To all HCO Personnel Hats and to other org staff members for interest.

ALL HCO IS INTERESTED IN WHEN ORIGINATING COMMITTEES OF EVIDENCE IS FALSE REPORTS, FALSE ATTESTATIONS, NO REPORTS OR REFUSALS TO REPORT. ON CASES OF THESE ONLY SHOULD HCO CALL A COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE UNDER MISDEMEANOR OR CRIME. CORRECT PROCEDURE IS DEMAND CORRECTION OR REPORT AND IF STILL FALSE OR STILL REFUSED HCO SEC CALLS COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE AT ONCE. HCO WILL CALL COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE WHEN REQUESTED BY OTHER DIVISIONS BUT ITSELF ORIGINATES COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE ONLY AS ABOVE.

In this fashion you will find quite magically that HCO can succeed in doing what we've been trying to do for 15 years — clear group engrams. The first technology on this was the Elizabeth Dianetic Foundation attempt, when all the staff were gotten together and tried to talk the group engrams out. This has never worked, you will find the above POLICY will work.

Be wholly relentless in executing this POLICY. Never let an instance go by. Always get the correct report when you detect the faintest discrepancy. Always demand demand demand the report when it's refused.

False attestations are death and dynamite. These come in when an Instructor or Auditor, D of T or D of P or Board of Review signs a request for CLASS or GRADE. This request infers and therefore "attests" that the student or pc is qualified for the Class or Grade. If at some later date (barring amnesty intervention) the student or pc is shown to be incompetent in that class or grade, HCO should at once unearth the original class or grade request and call a Committee of Evidence on whoever signed it since it was a false attestation of competence for auditors or state of case for pcs.

HCO signs all such classes and grades and therefore the CRIME is "putting HCO at risk of reputation by false attestation".

Such requests for class or grade need not be notarized or sworn to. The initials of the person or persons attesting that the student or pc has attained that class or grade is enough to become a false attestation if the student or pc weren't that good.

Certificates for courses we sign not for competence but for time on course, or for check sheet or that the account is paid. This is still false attestation if 1. The student spent less than the required time on course by reason of blow or absence or just not the required number of hours; 2. The student did not enrol properly; 3. The org was not paid for the training by policy letter arrangements; 4. There was no check sheet for the course; 5. The check sheet was not signed routinely as the student passed each requirement on the sheet; 6. The student has enrolled on a higher course with no certificate in hand for the required lower courses.

On CLASSES there are many sources of false attestation. It is a false attestation if 1. The student was not examined; 2. The student really flunked the exam; 3. The student was really incompetent at the level being classed for; 4. The students falsified something to obtain the request for classification; 5. If the student goofed up at that level later after leaving. There could be others. They would all add up to "falsely saying it was OK for HCO to classify".

On Grade Certificates it would be false attestation if any request for grade is made, verbal or signed and if 1. The pc had not had the lower grades flattened; 2. The grade certificate of the lower grade was found to be false yet the pc was audited on the higher grade processes; 3. Any other processes were run instead of the grade processes; 4. The grade processes were altered in any way; 5. The student was not audited; 6. An auditor not classed for the grade did the auditing; 7. The pc was left in bad condition; 8. The pc ended up in an ARC Breaky condition yet the Grade was asked for by the HGC or auditor; 9. The pc didn't pay for the auditing in accordance with current policy; 10. The payment, in the org, was not invoiced properly to the org; 11. The auditing of the pc was found to contravene policy as to the org staff auditing outside pcs, or the two year org student or pc rule was broken in the case of an outside auditor; 12. The pc was actually a potential trouble source; 13. The pc had been listed as a Suppressive Person; 14. The pc was found to be a fugitive whose status was not cleared by HCO.

In the case of OIC DATA, the whole org relies on these figures. It is easily seen where figures are in discrepancy graph to graph — Example: "10 pcs being audited" on one graph and "no income HGC" on another graph. Or lots of entrances and graduations from the Academy but nobody listed as on course.

In such instances HCO must protect its reputation for accuracy and when such discrepancies are seen, a very hard line should be taken with those responsible and if they do not at once tell ALL, a Committee of Evidence must be promptly ordered. If they do tell all, a full report should be sent at once to the senior org and to Saint Hill, whose OIC graphs also may be out because of the false datum, thus hiding an actual condition from senior orgs.

If an org makes no report or fails to answer up when a report is requested, start burning the wires until the report is forthcoming. Never rest on it. If no report arrives even so, call a Committee of Evidence promptly.

If a person is told to report to HCO or something is supposed to be delivered to HCO and does not arrive, recognize the circumstances as a WITHHOLD and like any auditor finally achieve compliance or call a Committee of Evidence.

When writing a SECED ordering a Committee of Evidence always state whether it is for "a false report" or "false attestation" or "no report".

You will find inevitably that where there is a false report, a false attestation or a no report or a refused report many other offences can suddenly emerge. These were hidden like a group cancer. Pulled to view, the group clears.

HCO has "guards and forces" on the org board. They come in HCO in the last department at the bottom. This is significant.

Troubles, commotions and upsets only occur after a series of false reports, false attestations, no reports or withheld reports. Sometimes the report situation has been sour a year or two before the offending group or person causes a blow-up in the area. Had we acted early on the false or no reports we would have prevented an awful mess.

Therefore you can safely say that we will not need "guards or forces" (such as sending an HCO Sec half across her Continent to handle an upset org) unless we have already missed on demanding the data.

Quite magical!

Other Divisions may also use this. They however also get involved with other offences and need Committees of Evidence for them. And we will convene a Committee at their request and say so in the SECED.

In HCO we only originate a Comm Ev when we have evidence of a false report, a false attestation or a no or withheld report and only after we've demanded it and failed to obtain it. Then we pounce. And pounce hard!

If we are vigorous and brisk in pursuing this one matter, and if we are alert to detect the falseness or absence of a report and if on every serious technical or admin goof we trace back to who attested the person to be lily white and as skilled as the original "whizz kid" at his business and slap them with a Comm Ev, we'll have peace from Tierra del Fuego to the Mountains of the Moon, and a virgin with a bag of gold could walk through our domain untouched and singing her sweet song.

Get very expert in sniffing out the falsity in a report or the no report. And act!

Let other divisions work on other crimes and ask us for Comms Ev for them. Promote the idea now and on and on "if you want to get into real trouble, falsify something to HCO or fail to report; that's the fastest route to suicide known".

And make it stick!

And all will be well for we will then run out the group engrams which would otherwise remain, and so we keep the group clear.