In the policy letter below LRH provides some very interesting Life and Livingness Data!
In an extension of third party technology (see HCOB of THIRD PARTY LAW), I have found that false reports and suppression are very important in third party technology.
We know as in the above HCOB that a third party is necessary to any quarrel; basically, it is a three-terminal universe.
In reviewing several org upsets, I have found that the third party can go completely overlooked even in intensive investigation.
A third party adds up to suppression by giving false reports on others.
In several cases an org has lost several guiltless staff members. They were dismissed or disciplined in an effort to solve enturbulation. Yet the turbulence continued and the area became even more upset by reason of the dismissals.
Running this back further, one finds that the real third party, eventually un-earthed, got people shot by FALSE REPORTS.
One source of this is as follows:
Staff member X goofs. He is very furious and defensive at being accused. He blames his goof on somebody else. That somebody else gets disciplined. Staff member X diverts attention from himself by various means including falsely accusing others.
This is a third party action which results in a lot of people being blamed and disciplined. And the real third party remaining undetected.
The missing point of justice here is that the disciplined persons were not faced with their accusers and were not given the real accusation and so could not confront it.
Another case would be a third party simply spreading tales and making accusations out of malice or some even more vicious motive. This would be a usual third party action. It is ordinarily based on false reports.
Another situation comes about when an executive who can’t get an area straight starts to investigate, gets third party false reports about it, disciplines people accordingly and totally misses the real third party. This enturbulates the area even more.
The basis of all really troublesome third party activities is then FALSE RE- PORTS.
There can also be FALSE PERCEPTION. One sees things that don’t exist and reports them as “fact.”
Therefore we see that we can readily run back an investigation by following a chain of false reports.
After a lot of experience with ethics and justice I would say that the real source of upset in an area would be FALSE REPORTS accepted and acted upon without confronting the accused with all charges and his or her accusers.
An executive should not accept any accusation and act upon it. To do so undermines the security of one and all.
What an executive should do on being presented with an accusation or down stats or “evidence” is conduct an investigation of false reports and false perceptions.
An area is down-stat because of one or more of the following:
- No personnel
- Personnel not trained
- Cross orders (senior orders unattended because of different junior orders)
- Area doing something else than what it is supposed to do
- An adjacent area dumping its hat
- False perception leading to false stats
- False reports by rumor or misunderstanding
- False reports from single rare instances becoming accepted as the condition of the whole
- False reports on others defensively intended
- False reports on others maliciously intended (real third party)
- 1 1. Injustices cumulative and un-remedied
- Actions taken on others without investigation and without confronting them with their accusers or the data.
This is a list of probable causes for an upset or down-stat area.
The personal security of the staff member is so valuable to him apparently that when it is undermined (by false accusations or injustice) he becomes less willing and less efficient and is the real reason for a PTS condition.
The only thing which can actually remedy a general insecure feeling is a renewed faith in justice.
Justice would consist of a refusal to accept any report not substantiated by actual, independent data, seeing that all such reports are investigated and that all investigations include confronting the accused with the accusation and where feasible the accuser, BEFORE any disciplinary action is undertaken or any condition as- signed.
While this may slow the processes of justice, the personal security of the individual is totally dependent upon establishing the full truth of any accusation before any action is taken.
Harsh discipline may produce instant compliance but it smothers initiative.
Positive discipline is in itself a stable datum. People are unhappy in an area which is not well-disciplined because they do not know where they stand.
An area where only those who try to do their jobs are disciplined encourages people to hide and be inactive.
But all discipline must be based on truth and must exclude acting on false reports.
Therefore, we get a policy: Any false report leading to the unjust discipline of another is an act of TREASON by the person making the false report and the condition should be assigned and its penalties fully applied.
A condition of DOUBT should be assigned any person who accepts and disciplines another unjustly on the basis of a report which subsequently turns out to have been false.
This then is the primary breakdown of any justice system – that it acts on false reports, disciplines before substantiation and fails to confront an accused with the report and his accuser before any discipline is assigned, or which does not weigh the value of a person in general against the alleged crime even when proven.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder – HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1969 AN ETHICS POLICY LETTER