As per HCO Pol Ltr of 28 April 1965, and others of later date, orders to auditing or training may not be made as a sentence or used in an ethics court or by a Comm Ev or any other reason. Auditing and training are awards.

A student who is disruptive of discipline and acts contrary to the ethics codes may not be ordered to review by the D of P, D of T or ethics personnel or other persons in an org.

Tech and Qualifications personnel, particularly the Tech Sec and Qual Sec and D of Estimations, the D of P and D of T, D of Exams and D of Review and D of Certs may order students or pcs to review or to course or to HGC or anywhere in and around these two Divisions without any ethics action being implied. It is just normal, done to get students and pcs on the road to higher levels.

Ethics actions may only suspend training or deny auditing.

Therefore, a student ordered to ethics for discipline who does not then give adequate promise and example of good behaviour and compliance must be thoroughly investigated even to his or her own area and in the meanwhile may not be trained or processed.

The student, however, may not be dismissed or expelled unless full ethics actions and procedures have been undertaken.

All sentences carrying a denial of training or processing must carry a means of the right to be trained or processed being restored in a specified time or under specified conditions.

The routine action of ethics is to request a reappraisal of behaviour and a signed promise of good behaviour for a specified time. If the student or pc refuses to so promise, then the next action of ethics is an investigation of the student’s course or pc’s processing behaviour. When then confronted with the data, if the student still refuses to promise, ethics undertakes a full investigation in the student’s or pc’s own area. If the student or pc still refuses to co-operate, the student goes before a court of ethics which may pass sentence.

Only after sentence has been passed by a legal body such as a court of ethics or committee of evidence or after an illegal disciplinary action may a student or pc ask for a recourse.

Normally before asking for recourse a student or pc petitions the office of L. Ron Hubbard if unwilling to accept the discipline but this must be done at once.

If the petition is unfavorably acted upon, the student or pc may ask for recourse.

Recourse must be requested of the convening authority that had local jurisdiction over the student or pc and may not be requested of higher authority. A request to higher authority than the ethics activity that passed sentence is a petition, not recourse.

A committee of evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action.

One must not be idly threatened or requested.

Only a Comm Ev can recommend suspension or remove certificates or awards or memberships or recommend dismissal.

The office of LRH passes on all Comm Ev findings before they can go into effect.

A staff member may not be suspended or demoted or transferred illegally out of his division or dismissed without a committee of evidence.

Only after that action, (or wrongful demotion, transfer or dismissal) as above, may recourse be requested.

Students or pcs, however, may be transferred, demoted in level or grade by a court of ethics. And the action of sending the student or pc to a court of ethics is of course a type of suspension which may be prolonged in the face of non-cooperation.

A student or a pc is not a staff member in the ethics sense of the word by simple enrollment on a course or in an HGC or review.

A staff member who is temporarily a student or pc in the Academy or Review or the HGC is not covered as a student or pc by his staff member status. He may be transferred about or demoted as a student or pc by Tech and Qual personnel or suspended as a student or pc by ethics. This however may not affect his staff member status as a staff member. Because he or she is transferred or demoted or suspended by Tech personnel or ethics when a student or pc does not mean he or she may be transferred, demoted or dismissed from his or her regular staff post unless the person’s staff status permits it.

Staff members found to be potential trouble sources are handled like any other potential trouble source — but unless provisional or temporary, may not be affected by this in their staff post. They are of course denied auditing or training until they handle or disconnect but this may not also suspend, transfer or dismiss them (unless of provisional or temporary status).

This ethics action (the potential trouble source) is in lieu of any discipline and disciplinary actions that go beyond temporary suspension of training or processing until the matter is settled, must be undertaken by a court of ethics or a Comm Ev.

An ARC break is not an extenuating circumstance in ethics or disciplinary matters and is only taken into account on the person of the auditor who made the ARC break and didn’t repair it.

The plea of „ARC broken“ is inadmissable in any ethics matter as a defence or justification of misdemeanours, crimes or high crimes.

Scientology ethics are so powerful in effect, as determined by observation of it in use, that a little goes a very long ways.

Try to use the lightest form first.

Students are quite caved in by it when it is applied, by actual observation.

Our lines are too powerful and direct and what we mean to a person’s future, even while he or she is nattering, is so well understood down deep that ethics action is a far worse threat than mere wog law.

The being who is guilty knows with certainty that he is offending against the future of all, no matter what his surface manifestations or conduct. Further, while wog law at the worst can only cause him or her some pain and a body by execution or one lifetime’s loss of liberty, we threaten his eternity. Even while he screams at us he knows this down deep.

My first instance of this was a very dangerous psychotic who was largely responsible for a great deal of the public commotion in 1950. This person desisted and caved in the moment the thought was suggested to her by a non-Dianetic friend that she was threatening all Mankind. She suddenly saw it as truth and instantly gave up all attacks and utterances.

Even the fellow who could push the button on atomic war knows, really, it’s only one lifetime per person he is blowing up, only one phase in earth’s existence he or she is destroying. That we exist here could actually restrain him. The mere destruction of a planet might not as it’s temporary.

Our discipline is quite capable of driving a person around the bend because of what he or she is attacking,

Therefore we can all too easily make a person feel guilty by just a whisper.

I’ve now seen a student, simply asked a question by ethics, promptly give up and ask for his Comm Ev and expulsion. He hadn’t done more than a poor auditing job. Nobody was talking about a Comm Ev or expulsion and he had not a bit of defiance in it. He just caved right in.

You are threatening somebody with oblivion for eternity by expulsion from Scientology. Therefore realize that an ethics action need not be very heavy to produce the most startling results.

Down deep they know this even when they are screaming at us.

One suppressive person who had committed a high crime of some magnitude, went quite insane after departing Scientology and then realizing what he had done.

Therefore, use ethics lightly. It is chain lightning.

Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:

1. Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

2. Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.

3. Requesting information by ethics personnel.

4. Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.

5. Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

6. Talking to the person derogatorily.

7. Investigating in person by ethics.

8. Reporting on a post condition to ethics.

9. Reporting on a person to ethics.

10. Investigating a person by interrogating others about him.

11. Asking others for evidence about a person.

12. Publishing an interrogatory about a person that points out omissions or commissions of ethics offenses.

13. Assigning a lowered condition by limited publication.

14. Assigning a lowered condition by broad publication.

15. Investigating a person thoroughly in his or her own area.

16. Interrogation stated to be leading to a court of ethics.

17. Interrogation in a court of ethics.

18. Sentencing in a court of ethics.

19. Suspending a court of ethics sentence.

20. Carrying out a court of ethics discipline.

21. Suspension or loss of time.

22. A committee of evidence ordered.

23. A committee of evidence publicly ordered.

24. Holding a committee of evidence.

25. Findings by a committee of evidence

26. Submitting findings of a committee of evidence for approval.

27. Waiting for the findings to be passed on or carried into effect.

28. Suspending findings for a period for review.

29. Modifying findings.

30. Carrying findings into effect.

31. Publishing findings.

32. Demotion.

33. Loss of certificates or awards.

34. Denial of auditing or training by a Comm Ev for a considerable period of time.

35. Dismissal.

36. Expulsion from Scientology.

The above is a rough guide to the severity of discipline.

Note that none of it carries any physical punishment or detention.

Short suspension of training or processing up to ninety days is considered under 18. above and is not to be compared with 34. where the time is measured in years.

Just issuing the ethics codes is itself a sort of discipline but it is more broadly welcomed than protested as it means greater peace and faster accomplishment.

[Note: (Quoting LRH ED 70 INT 16 December 1968) „AN OPERATING STANDARD RULE — No matter how stiff the ethics action is you have to apply to keep the show on the road, remember this: YOU MUST KEEP THE DOOR OPEN — IF IT’S ONLY A CRACK“.]