UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
a/k/a MO BUDLONG:
Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)1
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing sentence in this case.
[The Scientology conspirators] challenged and attempted to undermine the judicial and governmental structure of the United States.
Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system.
These crimes included: the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials.
[T]hese documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment.
To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 2 58 Cal. App. 3d 439 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977)]. That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person,” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Id. This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.
The defendants directed and encouraged a number of covert operations against private individuals and public officials to destroy and discredit these persons because they had either attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights by criticizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their duties as public officials.
That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims. The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds.
These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.” That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society. These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HUBBARD POLICY LETTER OF 21 OCTOBER 1968
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
L. RON HUBBARD
Hubbard, L. R., (1968, 21 October). Cancellation of Fair Game (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter). Organization Executive Course (Second US Printing 1976 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 489). Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.
- SPDL Note: Hubbard’s fair game doctrine, when he laid it out in his Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, was quickly recognized by thinking government officials, journalists and citizens as calling for violent, illegal actions against the cult’s “enemies.” As a result, he issued another Policy Letter dated 21 October 1968 entitled “Cancellation of Fair Game,” that the Miscavige regime insists cancelled this criminal doctrine. But Hubbard was just fair gaming his “enemies” with his “cancellation,” just playing a trick on them. He “cancelled” the use of the term “fair game” when declaring people “enemies” or “SPs,” with the cynical excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the same “treatment” of those “enemies” continue as before. The Scientologists in the Hubbard regime knew that the same violent, antisocial and criminal actions were to be taken against these “enemies,” the “SPs.” Fair game would continue, but it would not be called by that name. ↩
Yacht Royal Scotman
HCO ETHICS ORDER
To: Those Concerned
E/O No.28 INT added to
From: The Founder
Subject: RACKET EXPOSED
(BPI and goes in Auditor )
6th March 19681
MARY ANN TAYLOR
are hereby declared Suppressive Persons for pretending to have and distribute forged and altered “Upper Level Materials” which were of a Research nature and not for distribution. All Certificates and Awards are cancelled.
1. Having stolen or illegally procured these dangerous materials (at the instigation of a Psychiatrist) these persons did plot to misuse them to cause Insanity and Death.
2. False report for money that they would furnish the real materials.
3. They are declared Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life.
4. They are fair game.
5. No amnesty may ever cover them.
6. If they ever come to a Qual Division they are to be run on reverse processes.
7. Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45.
8. The Criminals Prosecution Bureau is to find any and all crimes in their pasts and have them brought to court and prison.
The Public Distribution of False or Forbidden or Dangerous data is a Suppressive Act and a High Crime.
L. RON HUBBARD
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 OCTOBER 1967
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
(Applies both Orgs and Sea Org)
TREASON — Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on org premises or dismissal from post and debarment from premises.
DOUBT — Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be trained or processed. Not to be communicated or argued with.
ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright c 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED1
Hubbard, L. R., (1967, 18 October). Penalties For Lower Conditions. (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter).
- SPDL Note: We have webbed L. Ron Hubbard’s Policy Letter “Penalties for Lower Conditions” of October 18, 1967 in its entirety for purposes of education and scholarship and as a warning to everyone of Hubbard’s and his cult’s malevolent and violent intent. This PL is instructive and illustrative of Hubbard’s psychopathology and the psychopathology with which he inculcated his followers to become “living embodiments of LRH technology.”
Scientology’s “ethics” or “punishment” policies and practices have been discussed and criticized for decades. “Fair game” is an “ethics” policy and practice that calls for antisocial and criminal actions to be taken against people targeted as the cult’s “enemies.” Fair game, in fact, calls for capital crimes against “enemies” – their “destruction,” or “obliteration,”or murder. The “enemies” that Hubbard and Scientology intended to be fair gamed are almost universally good, decent, societally contributive, loving people. But no person targeted as an “enemy,” no matter how bad, deserves to be destroyed by this evil cult executing this evil doctrine.
Fair game has been condemned by courts for over thirty years, and condemned by western media for even longer. Scientology says that Hubbard’s Policy Letter “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was part of the cult’s “religious scriptures,” and that fair game was its religious practice, but that the PL and the policy were cancelled. In truth, only the PL was cancelled, and fair game remains Scientology’s philosophy, policy and practice to this day. Good people are still being fair gamed, and are just as much at risk of being fair gamed today as when Hubbard published this PL in 1967.
We believe that the good people who are the Scientologists’ “ enemies” or potential “enemies” have an absolute right to know the information contained in this document, and that such knowledge cannot be denied them by Scientology’s application of commercial copyright law.
We believe that the safety and security of the general public necessitate this document’s exposure and broad dissemination.
We believe that anyone considering becoming involved with the Scientology cult as a customer, employee or agent has a right to know that he or she is becoming involved with a criminally intentioned organization, which promulgates and executes this type of directive ordering crimes against good people. We believe that such a person should think very seriously about the consequences of any involvement with this cult, since that involvement very well could result in his or her commission of the kinds of actions or crimes called for in this PL against good people, or becoming the victim of these kinds of actions and crimes.
We believe that all Scientologists have a right to know that they are being lied to by their cult’s leaders, and that these leaders and their organization is not honest, decent and ethical at all, but dishonest and violent in their policies and practices.
We believe too that this document must be made universally available so that government and law enforcement officials know what Scientology’s real intentions are, and can act to stop fair game and protect good citizens from this dangerous and potentially deadly evil. ↩
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965
(Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1 March 1965)
Post Public Bulletin Board
(HCO Division 1)
SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
THE FAIR GAME LAW
Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.
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.
A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. Only ARC Breaks worsen it. To the PTP is added ARC Breaks with the Suppressive Person or Group. The result is no-gain or deterioration of a case by reason of the suppressive connection in the environment. Any Scientologist, in his own experience, can probably recall some such cases and their subsequent upset.
Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. Quite the contrary. In the most flagrant of such cases the Scientologist’s case worsened and the Suppressive Person or Group sent endless reports to press, police, authorities and the public in general.
Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end the situation one has a pc or Scientologist who may cave in or squirrel because of no case gain and also a hostile environment for Scientology.
This policy letter gives the means and provides the policy for getting the above situation handled.
A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled.
A Suppressive Person or Group becomes “fair game”.
By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.
The families and adherents of Suppressive Persons or Groups may not receive processing. It does not matter whether they are or are not Scientologists. If the families or adherents of Suppressive Persons or Groups are processed, any auditor doing so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (See HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue II.)
A Potential Trouble Source knowingly permitting himself or herself or the Suppressive Person to be processed without advising the auditor or Scientology authorities is guilty of a crime. (See HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue II.)
Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.
Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology; pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology; testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it; reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply; demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this Policy Letter applies); writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press; testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public; continued membership in a divergent group; 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; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons; organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology; organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else; calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or [persons] who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures; infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces; 1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings; mutiny; seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology”; engaging in malicious rumour mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to “safeguard” a position; delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law; falsifying records that then imperil the liberty or safety of a Scientologist; knowingly giving false testimony to imperil a Scientologist; receiving money, favours or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists; sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology such as a student, a preclear, a ward or a patient; blackmail of Scientologists or Scientology organizations threatened or accomplished – in which case the crime being used for blackmail purposes becomes fully outside the reach of Ethics and is absolved by the fact of blackmail unless repeated.
Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.
If a person or a group that has committed a Suppressive Act comes to his, her or their senses and recants, the HCO Secretary:
A. Tells the person or group to stop committing present time overts and to cease all attacks and suppressions so he, she or they can get a case gain;
B. Requires a public announcement to the effect that they realize their actions were ignorant and unfounded and stating where possible the influences or motivations which caused them to attempt to suppress or attack Scientology; gets it signed before witnesses and published broadly, particularly to persons directly influenced or formerly associated with the former offender or offenders. The letter should be calculated to expose any conspiracy to suppress Scientology or the preclear or Scientologist if such existed;
B(1). Requires that all debts owed to Scientology organizations are paid off;
C. Requires training beginning at HAS at their expense if Division 4 (Training and Processing) will have the person or the group members;
D. Makes a note of the matter with copies of the statement and files in the Ethics files;
E. Informs the Chairman at Saint Hill and forwards a duplicate of the original copy which shows signatures.
Any Potential Trouble Source owing money to any Scientology organization is handled the same as any other Scientologist. Failure to discharge a financial obligation becomes a civil Ethics matter after normal, within-org avenues of collection have been exhausted.
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.
Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game.
Until a Suppressive Person or Group is absolved, but not during the period when the person requests and has a Committee of Evidence, or an amnesty occurs, no Scientology Ethics other than this HCO Policy Letter applies to such persons, no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.
The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.
Such persons are in the same category as those whose certificates have been cancelled, and persons whose certificates, classifications and awards have been cancelled are also in this category.
The imagination must not be stretched to place this label on a person. Errors, misdemeanors and crimes do not label a person as a Suppressive Person or Group. Only High Crimes do so.
A Committee of Evidence may be called by any Convening Authority who wishes more concrete evidence of efforts to suppress Scientology or Scientologists but if such a Committee’s findings, passed on, establish beyond reasonable doubt Suppressive Acts, this Policy Letter applies and the person is fair game.
Outright or covert acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant by Acts Suppressive of Scientology or Scientologists.
The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics requires that actions destructive of the advance of the many, by Scientology means, overtly or covertly undertaken with the direct target of destroying Scientology as a whole, or a Scientologist in particular, be summarily handled due to the character of the reactive mind and the consequent impulses of the insane or near insane to ruin every chance of Mankind via Scientology.
POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE
A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. The history of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive Person at every turn they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If they would act with determination one way or the other – reform the Suppressive Person or 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 continuingly 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.
RIGHTS OF A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON OR GROUP
A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.
However a person or group may be falsely labelled a Suppressive Person or Group.
Should the person or group claim the label to be false, he, she or they may request a Committee of Evidence via their nearest HCO. The executive with the power to convene a Committee of Evidence must do so if one is requested for recourse or redress of wrongs.
The person or representative of the group labelled Suppressive is named as an Interested Party to the Committee. They attend it where it convenes.
The Committee must pay attention to any actual evidences that the person or group that is accused of being suppressive may produce particularly to the effect of having helped Scientology or Scientologists or a Scientologist and if this is seen to outweigh the accusations, proof or lack of it, the person is absolved.
Any knowingly false testimony, forgeries or false witnesses introduced by the person or group accused of being suppressive can result in an immediate finding against the person or group.
Any effort to use copies of the testimony or findings of a Committee of Evidence called for this purpose or holding it to scorn in a civil court immediately reverses any favourable finding and automatically labels the person or group suppressive.
Failing to prove guilt of Suppressive Acts, the Committee must absolve the person or group publicly.
If the findings, as passed upon by the Convening Authority, demonstrate guilt, the person or group is so labelled as a Suppressive Person or Group.
RECOURSE OF A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE
A person labelled a Potential Trouble Source and so barred from receiving auditing, may request a Committee of Evidence of the nearest HCO as recourse if he or she contests the allegation.
The Committee of Evidence requested must be convened by the nearest Convening Authority.
If evidences of disconnection are given or if the alleged Suppressive Person or Group is clearly and beyond reasonable doubt shown not to be guilty of Suppressive Acts or is shown clearly to have reformed, the Committee of Evidence findings and the Convening Authority must remove the label of Potential Trouble Source from the Scientologist and the label Suppressive Person or Group from the suspected person or group.
But should the former Potential Trouble Source’s state of case show no gain after reasonable time in processing, any executive of Division 4 (Training and Processing) may order a new Committee of Evidence in the matter and if it and its Convening Authority reverse the former findings, the labels are applied. But no auditor may be disciplined for auditing either during the period between the two findings.
RECOURSE OF AN AUDITOR
An auditor disciplined for processing a Potential Trouble Source or a Suppressive Person or a member of a Suppressive Group, may request a Committee of Evidence if he can persuade the Potential Trouble Source and the Suppressive Person or a representative of the Suppressive Group to appear before it.
The auditor so requesting may also have named as an Interested Party or Parties with himself the person or persons who supplied the information or misinformation concerning his actions.
No damages or costs may be borne by or ordered by a Committee of Evidence in cases involving Potential Trouble Sources or Suppressive Persons or Groups.
When the Potential Trouble Source or Suppressive Person or Group representative fails to appear before a Committee of Evidence on a Bill of Particulars labelling persons as Potential Trouble Sources or Suppressive Persons or Groups at the published time of its convening, the Bill of Particulars stands as proven and the Convening Authority is bound so to declare.
EVIDENCE OF DISCONNECTION
Any HCO Secretary may receive evidences of disconnection or disavowal or separation or divorce and, on finding them to be bona fide, may publicly announce them on a public board and legal notices in “The Auditor”.
The HCO Secretary must place copies of such evidences in the Ethics file and in the CF folders of all persons named in them.
The disconnecting person then ceases to be a Potential Trouble Source.
The procedure for a recanting Suppressive Person or Group is outlined above.
EVIDENCES OF SUPPRESSION
It is wise for any Scientologist, HCO Secretary or Committee of Evidence in matters concerning Suppressive Acts to obtain valid documents, letters, testimonies duly signed and witnessed, affidavits duly sworn to and other matters and evidences which would have weight in a court of law.
Momentary spite, slander suits, charges of Scientology separating families, etc. are then guarded against.
If matters concerning Suppressive Acts are given good and alert attention, properly enforced, they will greatly accelerate the growth of Scientology and bring a new calmness to its people and organizations and far better case gains where they have not heretofore been easy to achieve.
Preclears with present time problems, ARC broken with associated but Suppressive Persons will not obtain case gains but on the contrary, may experience great difficulty.
Observance of these facts and disciplines can help us all.
L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (c) 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[This 23 December reissue changed Justice to Ethics, and Division 2 (earlier Org Board numbering system) to Division 4, and added B(1) and the three paragraphs following E. ]
[Note: See HCO P/L 21 October 1968, Cancellation of Fair Game, and HCO P/L 15 November 1968 which removes disconnection as a condition, on page 489. ]
[See also HCO P/L 9 August 1971, Issue III, Operation Staff Stability and Personal Security-High Crime Additions, and its second revision of 8 January 1972, same title, in the Year Books.]
Hubbard, L. R. (1974). Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists The Fair Game Law. (Hubbard Communications Office policy letter.) Organization Executive Course (Second US Printing 1976 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 552-557). Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.