* Originally published in 2012, and republished here for Milestone Two readers.

By Jim Logan


An engram is defined as a moment of pain and unconsciousness.  Such a moment of pain and unconsciousness, a moment of severe survival threat, can become fixed itself as one tries to hold it off and absorbs the attention so one has less attention for the present as it is trapped in a past. It can be restimulated as a moment and called into play absorbing more attention again as one fights the threat to their survival.

On the group organism dynamic, an engram is defined in Dianetic Auditors Bulletin Volume 1, #7, from January 1951 as:

“Here then is the cycle of a group receiving an engram: the group ideas and rationale in handling or attacking MEST receive a shock from the MEST which it is attacking, making an emergency situation exist. There is a turbulent area created between the ideals and rationale of the group and the MEST. The emergency status of the situation has to do with the compressed time—something obviously is happening so swiftly that a full use of communication is not possible and must be supplanted by arbitrary rules or commands. As soon as the emergency is over, it can be seen that an engram has been implanted in the group.”

The group, like any organism, is under threat to its survival, either real or imagined. An emergency situation exists. Once the emergency is over an engram has been implanted in the group. By what? The arbitrary orders and commands –  the engramic commands – which the arbitrary orders constitute.

In Scientology policy there is an issue which defines the State of Emergency (HCO PL 17 Feb 61, Issue II, Vol One OEC).  This policy states:

“It is not a good thing to have to step in suddenly. It is always attended by swift action because I never step in unless an emergency already exists and in an emergency one has to act fast. Fast action is seldom attended by smoothness. But in the various emergencies which have occurred in the past when I had to step in, the Organization was enabled to survive.”

HCO PL 13 March 65 Issue II, COMM MEMBER SYSTEM states:

“Never recommend a solution in the absence of data. Less havoc is caused by demanding straight data than by waiting a bit. If the situation is an emergency, however, any policy or action is better than no action.”


“The Assignment of the Condition of Emergency suspends the Justice Codes.”


“There are three steps necessary on the part of a senior executive who discovers a situation which may be disastrous to the org.

“The Executive’s actions are as follows:

“1. Issue orders of a remedying or preventive nature instantly by directive, to remain in effect until all data is in. This is called an Urgent Directive.

“2. Appoint a Board of Investigation to investigate the matter, with orders to investigate fully and couch findings in terms of a directive or policy for issue.

“3. Pass or modify the Board’s findings as orders to supplant the Urgent Directive issued as 1 above. This is called the Final Directive or Policy.


“To do 1-issue a sweeping order to handle the situation. This is vital as there isn’t time to get all the facts. The order may be fair or unfair, correct or incorrect, but at least it does something to arrest a deteriorating situation.

“This Urgent Directive may, however, be in fact wide of the mark but it is only going to remain in force until superseded by orders based on all the data obtained at leisure. Dictatorships are somewhat successful as proven in the past and they run only on urgent directives. So the system is not all bad. However, for such a directive to remain law forever is obviously wrong as it may be wholly arbitrary and may eventually get in somebody’s hair. But not to issue it just because one has little data is to ask for disaster.”

“So in the face of disaster issue an Urgent Directive as best you can and hope you are right in your directed action.

“Convene now a Board of Investigation composed of impartial members who will investigate thoroughly.”

In an emergency, when the survival of the organism is threatened, to survive, swift action is taken, orders, arbitrary and done without full consultation of all members of the group organism, are issued. This is the group engram.  Following the handling of the situation, all such orders and arbitraries are supposed to be re-examined and re-evaluated.

As well, there is an additional tool and method of ‘running out’ group engram. From the Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin above:

“The clearing of this engram consists of an examination by the whole group of the arbitraries, which is to say the orders and commands which were issued without explanation and which demanded instantaneous action on the part of other individuals in the group.”


In the mid to late 70s, the Guardian’s Office had broken the law and by the late 70’s had been caught by the FBI. A trial ensued and 9 members of that office, including Mary Sue Hubbard had been convicted of the crimes committed. Various government agencies continued to investigate and seek to charge LRH with crimes related to taxes, inurement, and other things.

Ron De Wolff, LRH’s estranged son, began an effort to have LRH declared incompetent and seize his estate, including the rights to Dianetics and Scientology.

In 1981, a Mission Holder’s conference was held at the Sandcastle Hotel in Clearwater Florida, during which that group of individuals, as an effort to resolve difficulties they experienced with the break down of the Guardian’s Office, the arm of the organization responsible at that time for the Mission Network, and various difficulties, real and imagined, found themselves subject to orders by a new entity; the Watch Dog Committee, a Sea Org entity, not a Guardian’s Office entity. They attempted to assign WDC a lower condition of Confusion.

David Miscavige was called to the conference to quell the ‘mutiny’ as he described it. Within weeks and months, 13 senior executives were called to the Int Base and Comm Eved. MSH, was summarily removed from any authority in the organization, by DM, and the Guardian’s Office was disbanded. The Sea Org was ‘in control’. RTC Ethics Order #1 was issued on the Comm Ev of the 13. David Mayo was declared an SP and began the Advanced Ability Center shortly after, a large ‘splintering’ of the Scientology field was under way.

On 13 August 1982 a Scientology Policy Directive was issued entitled SUPPRESSIVE ACT, DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON, signed by the WATCH DOG COMMITTEE.

This SPD constitutes one of the chief arbitraries (the commands, orders) entered in to the scene, as an effort to quell the ‘emergencies’, the many threats to survival extant in the early 80s  real, and in cases, imagined. (I’ve not listed them all here, but have given some of the major ones to establish the milieu.)

This SPD  in fact, ‘suspends the Justice Codes’ of Scientology chief among which are the policies and tech to that date, developed to deal with the ‘major stumbling block’ to forward progress, ‘huge above all others’ the Potential Trouble Source and their relationship to Suppressive Persons and groups. (HCO PL 7 March 65, Issue I Suppressive Acts).

In order to understand how this SPD suspended the Justice Codes, and the extant policy and tech on the area of PTS/SP, which this SPD specifically addresses and significantly alters and changes, I will present a brief time-line of the various policies and bulletins that were written, beginning on 7 March 1965, and continuing all the way forward to the late 70s and early 80s. In fact, the very last one was issued as an HCOB on 16 April 1982, entitled MORE ON PTS HANDLING which issue clarifies the emphasis and technology of handling the exact subject that SPD addresses, the PTS and the relationship with a Suppressive Person.

I cannot present the full issues in this article, for space reasons, but encourage all to make a full and complete study or re-study of the materials and I am willing to direct any that need help in finding them to sources from which they may be obtained.


The terms “Potential Trouble Source” and “Suppressive Person” were introduced into Scientology vocabulary on 7 March 1965, in Issue I of three, of HCO POLICY written on that date, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS, THE FAIR GAME LAW. Ten months later, this policy was revised and rewritten on 23 December 65, to include data from a policy written in the interim, HCO PL 16 Aug 65, Issue II, COLLECTION FROM SPS AND PTSES, which in addition to collection policy introduces this datum: “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”

The 23 December 65 revision also changed the meaning of Fair Game from “without rights for self, possession or position, and no Scientologist may be brought for a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is ‘fair game’” to “may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.” This definition is retained in the extant and latest revision of the SP Acts PL, 7 March 65RB as part of the description of a Suppressive Person declared such by HCO: “A truly suppressive person or group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists.: (Section Rights of a Suppressive Person or Group.)

NOTE: the subject, and abuse of the term ‘fair game’ is not the subject particularly of this article. I’m at this juncture merely pointing up the major changes to the original policy of 7 March 65, Issue I, with the revised version of 23 Dec 65. The original version is rather hard to come by, one reason being it was misdated as 1 March 65.  The heading of the 23 December version carries this note: Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1 March 1965. END NOTE.

The three policies, Issue I, II, III, from 7 March 65 collectively are termed by LRH, the Justice Codes. They are the above named policy and; Justice, Certificate Cancellation, Issue II, and Offences and Penalties, Issue III.

These policies establish the administrative handlings, including rights, for those persons declared formally either PTS or SP. The 7 March Issue I, SP Acts PL, describes the steps to take for a person labelled PTS by reason of his connection to an SP. This connection is also defined and states:

“A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.

“A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

“SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.”

The policy lists 28 acts, and includes as above the additional act, from the 16 August 65 PL, in a separate paragraph, just below the A-E steps, “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”

This paragraph and the original list of 28 SP Acts, and this policy letter of 7 March 65, Issue I, introduces the idea of ‘handle or disconnect’ for the resolution of a PTS condition as defined in the paragraphs given here.

The other two applicable SP Acts for a person who is factually PTS are listed, separated by a semi-colon (‘inside’ joke) as: continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts.

Under a section entitled POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE the steps to either handle or disconnect are described in the original 7 March 65 issue. These are retained verbatim in the 23 Dec 65 revision. They are:

“A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. The history of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive Person at every turn they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If they would act with determination one way or the other – reform the Suppressive Person or disconnect, they could then make gains and recover their potential. If they make no determined move, they eventually succumb.

“Therefore this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. So long as a wife or husband, father or mother or other family connection, who is attempting to suppress the Scientology spouse or child, or hostile group remains connected acknowledged or in communication with the Scientology spouse or child or member, then that Scientologist or preclear comes under the family or adherent clause and may not be processed or further trained until he or she has taken appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble Source.

“The validity of this policy is borne out by the fact that the US government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives, husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist, or Scientology. The suppressed Scientologist did not act in good time to avert the trouble by handling the antagonistic family member as a suppressive source or disconnect fully.

“Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of ‘The Auditor’ and public announcements and taking any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter cutting all further communication and disassociating from the person or group.

“Unwarranted or threatened disconnection has the recourse of the person or group being disconnected from requesting a Committee of Evidence from the nearest Convening Authority (or HCO) and producing to the Committee any evidence of actual material assistance to Scientology without reservation or bad intent. The Committee must be convened if requested.

“Before publicly disconnecting, the Scientologist would be we’ll advised to fully inform the person he or she accuses of Suppressive Acts of the substance of this policy letter and seek a reform of the person, disconnecting only when honest efforts to reform the person have not been co-operated with or have failed. And only then disconnecting publicly. Such efforts should not be unduly long as any processing of the Potential Trouble Source is denied or illegal while the connection exists and a person not actively seeking to settle the matter may be subjected to a Committee of Evidence if processed meanwhile.

“The real motives of Suppressive Persons have been traced to quite sordid hidden desires – in one case the wife wanted her husband’s death so she could get his money, and fought Scientology because it was making the husband well. Without handling the wife or the connection with the woman the Scientologist, as family, drifted on with the situation and the wife was able to cause a near destruction of Scientology in that area by false testimony to the police and government and press. Therefore this is a serious thing – to tolerate or remain connected to a source of active suppression of a Scientologist or Scientology without legally disconnecting the relationship or acting to expose the true motives behind the hostility and reform the person. No money particularly may be accepted as fee or loan from a person who is “family” to a Suppressive Person and therefore a Potential Trouble Source. There is no source of trouble in Scientology’s history greater than this one for frequency and lack of attention.

“Anyone absolved of Suppressive Acts by an amnesty or a Committee of Evidence ceases to be fair game. Anyone found guilty of Suppressive Acts by a Committee of Evidence and its Convening Authorities remains fair game unless saved by an amnesty.

“This Policy Letter is calculated to prevent future distractions of this nature as time goes on.”

Along with the above administrative policy and new organizational lines and channels as described on the newly introduced Org Board, including Qualifications Division, Dept of Review and HCO Division, Dept of Inspections and Reports, and the Fast Flow System of administration,  on the subject of PTS/SP, HCO Bulletins were written during this time period of 1965. There was technology developed to not only resolve the condition of PTS but also SP. BOTH conditions were addressed. Both had channels to be routed to free the main Tech delivery lines, in the Technical Division, of the 20% of the people that caused the difficulties so the Tech delivery channels could service the 80% that made case gains, and who did not rollercoaster. Those who were not either SP or PTS.

There were both, ethics/administrative handlings as described by Ethics Policy, and technical handlings as described by HCOBs and taped lectures of the St. Hill Special Briefing Course, occurring at that time.

One such technical bulletin, 8 Nov 65, SUPPRESSIVES AND HIDDEN STANDARDS states:

“The Roller Coaster is caused by the hidden standard going into action. ‘My eyesight didn’t get better.’ Locate a present time Suppressive on the case and trace that suppressive back to others earlier and you suddenly see the pc brighten up and (apparently for no reason) state his eyesight suddenly improved.

“Find the Suppressive, make the pc handle or disconnect. Then audit the pc up to Problems Release by getting rid of the hidden standard and the basic suppressive.

“Never audit a pc who is a Potential Trouble Source other than on the infallible, never varied datum, a Roller Coaster is always a PTS connected to an SP.”

One of the very first tech handlings of the PTS is contained in HCOB 24 November 1965, issued just weeks after the above HCOB, and one month before the 23 Dec 65 revision of the Ethics policy above, is entitled SEARCH AND DISCOVERY. It states:

“One must know what a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON is, what a POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is and the mechanism of how and why a case Roller Coasters and what that is. All this data exists in Ethics policy letters and should be studied well before one attempts a “Search and Discovery” or further study of this HCOB. Ethics is not merely a legal action—it handles the whole phenomena of case worsening (Roller Coaster) after processing and without this technology an auditor easily becomes baffled and tends to plunge and squirrel. The only reason a case Roller Coasters after good standard auditing is the PTS phenomena and a Suppressive is present.”

This HCOB, which shows clearly continuing research and refinement of the subject of PTS and SP, defines three distinct categories of the PTS condition. They have distinct definitions and indicators by which to determine the distinctions.

“There are Three Types of PTS.

“Type One is the easy one. The SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person.

“Type Two is harder for the apparent Suppressive Person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive.

“Type Three is beyond the facilities of orgs not equipped with hospitals as these are entirely psychotic.”

NOTE: One other type of PTS (a subsection of sorts of the above Types) condition is defined in a policy letter issued at the time, and revised to redefine various ‘Troublesome Sources’ HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964 (Re-issued on 23 June 1967) (Replaces HCO Pol Ltr 5 Nov 1964). The list of categories of this policy, a) to j) were originally defined in the 5 Nov 64 policy as ‘sources of trouble’ and/or ‘trouble sources’ or ‘troublesome sources’. Category a) stated:

“Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.”

The 23 June 67 revision of the policy now defines these ‘trouble sources’ as Potential Trouble Sources.  The first one, above, is known to date as PTS TYPE A, and is the subject of various policy and technical handlings written since the formal definition of Potential Trouble Source was defined in the first policy that had that term, 7 March 65, Issue I, SP Acts. The remaining categories are referred to as Trouble Sources, or Troublesome Sources or a-j trouble sources, in general, despite being listed as Potential Trouble Sources. Technically speaking, any one of the categories listed may indeed be one of the Three Types of PTS. However, terminology and technical issues and administrative issues put out since that time of the revision of the a-j categories, when referring to a PTS, refers to either Type One, Two, Three or Type A defined above. END NOTE.



Type One:

“The Type One is normally handled by an Ethics Officer in the course of a hearing.

 “The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and if the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied.

“If however there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts naming Org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP the Ethics Officer must realize that he is handling a Type Two PTS and, because the Auditing will consume time, sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery.

“It is easy to tell a Type One PTS from a Type Two. The Type One brightens up at once and ceases to Roller Coaster the moment the present time SP is spotted. The pc ceases to Roller Coaster. The pc does not go back on it and begin to beg off. The pc does not begin to worry about the consequences of disconnection. If the pc does any of these things, then the pc is a Type Two.”

The above indicators used to distinguish a Type One from a Type Two PTS, relate to the issue of disconnection. If the person is not good indicators, doesn’t brighten up the moment the SP is spotted and worries about the disconnection, then they are NOT Type One, with an actual SP, actively suppressing them in present time, but are Type Two, “the apparent Suppressive Person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive.”

NOTE: A so-called PTS TYPE A person, does in fact fall under one of the above three types of PTS.  The antagonistic family member or close associate may or may not be a present actual SP, or only a restimulator for the actual SP. They may also just be mis-informed about the subject, ARC broken by the person themselves and various easily handled issues, and the ‘antagonistic’ person is handled and the PTS A situation resolved. END NOTE.

At the time of this 24 Nov 65 HCOB, the technical handling for a Type One and Type Two  PTS, is to spot the actual SP first, and then ‘handle or disconnect’ from that actual SP. If one is Bad Indicators, BI’s about the initial interview to find a present time actual SP, then he is Type Two and goes into an auditing session for an S&D, Search and Discovery to find the actual SP making him PTS.

Along with this tech of S&D of that time and development (S&D’s indeed developed extensively over the ensuing months and years) there was developed the Power Processes. These Power Processes, aside from a being a part of the newly developed Grade Chart, were also the technical handling for the SP case. This is covered briefly in HCO PL 5 April 65, HANDLING THE SUPPRESSIVE PERSON, THE BASIS OF INSANITY. Administratively, a person determined by folder study and Tone Arm action, needle response and other specific indicators, to be a possible Suppressive Person, was handled with these processes. If he agreed to be. If not, he was to do a series of steps, A-E, defined in several places (HCO PLs 7 March 65 Issues, I and II) and then get the processes, or both. A-E was a relatively fast cycle, taking anywhere from hours to weeks. It all depended on the person, the steps were clearly defined and A-E was A to B.

Over the next year, the above policies on PTS and SP were carried out.  In 1966, reflecting on the actions carried out under these policies in two separate taped conferences LRH observed the following:

“Now the Scientologist…is perfectly willing and is at this time by Ethics being over disciplined, so we are over disciplining the Scientologists and under disciplining society and we should reverse that – reverse that very definitely. If anything under discipline the Scientologist and over discipline the society. Now in that direction you’d still win but in the direction we are going we won’t. If you under discipline a society and over discipline Scientologists, why you’ve had it, as a Scientologist normally is very, very willing. We’ve got to upgrade the idea of what is a Suppressive, as Suppressives really are nuts. They are really damaging, Suppressives. You only need a few heads on a pike.” 18 July 66.

“You should upgrade your idea of what an SP is. Man, meet one sometime! A real one! A real monster…. Well, in all the time we’ve been around here we only had one SP that I know of. One real SP that was on staff…. And I don’t know of another single SP that we’ve ever had on staff. Isn’t that interesting. You see all these SP orders and so on… Don’t throw it around carelessly, because this is an–a very exaggerated condition, SP.” 19 July 66.

Clearly, the subject was not understood and was being abused. Persons were mis-labelled Suppressive Persons, and following that, persons were mis-labelled PTS, with subsequent wrongly done disconnections from persons not Suppressive in the first place.

Despite these observations, the abuse of the labels continued until repercussions from its abuse began to be felt and objected to in the broad public, let alone Scientologists. An official inquiry in New Zealand was begun in late 67 on the subject of SP declares and Fair Game, disconnection and such. At the time, in late 67 into 68, LRH conducted a broad survey of public on points they objected to regarding their experiences with Scientology. This survey resulted in a Reform Code issued and 3 policy letters being written in the fall of 1968. One of these policies dealt with Fair Game 21 Oct 68, and the other, PL 15 Nov 68 Cancellation of Disconnection, read in full: “Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”

By the fall of 68 the technology that addressed BOTH the case conditions of PTS and SP had continued to develop. For example, one of these HCOBs delineating such developments is quoted below.

“There are three types of S & D (Search and Discovery). These are used to nullify the influence of Suppressive persons or things on a case so the person will be able to be processed and will no longer be PTS (a Potential Trouble Source). People who are PTS became that way because of suppression by persons or objects. Insanity is also remediable by S & Ds where the person can be processed.” 13 Jan 65, S&Ds.


“Who or what are you trying to stop?” This works on all cases to a greater or lesser degree. It is particularly useful on a case that is giving a great deal of trouble, gets small reads or is rather suppressive. This should work on the insane also as the point where a thetan becomes insane is the point where he begins to generally stop things. I looked for years for the exact point where a thetan ceased to be sane and became insane on any given subject and finally found that it was the exact moment he became dedicated to trying to stop whatever it was.” 13 Jan 65, S&Ds

At this point, 1968, if a person who was manifesting PTSness,  took steps to handle his condition, which by the Justice Code policy he must, that handling consisted of ‘handle or disconnect’ relative to the correctly spotted SP, whether he be a Type One, Two or Three (under which a Type A situation also falls, if indeed the person is PTS).

In addition the SP now has a handling with S&D tech, quite in addition to the Power Processes, already existing as a technology for this case, as covered in the second quote above  “This works on all cases to a greater or lesser degree. It is particularly useful on a case that is giving a great deal of trouble, gets small reads or is rather suppressive.”

Disconnection, as a condition, a requirement, is cancelled as “we can now handle all types of cases”.

HCO PL 23 December 1965, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, is therefore now modified by later policy issued in 1968 as per HCO PL 5 March 65 Issue II, POLICY: SOURCE OF, which states: “HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy Letters.”

What is NOT cancelled, and cannot be cancelled, is the inalienable right of a person to communicate or not communicate to whomsoever they choose. ‘Handle or disconnect’ remains a valid tool in the handling of a PTS condition, or in fact, any relationship. An example, one is associated by a drug addiction, with a drug dealer. One, to free himself from this addiction, can handle it, and decide for the sake of his well-being, to disconnect from the criminal drug dealer. (or they would remain PTS and not “separate from the SP found because he was so convincing, so reasonable and so persuasive” PL 10 Feb 66 Iss II, Tech Recovery.)

Continuing tech developments over the next few years include the PTS Rundown first issued on 9 December 1971. From that HCOB, retained in all subsequent developments and revisions of the 9Dec 71 issue, is the following:

“Earlier discovery and development of the PTS theory is extensively covered.

“The recent wrap-up came about through my OT research in November 1971.

“The principal breakthrough was realizing one should NOT invalidate having known certain people before.”

“But now it turns out that the ONLY PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a rollercoaster comes from having known the person before this life.”

A full panoply of handlings done on the PTS Rundown includes S&Ds among other things. This tech of S&D is retained.

On 10 August 1973, HCOB PTS HANDLINGS is issued.

From 10 Aug 73:

“There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

“These data are:

“1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

 “2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: A. Discover. B. Handle or disconnect.

 “Persons called upon to handle PTS people can do so very easily, far more easily than they believe.”

Further in the HCOB LRH clarifies ‘handle or disconnect’ with the following:

“You will usually find that he has named a person to whom he is still connected! So you ask him whether he wants to handle or disconnect. Now as the sparks will really fly in his life if he dramatically disconnects and if he can’t see how he can, you persuade him to begin to handle on a gradient scale. This may consist of imposing some slight discipline on him such as requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads good weather note or to realistically look at how he estranged them. In short what is required in the handling is a low gradient.


Also written on the exact same date, 10 Aug 73, (and subsequently issued as an HCOB on 16 April 1982, some 9 years later, MORE ON PTS HANDLINGS) is a dispatch written by LRH. This dispatch states the following:

“The person has to handle. If he does so he will begin to get well and cease to have problems. The reasons he cannot handle are because he tries to do it in the heroic fashion that is required in a disconnect. Handling can be very, very gradient. I have seen a case where the person was simply coached to give his parents good roads and good weather and not take up any entheta and have seen the person pull right out of it and get well. It doesn’t have to be an explosive handling. It can be very gentle. All you want is the person at cause and that is attained on a gradient toward the SP.

“The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.”

Further in the 10 Aug 73 HCOB, the original PTS HANDLING to which the dispatch, written on the same date refers and clarifies, it states:

“Check with the person again, if he is handling, and coach him along, always at a gentle good roads and good weather level and no H E and R (Human Emotion and Reaction) if you please.

“That is a simple handling. You can get complexities such as a person being PTS to an unknown person in his immediate vicinity that he may have to find before he can handle or disconnect. You can find people who can’t remember more than a few years back. You can find anything you can find in a case. But simple handling ends when it looks pretty complex. And that’s when you call in the auditor.”

It is clearly stated in this paragraph that the person is coached along as HE handles the communication and handling with the person using ‘good roads fair weather’ and ‘no HE and R’ if you please’.

NOTE:  “The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.”

NOTE:  this particular HCOB, 16 April 82, is issued 5 months prior to SPD 28, SUPPRESSIVE ACT, DEALING WITH A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON. The comparison between the LRH HCOB and the WDC authored SPD will be detailed below. END NOTE.

On 29 December the HCOB THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN is issued and represents a major accomplishment in the technology of handling PTSness. Among other things this rundown states the following:

“At times the results of “ordinary” Scientology tech are extremely impressive, even to me. I am by this time, quite accustomed to miracles as usual, but magic is not quite so commonplace an occurrence, even these days, and is worthy of special note.

“Many times the suppressive person to whom the pc is PTS exists in present time and is still capable of causing trouble or upset for the pc. It is to this situation that the Suppressed Person Rundown is addressed.

 “This new rundown, the Suppressed Person Rundown, produces the wondrous result of changing the disposition of an antagonistic terminal at a distance, by auditing the PTS preclear. Where this terminal was antagonistic, invalidative, hostile or downright suppressive, he will suddenly have a change of heart and seek to make peace with the PTS pc.

“This rundown is not considered complete until the magic occurs; that is on this rundown, we take a PTS pc and we audit this pc and audit him and audit him on Problems Processes until a major change occurs in the antagonistic persons universe which prompts him to make a friendly overture to or concerning the pc.

“This friendly and unprompted origination or attempt at origination from the antagonistic terminal to or concerning the pc will occur in all cases if Problems Processes are run and are fully flattened. This happens no matter how out of comm the two terminals have been or what length of time has intervened between their last communication.

“The rundown is continued until the EP occurs.”.

This HCOB further states:

“A possible simple explanation for what occurs is: the pc, on running Problems Processes, comes up to cause on his problems with the terminal and when he is continued on problems, he will break through and actually run out the antagonistic terminal’s problems which he has given to him.

“When this occurs, the formerly antagonistic terminal will get into communication with the pc or by communicating in a friendly way to others about the pc. He will write a letter to make peace, or he will make a phone call to say “All is well,” or he will tell Aunt Sally he feels much better about the pc and has decided to let bygones be bygones. It sometimes occurs that the antago person does not know where the pc is but he will still try to communicate.

“This friendly origination by the antagonistic terminal is the EP of the rundown.”


The long history of revision of the original 7 March 65 issue with the above title is a study in itself. For the purposes of this article I am not detailing THAT particular study. However, one version, issued on 16 May 80, as Issue II of that date is applicable. I give salient quotes as below.


“There are people who suppress. They are few. HCOB 27 September 1966 gives the characteristics of the anti social personality and the social personality. An understanding and ability to recognize the anti social can bring about major change in life and livingness.

“The social personality is in the vast majority. It is not momentary misconduct which determines the anti-social nor is it mere prejudice or dislike. One cannot honestly and accurately identify the anti social without examining the positive side of his life as well as the negative.

“All men have committed wrongs or failed to act when they should have. Men are not perfect. But there are many who try to do the right thing and there is a much smaller number who specialize in wrongdoings.

“All discipline must be based on truth and must exclude acting on false reports.”

“Identification of a Suppressive Person or Group is not done lightly because of suspicion or rumor or opinion. An understanding of HCOB 27 September 1966 THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY; THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST is requisite. It is the actions of an individual or group which ate the criteria, the positive and. the negative.

“The Scientologist is at all times expected to follow the Code of a Scientologist and the Creed of the Church. This applies fully to dealings with Suppressive Persons or Groups. The fact that a person or group has been declared Suppressive does not justify mistreatment of that person or group.

“There is no other policy which takes precedence in the handling of Suppressive Persons or Groups than this Policy Letter.”

“There is no practice of “disconnection” allowed in the Church of Scientology. The first step in handling anything is gaining the ability to face it. Perhaps it will seem too much to handle but the Scientologist who continues to confront and handle the situation will gain more than. the increased understanding with the other person. He will know that he has handled, despite all invitations to do otherwise.

“The materials of the PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling course, which are mandatory for the individual with a PTS situation, provide the technology for handling.

“Communication is the universal solvent. Understanding a situation permits one to handle it.”

“A truly Suppressive Person or Group has none of the rights and privileges accorded one as a member of the Church.

“However a Person or group may be falsely labelled a Suppressive Person or Group.”

“It must be remembered at all times that Justice must include a refusal to accept any report not substantiated by actual, independent data, seeing that all such reports are investigated and that all investigations include confronting the accused with the accusation and where feasible the accuser, BEFORE any action is decided upon or taken. This is the primary breakdown of any justice system   that it acts on false reports, disciplines before substantiation and fails to con front an accused with the report and his accuser before any discipline is assigned, or which does not weigh the value of a person in general against the alleged crime even when proven.”

“An individual who is knowingly PTS and who seeks to conceal this or to avoid handling the situation is subject to disciplinary action. In severe cases this can result in a Committee of Evidence.”

“Expulsion from the Church of Scientology results where Suppressive Acts have been duly proven beyond doubt and where the individual concerned has refused to apply steps A E as noted early in this HCO PL.

“Scientology training or pastoral counseling may not be given to an expelled individual. Their only terminal in a Scientology Church or mission is the Ethics Officer.

“It must be noted however that no matter how severe the case we never close the door entirely. As stated in HCO PL 16 March 1971 Issue II IMPORTANT   AN OPERATING STANDARD RULE: “YOU MUST KEEP THE DOOR OPEN ONLY IF ITS JUST A CRACK.”

“A Suppressive Person expelled from the Church is not otherwise disciplined.”

And in relation to the High Crimes relative to the PTS condition, the following:

“continued adherence to a person or group accurately pronounced Suppressive Person or by HCO.”

The other two Suppressive Acts, “failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts” and “any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act” are no longer listed as High Crimes or Suppressive Acts.

This policy is signed:


“BDCS: LRH: bk Copyright 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED”


“The first shock (which actually began this current search for out tech issues) was the discovery that PTS conditions were going unhandled across the world and had been for some time.

“‘PTS’ means Potential Trouble Source and means the person is affected adversely by a suppressive in his life. A PTS person can be a lot of trouble to himself and to others. The condition is not too difficult to handle and to find that all the tech of handling it was in disuse explained why there had been a lot of trouble and upset on various lines.”


On 16 April 1982 the earlier referenced HCOB MORE ON PTS HANDLING is published as a Bulletin. It states: “The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.”

Recall from the first part of this article, in the early 80s and becoming ever increasing, there were ‘threats’ to the group organism. These are described in part above. Reports are being made of these threats, via David Miscavige, as the terminal over the ALL CLEAR UNIT, that unit in the Commodore’s Messenger Organization International, responsible for the handling of some of the earlier mentioned threats. Including, the IRS, FBI, and the Ron De Wolff case among others. This position that David Miscavige held, makes him the person responsible in CMOI, to forward reports to LRH VIA Pat Broeker, who is at LRH’s location in Creston California. David Miscavige is located at Gilman Hot Springs, California.

The ALL Clear Unit has precedence in authority over all units, including all of CMOI, below it. That includes the Watch Dog Committeee, a part of CMOI.

On 13 August 1982, Scientology Policy Directive 28, SUPPRESSIVE ACT, DEALING WITH A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON, a junior to HCO PL and HCOB issue type, is issued. It states:

“S C I E N T O L O G Y P O L I C Y D I R E C T I V E

SCN POLICY DIRECTIVE 28                                                                                                  13 August 1982






 REF: HCO PL 16 May 80 II


 “”A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks, by action or statement, to suppress or damage Scientology or a  Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

 “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist in his studies or counselling, or to affect adversely his well-being.” (HCO PL 16 May 80 II).

 “It is a Suppressive Act to deal with a Suppressive Person unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org MAA). Per the above referenced PL “continued adherence to a person or group accurately pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO” is a Suppressive Act.

 “To maintain a line with, offer support to, or in any way grant credence to such a person indicates nothing more than agreement with that person’s destructive intentions and acts. Such dealings in fact is a covert or overt attempt to undermine and negate the ethics and justice strengths of our ecclesiastical structure.

 “Standard on-policy lines exist should a Declared SP seek to set things right and make up for damage caused.

 “So labeled and declared, a person claiming injustice has the right to request a Committee of Evidence via their nearest  HCO.

 “However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive Act. Such an act is cause to have levied against you the same per policy Church justice procedures afforded any Suppressive Person. Full ethics penalties will be applied.

“Where the matter concerns family relations or where a Scientologist is in the position of being closely associated to a person found to be Suppressive the materials covering Potential Trouble Sources apply. There is no practice of “disconnection” allowed in the Church of Scientology and these materials cover completely how one may use proper lines and procedures to handle a PTS condition.

“One does not however use a false excuse of “handling my PTS condition” to covertly maintain a line of supportive dealings and agreements with an SP. If you wish to maintain such a line, do so outside of current and future membership in the Church.

“To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act. The above is unequivocal Church Policy.”




On October 17, 1982, the San Francisco Mission Holders Conference was convened and the Mission Holders were summoned to it by David Miscavige. Here he was to introduce a new, not written in ANY policy at ANY time by LRH, practice of ‘instant SP declares’ and did so at this conference. A full transcript of the conference is available on line. In that transcript you will read of ‘instant declares’ and the ‘new attitude’ of the Sea Org.

SPD 28 was put into full effect. Persons who would not disconnect immediately from persons declared were themselves declared Suppressive Persons, with full penalties. Hundreds, thousands of field Scientologists are so declared as well as staff and Sea Org members. Hundreds, thousands leave the Church of Scientology International in protest.

The reign of terror was in full dress uniform and rampaged across the landscape of Scientology.

SPD 28 is in direct contradiction to issued church policy and the technical developments laid out here preceding it all the way up to 16 April 1982 with the issuance of HCOB MORE ON PTS HANDLING. That HCOB and the relevant earlier policy and tech as described, states “The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.”

This SPD blatantly alters LRH tech and policy, for one example HCOB 20 April 1972,  SUPPRESSED PCS AND PTS TECH, which states:

“The Administrative Tech requires an interview, usually by the Director of Processing or Ethics Officer and the person is required to handle the PTS situation itself before being audited. A check for stability is also made after being audited on the PTS Rundown.”

Another example from HCOB 17 April 72, CS Series 76, CSing A PTS RUNDOWN:

“When you do a PTS RD on a pc CORRECTLY he or she should no longer be ill or rollercoaster. 


“An auditor and C/S must see that the person is:

“(a) Handled properly in HCO or by the D of P if HCO isn’t there so that the person handles the PTS Connection itself. (See HCO PL 5 April 72, “PTS TYPE A HANDLING”.)”

“In handling a PTS person as a C/S you are on a borderline of policy violation unless you make the person do what it says in HCO PL 5 April 72 first. That handles the situation itself. Then you can handle the person with the PTS Rundown.”

From HCO PL 3 May 72R, revised 18 Dec 77, ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES:

“Even in a PTS (Potential Trouble Source) person there must have been out ethics conduct toward the suppressive personality he or she is connected with for the person to have become PTS in the first place.

“People who are physically ill are PTS and are out-ethics toward the person or thing they are PTS to!” (So, the SPD’s  ‘solution’ adds MORE unethical ‘disconnection’ resulting in ARC breaks and further antagonism with the new overt/motivator of disconnection. This in direct contrast to HCOBs, such as 10 Aug 73, 16 Apr 82 (see below) and PLs such as PL 5 April 72, PTS TYPE A HANDLING).


“A metered PTS interview per HCOB 24 Apr 72 1, C/S Series 79, PTS INTERVIEWS or a ‘10 August handling’ per HCOB 10 Aug 73 PTS HANDLING done by an auditor in session or an MAA, D of P or SSO will, in most cases, assist the person to spot the antagonistic or SP element. Once spotted, the potential trouble source can be assisted in working out a handling for that terminal, or more rarely, in deciding to disconnect from that person.

“(If any difficulty is encountered on this step, or if the SP cannot easily be found. The preclear or student is probably not PTS Type I and should be turned over to an auditor qualified to handle Type II PTS situations with more advanced PTS tech.)”

NOTE: The above 31 Dec 78 issue was revised, sometime after the issuance of 10 Sept 83 bulletin, PTSness and DISCONNECTION, latest revision being 28 Oct 2000 to alter the sentence “Once spotted, the potential trouble source can be assisted in working out a handling for that terminal, or more rarely, in deciding to disconnect from that person.” It now reads, Once spotted , the potential trouble source can be assisted in working out a handling for that terminal, per HCO PL 5 Apr. 72RD, PTS TYPE A HANDLING. (Or, more rarely, the PTS may need to disconnect from that person.)” This shifts the emphasis from the person deciding, to align with the rewrite of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 which rewrite occurs to change this PL to include “disconnection,” (which was to update and alter this PL to align with the 83 HCOB PTSness and DISCONNECTION see below) which the original version written by Mary Sue Hubbard, revised by L. Ron Hubbard, retaining what MSH wrote, did not have as any “need to”. In fact, the “need” to disconnect was not considered in that policy as it was “cancelled”. END NOTE.


“When you find you have a potential trouble source on your hands the very first thing you must do is educate him on the fundamentals of PTS/SP tech.”

“In the absence of education… PTSes will not cognite, will not take action to handle the antagonistic terminal, will not recover. Failure to educate simply doesn’t work.”


This SPD is NOT senior to any preceding and extant HCO PL or HCOB and yet, it is used in direct contradiction and utter violation of those very HCO PLs and HCOBs.

There was never issued a formal, on policy “State of Emergency.” Therefore the Justice Codes of Scientology were in full effect. These too were utterly violated in practice by David Miscavige and the “new Sea Org” officers in his entourage.

No Board of Investigation was held to review any arbitrary orders issued, such as SPD 28, during this undeclared yet de facto “State of Emergency.” No standard 3D engram handling per the above mentioned method of running them out, was EVER done. In fact, approximately one year later, in September 1983, the arbitraries were enshrined in both HCO PL and HCOB form.  The “state of emergency” has continued with the virtual, if not actual, suspension of the Justice Codes. Recent reports of these facts are abundantly available on the internet, including, but not limited to the St Petersburg Times report, THE TRUTH RUNDOWN.


On 8 September 1983 HCO PL CANCELLATION OF ISSUES ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS AND PTSes, is issued. This HCO PL cancels among 4 other issues, HCO PL 16 May 1980, Issue II, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS, extensively quoted above in this article, as “not written by the Founder.” It says nothing about whether or not LRH approved the policy. This HCO PL, 8 Sept 83 is written by “Church of Scientology International.” This policy states: “Data on Suppressive Acts and the handling of Suppressive Persons and Groups is to be found in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA, Revised and Reissued 10 Sept 83, ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS, which has been reissued in its original content with revisions to update it.”

On 10 Sept 1983, 23 December 1965RA is issued. It is the new revised and rewritten SP ACTs policy letter as above stated. It is now 14 pages long from the original 7 and the list of high crimes has gone from the original 28 to 73. (Further revisions, all the way up to 4 Nov 2001, the latest revision to put the 7 March 65 RB date on the PL have increased the number of high crimes has swollen in the interim to 87. In addition, with another revision done at this time to 7 March 65 Issue III, Offenses and Penalties ‘a crime, if severe and of magnitude, harmful to many and committed repeatedly, can be reclassed as a high crime’. This paragraph is also added to the SP Acts PL, now 7 March 65RB Issue I.  These adds potentially hundreds of  ‘high crimes’ as per Offenses and Penalties, an error may be reclassed as a misdemeanor and a misdemeanor may be reclassed as a crime, similarly to the above on a crime reclassed to a high crime.

Additionally, the specific high crimes related to PTS, as covered above are now as per 1965 policy. To wit, “continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts.” (Note: the word ‘accurately’ is now removed from the high crime.) And of course this paragraph is restored “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”

In addition the there is an entirely new section added to this policy letter. It is entitled POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES AND DISCONNECTION. This section states:

“The subject and technology of ‘disconnection’ is thoroughly covered in HCOB 10 September 1983, PTSness AND DISCONNECTION, and in the basic technical materials referenced therein.”

Paragraphs previously described above, from the original policy of 7 March 65, revised and reissued on 23 Dec 65, under the section Potential Trouble Source, and related to “disconnection” are returned to the new revision of 23 Dec 65RA.

On the same day as this policy is issued HCOB 10 Sept 83,  PTSness AND DISCONNECTION is issued.

The provenance of PTSness and DISCONNECTION has been questioned. Vaughn Young claims in a sworn affidavit that he wrote it at the behest of David Miscavige and it was never approved by LRH. My personal communication with former RTRC personnel suggests Vaughn was assisted by Phoebe Mauerer on the issue as he was compiling it. LRH was both ‘on and off the approval lines’ at the time. Whatever the actual circumstances of its origination and final approval there is one paragraph that is unmistakably NOT LRH written or approved. This is the paragraph under ‘HOW TO DISCONNECT, the second “example.” It states:

“A pc is connected to a person or group that has been declared suppressive by HCO in a published Ethics Order. He should disconnect…”

And one additional paragraph taken from SPD 28 and phrased in the 10 Sept 83 thusly, “To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of the suppressive – in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labelled. (Ref. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.)”

How is it that these two paragraphs can be determined to NOT be written or approved by LRH? They contradict and alter LRH materials, still valid and not cancelled or revised by any of the issues of September 1983.

For example. LRH HCO PLs and HCOBs which state “handle or disconnect” are still valid, despite the first paragraph above. In fact, per two specific HCOBs, already discussed above, 10 Aug 73 and the still valid 16 April 82, “The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE.”

Disconnect, per these valid LRH HCOBs is not the first choice, it is in fact barely a choice at all, due to tech advances, and in any case, is NOT to be enforced. This salient fact is altered by the first paragraph which does not even mention “handle” the crux of PTSes, and in fact states, in contradiction to LRH, “he should disconnect.”

The last paragraph of this section of PTSness and DISCONNECTION, quoted above, refers to the SP Acts PL and in fact alters the exact wording of that policy, the original wording from the 23 Dec 65 policy, which wording was added to the SP Acts policy based on the 16 August 65 policy referred to above, which states: “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a suppressive act.” Compare the two and they are not the same. The paragraph in PTSness and DISCONNECTION is an alteration of the paragraph in the PL, which was definitely written by LRH, in August of 1965.

The remainder of this issue doesn’t affect other HCOBs or PLs. It doesn’t alter or change basic  LRH data.

Lastly, on this HCOB of 10 Sept 83, PTSness and DISCONNECTION, there is a direct contradiction of the above two paragraphs by the entirety of HCOB 29 Dec 78, THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN the stated EP of which is:

“This rundown is not considered complete until the magic occurs; that is on this rundown, we take a PTS pc and we audit this pc and audit him and audit him on Problems Processes until a major change occurs in the antagonistic persons universe which prompts him to make a friendly overture to or concerning the pc.

“This friendly and unprompted origination or attempt at origination from the antagonistic terminal to or concerning the pc will occur in all cases if Problems Processes are run and are fully flattened. This happens no matter how out of comm the two terminals have been or what length of time has intervened between their last communication.

“The rundown is continued until the EP occurs.” (Emphasis added, JL).


This is the HCOB issued which states: “The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE.”

This statement and technical data aligns with all developments outlined here, beginning with the tech of S&Ds, up through the PTS Rundown, and culminating in the Suppressed Person RD which states “he will suddenly have a change of heart and seek to make peace with the PTS pc”.

An interesting fact has emerged in my study of this HCOB.

It was first issued on 16 April 82. Sometime later, it was re-issued. Exactly what date is impossible to say from that actual HCOB as there is no indication on the date, that is with either a note at the top and an “R” attached to it, as is standard HCO Policy for revisions. The only change to the HCOB is to add a note at the bottom which states:


It is noted under the LRH signature “Assisted by Mission Issues Revision.” There are NO other changes to the text or tech of the HCOB.

The date of the PTS/SP course checksheet puts this revision sometime on or after 23 May 89.

Note, this is two years before the publication of the New Tech Volumes, and evolution which entailed verification and comparison to the LRH originals of all HCOBs. This HCOB has at this time, 1989, been verified twice. Once on original publication and now again for the Tech Vols, and by Mission Issues Revision, possibly being a third time. It is unmistakably an LRH written dispatch and HCOB.

In a PTS/SP course pack, the now entitled ‘HOW TO CONFRONT AND SHATTER SUPPRESSION’ course, of 2001, a NEW version of this HCOB is now published. However, there is NO change to either the title, or the date. No revision date. It is STILL dated simply 16 April 1982, with no indication it has been revised or rewritten. It states ‘Reissued 10 October 1996’ but no statement that it has been revised.

Nevertheless, IT IS REVISED AND REWRITTEN. By whom? It does not say.

What are the changes? In order to see every change both complete issues should be compared, however there are several significant changes that can be shown here. (Note: if any reader cares to obtain copies of these issues for such a study and education, then I can be contacted.)

Added to the very top is this sentence and altering not only the sequence but the importance as well, the LRH datum of “handle or disconnect” is:

“You will find that PTS policy calls for DISCONNECT or HANDLE.”

Altered is this paragraph:

“The person has to handle. If he does so, he will begin to get well and cease to have problems. The reasons he cannot handle are because he tries to do it in the heroic fashion that is required in a disconnect. Handling can be very, very gradient. I have seen a case where the person was simply coached to give his parents good roads and good weather and not take up any entheta and have seen the person pull right out of it and get well. It doesn’t have to be an explosive handling. It can be very gentle. All you want is the person at cause and that is attained on a gradient toward the SP.”

It is changed in the first sentence by “The person has to handle or disconnect”

where ‘disconnect’ is now ADDED.

Altered is this paragraph:

“The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.”

It is changed to ADD the word ‘disconnect’ and now reads “The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE or DISCONNECT. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.”

Altered is this paragraph:

“One tries to find what it is and then persuades them into handling. That’s the tech.”

To this tech is ADDED the word ‘disconnecting’ and it now reads: One tries to find what it is and then persuades them into handling or disconnecting. That’s the tech.”

The above alterations to an LRH authored technical issue, were done with no knowledge or any authority or approval by LRH as he had been dead for a minimum of 5 years (the issuance of the verified Tech Vols) or up to 10 years, according to the ‘reissued’ on 10 Oct 96 statement.

These are an intentional alteration and squirreling perpetrated by David Miscavige as the final Issue Authority in the entire Scientology structure, and the head of RTC.

In the years since David Miscavige began his reign of “heavy ethics,” with the issuance of various orders “handle the SPs,” beginning formally with the squirrel and alter-ised SPD 28, and by subterfuge and distortion the final entrenching of this squirreling and alteration of basic Scientology tech and policy, with the 10 Sept 83 PTSness and DISCONNECTION, which itself set off a chain of revisions to try and cover his tracks, there have been thousands of people wrongly declared SPs, and thus their families, friends, loved ones, children, wives and their dogs, have been forced to disconnect from them in a reign of suppression that has gone on for 3 decades and TO THIS DAY.



And, what’s more. David missed the trail he left with HCOB 16 April 82 MORE ON PTS HANDLING, and despite his attempt to hide it by alteration and obfuscation, it states:

“The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE.” L. Ron Hubbard.


7 thoughts on “A 3D Engram

  1. Whew. Wow. Thanks for taking the time to put this extensive history together. I will be directing friends to this article for sure.

  2. Haven’t finished reading yet, but the ethics of the organization – the policies designed to further the survival of the organization – depend upon the ethics of the individual, not the other way around. It is the failure of individuals to establish their ethics which led to the issuance of relatively random and reactive orders. Any madman can order 100,000 people executed, and people beneath him in the (cough) “chain of command” who follow those orders have no ethics of their own established by which to evaluate the orders.

    This is not an easy issue to address, but it is all that Scientology is about: the establishment of ethics which are the self-determinism of the individual. Hub+–bard knew this very well. I believe that if someone considers that the address of ethics is not worthwhile or too troublesome, that individual is at effect of reactivity – probably huge ARCx’s going WAY back, O/Ws which followed, and any variety of attendant apathies and unconsciousness. It is not an easy subject to get a handle on.

    At the foundation of the “problem” of addressing ethics is the “problem” of addressing the phenomenon of a group and formation of a group. People apparently come to think of themselves as “group members” as their identity, senior to an identity proper as themselves, an individual. I’m looking forward to finishing this article.

    The ethics of the game are NOT the ethics of the individual.

  3. What a great write-up, Jim. I need to make the time to study these in sequence until I get what exactly happened. I have gained great knowledge from studying the PTS-SP tech, but I have also been aware that the subject seemed “disjointed” and sometimes appeared contradictory. It seems that the path to understanding this stuff is to do exactly what you did and study these developments in the same sequence that Ron figured it out in. That way, it will be possible to share some of the cognitions that he had on the subject with him as he progressed. I have the “old” as well as the “new” tech vols, so I may be able to trace this. I will be wary of later developments as they may have been re-written by DM.

    • Espiritu,
      Yes, I agree, a complete study of this body of material is vital for all sorts of reasons.

      I took it up from the first policies issued in March 65, but the underlying data was developed throughout.

      One of the later Rundowns, the New Vitality Rundown addressed the subject of PTS/SP as well.

      In other words there IS a subject, and a full KRC for it sure does free one up on it. Especially this one, “the stumbling block” as it says in the original issue from 7 March 1965, Issue I.

  4. Jim when I was doing my own doubt formula regarding leaving the church it was your study of the f/n issues and this one that helped tip the balance as to where I will find the in tech people. So a big THANK YOU! for taking the time to study and write up and make available your studies on these 2 vital and (altered by dm) subjects.
    For you all to know, I was talking to a Scio I thought was in recently, from her I found out at least 4 were out and under the radar. The word is spreading!

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s