Ref.:
The above mentioned pilot policy on OUT TECH AND „ILLEGAL“ PCs is hereby CANCELLED.
This PL made it a Comm Ev offense to mislabel someone an „illegal“ pc. The effect this created was to divert staff’s attention by putting their attention on whether they would be comm ev’ed, rather than correctly spotting and handling an illegal pc.
This opened the door for illegal pcs to be let on lines for auditing.
Illegal pcs should be detected and correctly labelled.
The categories used in determining illegal pcs and their handling are contained in HCO PL/HCOB 6 Dec 76R ILLEGAL PCs, ACCEPTANCE OF HIGH CRIME PL/HCOB.
Per this policy, an illegal pc is any pc:
1. Who is terminally (fatally) ill, regardless of what the org or Registrars may have promised or asserted.
2. Who has an extensive psychiatric history which includes heavy drugs, or shocks of various kinds, or so-called psychiatric brain operations or institutionalization.
3. Who has been denied processing by the Guardian Office for reason of past history or connections or current state as it may affect the safety and security of the org.
This last category only includes persons who have been or whose family members are in the media, police and government organizations such as intelligence organizations or any other federal agency in any country. People who have gone to the press or have tried to sue Scientology are also covered in the above category.
This does not include out-ethics people and they are not illegal pcs. PTSness is handled depending on type of PTSness (a-j or I-III), as already covered in existing policy.
The refusal to handle non-illegal pcs or students on the excuse that they were „illegal“ (contrary to policy) or „PTS“ is an indicator of out tech.
When tech goes out, an org can become frightened of having a rough case to handle because they can’t crack them. So they don’t handle. Instead, the person may be labelled „illegal pc“ or „PTS“ to justify not handling him.
In the presence of refusal of service to public a full investigation of out tech, absence of tech terminals, absence of Qual or HCO terminals and their executives should be done.
This is the duty of the LRH Comm or KOT but can be done by org execs on their own initiative. In either case the true cause of the situation must be discovered and the handling fully worked out and completed. This action is covered in HCO PL 12 February 1978 POWERS OF LRH COMMS, KOTs AND THE LRH COMM NETWORK.