I've looked a few topics to do with this book.
Four words from a 1965 policy letter were not included when the
remainder of the text of that policy letter was used in modern editions
of the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
The policy, called
HCOPL 26 May 1965 'Ethics, Petitions, was an addendum to HCOPL 29
April 1965 Issue II, Ethics, Petitions.
It consisted of six lines, the first of which was:
under sentence or awaiting a Committee of Evidence may validly
petition the office of LRH."
Page 369 of Introduction to Scientology Ethics (1998 edition),
contains a short section, 'Petitions and Ethics Actions.' It
reproduces the text of the May 1965 policy letter except that the
first sentence is four words shorter:
'No person under sentence or awaiting a Committee
of Evidence may
Now for Levi the deletion had the following significance:
> These deletion clearly alters the meaning an
intent of what LRH
> intended in the policy.
> 1) The true meaning is that a person awaiting a Committee of Evidence
> may petition other terminals, but just not the Office of LRH.
> 2) As the Church would have it, their Squirreled verson makes it look
> like a person awaiting a Committee of Evidence may not petition any
I think he's incorrect.
I've looked up the references and I found another policy letter which
contains some pertinent information.
There was a policy letter called 'Ethics Review,' that came out on
the same day as HCOPL 29 April 1965 II, Petitions. It gives extra
information about the petitioning procedure at that time.
'~Only~ after sentence has been passed by a legal
body such as a Court
of Ethics or Committee of Evidence or after an illegal disciplinary
action may a student or PC ask for a ~recourse~.
'Normally, before asking for recourse a student or pc ~petitions~ the
Office of L.Ron Hubbard if unwilling to accept the discipline but this
must be done at once.'
'If the petition is unfavorably acted upon, the student or pc may ask
'Recourse must be requested of the Convening Authority that had local
jurisdiction over the student or pc and may not be requested of higher
authority. A request to higher authority than the Ethics activity that
passed sentence is a ~petition~ not recourse.'
L. Ron Hubbard. HCOPL 29 April 1965 III, Ethics Review.
In 1965 LRH was the ED of the church. He and his office were
the final arbiters of any dispute. They could be petitioned - but not
while a particular ethics procedure was in progress:
'A petition may only be submitted before or after
the full course of
Scientology ethics has been taken.
'As all ethics actions such as a Committee of Evidence are reviewed,
in effect a line already exists due to the ethics actions and the
facts will be on it.
'Therefore a communication from a person under legal sentence from
Ethics Officers or a person named in a Comm Ev may not petition.
Ethics actions must be permitted to take their course.'
L. Ron Hubbard. HCOPL 26 May 1965 'Ethics, Petitions.
The timing of petitions hadn't been laid out so clearly in the earlier two policies of
29 April 1965.
In my opinion, the reason the words 'the office of LRH' appear in the
first line of the 26 May 1965 policy is because, according to the
Ethics Review PL, this was the place someone would petition.
I certainly don't think the words were intended to authorize the
petitioning of every other Tom, Dick and Harry around the church on the
purported injustice of a pending Comm Ev!
As LRH is no longer receiving petitions, the ultimate authority
nowadays would be someone at the top of senior management, perhaps the
International Justice Chief at RTC.
The idea of receiving petitions ~after~ an ethics activity has been
completed is very sensible and must save a lot of time and effort.
Although I wrote some other possibilities in my first post on the subject,
I'm now leaning strongly in favor of the idea that a blue pencil was
used to modernize the text per HCOPL 4 March 65:
'The thing to guard against in releasing teaching
and admin policy
letters is the change factor. Teaching and admin evolved with our
formative years. Thus, patterns and policies, like our tech, grew
better. Growing better, some of it became obsolete.
'When re-releasing an old policy letter, always blue-pencil out
everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters. You can
still salvage a lot that still applies-a surprising amount. But try to
cut out the contradictions with our modern policy where they exist.'
L. Ron Hubbard. HCOPL 4 March 65RA II, Rev 7 July 1983, Tech and
Go to page 2
Return to Scientology Materials Index