No Justice Actions

(Section 5 of Part 4 – My Final Days)

On learning that I was in process of being declared, I decided that I was not going to be the one who did not use policy.  I knew that the ethics gradients had not been applied.  Now I was going to use policy in an attempt to remedy that:

Anyone can request a Comm Ev on himself for anything.

If one is being shot at or regarded with contempt through false accusations, his first action would be to ask the Ethics Officer or MAA for a third party investigation, and if that didn’t work, request a Comm Ev to clear his name or repute. Or to get himself rightfully shot for that matter.

Example: Someone is being kicked around. He can’t handle it himself. So he requests a Comm Ev.

This MUST be given him. And it must be SWIFT.”

LRH – (HCO PL 24 Feb 722 I Injustice – OEC Vol 0, page 703)

I sent in a written request for my Comm Ev, which included a quote of the above policy plus the reference I quoted earlier in this paper, where LRH first introduces the concept of a Comm Ev and where he defines what a Comm Ev is and its purpose.

I also wrote up a Knowledge Report on the HAS for failing to apply the ethics gradients.

I received nothing in return.  This was, to me, just more proof that the church was not interested in applying policy.

Someone who I did subsequently communicate with, briefly, about this, said that I was not eligible for a Comm Ev because I had left the church and had consequently given up all my rights to Scientology justice actions.  Of course, no reference was stated, but the contention was that policy no longer applied to me. This is a complete arbitrary. There is no policy stating this.

Here is a reference that I feel helps explain why the person who said that I was not eligible for a Comm Ev because I had voluntarily left the church was incorrect in her reasoning:

“Where we fail to apply our own administration, technology and justice procedures to the society around us (let alone Scientology), we will fail.

“There’s real magic to be seen here. For instance, every upset we have is traceable to our not knowing or failing to apply our technology and admin and justice procedures to the society around us and its individuals, firms and groups.

“This is worse than you think. A Scientology executive not handling dev-t (developed and unnecessary traffic) from a government in accordance with our dev-t policies when it was off-line and off-policy recently caused an upset. A government official was off-policy (his own bureau’s) and the Scientology executive did not follow our procedure of (a) send it back to source, (b) correct the policy error and (c) inform his superiors when results were not obtained . You say, ‘But that’s wild! Run a government by Scientology admin?’ Well, all I know is that it caused trouble when we didn’t.

“Evidently it’s not ‘them’ and ‘us.’ It’s just ‘us’ and a false ‘them.’

“So all we have to do is to get their hats on and they’re us.”

“Failure to take our usual justice actions on offenders against us will result in eventual chaos. What matter if they don’t appear before the Committee of Evidence we convene on them? How do we know they won’t? How could the Victoria Parliament ever come right if we failed to (a) convene a Committee of Evidence, (b) follow our legal procedures?

“No, they just stay ‘them.’

So, therefore, we must use Scientology tech, admin and justice in all our affairs. No matter how mad it sounds, we only fail when we don’t.”

LRH – (HCO PL 27 March 65 The Use of Scientology, Its Use and Purpose, Being a Scientologist, OEC Vol O, page 713)

I think that the church’s current lack of use of this policy is a major contributing factor to isolating themselves from the rest of society. Lack of justice on people who disagree with their actions is making an “us” vs “them” mentality and the “them’s” are outnumbering the “us’s.”

Also, I would like to point out that this person’s justification for declaring us without a Comm Ev because we “no longer were in the church and thus did not qualify for Scientology justice actions” could be turned right around back on her. Since we were no longer in the church, then we didn’t any longer qualify for the Scientology label “Suppressive Person”. Right? It’s the same reasoning in my opinion.

Next…Letters to My Friends

3 thoughts on “No Justice Actions

  1. The Oracle says:

    The thing is on this “us and them” situation, is that suppressives restimulate a person’s case that is prone to op term others and thus generate conflict and cut comm lines. You look at the people that wallow in fair gaming of others (in or out of the Church) and there you see someone really socked into this case. As a society people have risen above this to a point that it has cost people elections to wallow in fair gaming in elections. The “us and them” game is not a pan determined game. It is also not a responsible game. Your “friends” at the Org turned their back on you in an instant. If you were so suppressive how did it come to be that you were valuable to them for 25 years? It is not even about you being suppressive. It is about you pointing out inconvenient truths. This is where the “justice division” inverts and becomes the maternity ward for injustice. I have seen people wallow in injustice and it is scary. Hubbard says, “Injustice always recoils on those that deal in it”. And it does.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Yes, it is really sad. The justice system does not really apply if the Great One, Mr. Miscavige is being accused. So complaints undoubtedly are not dealt with along proper channels if the ethics officer does not want him or herself declared. So they either go along with David Miscavige and his game or they stay in denial. The other point I want to make is that as long as the two products or an org are not being delivered, auditors not trained and auditing not delivered, there will soon be no public and the Original Church of Scientology will fold for lack of membership.

  3. rwrjfa says:

    Yes, it is very sad that even an ethics officer is unable to confront the proper steps to deal with routing someone out of the church if David Miscavige is part or most of the reason for wanting to leave. He or she simply continues to protect David Miscavige in order to keep his or her post or he or she simply remains in denial. Neither choice is wise in the long run. What is that ethics officer going to do in a few years when he or she no longer has a job as Scientology inevitably folds when there are no end products–no trained auditors and no one to audit in the Hubbard Guidance Center?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s