SEA ORGANIZATION
FLAG ORDER 3434RE-19
19 January 19851
Revised 8 May 1997All SO Orgs and Units
RPFs
Senior HCOs
Senior Quals(This Flag Order was originally issued as FO 3875, RPF Series 23 [same title]. It is hereby revised to clarify the purpose and use of waivers for the RPF and to correct the FO and RPF Series numbers. Revisions not in script.)
RPF Series 19
WAIVERS FOR THE RPF
(Cancels and replaces FO 3875.)
Persons transferred to the RPF are only transferred with cause. They are individuals who are R/Sers, low OCA nonproducers or repeated stat crashers and overt product makers, and have caused considerable trouble for themselves and the organizations they have been involved with.
Hence, a person entering the RPF executes certain waivers to safeguard the Church against any claim or upset, should such ensue, as a first step before effecting his own redemption. These waivers make it clear that the individual is undertaking the program on his own responsibility and volition and that he holds no one else culpable for accidents or occurrences on the RPF. Transaction of the waivers as well as participation in the program are fully voluntary and anyone who does not wish to sign the forms or follow the program exactly may terminate his membership in the Sea Organization.
Thus, before the SO member can participate in the RPF in lieu of offload, he must understand the purpose and intention of the RPF as covered in RPF Flag Orders and be fully apprised of the course he will be required to follow, of his own volition, toward redemption.
Two waivers are to be signed. The first is called the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RPF ASSIGNMENT AND ELECTION TO PROCEED. The individual will be given this form for signature upon receipt of his assignment and before routing onto the RPF. This will be handled by the HCO of his org. No one may be admitted into the RPF who has not signed this form.
After the person has arrived in the RPF and has studied the RPF FOs, he is then given the APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE RPF AND GENERAL RELEASE. This document may only be signed after the person has a full understanding of what the RPF program involves and has read all of the RPF Series and attests he fully understands the series.
The Cont A/Legal Aide is responsible for verifying with local counsel that the waivers are valid under local laws. Should any changes be needed, the A/Legal Aide is to CSW these to Legal Aide OSA Int for approval prior to implementation.
Unpublished Work: © created 1997 CSI
All Rights ReservedFO3434RE-19
-2-
The original signed copies of these RPF waivers are filed as val docs in the OSA Cont Office. Copies of these waivers are also sent to Senior HCO Cont, Senior HCO Int and copies of them must be filed in the Sea Org member’s personnel file.
SUMMARY
Unlike other groups, our understanding of the nature of man and our use of LRH technology make it possible to salvage an individual. While other organizations offload or fire members for their harmful actions, the Sea Org provides a means for the individual to constructively contribute to the group, while he addresses the spiritual difficulties that led to his destructive actions. To take part in this activity, the individual must participate of his own volition.
LRH TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND COMPILATIONS
Authorized by AVC INTERNATIONAL
for
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONALCSI:SF:RTRC:bn
RPF
Flag Order: RPF Graduation
SEA ORGANIZATION
FLAG ORDER 3434RE-9
10 March 19841
All SO Orgs and Units
RPFs
Senior Quals
Senior C/S Int Office
Inspector General Network(This Flag Order was originally issued as FO 3863, RPF Series 16, RPF GRADUATION. Reissued 8 May 1997 to correct the FO and RPF Series numbers.)
RPF Series 9
RPF GRADUATION
Regardless of other requirements for graduation from any Rehabilitation Project Force of the Sea Organization, the following requirement is in effect on receipt of this FO.
No person may be graduated from the RPF without full application of the recovered technology on Sec Checking2 and PTS checking3 for nonsurvival considerations and evil purposes on all dynamics*.
Further, to ensure the expert and nonsquirrel application of the technology, the folders and final results of the action must be passed by a representative of the Office of Senior C/S Int4 and the Inspector General Network of RTC.
This applies regardless of the case level of the person involved.
The Rehabilitation Project Force was established to rehabilitate and rehabilitation is often not possible without the expert application of this technology.
L. RON HUBBARD
COMMODORELRH:ma
*For data on what “PTS checking for nonsurvival considerations and evil purposes on all dynamics” is, see HCOB 28 Feb. 84, C/S Series 118, PRETENDED PTS.5
Unpublished Work created 1974, 1997 L. Ron Hubbard Library
All Rights Reserved.
Notes
- Image of this document: Page 1 ↩
- See Cult Interrogation Tech. ↩
- See Key Documents: SP Doctrine ↩
- According to a CSI publication: “Part of Snr C/S Int’s office is the LRH Technical Research and Compilations Unit (RTRC). This unit has the responsibility of compiling unpublished LRH materials according to his exact instructions. These materials thus become available in accordance with HCO PL 7 February 1965 (corrected and reissued 12 October 1985) KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING, “One: HAVING THE CORRECT TECHNOLOGY.” All compilations of L. Ron Hubbard’s materials done by RTRC are verified by the Religious Technology Center.” CSI (1988). The Command Channels of Scientology (p.11.) ↩
- See HCOB Pretended PTS. ↩
Flag Order: RPF Graduation—Additional Data
SEA ORGANIZATION
3 March 1984 1
Revised 8 May 1997FLAG ORDER 3434RE-31
RTC
Senior C/S Int Office
Senior Quals
SO Orgs and Units
RPFs(This Flag Order was originally issued as FO 3863-1RA RPF Series 17R. [same title.] It is hereby revised to update post titles in accordance with modern org boards, to further clarify what evidence needs to be included in RPF graduation CSWs and to correct the FO and RPF Series numbers.)
RPF Series 31
RPF GRADUATION—ADDITIONAL DATA
Reference:
FO 3434RE-9 RPF Series 9 RPF GRADUATIONBefore a person may be graduated from an RPF, he must be given final approval by a representative of the Office of Senior C/S International and the Inspector General Network of RTC, as per Flag Order 3434RE-9, RPF Series 9, RPF GRADUATION
The routing of the RPF member’s pc folders is as follows:
1. Approval by the Senior C/S over the RPF (not in the RPF).
2. Once approval is given, the folders are then forwarded to the Office of Senior C/S International.
3. On approval, folders are then forwarded to Religious Technology Center (RTC) for final okay to graduate.
The pc folders to be sent up are the folders which contain the last major action to the person being RPFed, and the auditing from there forward including all RPF co-audited actions.
Before being forwarded to the Senior C/S over the RPF or further up the lines, the pc folders must contain the following:
1. All filing of pc folder particles in PT and in chronological order. (Includes worksheets of Word Clearing, cramming, False Data Stripping, etc.)
2. An accurate and in-PT FES (which includes notations of errors corrected, updated to PT).
3. An accurate and up-to-date Folder Summary.
4. An up-to-date Case Progress Sheet.
5. A PT OCA and any earlier comparative OCA (including an OCA from when they started in the RPF).
Unpublished Work: © created 1984,1987 CSI
All Rights Reserved.FO 3434RE-31
-2-
6. Fully tabbed evidence that the technology of Sec Checking and PTS checking* for nonsurvival considerations and evil purposes on all dynamics has been standardly applied to rave results.
7. RPF final assessment videotape showing that nothing was missed.
A cover CSW is to be placed on top of the PT folder which clearly states WHY the person was assigned to the RPF (including the RPF assignment) and evidence clearly tabbed that this has been fully handled. Such would include for example, graphs and reports received from the person’s seniors in the RPF or others as concrete proof in the physical universe that his or her evil purposes have been handled and which show that the person’s behavior and production record warrant graduation. The person’s ethics folders must also be part of the CSW package. The primary point to be reviewed is that the evil purposes have been run out and fully dealt with as demonstrated by his or her conduct and actions.
If the CSW package is received with one or more of the above points omitted it will be returned as an incomplete CSW without further review until it is corrected.
LRH TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND COMPILATIONS
Authorized by AVC INTERNATIONAL
for CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
* For data on what “PTS checking for nonsurvival considerations and evil purposes on all dynamics” is, see HCOB 28 Feb. 84, C/S Series 118, PRETENDED PTS.2
Notes
- Image of this document: Page 1 | Page 2 ↩
- HCOB Pretended PTS. ↩
HCOB: Pretended PTS
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, SussexHCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 19841; 2
(Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title.)
Remimeo
Execs
MAA/EO Hat
HCO
Tech/Qual C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
MissionairesC/S Series 118
PRETENDED PTS
(This data is also issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)
Refs:
HCOB 19 June 70 II C/S Series 8 CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION
HCOB 3 May 80 PC INDICATORS
HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S
HCO PL 11 May 65 ETHICS OFFICER HAT
HCOB 9 May 77 II PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT
HCOB 28 Nov. 70 C/S Series 22 PSYCHOSIS
HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE
HUBBARD CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION
It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.
It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.
These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.
APPARENT SEQUENCE
Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:
a. They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.
b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.
c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.
d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).
In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.
What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.
We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which i such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.
This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.
HANDLING
In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.
Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S)
If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with Sec Checking by a competent Sec Checker. And such Sec Checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.
Instead of only Sec Checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose regarding the org?”
Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.
CAUTION
If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a Sec Check into his program.
ETHICS
None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended-PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.
SUMMARY
Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.
We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 28 February). Pretended PTS. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 547-549). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
Notes
- Document studied on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course. ↩
- Document studied on the Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor Course. ↩
HCOPL: Pretended PTS
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, SussexHCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 FEBRUARY 19841
(Also issued as an HCOB, same date and title)
Remimeo
Execs
MAA/EO Hat
HCO
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
MissionairesC/S Series 118
PRETENDED PTS
Cover-up and Justification of Black PR and Evil Purposes
(This data is being issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)
Refs:
HCOB 19 June 70 II C/S Series 8 CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION
HCOB 3 May 80 PC INDICATORS
HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S
HCO PL 11 May 65 ETHICS OFFICER HAT
HCOB 9 May 77 II ExDn Series 24 PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT
HCOB 28 Nov. 70 C/S Series 22 PSYCHOSIS
HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE
Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation
It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.
It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.
These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.
APPARENT SEQUENCE
Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:
a. They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.
b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.
c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.
d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).
In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.
What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.
We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.
This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.
HANDLING
In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.
Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S) If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with sec checking by a competent sec checker. And such sec checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.
Instead of only sec checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose regarding the org?”
Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.
CAUTION
If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a sec check into his program.
ETHICS
None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.
SUMMARY
Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.
We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.
L. Ron Hubbard
Founder
Notes
- Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩
Flag Order: RPF Board of Review
SEA ORGANIZATION
FLAG ORDER 3434RE-12
26 February 19841
All SO Orgs and Units
RPFs
Senior Quals(This Flag Order cancels and replaces FO 3434RD-30R, RPF Series 12, RPF BOARD OF REVIEW and FO 3434RD-56R, RPF Series 21, RPF GRADUATES AND REPRIEVES which both contained non-LRH data on the subject of RPF Boards of Review.)
RPF Series 12
RPF BOARD OF REVIEW
(Taken from LRH advices and issued here to provide a means tor an RPF member to seek recourse of the LRH Comm or KOT2 per HCO PL 23 Feb. 1978R. BOARD OF REVIEW, if he feels his assignment was incorrect and should be cancelled. Issued as a Flag Order on 8 May 1997.)
Reference:
HCO PL 23 Feb. 78R Rev. 7.5.84 LRH Comm Network Series 19 BOARD OF REVIEWA Board of Review may be convened to handle any instances of unjust assignments to the RPF. Sometimes people ignore production records or past history or stats.
Therefore, such a board should review the person assigned to the RPF on the basis of whether or not he was actually destructive on post.
Additionally, the board examines the validity of the person’s assignment based on:
1) Stats when put in RPF
2) General state of case
3) Progress while in the RPF
4) Stats while in RPF.
Findings to be done on submission of full CSW by the Board of Review for my approval.*
L. RON HUBBARD
COMMODORECompilation assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations
LRH:RTRC.bn:ma
* The hat of authorizing RPF Boards of Review is now worn by AVC Int RTC.
Unpublished Work © created 1984, 1997 L Ron Hubbard Library
All Rights Reserved.
