The suppressive person (whom we’ve called a Merchant of Fear or Chaos Merchant and which we can now technically call the suppressive person) can’t stand the idea of Scientology. If people became better, the suppressive person would have lost. The suppressive person answers this by attacking covertly or overtly Scientology. This thing is, he thinks, his mortal enemy since it undoes his (or her) “good work” in putting people down where they should be.

There are three “operations” such a case seeks to engage upon regarding Scientology: (a) to disperse it, (b) to try to crush it and (c) to pretend it didn’t exist.

Dispersal would consist of several things such as attributing its source to others and altering its processes or structure.

If you feel a bit dispersed reading this Policy Letter, then realize it is about a being whose whole “protective colouration” is to disperse others and so remain invisible. Such people generalize all entheta and create ARC Breaks madly.

The second (b) is done by covert or overt means. Covertly a suppressive person leaves the org door unlocked, loses the E-Meters, runs up fantastic bills, and energetically and unseen seeks to pull out the plug and get Scientology poured down the drain. We, poor fools, consider all this just “human error” or “stupidity”. We rarely realize that such actions, far from being accidents, are carefully thought out. The proof that this is so is simple. If we run down the source of these errors we wind up with only one or two people in the whole group. Now isn’t it odd that the majority of errors that kept the group enturbulated were attributable to a minority of persons present? Even a very “reasonable” person could not make anything else out of that except that it was very odd and indicated that the minority mentioned were interested in smashing the group and that the behaviour was not common to the whole group – meaning it isn’t “normal” behaviour.

Instructors MUST be alert for no-case-change cases on course and for “withholdy pcs who ARC break easily”, “blowy students” and “unstable gains” cases.

These people aren’t Communists or Fascists or any other ists. They are just very sick people. They easily become parts of suppressive groups such as Communists or Fascists because these groups, like criminals, are suppressive.

Even indifferent auditing on even a haphazard course causes good case gains.

The Suppressive Person is hard to spot because of the dispersal factor mentioned above. One looks at them and has his attention dispersed by their “everybody is bad”.

The minority group of no-case-change in routine course auditing and “withholdy” is very minor. These categories contain all the students who disturb your course, are insolent to instructors, rant against rules, etc.

The Suppressive Person who is visibly seeking to knock out people or Scientology is easy to see. He or she is making such a fuss about it. The attacks are quite vicious and full of lies. But even here when the Suppressive Person exists on the “other side” of a potential trouble source, visibility is not good. One sees a case going up and down. On the other side of that case, out of the auditor’s view, is the Suppressive Person.

You are under no orders from me that you must please them but you are under orders to report such cases to HCO.

The whole trick they use is to generalize entheta. “Everybody is bad.” “The Russians are all bad.” “Everybody hates you.” “The People versus John Doe” on warrants. “The masses.” “The Secret Police will get you.”

YOU ONLY USE DIFFICULT CASE OR STUDENT IN THE ACADEMY AS AN INDICATOR OF SOMETHING WORSE. You aren’t a staff auditor but an instructor. You want proper auditor and case gain of course, and you’ll get it (providing when some student says IT didn’t work to find out exactly what the student did that didn’t work and you’ll find it was never what was ordered).

Suppressive groups use the ARC Break mechanisms of generalizing entheta so it seems “everywhere”.

However, on cases that are very difficult, watch it! These difficult cases are more than cases. They mean trouble for you from that student and for your class in ways you wouldn’t look for. By concentrating on “tough cases” you miss the fact that you have a whole class to handle. If you want it handled, look rather at what these tough cases do to your class and handle the “tough case” in a way to protect your course, not to make their cases move.

The Suppressive Person is a specialist in making others ARC Break with generalized entheta that is mostly lies.

IN AN ACADEMY, DON’T TRY TO HANDLE YOUR COURSE ENVIRONMENT WITH STUDENT AUDITING!

He or she is also a no-gain-case.

Handle your course environment with good data, good 8C and discipline and HCO justice machinery.

So avid are such for the smashing of others by covert or overt means that their case is bogged and won’t move under routine processing.

Your students now have their old course regulations suspended. Instead, the justice codes are in. The students are Scientologists. Becoming students gives them no new rights. And it doesn’t remove their justice rights either.

The technical fact is that they have a huge problem, long gone and no longer known even to themselves which they use hidden or forthright vicious acts continually to “handle”. They do not act to solve the environment they are in. They are solving one environment, yesterday’s, in which they are stuck.

I’ve been through all you go through and I have found, by comparing conduct on a course to conduct in the field afterwards, that the turbulent student is a pc, not a student. He or she makes trouble. On the course and afterwards.

The only reason the insane were hard to understand is that they are handling situations which no longer exist. The situation probably existed at one time. They think they have to hold their own, with overts against a non-existent enemy to solve a non-existent problem.

The total symptom that alerts you to such a person is “tough case”.

Because their overts are continuous they have withholds.

This is very easy to notice. Just look over the student case folders and note that one or another student doesn’t seem to get going. Note the folder you have to work on. That’s it. That’s your trouble spot on the course. DON’T judge students by “conduct” or speed of study. Judge on “tough case” only.

Since such a person has withholds, he or she can’t communicate freely to as-is the block on the track that keeps them in some yesterday. Hence, a “no-case-gain”.

Routine auditing is good unless it’s been alter-ised. Routine processes work on good people.

That alone is the way to locate a Suppressive Person. By viewing the case. Never judge such a person by their conduct. That is too difficult. Judge by no-case-gains. Don’t even use tests.

The no-case-gain case makes you hunt for magical processes and fatally leads to alter-is.

One asks these questions:

Now hear this:

1. Will the person permit auditing at all? or

THE PROCESSES YOU HAVE, EVEN WHEN ONLY FAIR, ARE BETTER THAN THE PROCESSES THAT WILL BE DREAMED UP BY STUDENTS OR ANYONE AROUND YOUR COURSE.

2. Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains?

The processes you use, if altered to “fit” some tough case will cease to work on standard cases when so altered.

If (1) is “No”*variant: if (1) is present, one is safe to treat the person as suppressive. It is not always correct but it is always safe. Some errors will be made but it is better to make them than to take a chance on it. When people refuse auditing they are (a) a potential trouble source (connected to a Suppressive Person); (b) a person with a big discreditable withhold; (c) a Suppressive Person or (d) have had the bad luck to be “audited” too often by a Suppressive Person or (e) have been audited by an untrained auditor or one “trained” by a Suppressive Person.

The “tough case” (who is also the difficult student) is the sole reason one has an urge to alter a process.

[The last category (e) (untrained auditor) is rather slight but (d) (audited by a Suppressive Person) can have been pretty serious, resulting in continual ARC Breaks during which auditing was pressed on without regard to the ARC Break.]

You must be sure to push routine processes done routinely. When you see a process being altered look for a “tough case” in the pc or the student and call HCO promptly if you find the poor TA type case, the “no change” response to routine processes.

Thus there are several possibilities where somebody refuses auditing. One has to sort them out in an HGC and handle the right one. But HCO by policy simply treats the person with the same admin policy procedure as that used on a Suppressive Person and lets HGC sort it out. Get that difference – it’s “with the same admin policy procedure as” not “the same as”.

Your approach is to run the standard processes in the right grade in the right sequence. That’s all you teach students to do and it’s all you do in case supervision.

For treating a person “the same as” a Suppressive Person when he or she is not only adds to the confusion. One treats a real Suppressive Person pretty rough. One has to handle the bank.

When these “don’t work” even when you force them to be correctly applied, you have a tough case there. Don’t louse up Scientology technology to handle a “tough case”. You don’t have to invent the processes for it. They already exist in the HGC. When you see alter-is, look for the tough case and let HCO take it from there. We are, after all a team, and as a team we can handle our environment.

As to (2) here is the real test and the only valid test: Does their history of routine auditing reveal any gains?

Your job is just teach and get run the processes of the grade in the right sequence. Your job is to teach students to do just that. Your job is to force the student to run the process that should be run and run it right and to correct any alter-is savagely.

If the answer is NO then there is your Suppressive Person, loud and very unclear!

Never let some student tell you “it didn’t work” without at once plowing in there to look. You will find only one of two things wrong:-

That is the test.

1. Your student erred in the wording, sequence or application of the process through lack of study.

There are several ways of detecting. When fair auditors or good ones have had to vary routine procedure or do unusual things on this case in an effort to make it gain, when there are lots of notes from Ds of P in the folder saying do this – do that – you know that this case was trouble.

or

This means it was one of three things: 1. a potential trouble source 2. a person with a big withhold 3. a Suppressive Person.

2. Either the student auditor or the student pc is a “tough case”.

If despite all that trouble and care, the case did not gain – or if the case simply didn’t gain despite auditing no matter how many years or intensives, then you’ve caught your Suppressive Person.

Don’t let anybody try to vary a process to fit a case. If you do your indicator is obscured in letting anybody fool about in “trying to make a process work” or trying to get inventive just to crack a “tough case”.

That’s the boy. Or the girl.

The majority of your course trouble and the tendency to alter-is material comes from trying to force a “tough case” to get gains. Should you alter or advise alteration of a process you are letting our side down. It leads you into teaching students to alter-is and there goes the balloon. It means they won’t be able to run standard stuff successfully. And that means (let’s be brutal) they will miss, by non-standard auditing, on 90% of their cases, the good people. They will slant all Scientology toward one nut and we’ll be a failed mess like psychiatry with our clinics full of psychiatric cases not people.

This case performs continual calculating covert hostile acts damaging to others. This case puts the enturbulence and upset into the environment, breaks the chairs, messes up the rugs and spoils the traffic flow with “goofs” done intentionally.

The HGC (and perhaps one course level) is taught to handle “tough cases”. The processes for them are standard, too. You must hold the line and answer a student’s “didn’t work” with “Exactly what didn’t work?” and “Exactly what did you do?” and you’ll find they didn’t do it, or it’s a tough case. Either way follow policy.

One should lock criminals out of the environment if one wants security. But one first has to locate the criminal. Don’t lock everybody out because you can’t find the criminal.

YOU MUST REPORT A TOUGH CASE TO HCO AT ONCE.

The cyclic case (gains and collapses routinely) is connected to a Suppressive Person. We have policy on that.

For there sits a justice matter, not an Academy problem. It’s not your hat.

The case that continually pleads “hold my hand I am so ARC broken” is just somebody with a big withhold, not an ARC Break.

You see the no-gain-case, the “withholdy case that ARC breaks easily”, “the blowy student”, “unstable gain student” and your tendency may be to do something original or give the student some different process. If you do you are madly off-policy. In the ordinary Academy Course you are not teaching a “tough case” course. You are teaching a nice fast, workable course for decent average cases. Your majority is composed of good students. They deserve your time.

The Suppressive Person just gets no-case-gain on routine student auditing.

So this makes the “tough case” student the odd man (or woman) out. They make a lot of commotion so one may think they are “everybody” on a course. They’re not. They are seldom higher than 10%. So you risk the 90% of your course and all Scientology just to handle 10%.

This person is actively suppressing Scientology. If such will sit still and pretend to be audited the suppression is by hidden hostile acts which include:

Could I point out that the Protestant idea of recovering at any expense and considering very valuable any sheep who strayed, was batty. How about the whole flock? Leave them to the wolves while one ran off after one? No, please don’t go the route by doing that. It’s pretty awful.

1. Chopping up auditors;

No, this “tough case” is for the HGC and HCO. And I’d darn well rather you didn’t give the person the technology before he straightens out as he’ll hurt people with it.

2. Pretending withholds which are actually criticisms;

Such “tough cases” are possible to salvage. They’re just cases. But it takes an HGC to run them and it takes HCO to hold them still so they’ll be audited. Remember, we’re a team. HCO and HGC are part of the team. Don’t steal their hats.

3. Giving out “data” about their past lives and/or whole track that really holds such subjects up to scorn and makes people who do remember wince;

The “tough case” is judged only on the basis of case gain or lack of it.

4. Chopping up orgs;

The Academy does NOT send students to the HGC for “slow study” or dullness or any other reason except “tough case”. That’s firm policy. The “tough case” is the only one you send.

5. Alter-ising technology to mess it up;

There are 3 categories of these “tough cases”.

6. Spreading rumours about prominent persons in Scientology;

7. Attributing Scientology to other sources;

The Potential Trouble Source. A suppressive person is on the other side of this one. The case will get a gain and slump, get a gain and slump over and over. It isn’t a “manic-depressive” as the old 19th Century psycho-analyst thought. It’s a guy whose marital partner or family is going into fits over this person’s connection with Scientology. This is purely a justice matter and belongs to HCO. He either disconnects or acts to settle his or her situation. No halfway measures. But you can’t do much about that in an Academy. If you did you’d leave your class to the wolves. Get on-line and route this mysterious fellow who can’t get a gain without losing it the next day or week over to HCO with a “Please investigate. Possible Potential Trouble Source.” Don’t even bother to question the student. HCO will find out. It’s also illegal to audit them so HCO won’t even route to the HGC but will act as per policy on such.

8. Criticizing auditors as a group;

Always err on the side of sending HCO too many students rather than risk keeping one who is a liability to us all. But never send merely a course “cut-up” or a lazy student whose case runs well. This policy is only faintly discipline. It is actually excellent technology to a recurring course problem.

9. Rolling up Dev-T, off policy, off origin, off line;

10. Giving fragmentary or generalized reports about entheta that cave people in – and isn’t actual;

The withholdy case is routinely ARC breaking and having to be patched up, commonly blows, has to have lots of hand-holding. As your course possibly isn’t at that level it is too much to handle anyway and you’re not equipped to handle. But even if your course is equipped to handle the right action is again HCO. Report this student to HCO with the label “withholdy case that ARC breaks easily” or “Blow type case”. And get HCO over to the Academy. HCO may route to HGC at the student’s own expense or get two tough staff members to stand by while the withholds are explored on a meter in case this is a real justice case or just a student lunch thief. The reason for all that weird behaviour is always a withhold condition. You can’t be bothered. HCO, however, is interested in the NO REPORT aspect of such a case. This person hasn’t told all that’s sure. HCO can send to HGC or refund or even Comm Ev.

11. Refusing to repair ARC Breaks;

12. Engaging in discreditable sexual acts (also true of potential trouble sources);

The suppressive person does turn up to get trained. And when you train them (a) their case doesn’t change, (b) they cheer when their course pc loses and gloom when their course pc wins and (c) they chatter about the horrors of discipline and seek to lead student squirreling or revolt. Their dream is a society wherein the criminal may do anything he pleases without any faintest restraint. We sometimes get loaded up with these characters but they run about 1 or 2 in 80 students usually. This person has no faintest chance of making it unless handled for what he or she is in an HGC. And if you train such you lend our name to all the chicanery and injury they do with our tech and protect them with our name. You’ve seen this case in another guise of squirreling – chatter-chatter about phoney past lives when they were Cleopatra and so on invalidating others’ actual memories, talking only whole track to raw meat. You’ve seen this one. It’s suppression pure and simple and they know it! And they don’t ever get a case change and their ARC breaks don’t heal, etc. etc. etc! The secret here is CONTINUOUS OVERTS which are then withheld. The technical fact is they are quite gone and are SOLVING A PERSONAL BUT LONG GONE PROBLEM BY CONTINUOUS OVERTS. One can actually handle them if one knows this seemingly tiny fact. One finds of course the PTP, not the overts. For one has about as much chance pulling this fellow’s overts as moving the Earth by pulling weeds.The suppressive acts this person does are solutions to solve some long long ago problem in which the pc is stuck. To an HGC this is finding conditions of environment the pc has had and discovering how he or she handled them. But this is HCO – HGC business. The longer you wait to notify HCO, the more harm will be done and HCO will get inquisitive as to why there was no report from you on this. For here is the auditor heart breaker, the natterer, the rumour factory, the 1.1 and the course and group wrecker. Here’s “Whee, kill everybody!” in person. Here also is the possible government agent, the AMA BMA*BMA: British Medical Association stooge. Here is the guy who plans to “squirrel” and “grab Scientology”. Here is the boy. Or here is the girl. But here is also a thetan buried in the mud. And if you let this person go without attention he or she will soon become ill or die – or worse will mess up or kill others. The person is the only real psycho. And if you let him drift he’ll soon wind up in the brain surgeon’s suppressive hands. So it’s nothing to overlook. People who have to solve their problems by shooting the rest of us down are what made life such a hell in this universe. You have your hands on the implanted, the warmonger, the wrecker. But still, this is what’s left of a human being and he or she can be salvaged. But only in an HGC, not a course. Please! Here also is the criminal or the sex crazy guy or the pervert who just had to break old rule 25 (the old no-sex Academy rule). People who are sex crazy are over their heads in a collapsed bank that they’ve collapsed themselves with overts. Let’s be real. This person throws people back in twice as fast as we can pull them out! So why arm him with tech. Put on your label when you send for HCO “No-Case-Change despite good tries with the routine processes taught on this course that was closely supervised in correct application”. Let HCO take it from there. It’s not Academy business.

13. Reporting a session good when the pc went bad;

Your routine procedure on any of the 3 types of case is:

14. Reporting a session bad when the pc went up in tone;

1. Call HCO Department of Inspection and Reports;

15. Snapping terminals*Comment by the Editor (Chris): A lecturer or exec are terminals (a source) someone making critical remarks or spreading ARCX type news, steals the attention of the group from the "source" to him/herself, i.e. makes himself the terminal. So it snaps the groups attention off of what was trying to be communicated and onto the other person. Or if no group is involved it causes a sudden shift of attention in the source. with lecturers and executives to make critical remarks or spread ARC Break type “news” to them;

2. Minimize disturbance;

16. Failing to relay comm or report;

3. Hold the student in an empty classroom or auditing room;

17. Making an org go to pieces (note one uses “making” not “letting”);

4. Stand by to help if things get rough;

18. Committing small criminal acts around the org;

5. Help HCO complete its report;

19. Making “mistakes” which get their seniors in trouble;

6. Let HCO (and probably HGC) take over from there and get back to your students.

20. Refusing to abide by policy;

If you’re going to grow and get your own case changes and have a good time instructing you’ll read this very, very carefully and put it very briskly into practice.

21. Non-compliance with instructions;

At first you may not agree that you should be so sharp. It may be a blow to feeling you can crack all cases. You probably can. But man, that’s an HGC hat. What are you doing wearing it as an instructor? By all means crack the routine cases. But the tough ones? That’s HCO and HGC.

22. Alter-is of instructions or orders so that the program fouls up;

The bigger we get, the easier all this will be.

23. Hiding data that is vital to prevent upsets;

But now let’s mark a start in teaching courses that are fun for all by giving the deep six*deep six: throw overboard (World Book Dictionary) to those who want a mess.

24. Altering orders to make a senior look bad;

Okay?

25. Organizing revolts or mass protest meetings;

Well, do it, do it, do it.

26. Snarling about Justice.

And so on. One does not use the catalogue, however, one only uses this one fact – no case gain by routine auditing over a longish period.

This is the fellow that makes life miserable for the rest of us. This is the one who overworks executives. This is the auditor killer. This is the course enturbulator or pc killer.

There’s the cancer. Burn it out.

In short, you begin to see that it’s this one who is the only one who makes harsh discipline seem necessary. The rest of the staff suffers when one or two of these is present.

One hears a whine about “process didn’t work” or sees an alter-is of tech. Go look. You’ll find it now and then leads to a Suppressive Person inside or outside the org.

Now that one knows who it is, one can handle it.

But more than that, I can now crack this case!

The technology is useful in all cases, of course. But only this cracks the “no-gain-case”.

The person is in a mad, howling situation of some yesteryear and is “handling it” by committing overt acts today. I say condition of yesteryear but the case thinks it’s today.

Yes, you’re right. They are nuts. The spin bins are full of either them or their victims. There’s no other real psycho in a spin bin!

What? That means we’ve cracked insanity itself? That’s right. And it’s given us the key to the Suppressive Person and his or her effect on the environment. This is the multitude of “types” of insanity of the 19th century psychiatrist. All in one. Schizophrenia, paranoia, fancy names galore. Only one other type exists – the person the Suppressive Person got “at”. This is the “manic-depressive” a type who is up one day and down the next. This is the Potential Trouble Source gone mad. But these are in a minority in the spin bin, usually put there by Suppressive Persons and not crazy at all! The real mad ones are the Suppressive Persons. They are the only psychos.

Over simplification? No indeed. I can prove it! We could empty the spin bins now. If we want to. But we have better uses for technology than saving a lot of Suppressive Persons who themselves act only to scuttle the rest of us.

You see, when they get down to no-case-gain where a routine process won’t bite, they can no longer as-is their daily life so it all starts to stack up into a horror. They “solve” this horror by continuous covert acts against their surroundings and associates. After a while the covert ones don’t seem to hold off the fancied “horror” and they commit some senseless violence in broad daylight – or collapse – and so they can get identified as insane and are lugged off to the spin bin.

Anybody can “get mad” and bust a few chairs when a Suppressive Person goes too far. But there’s traceable sense to it. Getting mad doesn’t make a madman, it’s damaging actions that have no sensible detectable reasons that’s the trail of madness. Any thetan can get angry. Only a madman damages without reason.

All actions have their lower scale discreditable mockery. The difference is, does one get over his anger? The no-case-gain of course can’t. He or she stays misemotional and adds each new burst to the fire. It never gets less. It grows. And a long way from all Suppressive Persons are violent. They are more likely to look resentful.

A Suppressive Person can get to one solid dispassionate state of damaging things. Here is the accident prone, the home wrecker, the group wrecker.

Now here one must realize something. The Suppressive Person finds outlet for his or her unexpressed rage by carefully needling those they are connected with into howling anger.

You see the people around them get dragged into this long gone incident by mistaken identity. And it is a maddening situation to be continually mis-identified, accused, worked on, doubled crossed. For one is not the being the Suppressive Person supposes. The Suppressive Person’s world is pretty hard to live around. And even ordinarily cheerful people often blow up under the strain.

So be careful who you call the Suppressive Person. The person connected with a Suppressive Person is liable to be only visible rage in sight!

You have some experience of this – the mousey little woman who rarely changes expression and is so righteous connected to somebody who now and then goes into a frenzy.

How to tell them apart? Easy! Just ask this question:

Which gets a case gain easily?

Well, it’s even simpler than that! Put the two on an E-Meter. Don’t do anything but read the dial and needle. The Suppressive one has the high stuck T.A. The other has a lower T.A. Simple?

Not all Suppressive Persons have high T.A. The T.A. can be anywhere especially very low (1.0). But the needle is weird. It is stuck tight or it RSes without reason (the pc wearing no rings to cause an RS).

Suppressive Persons also can have the “dead” thetan clear read!

You see people around a Suppressive Person Q and A and disperse. They seek to “get even” with the Suppressive Person and often exhibit the same symptoms temporarily.

Sometimes two Suppressive Persons are found together. So one can’t always say which is the Suppressive Person in a pair. The usual combination is the Suppressive Person and the Potential Trouble Source.

However you don’t need to guess about it or observe their conduct.

For this poor soul can no longer as-is easily. Too many overts. Too many withholds. Stuck in an incident that they call “present time”. Handling a problem that does not exist. Supposing those around are the personnel in their own delirium.

They look all right. They sound reasonable. They are often clever. But they are solid poison. They can’t as-is anything. Day by day their pile grows. Day by day their new overts and withholds pin them down tighter. They aren’t here. But they sure can wreck the place.

There is the true psycho.

And he or she is dying before your very eyes. Kind of horrible.

The resolution of the case is a clever application of problems processes, never O/W. What was the condition? How did you handle it? is the key type of process.

I don’t know what the percentage of these are in a society. I know only that they made up about 10% of any group so far observed. The data is obscured by the fact that they ARC Break others and make them misemotional – thus one of them seems to be, by contagion, half a dozen such.

Therefore simple inspection of conduct does not reveal the Suppressive Person. Only a case folder puts the seal on it. No-Case-Gain by routine processes.

However this test too may soon become untrustworthy for now we can crack them by a special approach. However we will also generally use the same approach on routine cases as it makes cases go upward fast and we may catch the Suppressive Person accidentally and cure him or her before we are aware of it.

And that would be wonderful.

But still we’ll have such on our lines in Justice matters from now on. So it’s good to know all about them, how they are identified, how to handle.

HCO must handle such cases as per the HCO Justice Codes on Suppressive Acts when they blow Scientology or seek to suppress Scientologists or orgs. One should study up on these.

The Academy should be careful of this and report them to HCO promptly (as they would potential trouble sources or withholds that won’t be delivered). The Academy must not fool about with Suppressive Persons. It’s a sure way to deteriorate a course and cave in students.

When an Academy finds it has a Potential Trouble Source, a “withholdy case that ARC Breaks easily” or a Suppressive Person enrolled on a course or a blow the Academy must call for HCO Department of Inspection & Reports, Justice section. This can be any HCO personnel available, even the HCO Sec.

The HCO representative must wear some readily identified HCO symbol and must take a report sheet with a carbon copy on a clip board.

HCO must have present other staff adequate to handle possible physical violence.

The student, if still present, must be taken to a place where an interview will not stop or enturbulate a class, by Tech Division personnel. This can be any Tech Division office, empty auditing room or empty classroom. The point is to localize the commotion and not stir up the whole Tech Division.

If Tech Division personnel is not available HCO can recruit “other staff” anywhere by simply saying “HCO requires you” and taking them into the interview place.

HCO has a report sheet for such matters, original and one copy for Justice files.

The HCO representative calls for the student’s folder and looks it over quickly for TA action. If there is none (less than 10 divs/sess) that’s it. It is marked on the report sheet, “No TA action in auditing” or “Little TA”. HCO is not interested in what processes were run. Or why there is no TA. If the course requires no meters the folder is inspected for alter-is (which denotes a rough pc) or no case changes.

If there are no TA notations in the folder HCO should put the person on a meter, making sure the person is not wearing a ring. One asks no questions, merely reads the TA position and notes the needle and marks these in the report sheet. The Tone Arm will be very high (5 or above) or very low (2 or less) or dead thetan (2 or 3) and the needle would be an occasional RS or stuck or sticky if the person is a Suppressive Person. This is noted in the report sheet.

If the folder or the student in question says he has had no case gain this is again confirming of a Suppressive Person.

If two of these three points (folder, meter, statement) indicate a Suppressive Person, HCO is looking for two possible students when so called in – the one who caused the upset and that student’s coach or student’s auditor. There very likely may be a Suppressive Person on the course that is not this student. Therefore one looks for that one too, the second one.

If a bit of questioning seems to reveal that the student’s auditor was responsible, test that student too, and enter it on a second HCO report form. And order the other one to auditing at the student’s own expense.

In short be alert. There’s been an upset. There may be other persons about who caused it. Don’t just concentrate on the student. There is a condition on the course that causes upsets. That is really all one knows.

When one walks in on it, find out why and what.

If the HCO tests indicate some doubt about either student being a Suppressive Person, HCO asks about a possible withhold and enters any result on the sheet and sends the students and sheet separately to the Tech Division, Dept of Estimation. The procedure is the same for a Suppressive Person but is “a withholdy pc who ARC Breaks easily” or simply “a withholdy pc” if no ARC Breaks are noted. “Auditing recommended”.

But there is a third category for which HCO is very alert in this interview. And that is the POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE.

For this person may only be audited further if he or she disconnects or handles the Suppressive Person or group to which he or she is connected and can’t be sent to the HGC or back to the course either until the status is cleared up.

If this seems the case, there is no point in continuing the person in the Tech Division and HCO takes over fully, applying the policy related to Potential Trouble Sources.

This type of case will probably not be dangerous but quite co-operative, and probably dazed by having to do something about his situation. He or she has been hammered with invalidation by a Suppressive Person and may be rather wobbly but if the Justice steps are taken exactly on policy there should be no trouble. HCO can take a Potential Trouble Source (but never a Suppressive Person) out of the Tech Division premises and back to HCO to complete such briefing. Remember, it is all one to us if the Potential Trouble Source handles it or not. Until it’s handled or disconnected we don’t want it around as it’s just more trouble and the person will cave in if audited under those conditions (connected to a Suppressive Person or group).

A Suppressive Person found in an Academy is ordered to HGC processing always. And always at his or her own expense.

If the Suppressive Person won’t buy auditing, or co-operate, HCO follows steps A to E in policy on Suppressive Persons in the Justice Codes, HCO may be assisted in this by Tech personnel.

The point is, the situation must be handled fully there and then. The student buys his auditing or gets A to E. There is no “We’ll put you on probation in the course and if…” because I’ve not found it to work. Auditing or Suppressive Person A to E. Or both.

The student however may have blown off the premises or he has gone entirely. On a minor, momentary blow, where all it took was the student’s auditor and a few words to get the student back, the matter is not a real blow.

But where the student leaves the premises in a blow or doesn’t turn up for class, the Tech Division must send an Instructor and the student’s auditor over to HCO Department of Inspection and Reports. An HCO representative should go with them at once to pick up the student.

The student is brought back with as little public commotion as possible and the procedure of HCO checkout, etc. is followed as above.

Where the student can’t be gotten back (or in all such cases) the real cause may be a Suppressive Person in the Course itself, not the blown student or the upset student.

If the Suppressive Person is on the course (and is not the blown student) HCO will want to know this. In all such cases the one who caused the environment may not be the culprit.

The HCO representative calls for the blown student’s case folder and looks for TA. If there is none or for some reason the student wasn’t audited, or if no meters were used on that course, HCO seeks to find out what the case’s responses were to processing.

If the case seemed to change or improve yet the student is gone, HCO looks over the blown student’s ex-auditor for suppressive characteristics such as satisfaction the pc blew, critical statements about tech or instructors, case rough or difficult, lies about the circumstances, etc. and if such signs are present, HCO orders the blown student’s ex-auditor to the HGC at the student’s own expense.

If this interview with the blown student’s auditor seems to indicate a Suppressive Person beyond any doubt HCO orders the student to the HGC at the student’s own expense.

The blown student’s course auditor will not be found usually to be a Potential Trouble Source as these are seldom bad or rough auditors, so questions about this possibility don’t really apply.

But if this student (the blown student’s auditor) is Suppressive, it’s HGC or A to E. If the student gives on A to E he or she may be returned to course or to the HGC as HCO deems best.

In all such cases where a Suppressive Person is found, watch out for legal repercussions by having reliable witnesses present during such negotiations or upsets and take liberal notes for possible Comm Ev. This is why there also must be an HCO representative handling it.

If there is no agreement to be audited and the student who is found to be a Suppressive Person will not respond to A to E (because student has blown and can’t be found or because the student flatly refuses), the student is considered terminated.

A waiver or quit claim is given or sent the student stating:

I ................... having refused to abide by the Codes of (name and place of org) do hereby waive any further rights I may have as a Scientologist and in return for my course fee of ............... I do hereby quit any claim I may have on (name of org) or any Scientologist personnel or any person or group or organization of Scientology.

2 Witnesses

Only when this is signed the student may have his course fee returned, but no other fees as he accepted that service.

The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind beyond refund. And after signing can only return to Scientology as per policy on Fair Game.

The HGC audits such a Suppressive Person sent to it on special processes specially issued by HCO B for Suppressive Persons. It will be found that adherence to these policies will make Academies very calm.

Note: Nothing in this policy letter waives or sets aside any policy concerning the auditing of known institutional cases in an HGC. Persons with histories of institutionalized insanity may not be audited in HGC.

P.S. If you’ve wondered if you are a Suppressive Person while reading this – you aren’t! A Suppressive Person never does wonder, not for a moment! THEY KNOW THEY’RE SANE!