(Section 4 of Part 4 – My Final Days)
I had given the HAS my final decision that I was going to leave staff. I told her I wanted to route off standardly and I was willing to get my Sec Check and do the whole routing form.
We went over the form and we agreed that I would leave the org, and then come back when she had made the arrangements for the next step on the routing form, which was an ethics interview. I left. There was no arguing, no disrespect, no make-wrong on the part of either one of us.
Days, weeks, and then at least a month or two went by and I had heard nothing back. So one day, I decided to find out what was going on. I sent a text message to the HAS asking her what was happening with my cycle.
Her response was, by text, “It has been sent uplines for approval.”
I texted, “What has been sent uplines for approval?”
Later that evening I re-texted the question, “What has been sent uplines for approval?”
The next day I re-texted her the same question.
Response: “Sorry Dave, I didn’t get your message because the reception in my office isn’t good.” Nothing else.
My response to her response: “I understand that you didn’t get my message because of the reception in your office. What has been sent uplines for approval?”
Her answer: “Ethics gradients 35 and 36.”
I knew what she was referring to. The ethics gradients in HCO PL 29 April 65 III Ethics, Review (OEC Vol 4, page 357 and 358), the section called “Levels of Ethics Actions”.
36. Expulsion from Scientology.
In response to that, I asked her (still by text), “What happened to all the other ethics gradients?”
Her answer: “Many were done.”
I swear to you, what I have told you up to now, as to the sequence of events leading up to this, is a full picture of any “ethics gradients” that were or were not applied by any org terminals regarding the cycle of my leaving.
You look at the whole list of ethics gradients in that policy and NOT ONE OF THEM WAS APPLIED (unless some of them were applied without my knowledge, in which case, what is the purpose of an ethics gradient that is supposed to jolt the person’s necessity level to get his ethics in on whatever supposed out-ethics situation he is involved in, when the person isn’t even informed that the ethics gradients are being applied?)
There was no investigation of me in person, no interrogation of others about me, no assignment of a lower condition, no Court of Ethics, no Comm Ev, none of the actions leading up to a Court or Comm Ev – nothing! None of those things happened from the first day I went into the HAS’s office with Sindy up until the time the HAS and I agreed that I would leave and await her call. From that moment I had not received nor participated in one bit of communication of any kind with the HAS or any org terminal whatsoever. Yet now I was being told that the two highest ethics gradients on the list were being applied and that “many” of the lower gradients had been applied. This was a falsehood.
I didn’t know for what specific reason I actually had gotten a declare proposal sent uplines. I hadn’t told anyone in the church what had been going on with me. I hadn’t told anyone that I thought that COB was a suppressive and that I thought that he was a blatant squirrel and vicious psychopath. Even when friends would ask me what was going on with me, I wouldn’t tell them. I had promised the HAS and DSA that I would not tell anyone about it and was good to my word. I wasn’t accused of any out-tech as a Supervisor or out-ethics as a staff member.
I can think of two reasons which may have served as valid in the eyes of the HAS and other org terminals for having me declared (if I in fact was declared, I have never seen anything in writing saying that I was).
One possible reason was the fact that I had gone onto the Internet and investigated David Miscavige and the church by using data put out by people other than David Miscavige and others from within the church. But as I had already stated, there is no policy that this action violates and it is not one of the offenses or high crimes listed in the Ethics and Justice Codes.
Another reason could have been this: Sindy had posted her story of why she had left the church, and what she had found out in doing her Internet research, including the squirrelly actions that she had witnessed and experienced while on staff on her post as the IAS Membership Officer.
I hadn’t posted anything publicly myself up till that time but I too was getting declared. If Sindy’s published story was the reason, it makes sense from the HAS’s point of view, considering the fact that she would have considered Sindy’s publishing of her story to be a suppressive act (an idea which I totally disagree with and will address a little later in this story), and that I allowed it to happen and did not try to stop her from doing it.
Now, I did not want to get declared. I had definitely decided that I didn’t want to be on staff anymore and that I did not any longer want to support the church, because of what I had discovered about COB and the church. But I did not want to get declared. I felt it would be too upsetting and mysterious to the people who I considered my friends in the church. That is really how I felt.
But I knew that by allowing Sindy to publish that story, or not disconnecting from her because of it, that there was a pretty good chance of my being declared.
Why did I allow Sindy to publish that story and why did I not leave her because of her doing so, even though I knew I could get declared because of it, when I didn’t want to be declared?
Because she has a RIGHT to communicate about it, that’s why! Yes, I know what it says in HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists (OEC Vol 1, page 880). Believe me, I know what it says!
“It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”
But I knew that Sindy was telling the truth and there is nothing suppressive about telling the truth. If the church wanted to declare us for telling the truth, well then, let them do that and in the meantime, we will just take that as another indicator of the suppressive nature of the current church management.
Policy should not be used to create injustices. To say that it is not okay to blow the whistle on the offenses committed by COB and others who are following his orders, is itself a suppressive act.
If the church had its ethics in, if its stats were as phenomenal as they claim them to be, if policy and tech were being used constructively, if the alterations and abuses I have mentioned in this article were not actually happening, if the dwindling spiral of this planet was actually being reversed by actions taken by the church, then it WOULD be a suppressive act to publicly depart the church and make the statements that Sindy made on the Internet.
But as it stands, it would have been suppressive of me to try to stop her.
IT IS NOT A SUPPRESSIVE ACT TO PUBLICLY BLOW THE WHISTLE ON SUPPRESSIVE ACTS. David Miscavige has a long list of suppressive acts, only relatively few of which I have mentioned here. He has committed suppressive acts against Scientology, but he has also committed suppressive acts against people’s human rights. He deserves NO protection from LRH policy or from any rules preventing people from speaking out against him and exposing his crimes and his lies.
And as I have stated repeatedly here in different examples, he does not apply Scientology and he has turned the church into a squirrel group; so a public departure from the church is not a public departure from Scientology anyways.
What I have stated in this section about how it is not suppressive to truthfully blow the whistle on offenses being committed in the church’s leadership is my opinion and this is not something that I’ve ever seen written by LRH specifically. It comes to a point where you have to use judgment and keep your own counsel and that is what I am doing. I am offering my judgments to you knowing full well that you have every right to disagree with them. I think that to take the list of suppressive acts and be so afraid to violate them that you sacrifice what you know is right, is to be an unthinking robot who is incapable of using policy for the greatest good.
You may or may not remember this next reference from the PTS / SP course. If you did the most recent version of the course that I know of, you clay demoed it.
“There are two uses (violently opposed to each other) to which Scientology orgs can be put. They are:
- To forward the advance of self and all dynamics toward total survival.
- To use the great power and control of an org over others to defend oneself.
“When a decent being goes to work in an org, he uses (1).
“When a suppressive goes to work in an org, he uses (2).
“When you get in ethics the decent one raises his necessity level and measures up. The suppressive type blows (leaves).
“It is of vital interest to all of us that we have orgs that serve to increase survival on all dynamics. And that we prevent orgs being used as means to oppress others.
“The answer, oddly enough, is to GET IN ETHICS exactly on-policy and correctly. And we will advance.”
LRH – (HCO PL 1 Oct 67, Admin Know-How Series 15 Uses of Orgs)
David Miscavige uses point number 2 above. That’s why a non-suppressive person who speaks the truth about him can get declared a suppressive person by his organization. He has it set up that way. He is using LRH policy to defend himself from having his crimes exposed to you and me. The terminals in the church who are failing to see this are going into agreement with it and allowing injustices to occur by declaring as SPs anyone who tries to expose the squirreling and cruelty that is going on.
That’s why I deemed it necessary to give Sindy my agreement with her publishing her story which is most likely the catalyst that got us both declared. I wasn’t going to let COB’s suppressive use of policy control me into violating my integrity. I would rather be declared and have people who were once my friends disconnected from me, than to suppress the truth from being exposed. I have NO regrets.
In my opinion, the real reason we were declared, aside from whatever supposed policies we were said to have violated, was because now we knew too much and now our comm line with the people we know inside the church had to be cut by enforcement, so that we could not tell others what we know.
I also don’t think that the terminals in the org knew that that was the purpose of declaring us. They are well-intentioned people who thought they were doing it to protect their church, because they thought that we were duped into believing things and they felt they needed to protect others from being duped by the same information that they refused themselves to believe.
But I am very disappointed in the unwillingness of people who I had thought were my friends to pull the strings on the wrongnesses that should have been obvious. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are being duped, and as such, they are contributing to the duping of others.
Next…No Justice Actions