves in auditing sessions are temporary, and the stresses of life can dull and or eliminate these states of OT so that the individual reverts to the level of a pre-Clear (or worse).  I saw that in frequent display with the aforementioned (ex-) wife.  Even after completing Clear, OT I, OT II, OT III and OT IV, she would occasionally "lose it" and engage in screaming temper tantrums, bouts of pouting and not speaking to me for days on end.  In 2010 I (briefly) had a girlfriend who was highly trained Scientologist with and OT VIII certificate on her wall, but still had very odd compulsive behaviors.  She too would pout and clam up.  Yet Mr. Hubbard teaches that Communication is the "Universal Solvent."  My reference is the 9th American Advanced Clinical Course entitled Postulates and Live Communication , a series of lectures by LRH.

            A fundamental principle of psychology and most popular religions is that Man is flawed.  He can be educated and socialized to behave in acceptable ways, but when heavily pressured by the environment, his base instincts take over and he moves closer to Animal than God.  Dianetics and Scientology were supposed to reverse that behavior pattern... permanently.  What the hell happened?

            Years ago I thought Scientology helped to expand awareness and individuality, but the practical truth is that the gains are not permanent.  Many people with Operating Thetan certificates on the wall exhibit spiritual and behavioral instability when stressed by life.  The difficulty for Scientologists is that that they are not really free to call attention to these outpoints.  They may route themselves to "Qual" the quality control section of the church, but what they receive there is further indoctrination.  The resolution to their problem ALWAYS lies in something THEY did wrong, something THEY didn't understand, not a mis-step by an auditor or supervisor or banal idiocy by another person.  And in the case of marital problems, the results of Scientology counseling are unpredictable.  As with many auditing levels, things go well with the person(s) for a while, but then problems recur, requiring more "counseling."

            The stable datum of the church is that the technology of LRH is NEVER the problem.  The application of the tech by the user is always the problem.  The person who doesn't GET this stable datum is a Potential Trouble Source and needs to be dealt with... harshly.

            A Scientologist is only allowed to possess increased awareness of innocuous data that does not challenge the dogma of Scientology.  Every area of his / her life is governed by the Keeping Scientology Working policy.  If one has any different opinion or seems to challenge the authority of the church ethics officers, that person is forcefully and summarily disciplined.  The "group think" in Scientology, especially the Sea Org, is killing the organization but they are oblivious to it as a problem.  It has been said they foster group think; Hell, the revel in it!

            They spend millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours to attract new people to Scientology (or used to, anyway), but through poor performance, lackluster results, ineffective pedagogy or harsh Ethics actions, they lose most of them.  Statistics show that most people who have ever done one Scientology course or purchased one book, do not return for more courses or books.  In the profession of sales, one soon learns that it is hard work to prospect for new clients, but once you have a client, it is preferable to keep that client happy so he / she will be a repeat customer rather than constantly having to go out and prospect for new people. 

            Highly dedicated, believing Scientologists - Sea Org members - can't understand why everyone doesn't see the world and see Scientology as they do.  To them, the "truth" is right before one's eyes: Scientology is the only technology that will save the planet from destroying itself.  Incidentally, don't Muslims say the same thing about their religion: "Why can't you Infidels just see the "truth" of Islam?  Everybody who invents one thinks their "can opener" is the best on the market.

            Before Scientology, I thought that a very high percentage of people in society had a very low level of cognitive ability.  Sure, they can get through the day without screwing things up too badly, but as far as deep analysis and problem solving, forget it.  One need only look at the various TV shows that go out and interview members of the public.  Too many people can't answer simple, basic questions about history, their government and important events.  I don't fault the people themselves, they have significantly let down by the school system in the US.  Students are no longer taught to think.

            So when I discovered Scientology and listened to Mr. Hubbard lecture about how his technology can rehabilitate a person's ability to think rationally and analytically, I thought that this is exactly what society needs to improve the terrible conditions it finds itself in.  But now that I find out that some of the people in Scientology at the highest levels of processing and training are themselves acting like stimulus-response robots,  it is very depressing.  Where do we go now for the solutions?

            My research on the Internet has led me to believe, however, there is a ray of hope for the resurgence of awareness and cognitive ability in the Independent Scientology movement.  Unlike some of my bretheren and sisteren who want the scurge of Scientology wiped out, I do not.  I'm hoping it can be saved, re-schooled, re-tooled and re-introduced (but certainly not like New Coke).

            It seems that no matter what you do to beat it down or suppress it, the Human Spirit via the mind (well, most minds) remains capable of independent thought.  Granted, some minds are more capable than others and many human minds are filled with very wrong data about all aspects of life, but the yearning for freedom and independence is a variable that an organization that runs mostly on "group think" cannot deal with, except by use of force to keep members in line.  

            In the Keeping Scientology Working policy letter, LRH says that once someone has signed up, they are in [Scientology] forever and they are here on the same terms as the rest of us: "Win or die in the attempt."  Mr. Hubbard asserts a moral (contractual) obligation that was never the result of any "arms length" negotiation.  The "details" of the contract were never disclosed up front.  That situation needs FULL DISCLOSURE.

             The apprentice Scientologist is never given the "now you are one of us for eternity" disclosure up front.  No one ever says "Hey, pal, if you sign up for this basic course, you are in this group for the rest of your life and subject to our rules."  Scientology is very big on enforcement of its rules, especially the EOs at the more advanced orgs.  One doesn't find about the true impact of the "win or die" postulate until he / she is sitting in an Ethics Officer's tiny little space and is being disciplined for breaking a rule like masturbating or reading some unauthorized material.  Imagine what they would do to someone caught reading unauthorized material while masturbating!!  I shudder think of it.

            In one of his diatribes against police (Yes, I'm jumping around, but I just thought of it), LRH says that police have to focus on crime and invent problems about crime to justify the need for more police.   It seems logical that so too does the Sea Org need to create "out-ethics" in order to justify its mission to get in ethics.  Why else would a perfectly nice young woman like Theresa at AOLA elevate what should have been treated as an "infraction" up through a misdemeanor and into "felony" territory?   As mentioned earlier, according to material from at least one LRH lecture I know of, it's called putting a "head on a pike."  Senior management has been reeling for years at the high number of people leaving Scientology and have traced much of the reason for this exodus to Scientologists reading material on the Internet that used to be "secret."

            Their Freudian slip is showing for the world to see and it ain't pretty.
 
Management Style - Authoritarianism

            Scientologists the world over, no matter what country they live in, are subject to two governments.  If you live in Italy, it's the Italian government.  If you live in the United States, it's the U.S. government, and so on.  But Scientologist must submit to the rules of TWO governments; the second one is the Sea Organization.  It IS without a doubt, Scientology's GOVERNMENT.

            It has a President, who is less like a President and more like a dictator.  It has a Congress, which is called the Religious Technology Center and it has a Court system, which, in various levels, is the Ethics and Justice system of Scientology.  Its handiwork is described above.  The government of Scientology is one of the harshest and most authoritarian organizations known on Planet Earth.   In fairness, they do not employ the (physical body) Death Penalty, but they do employ a form of Spiritual Death Penalty called Disconnection.  And as far as the power to incarcerate, I need only point to the aptly named subtitle of the HBO documentary called " Going Clear - Scientology and the Prison of Belief ."

            The style of management utilized by the church of Scientology, especially at the Sea Org levels, is clearly top-down, authoritarian bureaucracy.  According to a Wikipedia article, authoritarianism is marked by six defining characteristics:

  1. An elaborate guiding ideology
  2. A single mass party or group of believers (group think)
  3. Use of a system of fear or terror via (secret or not-so-secret) police
  4. Monopoly on the use of weapons (inability to fight back)
  5. Monopoly on the means of communication
  6. Central direction and control of the group or society

            It is interesting to note that within the last several centuries, a few civilizations have tried governing their citizens with despotic, authoritarian and even totalitarian management styles.  They include Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany; Stalin's Russia; Mao's China and others.  History has shown that all have failed.  (In recent years, due to massive pressure from the populous, China has had to mollify its harsh Communist Party edicts and "mellow" a bit).  Since its movement away from a “command” economy to more of a “market” economy, China is currently struggling with how much "freedom" to grant its citizens.

            Remember the old ad for Tricks cereal where they said "Silly rabbit, Tricks are for kids"?  Regarding China and other authoritarian regimes, the phrase should be: "Silly supreme leader, Liberty and Freedom are for people."

            It is a fascinating observation to note that the organization that is in charge of seeing to it that "customers" of Scientology achieve the goal of Spiritual Freedom, the Sea Orgainzation; itself is run as a virtual dictatorship, where the workers have de minimis personal freedoms.
 
Code Red

            In the classic movie A Few Good Men , much controversy occurs during the Court Martial of Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey.  The issue: The Code Red.

            What is a "Code Red?"  The simplest definition of the term is that it is punishment meted out by enlisted personnel against other enlisted personnel in order to maintain discipline within the platoon. squad or other fighting unit.  It is ordered by, but never performed by, officers.  As skillfully shown in the courtroom scene, one will never find a "Code Red" authorized or written about in the operating manuals of the Marine Corps or any other branch of the military.  The action is completely outside the standard Code of Military Justice.

            In several courtroom scenes, actor Tom Cruise playing Lt. Daniel Kaffee, the lead defense counsel for the accused, rails against this barbaric concept - The Code Red.  He considers this type of forceful, bullying tactic anathema to good order and discipline.  Kaffee makes it clear that he feels that punishment of this kind is cruel and unnecessary.  Those are the sentiments of Tom Cruise when he is being an actor.

            But what about Tom Cruise, the Scientologist?  For more than 20 years, whistleblowers -- former high-ranking Sea Org members - have been speaking out about the cruel and harmful punishment of staff members that goes on at most Sea Org facilities.  For more than 30 years, Sea Org members have been routed off their posts (job assignments) and taken to the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force), where they are forced to live in squalid conditions, eat stale and rancid food that was left over from feeding the regular crew and they must run everywhere they go.  They may not walk or talk to anyone.  They perform hard, manual labor for more than 12 hours per day and are treated like lepers.

            But the RPF is not the equivalent of the "Code Red" of which I speak.  The RPF is cruel punishment and almost always undeserved when ordered, but there is existing LRH policy that supports the existence of the RPF as a management tool. 

            Scientology's "Code Red" consists of indiscriminate corporal punishment meted out by very senior Sea Org executives against... other Sea Org executives.  One can read all about this unauthorized, unwarranted and criminal (assault & battery is a crime) conduct in several of the books written by former Sea Org members.  I urge you to read them -- see the Bibliography to follow.

            In the movie, Colonel Nathan R. Jessop first denied issuing the Code Red, then when caught in cross examination on the witness stand, admitted giving the order.  Then he defended it with the famous line "You can't handle the truth!" - delivered as only Jack Nicholson can.

            In the Scientology world, David Miscavige is the equivalent of Col. Jessup.  But Tom Cruise the Scientologist does not speak out against this Code Red.  According to an LRH policy letter called " Knowledge Reports ," anyone who knows of "out-ethics" (behavior contrary to codes and ideals of Scientology) should write a fact based report detailing the time, place and form of the event and this should be routed to the appropriate Ethics person.

            Despite the considerable energy Tom put into his role as the person who exposed the criminal behavior on the part of the Colonel, Tom has yet to report on the criminal behavior of his best friend, David Miscavige.  Yet Tom was awarded a medal recently for being "the most dedicated" Scientologist in the world.  Go figure.
 
Heavy Ethics

            One of the key points I have learned from reading about and listening extensively to  former Scientologists and current Scientologists who are disconnected from the official church (see bibliography at the end) is that Scientology was booming in the 1970's and even into the early 80's.  After Mr. Hubbard's death in 1986, things began to change within the upper levels of the church.  One of those changes included the use of "Heavy Ethics."

            According to LRH, Ethics is defined as "reason and the contemplation of optimum survival."  He goes on to note that Ethics are: "the actions an individual takes on himself to ensure his continued survival across the dynamics" (dynamics are 8 divisions of life).  "It's a personal thing.  When one is ethical, it is something one does oneself by choice."  Source: Scientology Handbook.  As mentioned earlier, the mission of the Sea Organization is to "Put Ethics in on Planet Earth."  Source: Sea Org Basics course.

            One can see upon reading these definitions that a potential conflict exists between these two propositions.  One places the burden for "enforcement" squarely on the individual.  The other seeks to employ an "agent" (the Ethics Officer, accompanied by a bevy of other Ethics personnel) to "guide" (I'm being polite) the individual into making the "correct" choices.  And there is also the push to get each Scientologist to "conform" to the expectations of "The Group."

            Most Scientologists will tell you that the most trouble they have in Scientology revolves around "Ethics" and dealing with the Ethics Officer.  They hate it.  The meetings often become adversarial... not always, but enough of the time that it's problematic.  Many seasoned Scientologists have "learned" from trial and error, just do whatever the EO says, write up the Condition or other write-up and say what is expected of you to say, get the hell out of there and go back to normal life!!

            In the book Dianetics 55, on page 172, Mr. Hubbard says: "The ladder up to Pan-determinism [a step above self-determinism] cannot be climbed by force.  It is not made of pikes and spears or police forces [or Ethics Officers?].  It is made of understanding - Affinity - Reality and Communication." - LRH

            Here is an excellent reference that will give the reader a taste for the level of confusion on the subject of Ethics.  It is from The Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Lecture #37 - Chart of Attitudes: Rising Scale Processing .
The Handbook for Preclears talks about the ideal state for Man...  A state and a people have no business operating on a police basis.  There should never… But this is a beautiful police universe – police, police, police every direction you look.  Regimentation and policing – very wicked.  Because people are persuaded to turn over their individual force to something that they are given to understand is superior to their own ability to protect and that can never be.  That’s a snare.  That can never be.  Nobody will look after a man’s own but himself...  A man’s freedom then, cannot be a halfway thing.  You cannot compromise or quibble with the freedom of a man.  If there is a perfect form of government, that form of government would be anarchy.  Everybody has agreed to this.  An anarchy, however, would have to be built out of individuals who were capable, each one, of complete self-government – an impossible condition in the past.  If each person were capable of complete self-government and capable of taking responsibility utterly for his own acts, you would have, for the first time, a basis of ethics…  And the other way around, you only have a moral and a moral code is no good.  An ethical code can be depended upon.  Because if you have an ethical code, you only have it as long as it exists.  And it exists only as long as a man has enough strength not to himself be afraid.  And any time he is susceptible to terror, you’re going to lost your ethic.  The only time a man gets afraid is when he loses his belief in himself and his trust in himself...  Ethics is that which is enforced by oneself, his belief in his own honor, and good reason, an optimum solution along the eight dynamics." - LRH

            Let me first state that I disagree with Mr. Hubbard on "anarchy" being a "perfect" form of government.  Anarchy is defined as "a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc. are not controlled by rules or laws."

            That is pure IDIOCY!  This highlights another problem with Scientology and Scientologists; many would read that quote and consider it to be absolute, factual truth.  They would never seek to challenge it and ask:  Are you serious? Anarchy, the best form of government?  It's no government at all, for Pete's sake!


Potential Trouble Source - "PTS"

            In Scientology, there is a fascinating HCOPL called Potential Trouble Source.  It defines Potential Trouble Source as simply: "connection with a Suppressive."  Hubbard says: "I'll give you the exact mechanics of it:  Postulate-counter-postulate is the anatomy of a problem.  Postulate versus postulate.  That is the definition and the anatomy of a problem  And there is no other definition to a problem...  The guy has had a purpose in life and somebody has suppressed it...  In other words, his purpose was his postulate, the other person saying he couldn't do it was the counter-postulate." - LRH

            Mr. Hubbard goes on in that policy letter to say that there are three Types of PTS - Type I, type II and type III.  For explanations of these, the reader can look up the reference.  My point here is that Mr. Hubbard does not mention anything about "PTS Type J," which is what I was found guilty of being (see the section on Findings and Recommendations above).  The fact is, PTS Type J is a made-up category.  It is a mish-mash and mis-read of the policy that lists the A to J items - HCOPL 27 Oct 1964R  - Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Sources of Trouble.

            The " Sources of Trouble" policy was written in 1964 one year after the church was raided by Federal Agents who siezed all the E-meters and tried to prosecute the church for practicing medicine without a license. The Feds claimed that Scientology was diagnosing medical and psychological conditions without the proper training, so Hubbard wrote the above policy.  It states that the church has experienced in the past trouble which comes in from certain "sources" which he describes as people who approach Scientology, wanting to practice it or study it but they are really trying to "investigate" Scientology.  They should be "ignored" by the church as they are nothing but trouble.  These people include people connected to family members with known antagonism to Scientology.  It also includes criminals, people who threaten to sue or attack Scientology; people who blame their own condition on Scientology, people who are receiving auditing but not on their own determinism, people who "want to see if Scientology works," and others.  The Type J to which the Committee referred states:  "Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology...  this includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc...  The policy is definite. Ignore."

            So basically what the Committee was telling me was that they determined that I was either a newspaper reporter, a magazine writer, a judge or member of a board "empaneled" to investigate Scientology.  What IDIOTS!!  All they had to do was walk from the Committee room where they were meeting down the hall to the Technical area and pull my stacks and stacks of auditing folders dating back 40-God Damn years, to see I wasn't some person from the "outside" seeking to "get into Scientology" in order to investigate it.  Lazy, lazy, lazy.

            I pointed out to the MAA Theresa that they mis-used the Type J reference, but she ignored my complaint.  It is difficult to deal with such illogic and robotism; especially from an organization that promotes itself as defining what sanity is.  By the way, it took the Committee and its reviewers from January 2014 until June 2014 to come up with that lame and incorrect mis-diagnosis.  That's how long it was before the Findings and Recommendations were shown to me.  And yet as an organization they continue to ignore and whitewash their own incompetence.


Spiritual Eternity

            People who are very dedicated Scientologists have the notion that they, as well as every other person on planet Earth, are caught up in what LRH entitled a "dwindling spiral" of degradation as a spiritual being on Earth.  They believe that all spirits started out eons ago with great powers and abilities and throughout the millennia, these abilities have been degraded by a combination of acts of others and agreement to the degraded state by the person him or herself. 

            First of all, there is no proof that there is such a thing as a spirit that acts or exists independent of a body.  It is a matter faith.  There is no evidence that in past eons "beings" operated without bodies, yet harnessed great force to create Matter, Energy, Space and Time.  The "Big Bang" is a theory about which scientists still argue as to the cause (God created energy and matter or it created itself) of the physical universe.  And then we have to deal with the next question, as Johnny Carson once quipped, what happened after the "big bang," was it the "big cigarette?"

            Many hundreds or thousands of years ago people lived a much more degraded life where the strong, the ones with weapons, wantonly killed people with impunity, raped woman with no consequence and simply took from others what they had.   Humankind has come a long way from those days, but very dedicated Scientologists believe that societies are now worse than ever and the road created by Mr. Hubbard, called "The Bridge," is the only path to regaining a certain state of spiritual ability and awareness they once enjoyed.  Scientology has labeled this postulated state "Total Spiritual Freedom."  Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking the idea of freedom.  I love it.  America was founded on the search for it, but has one actually achieved "freedom" when you must cede power to a church to tell you what you can and cannot read on the Internet?

            As a result of such firmly held beliefs, Scientologists evaluate many things in their environment to be existential threats to their "eternity."  The list of threats is seemingly endless and includes anyone critical of Dianetics, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, the Sea Org, LRH policies, etc., etc.  Examples of these threats are newspaper reporters or journalists of any kind, law enforcement personnel, medical doctors, psychiatrists (OMG Yes!) and many others.

            The spiritual "radar" of these dedicated Scientologists are always highly tuned and rotating 24/7 to pick up any incoming stimuli that may be a perceived attack.  For years I lived with a woman whose "radar" often viewed me as a threat to her survival, even though I was the main source of income for her and our children.

            I never could figure out why my wife of 20 years - Teresa, divorced me.  The two-page letter she wrote me never really made sense.  It said that we fought and argued too much (which can be said of most married couples); it said that when my income occasionally fluctuated it worried her; but the main point she made for dumping me was that I had not moved up "The Bridge" in many years.

            I could never fully comprehend that objection.  I was taught that gains from Scientology auditing and training were personal to the individual, especially at the upper levels.  How would my achieving increased awareness about things that happened to me in past lives have any effect on my wife?  I could understand if I had a bad habit of dragging in a slaughtered goat and roasting it over an open pit in the living room; but I rarely did that any more.  I was told by my insurance agent that my fire policy would not pay off for such reckless behavior, so we had our roasted goat prepared by a local Tunisian chef.  [humor - Editor's note]

            I jest; but the point is I didn't understand why she cared so much whether or not I did my next service on The Bridge.  But during my recent travail with the church, it finally dawned on me.  To dedicated Scientologists, the idea of continuing to go up the Bridge contains great symbolic resonance.  It means that you are still "on board" with the program and above all, willing to go in and be Security Checked to make sure you are still on board and not secretly disaffected.

            Failing to go in and get auditing for long periods of time says to the church technical personnel that something is wrong with you.  It is what is called an "outpoint," described earlier.  And since I had not been "in the chair" and being audited for some number of years, Teresa and her "handlers" were suspicious of my loyalty to the cause.  But see, I thought I was being given a pass on that, since I had personally sacrificed and given the bulk of my income to Teresa and the kids, so they could prosper and move up the Bridge.  And I mistakenly thought she would have my back on that point when questioned by the technical staff.  "Hey, it's OK, Skip is 'flowing power' to us now."  Apparently she didn't defend me on that point.  When we were first married I was already at OT level 5 and she was nowhere on the Bridge.  So I figured the bulk of the money training and auditing should be spent on her and I also figured she would acknowledge that.  Whoops, my error! 

            To her (and the handlers), after moving to Florida to be closer to Flag (see the Moving to Florida story below), I had not made it "go right." to get the extra money in our budget (or borrow it) to pay the $60,000.00 for the next step on The Bridge, which was OT VI & VII.  Therefore, I had lost my value to her (and was teetering on the edge with the church).  I had become an impediment to her forward progress, she concluded, and the church officials who were counseling her agreed.  So she divorced me.  She went on to find and marry another guy who had a bigger.............. auditing certificate than me; so for her, I guess everything worked out.

            For years, I thought this "What have you done for me lately?" mentality only applied to wives, but I was wrong.  The church of Scientology has exactly the same basis of operation.  They constantly push their parishioners to donate more and more to the organization, both for the person's own movement on The Bridge (and proof you are still on board with the program) and also for pure donations for projects.  They have billions of dollars, deutschmarks, francs, gilder, pesos, yuan and euros in various bank accounts all over the world.

            Apparently what my wife saw in me in the last several years of our marriage was my lack of enthusiasm to take large sums of money from our budget for donations to the church.  In 2002 we bought a house in San Diego and within two years of that, she wanted to move to Clearwater, FL.  So to please her, I uprooted my entire life, sold the house and bought another, larger home in the Clearwater area (actually Dunedin).  I thought that that allocation of finances would please her, but within a year of settling into the Dunedin house, she was unhappy once again; a chronic condition with her.

            I knew she was being pressured by sales people (called Registrars) at the church to get onto her next level (OT V) and for her to get me onto OT VI & VII.  My "excuse" for not doing so was I'm busting my hump trying to pay for the house and the kids private school and keep up with it all.  But eventually, the "What have you done for me lately?" (WHYDFML?) mantra consumed her.  I can recall one weekend in late 2007, she had a girlfriend over who was visiting from Los Angeles.  Her friend had "made it go right" to get the money (80% of the money came from her husband's labor and credit line, not hers) to get onto OT VI and VII.  Teresa was very jealous of her friend's accomplishment.  After the girlfriend left, she got with me and voiced the four words every man dreads: "We have to talk." 

            The divorce was final in December 2008.

  
Suppression and Suppressive Persons - Potential Trouble Source

            In my opinion, the organizational "fear" that Scientologists have of so-called suppressive persons and PTSness is a cop out.  It is a lame excuse for some of their own failures.  A good example of this is the story of the woman in Texas who I dated in 2010 (referenced above).  We met on line, corresponded over four months and decided to become a couple.  I flew to Austin, met her and spent two days (and one night - if you get my drift).  One of the main reasons we were attracted to each other is that we were both Scientologists.  She was OT VIII and a well trained auditor and Case Supervisor.  She was cute, had a good body and a pleasant personality. We hit it off quite well, or so I thought.

            When I got back to California and after another several weeks of negotiation we decided to marry, but she could not leave Austin as she had a contract with her "Org."  So I arranged with my employer to transfer to Austin.  I packed up all my stuff (I had severely down-sized after the Teresa divorce) which fit in my pickup with a towed trailer.  I made it there and moved into her house.  I soon found out, however, that she had several "oddities" that I hadn't been aware of.  They were strange little things, such as I liked to mute the commercials while watching TV.  For some reason, she hated that.  She had a certain place at the end of the kitchen counter that NOTHING (and I mean "nothing)," could be put there.  There were a few other little things - very trivial, or so I thought.  I figured that, if I trod carefully, I could avoid those minor land mines, after all, Teresa had her little peccadilloes as well.

            But within two days of my moving in, Austin (if I use her real name lots of people will recognize who she is and I don't need the heat) already wasn't happy and started to give me the cold shoulder.  She got very quiet and I knew something was wrong.  On day three when we finally confronted the issue, her excust was that she had now become PTS.  In essence, she was accusing me of being a Suppressive Person.  I tried to reason with her stating that we were both at or near the TOP of the Scientology Bridge.  Obviously she had more training than I did, but since we were both considered to be "OT" there should not be any phyisical universe manifestation that we could not control.  You know if we "Love" each other (there's that antiquated concept again), can't we just work stuff out?  You know, communicate about it?  Grant the other person some "beingness"?

            Although my argument seemed rational, logical and consistent with LRH's teachings, she continued to mope around with an air of disappointment.  I knew that regret and BLAME weren't far off, so I packed up and went back to California.  I had prior experience with someone who perceives you are suppressing her so FUCK YOU, I'm going to suppress you back, Asshole!  Not playing that game again.

            The point to that story shows what I said earlier, the state of Operating Thetan (if it exists at all) is absoultely unique to EACH INDIVIDUAL.  An OT becomes "self-determined" to the max and if they don't want stuff put on THAT area of the kitchen counter others had better comply or they they will be "labelled" as a source of trouble for the "OT."  If the OT wife or girlfriend possess a "fixed idea" that muting commercials is stupid, then if you want to get laid, you DON'T mute the fuckin' commercials!

            That shit's not new; it's also not "OT"... it's just WOMEN !

            Have you heard the phrase "Happy wife, happy life"???  Apparently hundrends of thousands of dollars for auditing and thousands of hours of training DOES NOT CHANGE that concept; it is an ABSOLUTE.  I will continue to "Love" you, providing you are a "good boy" and obey my rules.

  
Conclusion (finally -- It's about time !)

            I started this piece talking about various adventures -- my marriages and the affect that my involvement in Scientology has had on my life.  In case you haven't guessed by now, I am disappointed with the way my life has turned out.  I relied on certain institutions that should have been saner, more logical, more predictable and upon which, individuals like me could have built a more stable life.  Police management should have cut me some slack based on my prior spotless 10-year record.  The mortgage and banking industry fouled up in major ways causing millions of people to lose homes they should not have lost.  The US Congress fouled up by failing to provide a Federal guarantee for all those crappy mortgages they allowed to be created and then bought and sold and bought and sold again.  And years before that the Congress changed many of the laws regarding real estate depreciation that resulted in my company and I loosing properties worth millions.  But all that stuff can be (and was) recovered from.  I just out-created it.

            The institutional failures that most affected me were by the church of Scientology.  The self-righteous idiocy and brazen criminality of the Guardian's Office, the lackluster performance of the church's Qualifications Division over 50 or more years and the raving lunacy of the current leader DM, have set the current stage for the world to judge Scientology.  And even by grading on "the curve," they get an "F."  Not  necessarily all of Hubbard's philosophy is faulty, in my opinion, but the management is what has failed.  The writings and lectures of Mr. Hubbard do have some confusing and contradictory parts, but like any religion or philosophy, the key is in the application.

            Over many years, I got a lot from my auditing and the courses I did, so I would not change that.  I am not a disappointed customer of the technical training and processes.  My first dynamic has been helped, perhaps greatly by Scientology.  But my second dynamic, although not to be classified as a disaster, was very disappointing.  It is very difficult to have any meaningful two-way dialogue and reach agreement, with someone who thinks they know everything and you don't.  So it is with the C of S and so it is with certain wives trained by the C of S.

            My failure in life was that I wasn't smart or astute or quick enough to realize what was happening to me and to my wives and to my marriages.  For too many years, I held on to the promise the church offered: "Things will improve if you just do your next level.  So, do you want to put that on your credit card or will you take out a second mortgage?"
 
  

 

           
  
  
  
    
  
    
  




  ​