HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 SEPTEMBER 19821
Keeping Scientology Working Series 30
MISREPRESENTATION OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY
There is a vital legal and PR point which should be broadly known.
“Standard Tech” is contained in the official volumes of the technical services and in HCO Bulletins and charts within them and in textbooks on the subject.
These are, none of them, vague. They are very explicit.
The data is thus not only available but taught in courses.
Now and then we hear of “somebody’s case messed up.” Or that someone was complaining or dissatisfied with results. Research into such cases uniformly shows that STANDARD TECH was not applied.
Thus one arrives at an interesting point: Standard tech has never harmed anybody.
Recently there was a spate of “out-tech” on some executives that “messed up their cases.” (This of course impaired their effectiveness and made them feel”Dianetics and Scientology did not work and so was not worth defending.”)
A careful review of these cases showed that the “Case Supervisor” and a small clique of “auditors” (all of whom knew better but who were serving their own ends) were NOT applying Dianetics and Scientology but were only pretending to. (The clique has been detected and thoroughly handled and so are the”messed-up cases” -by standard tech of course and so successfully.)
But this brings up an interesting and useful legal and public relations point:
When people complain and are “dissatisfied with results,” it will be found that Dianetics and Scientology were NOT being used on them.
Someone was doing something else and calling it Dianetics and Scientology.
This is, of course, misrepresentation and a violation of trademark and copyright law.
A similar circumstance would occur if someone put transmission oil in a package marked “Green Meadow Butter” and sold it and advised its use as”Green Meadow Butter” when it isn’t.
Legal and PR situations from people who have complaints stem from two reasons:
A. They are themselves engaged for whatever reason in some self-serving end by complaining or
B. They did not receive Dianetics and Scientology.
A review of any such cases will bear this out. It is not a matter of making minor errors with the tech. It is not a matter of poor C/S judgment in applying it. The situation will be found to be flagrant.
Someone was only pretending it was Dianetics and Scientology and doing something else and for some other reason.
Here we have a problem in labels. The labels “Dianetics” and “Scientology”could illegally be placed on anything and that anything might be quite bad.
Thus it is the person misrepresenting who is actionable, not the originator or the properly licensed and supervised entities.
The operating question is “What did he or they do that they were calling Dianetics and Scientology standard tech?” And “Let me have their names so the misrepresentation can be stopped.”
Don’t let yourself be conned by an old legal or PR trick of switching labels!
Dianetics and Scientology are a precise system that works.
L. RON HUBBARD