Table Of Content
- Technical Remarks – by David Mayo (2)August 15, 2012
- Service Facsimiles – by David Mayo (2)August 7, 2012
- Thoughts on the Grade Chart and Abilities – by David Mayo (9)July 25, 2012
- Past and Future – by David Mayo (3)July 17, 2012
- Disillusionment – by David Mayo (1)July 17, 2012
- Integrity – by David Mayo (2)July 11, 2012
- Goals And Happiness – by David Mayo (0)June 30, 2012
- On Men And Gods – by David Mayo (1)June 26, 2012
- The Importance Of Training – by David Mayo (0)June 23, 2012
- On Goals & Purposes – by David Mayo (2)June 20, 2012
- ON THE PURITY OF TECH by David Mayo (4)June 17, 2012
- Technical Purity – by David Mayo (2)June 13, 2012
- Clear – By David Mayo (3)May 27, 2012
- David Mayo on the Origin of NOTs (3)May 28, 1996
- Sunday Talk on Disillusionment (2)May 27, 2012
- Non-metered Auditing (0)February 8, 1986
- Legal Defense Fund Dinner October (0)October 5, 1985
- Advanced Ability Center (2)March 27, 1984
- Honesty and Case Gains, by David Mayo (0)January 27, 1986
- AAC Lectures by David Mayo (16 audio-records) (0)January 28, 1984
- David Mayo’s talk re final years with L. Ron Hubbard (2)June 11, 2012
- David Mayo talking about Hubbard’s final research (0)February 27, 1984
Open Letters and Affidavits
- A Goal – by David Mayo (0)July 29, 2012
- To Whom Do These Rights Belong? – by David Mayo (1)July 2, 2012
- On Squirrels And Nuts… – The journal of AAC, March 1984 (0)June 18, 2012
- Recollections By David Mayo (4)May 27, 2012
- Re: Scientologists Fear Open Discussion (0)June 11, 1996
- UN-FAIR GAME (0)June 10, 1996
- My position on a.r.s (alt.religion.scientology) (0)May 12, 1996
- 10th Anniversary of the Church of the New Civilization (0)March 3, 1994
- DAVID MAYO AFFIDAVIT (0)May 1, 1987
- DEBRIEF: DAVID MAYO (0)December 8, 1983
- An Open Letter to All Scientologists (0)July 1, 1983
- MERRILL MAYO’S OPEN LETTER (0)January 27, 1983
Interviews with David Mayo
- Interview in Palo Alto, Ca – 1986 (0)August 28, 1986
I met David Mayo when he arrived in La Quinta when LRH was ill. David Mayo audited and did help LRH in his recovery and the subsequent discovery and codification of Ned for OTs. He did also get NOTs and Solo NOTs implemented at the FSO and AOs. We were good friends until Broeker and Miscavige busted him, which to this day I don’t fully understand. He audited me and was my CS, with his wife Merrilll being my auditor and Qual terminal until I got to OT III, and remains a good friend. We did share some good times and adventures on a personal level in those days ’78-82.
Last Friday was a dark day for the embattled Church of Scientology. A special judge in Los Angeles attacked the church in the most blistering terms possible, charging it with gross abuse of the judicial process in its unsuccessful lawsuit against the now-defunct Church of the New Civilization, the Scientology splinter group that operated ‘The Advanced Abilities Center” in Montecito between 1983 and 1986.
U.S. Special Magistrate. James Kolts – the same retired Superior Court judge who conducted the recent investigation of the LA. Sheriffs Department– urged that the Church of Scientology be ordered to pay the defendants (the principals behind the Advanced Abilities Center) $2.9 mil- lion in attorney’s fees. The Scientology lawsuit against the center had been thrown unceremoniously out of court last July, and only in exceptional cases are attorney’s fees awarded to the prevailing party. But according to Kolts. this case has been nothing if not exceptional.
“Plaintiffs [Church of Scientology] have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter,” Kolts wrote. “This constitutes ‘extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive con- duct.’” He later stated, “It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs [the Church of Scientology) sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master [Kolts] has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this.”
Most cases don’t have Special Masters, but because the volume of motions, countermotions, and pleadings has been so enormous, presiding fed- eral judge James Ideman appointed Kolts to help him wade through the morass of litigation. Although Kolts has acted with all the authority of a judge, his decisions must be reviewed by Ideman before becoming final.
Spokespeople for the Church of Scientology have vowed to have Kolts recommendation reviewed by Ideman, though Ideman has almost always supported Kolts in the past, and stress that it’s just that–a recommendation, not an order. They claim that all along they have sought only to protect their proprietary rights to secret and copyrighted counseling techniques developed by the church, techniques, they say that the Advanced Abilities Center had obtained illegally and illegally disseminated. “Kolts’ ruling is extremely flawed both legally and mor- ally,” said Kurt Weiland, director of official affairs for the Church of Scientology. “If you accept his reasoning, the victim will be punished and the villain rewarded.” Salvation, Incorporated
At the heart of this dispute lies a simple but intriguing proposition—namely, that the pathway to spiritual salvation and enlightenment can be copyrighted and secured by trademark protection. Unlike other organized religions, the Church of Scientology seeks to protect its key teachings and texts by copyrighting them and registering them under trademarks.
I left the Co$ for good on 26 October, 1984. In December of 1984 I took a Train (Amtrak) trip down to Santa Barbara to get services (mainly Auditing) at David’s AAC (Advanced Ability Center). I was happy to have David do the C/Sing. David Dunlap was my main Auditor (and superb) though Julie Mayo gave me a couple of 10 minutes sessions and then back to David Dunlap. After 7 commands I had to most incredible phenomena occur ever. I finally got the kind of Auditing I just KNEW existed.
The guys and gals that were at the AAC as staff were outstanding. They ebbed and flowed and it was fantastic.
When I was readying to get to the Train for my return trip — I was astounded as they returned all unused funds. Well, let me tell you — that was the capper. I used some of the returned funds to live it up on the return trip. I ate fantastic meals in the dining car,etc.
It would be nice to have the insanity handled so David could be free to do what he can do without suppression.
DAVID MAYO (along with David Dunlap, Julie Mayo and the other staff including the course Sup. Virginia Dougherty (unfortunately no longer with us) made a profound difference in my life and I also observed made a profound difference in the lives of some of my Pcs and those I FSMed for.
Following was taken from ESMB http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?22991-My-apology-to-David-Mayo
19th April 2011
I’d like to apologise to David Mayo on behalf of myself and any, that like me, bought the party line that you were at fault for everything from corruptions in sec checks to the lack of workability of NOTS. That is, any that see the duplicity of the cult that was employed to aggrandize DM at your expense.
I saw three NOTS evolutions that the need for was blamed on you. The fact is it was a marketing exercise and every one who had attested to NOTS was put back on the new rundowns, where ever they were on the bridge. OTVIIs would have to do the new RDs on their six months checks, some who had not gone past OTV re did the NOTS three times. The AOs made a fortune re servicing their existing fields and it hid the sad truth; that there was no expansion and few more were doing OT levels.
If it had have been true then things would have been fixed after you went, sadly they got worse and continue their descent as this is written.
We were scammed and taught to hate you in the bargain, your name was mud and you were what the cult needed, a scapegoat. You being the villain was used to bind and blind all still in to the sleight of hand as it picked our pockets.
All of this you know and now as it all seems like a former life to me I reflect at my folly and gullibility and cringe for not seeing through the manipulation.
So, I’m sorry about that and have since been horrified at the treatment meted out to you, on the running track and since. I don’t intend to get any more maudlin than that, so I’d like to say welcome and that I’m glad you’re here.
The Story of my Bridge to OT VII
20th April 2011
Apology not needed by me, but unconditionally accepted, of course!
AND if this makes sense, I would like to state that I do not need or want apologies from any of the good people here. (Well, excepting any sneaky buggers who may have other ‘fish to fry’.)
I came back to this post because I think my reply above was perhaps, “nauseatingly obnoxious”! It is not a matter of whether the apology was needed by me or not. True it wasn’t/isn’t needed by me BUT that could belittle the intent and the good will of the person posting it.
What I want to say and now do is: Feral, I thank you for your apology from the bottom of my heart. I appreciate you and all the others like you, who are honest. I thank you and commend you for recognizing the situation you were in and have now (successfully) sought to remedy it. Thank you,
(The following letter was received from Merrill Mayo. Merrill is a Class XII, trained by LRH, and called by him “the miracle worker”. She was Auditor of the Year three years running for the highest number of auditing hours.
Currently, she is working at the Personal Efficiency Center, 3485 University Ave, Riverside, California, CA 92501, USA.
Since I have been very closely associated with David Mayo for over 20 years, I feel I should write to you all in support of David and what he has done and is currently doing.
David’s contribution to Scientology and to thousands of people in his forwarding of LRH’s tech has been very considerable indeed over many years.
Having trained as an auditor under LRH on the 1962 SHSBC, David then trained and was interned by LRH on the Flagship in the early 70′s. LRH turned over his Senior C/S hat to David in 1973. While we were on the ship, LRH inspected many many of the folders David C/Sed (and ones I’d audited, too) – LRH always made a point of keeping his eye on the tech during those years – and those products David turned out were excellent, by LRH’s own inspection.
David, as Senior C/S at the Flag Land Base up until August 1978, personally supervised every program of every single preclear who went there and continued to uphold the standard of Ron’s tech. The tremendous amount of case gain made at Flag by many hundreds of preclears in those years was due to David’s insistence on LRH’s tech being applied exactly – that IS what gives excellent case gain, the tech applied exactly. And this was David’s responsibility. These very results are concrete evidence of his application of LRH’s tech.
David, along with others, trained, interned and crammed many auditors and C/Ses who reached a very high calibre of technical performance. Thus, Flag became known as “The Mecca of Technical Perfection” in the 70′s. One cannot deny the actual results that were achieved at that time.
In my own personal experience as an auditor in the Flag HGC, David would never discuss tech with me. His statement was: “You’re responsible for knowing the tech, and if you have confusions, look it up or take yourself to the Cramming Officer. Never ask me for Tech, I’m not source.” And he held to this without deviation.
(Written in late 1983)
In the open letter that I wrote in July of this year, I mentioned my concern for the purity and standardness of the tech, and for what appears to be a corruption of the tech. I thought I’d amplify on that with some fairly recent examples.
Over the years from 1978 on up to PT  there have been some changes in the grade chart. These started with the announcement of people going Clear on NED, and the subject of Dianetic Clear. After the wave of attests I began to notice what might be called simply false attest; large numbers of people were being sent to attest to Clear who hadn’t in fact made Clear. Unfortunately, some of these people went on to the OT levels and had a hard time, indeed.
This brings us to the purpose of auditing. The purpose of auditing isn’t so that one can get a piece of paper, obviously, and it isn’t so that one can have different numbers assigned to one. The purpose of auditing is to make gains in life and livingness, and to attain what we could call theta abilities. In short, to increase abilities.
Over the years there have been several times when the real purpose of auditing has been set aside, and we’ve had what is called a “quickie era”. Each time that has happened, it has resulted in people’s reaching a higher level on the grade chart than what they have actually attained as a being, and invariably there have been a large number of people dissatisfied about lack of result. This is disastrous, both because the person has been cheated out of the gains he should have made, and because he is then a poor example to others.
Since approximately 1970, there have been various waves of Clear attest; some were valid, and some were not. There was an HCOB in which the subject of Natural Clear was first introduced, and although that issue said that they were very, very rare, within a few months literally hundreds of people attested to it. It would not matter at all to me if each of these were a natural clear. What does matter that if these people came to get auditing to handle the reactive mind, and someone then mislead them into thinking they were a natural clear, they would then skip the processes that would have handled the things they needed handled.
This makes the entire subject appear to be without real value, to others, because they look at somebody suddenly attesting to this and that, and the next thing you know he’s called “an OT 3”. It can be quite a bad example if the person does not in fact have the abilities he should have.
Quickies occurred in the late 60’s and early 70’s. On 21 June 1970, in an HCOB called Superficial Actions, LRH stated that there is a point where speed is simply a cover for a cheap, worthless product, and he goes on to give an example of somebody saying, “Yes, but we sell results. If we can get 200 PC’s done in 100 auditing minutes, we would make 18,233 pounds clear profit.” He goes on in the HCOB to more or less, say “Well, the cruel answer to that was when orgs began to do that on lower grades they didn’t attain the result on the PC and stats went down. Quickie grades, instead of making fortunes for one and all, crashed the whole Scientology network, because quickie results are lazy and dishonest. Let’s just face up to the fact of life: selling out the integrity of the subject for a buck wrecks the subject”.
Now there is an SO ED #2379 International, dated November, 1983, which was not written by Ron, it was written by Services Exec International and Senior C/S International. It states that, “At the lower levels on the Bridge, introductory services, the routes on to the Bridge, grades 0-4, NED, right up to Clear, the route is very very fast, and looking at the chart you can see that the distance from the first service up to Clear is a short one too”. This issue is entitled “Questions and Answers on the New Grade Chart”.
Another issue, dated 2 Oct. 83, states that in the instance where a person has started OT 1, yet has not attained the lower levels, (called a bypassed case), the person could be put back on some lower action that was not honestly attained after he finished OT 3. It says it is very important that the person gets this actions, but at the same time we have this “Questions and Answers on the New Grade Chart” that says it’s very very quick. I feel that this heralds another era, with compromises of technical integrity.
All too often we have seen people who are OT 3 or OT 7 in name only, and I feel that we should put an end to that sort of thing.
I’m sure you all know that things can be changed by shifting definitions of words. There is an HCOB of 23 Oct. 1983, which says “The auditor technically is not interested in CONFIDENCES OR OVERTS AGAINST GROUP”S ENEMIES OR WITHHOLDS THEREOF. He’s looking for overts against a group, as above, and the withholding of having committed them, by omit or commit”. This is quite important as far as the maintaining of the purity and standardness of the tech is concerned. That HCOB is purportedly written by LRH, but LRH said, in the Technical Dictionary, there are three definitions for an overt: 1) an overt act is not just an injuring someone or something. An overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. 2) an intentionally committed harmful act in an effort to resolve a problem. 3) That thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you.
This recent HCOB shifts the definition of a “real overt” to something contrary to the mores of the group. The statement that “The auditor technically is not interested in confidence or overts against a group’s enemies or withholds thereof” I feel is a very serious point of technical integrity. It will affect the case gain of PC’s generally because if people don’t get off harmful acts, they won’t feel the relief and betterment from having confessed them. The door is open here to give license to people to commit harmful actions, provided that they are considered all right by the person’s associates. Historically and philosophically there are a tremendous number of precedents for this. Every major war of a religious or holly nature has always been justified by the idea that it was okay to do harmful things to other people if they weren’t part of your group. This sounds like a re-introduction to the old “Fair Game Law”. Is it really an LRH issue?
Strictly on the basis of decency and honesty, and on the basis that a thetan is basically good, this shift in definition is one to be abhorred, not upheld.
As a final note, I urge you to maintain the purity of our religion and its doctrines and technology as it was originally written by Ron so that we can continue to set people free and not get involved in entrapment. That is part of the reason I am here, and doing what I am doing.
Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 2, March 1984
“I was there when David Mayo was being attacked by the church for using the technology outside their control. I was there when Robin Scott came to offer him the materials they took from AODK. I was there when David refused their offer of those materials because he had in fact written them. He told them thanks, but he did not need them. We saw this with our own eyes at the time it happened. David Mayo’s name was at the bottom of all the issues when NOTS came out. He was the one who put it all together with LRH in order to run them on LRH.
Whatever the lawyers told the people who hired them, in the church at that time, whatever the party line was about Mayo at that time, the fact is he was the one who put the NOTS materials together with LRH and he did not need any outside help in getting the tech applied standardly after he escaped from Gilman.
We were all trained to run this tech BEFORE Robin showed up with the materials. The whole thing has been turned around and against David unjustly, to make him look like the bad guy.
Frankie and Mary were on the ship with LRH where they were both trained by him on the first Class 8 Course. Frankie was the first “personally certified by LRH” Permanent Class 8 Auditor and C/S. Aside from doing various missions directly under LRH, he also sent Frankie to all the orgs to “certify or cram” the Class 8 C/S’s around the planet, which he did. Around 1969 – 1970 Frankie was the Senior C/S of AOLA. During that time he made well over 100 Clears. Around 1975, he became the Qual Sec of the Flag Service Org. LRH trusted Frankie to such a degree that he was assigned as Diana Hubbard’s personal auditor for a year.
In 1982-83 Frankie and Mary left the church. Their parting words were, “when you start applying your own codes and creeds, we’ll talk”. They never looked back.
Mary and Frankie are currently working in Coeur D’Alene, ID in association with the Warrens.
Planet Freeman: http://community.freezone-tech.info/freeman/
Ralph Hilton’s testimonial:
“I do remember a time when I was on the RPF back at Flag in 1978. My PC was having problems and David must have spent ages going through her folders. He wrote me a one page long cramming order which must have taken him at least a half hour to compose covering the most important references which I, as a hardly trained neophyte had missed.
I must admit I was somewhat amazed that the top tech terminal in Scientology would take that much time to help a humble RPFer. He also wrote a very exact C/S that perfectly handled the situation.”
Just prior to the Scn spamming, the dirty tricks and criminality that has been done by Miscavige / RTC / Church of Scientology after David Miscavige / RTC took over the Guardian’s Office in 1981 were starting to get exposed.
This is a very important area as it affects their tax exempt status and reports that they have made to government agencies such as IRS and Interpol. Miscavige / RTC / CofS have taken the position, and Miscavige has declared, that all the criminality was stopped when Miscavige took over the Guardian’s Office and that he kicked out the people that were involved. But in fact that wasn’t done. Instead, many of the Guardian’s Office personnel who were involved in the criminality were retained and the old Guardian’s Office patterns continued under RTC control.
Examples of Guardian’s Office personnel retained: Gary Klingler and Kurt Weiland, both formerly members of the Guardian’s Office, were retained by RTC and did dirty tricks and missions to disrupt the AAC and to target the Mayos, personally. Kendrick Moxon, one of the unindicted conspirators, was retained as a lawyer by RTC and Church of Scientology(tm) in many lawsuits after Miscavige took over RTC and the Guardian’s Office. Brian Rubineck, formerly of the Guardian’s Office, was used to infiltrate and spy on the IRM and us from 1986 to late 1980′s — well after Miscavige / RTC took over the Guardian’s Office. (This had been admitted by RTC / Church of Scientology in that they have used Rubineck’s testimony.)
Also admitted by RTC / Church of Scientology: Robert Mithoff, brother of Ray Mithoff, and Sammie (Cynthia) Mithoff (wife of Robert Mithoff), were retained by Church of Scientology / RTC and its lawyers (in particular John Peterson) to infiltrate and spy on the AAC and David and Julia Mayo between the years 1983-1987. The Mithoffs were paid several thousand dollars per month to do this. Robert Mithoff’s code name was “TH”, for “Trojan Horse”.
During the course of this “infiltration”, the Mithoffs misrepresented that they had left the Church of Scientology and were no longer connected with it in any way when they were hired by the Church of the New Civilization / AAC. During the course of their employment and work at the AAC, the Mithoffs stole much proprietary information from the AAC, including: the AAV materials, financial information, names and telephone numbers of parishioners, confidential case notes, personal letters, mailing lists and provided this information to RTC / Church of Scientology and their lawyers. The mailing list was used by RTC / Church of Scientology to send out bulk mailings of hate mail, which was defamatory of AAC staff.
After David Miscavige / RTC took over the old Guardian’s Office, the Guardian’s Office policy concerning retaining professional intelligence agents was continued. Ron Kimball, ex-DEA, was hired around 1984 to do covert ops on former ASI and Church of Scientology staff member, Homer Schomer, whom RTC believed (falsely) to be in association with the CNC and Cooley asserted that in court.
In 1994 a private detective calling himself “John Bertrant” of Boca Raton, Florida called up Mayos’ friends, supporters and clients and spread rumors that Mayo had been jailed and other defamatory information. “John Bertrant” told one client of the Mayos that Bertrant had done contract work for the CIA.
We have other information concerning dirty tricks since Guardian’s Office take over by Miscavige / RTC in 1981.
David & Julie Mayo
At a certain point this simple acknowledgement of genius became something else. There evolved a period of deification, wherein LRH, a very remarkable man, became, somehow, a god. This very unfortunate change in consideration concerning LRH was, in many ways, doomed.
As LRH pointed out so aptly, no man is a god; nor is he perfect.
When a later period of discovery arose, there was talk of imperfections in the man. The man who was spoken of as a god. For many, the resulting disillusionment was terrifying and profound.
Some then chose to insist that he was perfect, was without flaw, was yet a god. Others chose to dedicate themselves to his destruction. Of course, neither of these extreme positions serves LRH, or any of us, well.
LRH once remarked that the tech is a culmination of some 10,000 years of thinking man. We at the AAC are eminently thankful for LRH’s unparalleled contribution to this technology, and will always be so. And we shall continue to serve LRH, and the image of LRH, and the technology itself best by just continuing with a steadfast, standard application of the technology.
Finally, I believe that this is at once our most important role and our most significant responsibility.
Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 6, October/November 1984
This is an excerpt from an article by Peter J Reilly on the website of
Is Independent Scientology The Key To Unlock The Church Of Scientology’s Secret Agreement With The IRS?
“Church governance case law is additionally inapplicable because unlike typical schisms that organically grow out of religious disputes, the power imbalance between organized and independent Scientology was created by the government through the IRS Agreement. By establishing and endorsing a corporate structure which bestowed an intellectual property monopoly upon a single entity, which it was no secret would (and does) aggressively wield it to suppress others’ free exercise rights, it is now on the state to rectify its constitutional error.
“But,” you might respond, “the religious dispute you cite didn’t exist in 1993–the IRS-Scientology agreement couldn’t have envisioned the existence of a Scientology offshoot.” You’d be wrong though. Only ten years earlier, in 1983, a high-ranking Scientologist who worked closely with Hubbard, David Mayo (who many contend actually authored some of the Scientology upper level “OT” materials attributed to Hubbard), broke away from the Church and created a competing splinter group called (among other names) the “Advanced Ability Center” (AAC).
Mayo’s initiative led to his being sued for copyright and trademark infringement and trade secret violations. In deciding whether AAC’s “substantially similar” works infringed on Scientology’s copyrights, a California federal district court found that questions of infringement were outweighed by the “potential hardship from interference with defendants’ religious freedom.” Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 660 F. Supp. 515, 522 (C.D. Cal. 1987). The Church of Scientology continued to litigate against Mayo through the mid-nineties. Mayo was ultimately awarded $2.9 million in legal fees for the well-documented hell he was put through, after which he evidently signed an agreement to not discuss or compete with Scientology in the future.
David Mayo’s experience is worth considering because at the time it was brought and litigated, Scientology was not recognized as a tax exempt religion. Whether the case comes out differently if brought today is intriguing but presently academic: despite the Independent Scientologycommunity’s apparent growth no one within the community seems at all interested in incorporating or formalizing a competitor. Which is the point, I suppose–the Church of Scientology has been made so powerful through the IRS settlement agreement that no one is even willing to try, either because of fear or expected inevitable futility.
If an Independent Scientology entity were to emerge, on what bases might a legal challenge to the IRS-Scientology Agreement be mounted?…”
John Zegel provides an exceptionally in-depth look at the inner workings of Scientology’s corporations from 1973-1987.
The recordings were originally distributed on audio cassette; they swept through “the underground” and created quite a stir.
Zegel released three tapes critical of [Church of] Scientology before the organization had him silenced. After settling a lawsuit with [Church of] Scientology, Zegel recorded a fourth tape in which he withdrew many of the statements he had made.
All 4 tapes – audio and transcripts: http://www.religion-spirituality.org/scientology/zegel-tapes-audio.php
((Editors Comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
Copyright (C) 1982 John Zegel Redistribution rights granted for non-commercial purposes.
((Find here http://www.freezone.org/reports/e_zeg1.htm the complete and unabridged, word for word transcript of John Zegel's tape number 1.))
Tape # 1
(excerpt from tape # 1 transcript)
…It was clear that the current situation regarding Ron, and the legal problems that he was facing, was far from an optimum situation. And Ron put together a group of people that was to be called the All Clear Committee. And the ACC had a specific purpose and that purpose was to get rid of all the legal hassles that were facing Ron, so that he could again come back out in the public.
And the person who was selected to be the chairman of the All Clear Committee was a young man named David Miscavige. Now David Miscavige’s principle claim to fame was that he had worked as part of the film unit. He had been in the CMO for some years, and he had gained a reputation as a person who could get things done when other people couldn’t.
He also gained a reputation of being the kind of person that could get things done by screaming at the top of his lungs, but getting things done was the important factor, and he gained for himself quite a reputation in that regard.
When it came time to select the chairman of the All Clear Committee, David was recommended. He was also a close friend of Pat Broeker, and he seemed to be just the right guy for doing that particular job.
Along with him, three women, or three other members specifically, were appointed to be part of the committee, and that committee was constituted separately from the Commodores Messenger Org. It had its own special communication line directly to Ron and that was going to prove to be instrumental in the future.
As time passed, the ACC began to come apart. That is to say, David Miscavige survived, but the other people who were members of the committee either left it for one reason or another, were perhaps Comm ev’d, one person was, or left the Sea Org. I don’t have the specifics on what happened to each individual person, but suffice it to say, the other three people from the committee eventually disappeared and David Miscavige was left on his own, holding this rather important post, and again, SEPARATE from the CMO.
And because he had this separate and rather special communication line, it put him in a position of being, in essence, senior to the CMO. Now, earlier than this time, when Ron and the CMO were all in the same location, the CMO worked directly with Ron, and consequently, had an enormous amount of power because of that personal and specific communication line. When Ron’s location was moved to his more secure quarters, and the quarters were…only Pat and and Annie Broeker were his principle aides, the CMO, in essence, became simply another management org in the upper level strata of Church management.
And this ACC, and eventually, just David Miscavige then, would be in a senior position because of this special communication line.
Now the evolution continued, and what happened was that David Miscavige became the principle communication link between the Church as a whole ((and Ron)). The whole management structure of the Church below was like a giant inverted funnel headed directly to him ((David Miscavige)), and he actually became the relay point for all communication from the Church directly to Ron.
Now that communication was on a couple of vias. It would all come up through the Church lines to David Miscavige, who would then specifically transport it and turn it over to Pat Broeker at a predesignated meeting place. Pat Broeker or his wife Annie Broeker would then transport that material back to LRH ((LRH's headquarters)) where it would be read ((by the Broekers)) and those particles that needed to go directly to Ron would be passed onto him.
That communication link and this secrecy of Ron’s physical location is going to turn out to be the basis of the power of these three people, Pat Broeker, Annie Broeker and David Miscavige.
Additionally, a few minutes ago, we were talking about trustees being appointed to manage Ron’s affairs during his absence, and these three people were going to become the trustees.
It is worthwhile now to spend a little time and talk about David Mayo, and what happened to remove him from a point of no inconsiderable responsibility.
David Mayo was the man Hubbard entrusted to carry on LRH’s spiritual technology legacy. Mayo in this informal talk to ex official Scientologists in Santa Barbara, weekly graduation awards. Scientology, David Mayo. Circa late 1984.
Thanks to Chuck Beatty, ex Scientology (Sea Org) staffer 1975-2003 providing this lecture to the website.
Un-Fair Game is a new term, coined here to describe an UnFair use of law enforcement agencies in the furtherance of “Fair Game.”
The Fair Game Law, Scientology’s(tm) policy towards its ‘enemies’: “May be deprived of property or injured by any means … May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” L Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 18 October 1967.
On August 4, 1994, Scientology(tm) utilized INTERPOL, the US DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), and the DNCD (Dominicana Nacional Control de Drogas) to try to enforce Scientology’s(tm) religious beliefs on me, to persecute me and to get me jailed by false allegations to INTERPOL. INTERPOL had received and acted on a report that I was “practicing Scientology(tm) without a license”; that I had “destroyed Scientology(tm) property”; that I was “representing” myself as a “Scientologist”. Ventura Bayonet, head of the Dominican Republic DNCD said that he decided to act as a result of a phone call from INTERPOL alleging that I had damaged “millions of dollars of Scientology(tm) property”.
I was not representing myself as a Scientologist nor was I practicing Scientology(tm), with or without a license. I had not “damaged” Scientology(tm) property. By 1992, all of the civil lawsuits brought against me by Scientology(tm) had been dismissed and in January 1993, the Central District of California had sanctioned RTC/Scientology(tm) plaintiffs 2.9 million dollars for abusive litigation against me.
I had left Scientology(tm) in 1983, and had made it clear that I was no longer associated with the Church of Scientology(tm) and that I had disagreements with many of their practices. (Note: Even when I was in the Church of Scientology(tm) I wasn’t required to be “licensed” to practice Scientology(tm). Furthermore, in the lawsuits the judge had determined that any agreements that I had signed while in Scientology(tm) were not valid contracts.)
In court order of Jan. 20, 1993, Honorable James G. Koltz stated regarding plaintiffs, Church of Scientology(tm) and RTC: “Plaintiffs have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes ‘extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct…” For the rest of this decision, and related litigation and opinions.
I was persecuted by INTERPOL, at the direction of David Miscavige’s RTC/Church of Scientology(tm). On August 4, 1994, our residence was surrounded by approximately 15 armed police, military and DNCD agents. I was not charged nor was I resented with any order but I was handcuffed. My home was searched for fire arms, drugs and money. No drugs or firearms were found. Nonetheless, I was taken to two police stations and eventually taken to Santo Domingo where I was put in prison with no charges, explanation or reason. I wasn’t allowed to make a phone call to anyone — not even to a lawyer, to my wife or to the American Embassy. That night, I was put in a small cell (about 12′ x 12′) stuffed with 10 – 12 other men overnight in abhorrent conditions — I had not been permitted food or water since the afternoon, there was no place to stretch out, the cell was filled with stench due to a blocked toilet and there were flies and mosquitoes. The next day I learned that it was INTERPOL that was investigating me at the request of Scientology(tm). I was released the next night, without being charged, but the incident was shockingly unexpected and intimidating. The harassment didn’t end there.
“What is true for you is what you have observed yourself
And when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know -
What you know is what you know -
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity.
And there is no other integrity.”
Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 2, March 1984
Frankie and I went to work with David Mayo in 1983 when he first opened the Advanced Ability Center. He immediately trained us on AAV (OT 5 – NOTS) and we were all delivering it very successfully for a several months.
Then some months later, two independents arrived unexpectedly at the AAC from Europe, with the NOTS materials which they themselves had independently taken out of the church.
When they proudly offered them to David he said, No thanks, that he didn’t need them because he wrote them!
After that, the church sued David for ‘stealing’ those materials. But he did not. Why would he if he already had all the NOTS tech, having himself written them, and we were already delivering that level to our public?
The church didn’t care. They just wanted to attack David for setting up serious competition outside the church. So they pursued the lawsuit. It took many years of legal battles before a settlement ended the litigation. David apparently came out of that okay, although he can’t talk about it as part of the settlement.
David Mayo worked with L. Ron Hubbard to create the NOTs levels. In early 1996 he wrote a letter introducing himself to the alt.religion.scientology community, in which he summarized his history with the Church. In this excerpt from his (never published) letter, Mayo describes how he came to co-author the NOTs material.
In late 1978, I was hurriedly and secretly whisked off to California and driven blindfolded in the night to a secret location in the desert at La Quinta, near Palm Springs. Hubbard’s health had deteriorated. I was told that his blood pressure, breathing rate and heartbeat were low, a medical doctor who was also a Scientologist, Gene Denk, was in attendance, standing by to restart his heart with electric shock. I was told he had been like this for about a week, was getting worse and over the past day had been slipping into and out of a coma. When I first saw him he was lying on his back, unmoving, neither speaking nor responding when spoken to, with his eyes open staring at the ceiling and not moving. The doctor told me that there was nothing he could do for Hubbard and now it was up to me. I started with techniques that required no verbal response, then minimal verbal response doing short but frequent sessions, changing to techniques that required more participation on his part as his condition improved, which happened rapidly. Within a week he was getting out of bed, walking and beginning to yell again. Hubbard and others said that I had saved his life. Skeptics might say that it was not due to the techniques I used and was mere co-incidence but it would be difficult to convince me of that.I continued to audit Hubbard developing procedures and later co- authoring the descriptions and theoretical explanations of what would later be called `NOTs’(tm). That started out to be a write up of what I found to be wrong with Hubbard’s past auditing and how I repaired it. In my mind that was a remedy for what had been done incorrectly, rather than a new `OT’ level or levels. In this auditing, I found that much of his case trouble came from his NED auditing and his OT III solo auditing –though there were also errors in some other levels. The case manifestations that I found, (errors and charged areas) how I found them and what I did to repair and correct these matters would require a lengthy explanation. For now, suffice it to say that this auditing that I did on Hubbard (and later tested on a some other persons) using the e-meter and scientological theory and methods and the phenomena I observed, demonstrated –at least to me– that the information in the OT III story was at least inaccurate and possibly completely incorrect. In view of the awe in which I held Hubbard and his theories about the mind and the spirit at that time, that discovery required a giant mental leap and change of viewpoint for me. It was not the first time that I had had such an heretical thought. I distinctly recall my momentary disbelief when I first opened an OT III pack and began to read the galactic story. Hubbard’s statement that `reality is proportional to charge off’ and my strong belief in his rightness in other matters, forestalled deeper skepticism for the time being.
When I started to write up the discoveries, phenomena and procedures developed during that auditing the above is more or less what I initially had in mind to describe in regard to the repair (remedial) auditing that I had done that assisted Hubbard’s recovery. I felt that these observations and methods would be valuable to other scientologists who had been run extensively on Dianetics and on OT III and so would likely need the same repair that Hubbard had needed. Furthermore, there was a new discovery and positive technique that I had begun developing in those sessions which I thought would be of general benefit in improving a person’s ability to think logically. Neither of these two points is adequately described in the final rendition.
Hubbard has always thought that his case was representative of other people’s cases and that what had been run on him in his auditing should be run on others. I recall him once saying that he had a `standard case’. This is one factor that influenced the presentation of the NOTs materials. There were other factors and there is a lot more to this story none of which is necessary to include here.
During the 1978, 1979 time period I also became involved in supervising Mary Sue Hubbard’s auditing and sometimes auditing her myself. At some point, Hubbard decided to keep me at there (La Quinta, California) to continue auditing him and overseeing Mary Sue’s auditing, in stead of returning to the position I had in Clearwater, Senior Case Supervisor Flag. He created a new position and appointed me `Senior Case Supervisor International.’
From 1979/1980 forward into 1982, I began to develop and release new technical procedures and began a long term project of `studying and researching, reviewing and correcting and possibly replacing the existing levels and developing new ones,’ (a near paraphrase of how Hubbard described my work in a memo he wrote on or about April 14, 1982, in which he outlined what he expected me to continue to do in the event of his death). Until that time and even for a few months after, Hubbard thought highly of my work, frequently commended me and considered me to be his replacement for `technical’ (i.e., relating to auditing techniques) matters. He went further in that memo, to say that it would be up to me to develop OT VIII (which contrary to PR statements, did not exist at that time) and subsequent levels. I was rather dismayed by this news as I had really been expecting him to do that; I wondered, if he as `The Founder’ of the subject had not managed to develop these OT levels and the OT powers he had claimed for them, how could he expect me to able to fulfil his obligation –he had just tossed me the ultimate Hot Potato!
Independent Scientologist Dan Koon aka Joe Howard – ex Int Base Sea Org Member (1977 – 2004),
LRH Technical Reseasch & Compilations Unit Director.
I was on the set shooting EM 1, “Man the Unfathomable” in September 1978 when LRH took ill and disappeared. I was playing the shaman in the original version of the film and we were on location shooting a scene where I come out from my cave, dejected that my drumming and chants and bitter drink did not revive my patient, who died. We finished the shot and LRH went into his motorhome that he used between set ups. He never came back out and after a lengthy delay, David Roussouw (RIP) directed the last shot of the day.
Soon after, David Mayo showed up from Flag. I don’t know the details of what transpired except that LRH recovered and several weeks later we saw him out around the property again on his afternoon walks. Coincident with that we saw some transcripts of talks that were the first details of a new tech development that became NOTs. The transcripts were soon recalled and we did not see them again.
Here is what I suspect: a) NOTs rolled out much as Marty has detailed above (that is how we compiled things in RTRC) and b) LRH would have died had he been handled by another auditor.
That Mayo later asserted to be the author of the materials doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility given his circumstances at the time. Imagine Marty trying to do what he is doing with no internet, or any of us for that matter.
I also agree entirely with Mike’s comment that no auditor, including Mayo, would begin inventing things mid-session, particularly on LRH in the physical condition he was in at the time.
The real mystery to me is how LRH could have held David Mayo in such high regard in April 1982 that he wrote several long, long dispatches to him about the future of Tech including whether David should set up a corporation separate from church management so tech research would not become commingled with management’s day to day production push, yet by summer of 1982, LRH was calling Mayo the lowest dog on the face of the earth. Makes no sense at all. One month, LRH is putting all the tech into Mayo’s hands. Three months later, he has him running around a tree in the boiling Hemet summer heat. Makes no sense.
DM [David Miscavige], no doubt, was all over the lines, forwarding his own agenda. 1982 was the most chaotic year of my 27 in the S.O. and DM had ample opportunity to work his black magic.
(Speaking of Tech, I was reminded recently that LRH advised some pcs be put directly onto NOTs bypassing OT III as a pilot to see how it ran.)
It sure would be interesting if David Mayo (and the others who were taken out with him: Merrill Mayo, Julie Gillespie Mayo, Penny Eldredge and Scheri Al-Jibouri, who is still at the Int Base) were to tell his story. No one can be a good auditor and C/S and then turn into a lousy one. It just can’t happen. One can become involved in organizational difficulties and solve them poorly but one can’t audit LRH for years, be appointed the first Snr C/S Int, audit LRH back to health and provide him 8 more years of life and then turn into Evil personified. Can’t happen.
Maybe someday we will get the full story.
This post is a copy of the comment that Dan Koon made on another website:
Thankyou for the story Karen. (http://community.freezone-tech.info/david-mayo/2012/05/david-mayo-a-good-and-honest-man/)
I too had deep respect and admiration for David Mayo.
The thing with David was that he had ‘sight’. He would look at you during your interview or when assessing and he could ‘spot’ what was going on in your space whether you knew what it was or not. You almost felt embarrassed the way he could see your imagery and how any mental masses moved in your space in response to certain subjects. To have someone who can see what you are creating mentally or what your spiritual energy is stuck ‘being’ as they talk to you is unique. Most see things through their own filters and private significances. Few are adept at just looking and seeing what’s there.
There were three PCs that would’ve been considered illegal by old standards at the time I arrived at the opening of the AAC in Santa Barbara;
One young man was dying of leukemia and Maude Castillo was supervising and C/Sing him. One Advanced Level fellow brought his wife for help as she had earlier had professional psychiatric treatment. There was a young airline hostess who had become unable to continue at her work because she’d developed claustrophobia. She thought the problem might’ve come up due to sleeping pills. She could not be comfortable in the lounge of the AAC or around any gatherings of people. She couldn’t drive in traffic. David successfully C/Sed Donna Haber on auditing this young woman. The girl eventually pulled out of it. It took her a little time, but she told me she is soooo much better! And then there wasme….with my own special problems.
I remember when David had flown down to the Miami Org and personally instructed Maria MacCord, the Class IV C/S in charge of the HGC.. This young lady was the most angelic and dedicated tech person I’d met up until then. She was ’interested’ genuinely in every detail in a person’s folder. She had a real passion to learn ‘everything‘. With help from David Mayo she was allowed time off from staff to fly to Flag ,then to the Special Unit. Maria wanted so badly to be like David, a great C/S. He helped work things out for her. She had tears of joy when last I saw her before departing for the airport in Clearwater. She was going out to where new things were being piloted.
The first time I ever spoke with David was when I decided to use the phone number someone had secretly passed to me while at the Manor Hotel. This was early 1983. I had become very ill there after a 13th Int Rundown repair. I had bounced between four different Orgs suffering from phenomena I cannot describe, all the time INT reading. I was desperate, feeling schizophrenic. I called the number given to me when I got back to Florida. To my surprise, calling on a weekend when I was sure the place must already be closed, David answered personally. There was no ‘place’ called The Advanced Ability Center yet. David was operating from the home of a field auditor in Montecito who was letting out his bedrooms to audit in. I told David that I’d just read his goldenrod on the wall of the MAA office in Clearwater, FLB. I said I’d heard so many many many good things about him and I could not comprehend why others were overlooking all the people he had actually helped. Julie Mayo much later confided that he was always extremely touched by any comments defending him.
I was in sorry shape when I was out at the Advanced Ability Center in 1983. I had completed my lower levels and was experiencing what I today might call a ’freewheel’, with no stable viewpoint. I came to the AAC broke after scrounging up what I could for an intensive and a one way plane ticket. I wished I could get all my advanced payments from AOLA but it wasn’t working out. David Mayo sometimes was on lookout making sure that I was in a situation where I could eat…
When I had used up the funds which I had mailed ahead of my arrival Julie Mayo took me on as a PC with David continuing to write C/Ses specifically for my situation..
Just before my departure Christmas was nearing and there were festivities at the new dwelling obtained by staff. ‘Someone’ asked if anyone was willing to drive me out to the party along with them so I would could enjoy the things they planned.. David and Julie did not have to take the time to concern themselves with me or anyone else who was having personal difficulties. I was touched, although sadly I did not go to their party because I had no gifts to exchange. (Silly me) Later, it was delicately inquired of me whether I still had a home to go back to since I’d abandoned my life and had been there for almost 3 months. When I did arrive back home I received cards and letters from Julie Mayo. She was keeping David posted on how I was doing. She read some of my letters to David. It was his custom to follow up on the people coming out there to see him… HE CARED.
Last year in mid April, David became a temporary poster on the Ex Scientologist Message Board. Soon after this I found myself in a very bad situation where the control over my life was taken from my hands It was because of him that I was to have others contacting me from all over the states to give me emotional support and experienced advice.
The degree that human empathy can factor into one’s recovery from traumatic circumstances can never be appreciated TOO MUCH.
“It just occurred to me that the following court document should be on your site about David Mayo.
I believe people need to know the history and have the facts pointed out because it helps the church’s propaganda from spreading. While I am no longer a scientologist for many years now, I believe that David Mayo deserves credit for helping write NOTS, for taking chances outside the church that, at the time, few would ever attempt. He was driven by his desire to help and was relentlessly attacked for his contributions. There are only so many sacrifices one can make and only so much stress one can handle before they realize the enemy is not ever going to quit attacking them and so I fully understand appreciate Mayo’s decision to walk away and get on with life. Some people don’t get this. Some think it’s wrong but none of them had to walk a mile in David & Julie Mayo’s shoes.”
Special Master Kolts 1991 US Master memorandum RTC v Scott
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RTC, .et al. ) NO. CV 85-711 JMI (BX)
) CV 85-7197 JMI (BX)
ROBIN SCOTT, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
) AND ORDER
RTC, et al. )
LARRY WOLLERSHEIM, )
AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS )
A. WORK MADE FOR HIRE
Given the issue sanction of the previous order, it is an established fact the Mayo substantially participated in the drafting of NOTs. Plaintiffs’ characterization of Mayo as a “mere scrivener” cannot be a basis for this or any other motion in this litigation. Thus, in order to prevail on this motion, plaintiffs must establish as a matter of law that Mayo is not the author of NOTs notwithstanding his substantial participation. Ordinarily, the creator of a written work is its author. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 treats “works made for hire” differently. If the written work is a work made for hire, “the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author”.
17 U.S.C. section 201(a). This means that if Mayo’s contribution to NOTs is work made for hire, someone other than Mayo is the author and a grant of summary judgment is in order.
The next step of the analysis is…[..]
Having considered the moving and opposing papers and exhibits in support thereof, as well as the arguments of counsel,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the following issues be summarily adjudicated as follows: (1) Mayo’s substanial contribution to NOTs is a work made for hire under section 101(1) of The Copyright Act of 1976; and (2) as to Mayo’s substantial contribution to NOTs, CSC is the author under the work made for hire doctrine. To the extent that this renders defendants’ counter-claims meaningless, such claims are dismissed on summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: JUNE 4, l991 [signed]
JAMES G. KOLTS
U.S. SPECIAL MASTER [..]
The full text can be found here:
I was not happy with Marty making Special Master Kolts out to be an alcoholic in justifying that this decision was mishandled.
It’s very easy to spread false rumors and attack a man when he’s dead and cannot defend himself.
While he was alive Special Master Kolts was put though much because of his decision but ended up being victorious after CoS sued him in court:
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INT’L, Plaintiff,
v. JAMES G. KOLTS, Defendant.
Here are related reference links:
(*Mary McConnell is my pseudonym. I use it to protect myself from fair game and to prevent a loved one still in the church from having to disconnect.)
30th of May 2012
By Pat Krenik,
Founding Scientologist, 1951.
The most important thing I can tell you is that in the 1970’s David Mayo was very highly thought of as he was Senior C/S International. That meant he worked closely with LRH on the tech. Uniformly staff and students during those years respected him because he understood the tech so well. The stats reflected it; tech stats in the 1970’s were higher than the previous decades and to the best of my knowledge higher than any years later. Orgs were booming in the 1970’s.
I met him at the Advance Ability Center in about 1983, in what I call Santa Barbara CA and my husband calls Montesano CA. He was a gentleman, small of stature and he appeared to be in his 40’s. The AAC was a large house and had several staff members. The organization ran smoothly. There was a lot of literature around to do with what had happened to him and other staff members while in the COS.
The AAC was very uptone; relaxed but efficient. Coffee was available.
I’d had some auditing at the ACC but needed to start Solo Nots. I wrote David Mayo to see if he would C/S. That was, of course, before we could scan worksheets over the Internet. David responded asking me a few simple questions, like “did I feel more at cause or more at effect.” Then he wrote my first NOTs c/s.
I was impressed by the light handling, the “in ARCness” that showed through. Just having him c/s a few sessions for me taught me how important it was for a C/S to be gentle. The NOTs c/sing didn’t last long because mailing folders to Florida from Seattle and waiting for their return wasn’t a very conducive way to do NOTs auditing. With confidence restored, I continued the program without needing to mail off my folders to Mayo anymore.
When one studies LRH C/Sed folders one cannot help but notice their simplicity. David trained with Ron and his c/sing reflected what he learned from LRH. I didn’t personally know David well, but one could not help but be aware of a being who quietly, almost invisibly, created tech that met what was needed and wanted by an entire planet. By created tech, I’m thinking of the c/ses he wrote and the handling of auditors that brought about that condition of tech going in. C/Ses aren’t rote, they are based on understanding. His understanding of the tech was supurb and it was reflected first in the orgs for several years, then out to the Free Zone, the Independent field.
I’m sure there may be c/ses who have equaled or even excelled Mayo’s skill. I’m so happy to have had the small connection to David that I had because in duplicating his understanding of life and tech my own skills as a C/S improved on that alone.
No matter how much one learns by studying the books, HCOBs and tapes of LRH, there is nothing like viewing an example of correct application done by another to fill in the gaps (missing mass).
This is a quot from the whole article written by Robert Dam: http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/Who%20stole%20NOTs.html
“The Cramming Officer AOSH EU, Nir Amotz, told me that when David Mayo was running his AAC (Advanced Ability Center) he kept saying that he would soon be ready to deliver NOTs. He just had to write up all the HCOBs again. And since Mayo claimed he had written them in the first place it was only a matter of getting the time to re-write them. This never happened until January 1984, shortly after the NOTs package had been stolen from AOSH EU which tends to indicate that the stolen package had been relayed to David Mayo.
But then I met two Swiss Scientologists who both did their NOTs under David Mayo prior to 9th December 1983. They said that the NOTs materials was already available in full and that the stealing was an unnecessary action.”
“Danish Ole G. visited Robin Scott in “Vestre Fængel” (Jail in Copenhagen) where he was detained in isolation for more than one month. He confirms that the NOTs materials were available outside the Church before the stealing.
Read this email from Ole G.:
From: Ole G.To: email@example.comSent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 5:37 PMSubject: Who stole the OT V (Ned for OTs) pack from AOSH EU in 1983Dear Robert,I can confirm, that David Mayo had written new NOT’s materials prior to the Robin Scott mission tothe AOSH EU & AF.Because at the Association for Applied Philosophy we used those David Mayo materials untill we gotCaptain Bill’s Excalibur materials. I recall very well how Robin Scott was arrested for industrialespionage, after he had been in Jernbanegade to obtain the NOT’s materials. At that time we used theDavid Mayo materials.Shortly afterwoods we received the Church NOT’s materials in an anonymous letter. We never usedthem on the courses.Yours,Ole G.Chairman, Association for Applied Philosophy
When we speak of goals, we are talking about a person making a decision to be something, to do something or to have something and seeking to bring that about. Most simply stated, a goal is a decision or a postulate; the two tend to be synonymous.
Recently people have asked me why we don’t currently audit people on goals. This is an interesting question, in that, although we don’t use processes that are called “goal processes”, you can’t actually audit anyone on anything but goals.
Because people are trying to accomplish various things in their lives, the auditing which they receive should be in the direction of helping them to accomplish those goals, or in the direction of removing obstacles that would prevent them from accomplishing those goals.
At times, auditing has been viewed as an effort to get rid of something unwanted. Or auditing can be seen as an effort to get rid of what is referred to as the “bank”, or to handle a “case”. These are only some aspects of what we are trying to do in auditing. Far more importantly, we are trying to help people create new abilities or rehabilitate and increase abilities that they already have. Thus the real purpose of auditing has to do with bringing about the accomplishment of one’s goals.
There was a specific auditing procedure done a few years ago called “Goals Processing” – a special technique that often interested people because of it’s name alone. “Goals Processing” suggests help in the accomplishment of goals, but that wasn’t really what this procedure was designed to do. In that process, a person listed goals which he had had in the past, the auditor would find the most charged one and then would run it out. The theory behind this technique was that if a person had a goal which became havily charged in the past, he would get stuck in the past on that goal; either stuck still trying to achieve a long ago goal; or perhaps stuck in the failure of trying to achieve that goal, which would influence his actions in the present. As such, the use of this process was somewhat limited because it depended on whether the individual was stuck in the past on a goal or not.
Many people hoped to find out precisely what their goal was by doing “Goals Processing”, and then to be able to accomplish that goal. There were some people who would try to find their goal as if there was some magical thing that was their GOAL and if they could just find out what IT was, life would somehow go better. And to some degree there is some truth to that, provided you realize that a person’s goal is whatever he chooses to make it – whatever he wants to do at the moment, or for a lifetime.
Discovery and accomplishment is in the realm of positive gain and it is in that direction that auditing best done. If a person has auditing goals for improving specific abilities the auditing is more likely to be successful. Too much concentration on getting rid of things tends to be limiting.
To achive true happiness by the accomplishment of one’s goal, one must understand the composition of happiness. There is one definition of happiness that states that happiness is the overcoming of obstacles toward a goal. That can be true, but happiness doesn’t necessarily occur just by overcoming obstacles. There has to be a bit more to happiness than that. In order to bring happiness, a goal must be worthwhile or of value – and it must be beneficial to others. This immediately takes a goal, or happiness, out of the realm of being a selfish, or purely self-interested matter.
I heard a radio commentary recently where someone referred to the Sixties as being the “me” decade because at that time people were involved in finding themselves and being themselves. But, being one’s self is not enough to make one happy. One must also do something of value, and in order for that to occur, it is necessary to interact with and help others.
There are some things that enter in to whether or not a person will successfully achieve his goals. A person’s basic personality and outlook on life are important to reaching goals. If someone decides to see out towards a goal which is greatly at variance with his personality and the things he likes, it is unlikely the goal will be achieved – a lot of reasons for not doing things toward the goal will come up and he will do what he really likes doing instead. Such a goal is not actually a personal goal, it is an idea that the person has decided to adopt. An obvious example of an adopted goal would be a person accepting what others want him to do as a goal.
The matter of establishing a goal is simple, if one approaches it simply. But, people sometimes set goals based on what they feel would be pleasing to or approved by other people. And that is a mistake. In order to successfully set a goal, one must be sincere.
For you to be successful in your goals, it’s necessary for you to determine what you really want to do. Then figure out how others could benefit from your achievement. If you do this, you will come up with a goal that you can achieve and the doing of it will be pure pleasure.
It has long been known that people are not acting at their full potential (or to the full capacity of their abilities). I think that to a large degree it is not just because of engrams and aberrations. I think it is also because they haven’t formulated a goal that is something that they would like to do and that is beneficial to others. I think this is the key to happiness: Set out to do something that you are capable of doing and would enjoy doing and which helps yourself and others at the same time. Then you will have a happy life.
There’s an intimate connection between setting your goal, achieving it, helping other people, happiness and aliveness. And I think a very simple route to being more alive is simply to review what one is striving towards.
Often when we talk about a process or a drill, it is agreed that the E.P. of it shouldn’t be known. But, I’m going to suggest a drill and, in case also tell you what the E.P. is likely to be, because it will be useful.
When determining a goal, go through a series of goals and ask yourself:
- Is this goal beneficial to myself?
- Is this goal beneficial to others?
- Is this goal something I would like doing?
You will look at various goals, and probably end-up by realizing that you had a goal all along, that you were working on it, and that you “knew” it all the time.
Although this might sound like there isn’t any discovery or learning involved in this little exercise, there is in that you now can be certain about what goal you have. [Attempt], whether or not it’s the right thing and within your ability to achieve, and you can enjoy working towards it.
I hope these words are helpful.
From AAC Journal 1984-86
UK PROJECT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF STANDARD TECH
ISSUE OF 15TH SEPTEMBER 1983
This issue has been prepared for the assistance of those who have read the following documents:
FLAG CONDITIONS ORDER 7138 : WRIT OF EXPULSION AND SUPPRESIVE PERSON DECLARE : DAVID MAYO
SO ED 2344 INT : THE STORY OF A SQUIRREL : DAVID MAYO
We agree with those who control the Church that staff and public should be kept abreast of what is going on within it. (SO ED 2344 INT). They should not mind, therefore, if attention is drawn to certain omissions of fact which occurred in these two issues. Among those omissions, we believe the following to be of particular importance:
The RTC was formed in January 1982 with the primary purpose of ensuring and maintaining the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology. With reference to that time, SO ED 2344 INT states this:
“Back when the Religious Technology Centre was being formed, Mayo tried desperately, on several occasions, to get himself posted in RTC — he perceived it as a position of power from which he could wreak even more havoc on tech lines — but his attempts to gain this posting were unsuccessful.”
However, as an appendix to this issue you will find a copy of the first page of the Articles of Incorporation of the Religious Technology Centre. You will see that David Mayo is clearly indicated as being among the Incorporators and Initial Trustees of the Corporation. There is also a copy of page 9 upon which appear the signatures of the Incorporators. Again, you can see the name and signature of David Mayo.
Both FCO 7138 and SO ED 2344 INT claim that David deliberately misC/Sed his then wife, Merrill Mayo, by using squirrelled NOTS processes, mixing R/Ds and inventing his own processes all designed to introvert her. Furthermore, it is claimed that he coerced his wife’s auditor to enforce these processes, that he saw to it that she never went to an Examiner after any session and that he kept the folder under lock and key between sessions, refusing to have it reviewed by an outside tech terminal. We read that his wife was reduced to tears asking her C/S (David) to sort out their second dynamic troubles out of session with a Chaplain or Ethics Officer and that he refused.
However, during an interview on 4th July 1983, Merrill Mayo said this:
“All of the things which came out in David’s SP order were completely a false report, every bit of it, with absolutely no grounds at all on Lt. It was made up to make David look as bad as they possibly could.”
Palo Alto, California, 28 August 1986
David Mayo spent 25 years in the Church of Scientology, making him one of the most experienced people to have served in that organisation; most do not stay longer than 3 years. His long experience as auditor to the most senior Scientologists, including L. Ron Hubbard and his wife, gave him considerable status (as shown in the 1980 advertisement on the left). Following factional infighting in the early 1980s, he left (or more accurately was expelled) in 1983 and was subsequently denigrated as a “squirrel” par excellence. He nonetheless remained loyal to Hubbard’s tenets and started an “Advanced Ability Center”, using Hubbardian techniques and derivatives thereof. The AAC now appears to be defunct. Mayo was interviewed in 1986 by Russell Miller, the British writer and journalist, for his unauthorised biography of Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah. In the course of the interview, Mayo gave an intriguing account of his experiences in Scientology, the transcript of which follows below.
My first contact with Scientology was through a High School teacher who loaned me some of the books. This was in Auckland, New Zealand. I joined the org as an employee in late ’59. I was a student at the time. The org was in two parts, HASI [Hubbard Association of Scientologists International] and HCO [Hubbard Communications Office]. HCO was Hubbard’s own office within the org. I worked for HCO starting from end ’59 and I started having correspondence with him. The lady who had hired me, Betty Turnbull, was in charge of HCO and her husband, Frank, was in charge of the HASI. LRH was displeased with Frank and Hubbard started sending me letters expressing displeasure and asked me to do an investigation. They ended up quitting or were fired. He accused them of being Communists and they were in the org to try and destroy it and sabotage his plans.
I thought this org was supposed to be about improving people and helping mankind and all of a sudden, my opening correspondence with the founder was about plots and Communists. He sent me handwritten letters and telegrams and cables. It was quite a shock. I just figured I couldn’t understand these things. I just tried to rationalise the paranoia, after all he was a brilliant man and had written all these books. I had to do a security check on Betty Turnbull and my recommendation to LRH was that they weren’t Communists and had worked hard to try and keep it going. I said they were perfectly OK and he fired them.
I first met him at the beginning of ’62 when I went to Saint Hill to do the Briefing Course. He was friendly, down to earth and quite personable most of the time, though he would have occasional flare-ups. In later years he changed dramatically. Then he was one of the boys, would chat over breaks, insisted everyone called him Ron. Deification had not yet begun. I finished the course in late ’62 and went back to Auckland until the end of ’67. I made one more trip back in ’65 to Saint Hill. Then at the end of ’67 I transferred to the Sea Org and to Va1encia where the Royal Scotman was in Jan 68.
The literature I’d received prior to going was quite misleading. It described an OT base and talked about a land base in some foreign country. It sounded exotic and exciting, where LRH was going to be doing upper level research and a few, select, highly trained people were working with him and participating in it. Instead, when I got to Valencia I got in a taxi and was told to go to the port. The instructions were brief and mysterious. I went to the port in a taxi and saw this dirty rusty old cattle ferry tied up there. I kept trying to tell the driver we’d made a mistake. He kept insisting it was [correct]. I got out of the taxi, went over to the ship and realised, “My God, this is the place!”
(Taken from a lecture by David Mayo given on December 2, 1993 – concerning how a personality is formed.)
I’ll be using the term “personality” in the usual sense of the word: a package of characteristics that typify a person and distinguishes that person from other people; it makes that person a unique person. Some of these are behavior patterns; some are emotional patterns; some are thought patterns; some are speech patterns and so forth. They make up a package of qualities that you tend to know as the person – it is what the person has become or is being.
Fundamentally, you could say that a person isn’t any of these characteristics that I described. For example, if you say an angry person, a person fundamentally isn’t angry – isn’t fundamentally an angry person. But a person can be angry. Or, as is stated in some languages, they have anger. That is possibly more accurate, certainly it is useful or therapeutic to say have in connection with an emotion rather than to say be. In English we tend to use the verb be and say “I am angry”. Now if I were to say, “I am a man”, that would be more accurate than to say, “I am angry” – because “I am angry” says that is what I am: anger. It does tend to cause a misidentification. A person starts thinking of himself as the unwanted emotion or other unwanted characteristic.
If you say, “I have anger”, it, tends to give you a little more distance between yourself and the emotion that you are experiencing. You could say: “I am experiencing anger”, or “I am experiencing fear”, and that would be better than saying “I am angry” or “I am afraid”.
You can use this. Actually some psychologosts and some New Age people use that differentiation as one of their main tools. They take a person and ask him what is the matter with him. He says, “I have a bad temper and I am often angry.” So they say: “OK, Say: ‘I have anger’ not ‘I am angry’. Say: ‘I have anger’.” They teach the person that whenever he is angry he is to pause and to say: “I have anger”, or “I am experiencing anger”. Sometimes, to go along with that, to say: “But, I am not the anger itself. I am me, but I am experiencing or I have this emotion.” Or, “I have such and such sensation”. To try to deliberately work on the amount of distance between themselves and the unwanted emotion or the unwanted sensation or feeling.
Similary you can say, “I am hungry” or “I am hot” or “I am cold”. You can argue that each of these things isn’t true, because you are not hot, you are feeling hot. Heat is not something that you are. You can perceive it and you can feel it, but you aren’t it. That’s a good example, but it goes further than that.
You could say, “I am a plumber”. By that you could mean that you know how to do plumbing; you could mean you do plumbing activities; you could mean that you earn your living by doing plumbing activities; you could mean that you are an amateur plumber, or you could mean that you know how to and sometimes do plumbing activities and when you do you feel like you are a plumber. But you are not a plumber, you are still you. You know how to or you are doing plumbing.
You could say, “I am a writer”. If you associate yourself with that activity enough, you could become what you think of yourself as doing. Or, you could say, “Now I am a writer”, and now that has become your identity; how you identify yourself. People say, “Who are you?” Instead of saying, “I am Mary or Pete”, you say, “I am a writer”, or you say, “I am the writer of such and such a book”. This would imply that the book was more famous and more important than you are and you define yourself to people by saying, “Well, you know that great book, well I am the writer of that book!”
So, one can identify oneself with an activity and then come to the conclusion that that is what one is. Other people can do the same thing, not only for themselves, but about you too. They know that you write things, so they say, “Oh yeah, the writer. You are the writer, aren’t you?” And you could say, “Yes, but I also ride bicycles and I can do a little sewing and sometimes I cook”. But, to them you are the writer; you aren’t any of those other things. And they expect you to act like a writer. More accurately, they think you should act the way they think a writer ought to act, or, whatever it is that they have decided that you are.
Other people’s expectations about oneself are modified by ones’ personality, or ones’ identity, or ones’ profession. These things are really what one does. They are either ones’ professional action of what one does or they are a common action of what one does. If you go jogging in the morning, people could identify you as “the jogger”. Maybe you do a lot of other things and have a lot of other characteristics, but that’s what they see you doing from day to day. That’s what they see you doing each morning: they see you jogging, so to them, you are the jogger. If you were going to deal with that person, you would notice that they talk to you and they treat you as if they expected you to be a jogger and to have an interest in those types of things.
One can get stuck with, or fixated in, a personality or identity. If you were going to write a book, then it would be fine to say that you are a writer while you are writing it, while you are publishing it, while you are collecting the royalties, and while people are talking to you: “Oh, I read your book and it was fantastic, how did you think up that story?” But, you wouldn’t want to be a writer all the time. If you are able to be a writer, and stop being a writer and be something else, that would be fine – just as you don’t want to be stuck with being angry, because that could become your personality. Some people are in situation or in a condition where they think that they are a bad or a crotchety person or a cranky person. Other people feel that they are a stingy person or a mean or a selfish person.
A person can become stuck in the role that they have being doing a lot. When a person performs an action many times, it can become habitual. In other words, it can become automatic. You set up a pattern, much like a loop tape that keeps going around and around, playing the same things over and over. That’s the pattern that performs the action for you. Sometimes you have to start it, and sometimes you can stop it, but once you have started it, it repeats this pattern over and over. Then you have it as a habit or as an automatic action. At that point, it becomes a personality or an identity or a part of your personality or a part of your identity.
If you took up writing, and wrote a book and some articles and another book and some articles, then, at that point, you might be able to just pick up a sheet of paper and a pen and just write a story – or, take your typewriter or computer and just bash out a story. Then you would probably feel that you were a writer, because you could do those things automatically. You don’t have to think: “Oh, I am going to try and write a story. What will I write about? What will I put in it? What will I write it with? Is there anything to write on around here? Maybe I should get a computer and write it on that? No, I’ll use this paper.” That’s when you are still trying to do the action. But once you have got it down to a point where you can almost do it without thinking about it, it is at least is somewhat automatic. At that point, you start identify yourself with it – even if it a bad emotion.
If you get angry once or twice, you don’t think that you are an angry person necessarily, you think that somebody provoked you or something provoked you. But if you get provoked a lot and become angry a lot and it keep on happening, maybe it becomes more and more frequent, then it becomes a pattern – a continuing pattern in your daily life. About that time, you think that you are an angry person or a short tempered person. So do other people – and they may tell you so. They may say, “You are angry or you are an angry person.” At this point everybody is convinced that this is what you are. So, you become identified with that and to that degree you are stuck with it.
This whole cycle starts much earlier than that. The way it really starts is that you are you plus whatever personality or identity you happened to have developed up to date. That is what you have become. Then you encounter something. It starts with a first encounter: a particular object, or a particular person, or a particular situation. There is a first encounter. For the sake of this example, say, this particular object. You see this object and perceive it and become familiar with it and you say: “Oh, that’s what that is: that object.” You interact with that object: you do something with it. You look at it. Maybe you saw it in half and nail it together again – or whatever it is that you do with it. But you do something with that object. Now you are interacting with it.
Over a period of time if you interact with that object many times and especially if you do it on a continuing basis, you start developing automatic actions or automated activities with regard to that object. It gets to a point that when you see the object, you automatically do the things that you do when you see the object.
If you see a red traffiс light: you take your foot off the gas, you put your foot on the brake, and you stop the car. You do the things that you do when you see a red light. After you have being driving around traffic lights for a while, it becomes quite automatic. You see the light turn red, (or you see a red light), and you pull up and stop. Just as automatically, you wait until it turns green before you go. You do the various things: you take your foot off the brake, you put your foot on the gas, you make sure that the guy in front of you, (if there is one), gets going. You adjust your speed so as not to run into him and not to get run into by the guy behind you, and so on. So, there’s an automatic series of actions and they are all based on seen a red light or a green light.
At this point you’ve built up a series of automatic actions with regard to that object. There is nothing wrong with that – it’s perfectly OK to do that. In fact, it’s a good idea because it leaves your attention freer to do other things like watch out for other motorists and other obstacles and other conditions. It is good to be able to automate things. Having automated it, though, when you see a red light, you stop. Now, if it got to a point where you couldn’t prevent yourself from doing that, you could make a mistake. If it got to be totally automatic, every time you would saw a red light you would try to stop – but maybe somebody has a red flashlight, or maybe you are driving on a road and there is a railway line nearby and there is a red light on the railway line, you shouldn’t stop if there is a red light somewhere else. Do you see? Having it totally automatic isn’t good either, but partly automatic is good. So, to repeat:
There’s a first encounter with an object; a series of action or interactions done in regard to that object; and these can become automatic.
Around the time that these actions become automatic, you can start to assume the identity of that activity.
The example I just gave about red traffic lights and green lights isn’t sufficient, but if, you’ve automated all of these actions connected with driving a car – at that point, you would be “a driver” or “the driver”. So now you have an identity: driver. Again, if you can be a driver, and stop being a driver at will, everything is still fine. But if you get to where you can’t stop being a driver, that is not so good.
How a person can get into trouble with this is that when he does something bad and when he repeats doing something bad. For example, early in a person’s life he may, for the first time, tell a lie. For the sake of an example, we’ll say, a child doesn’t do his homework and is questioned about that and decides, in order to avoid trouble, to say, “I did do the homework but I lost it”, and hopes to get out of trouble that way. That’s a bad example because it probably wouldn’t work. It is very unlikely that it would work. But if a kid came up with a story that sounded plausible and that got him out of trouble for not having done the homework, and especially if the story would work not just once, but many times, he has got something very “useful”. He has got a lie that gets him out of doing homework and gets him out of consequence for not having done his homework. If he can’t stand doing homework, it is a pretty “valuable” solution for him to carry around. It is also reprehensible and it can’t be communicated about. If it is discovered he will get into even more trouble, so now it starts getting quite solid.
When a person repeats a pattern of action, they start to assume the identity of that action, or connected with that action.
In that case, after the kid has lied about the homework a few times or many times, (but it only takes a few times), the kid will assume an identity and will consider himself to be a liar. Now, the person is labeled, (or a better word), is branded a liar. The person feels that is irrevocable. It is irrevocable because they can’t change the fact that they lied and they can’t change the fact that they lied more than once and perhaps many times. So, they know that they are a liar. The same things would happen if a child saw some money and learned that money can buy candy. He sees the money but can’t ask his parents for it because his parents aren’t there. But he wants candy.
It’s the first encounter with the object. It’s unattended money. There is nobody around to ask, “Could I have it?”. He is tempted, so he takes the money and go buys the candy. He does that a few times and starts thinking of himself as a thief. He can become branded as a thief. Now, if he is caught, the actions of other people can either help to undo it, or they can force it and brand him even harder. If he is discovered in the act, or if he is found out, his parents berate him and beat him up and give him a hard time and scream and say, “You are a thief and I am going to throw you out of my house”, or say, “Don’t you ever steal again you rotten thief”. This will reinforce the kid’s own branding of himself as a thief. He doesn’t feel like: “I am Johnny”, or that “I am Mary”, or that “I am a little girl”, or that “I am a little boy”, or that “I am the son or daughter of this family”. He can carry that with himself through the rest of his life.
The more convinced a person is that he is an identity, the more he tends to act out that identity.
It is a vicious cycle. This kid gets to leaving school age and is interested in getting a job so that he can earn some money and do the same things that other people do: buy a house, maybe. The easy way for him to solve the problem is not to get a job, but to go and steal some money. It is already justified, because in his own mind, he already knows that he is a thief. He tends to feel hopeless about it and tends to feel that he can’t change it. Why he feels that he can’t change it is because he has already done it. He can’t reverse it. He can’t go back and not steal the things that he has already stolen. So, he feels that he is irreversibly a thief.
That’s why you can bring about a considerable amount of relief when they have sufficient confidence to confine in you and tell you about bad or unethical things that they have done. It tends to reverse that mechanism. In fact, when a person fully views unethical activities that they have done, then they feel that they are no longer that identity. Up until this point, they are convinced that they are that identity.
If you find somebody who is an angry person, you can undo that by getting him to tell you about times when he expressed his anger at somebody – when he was being angry. You can also, to a limited degree, get the person to differentiate between having been angry, or having had anger, and get him to realize that he is not the anger, although he was exhibiting it. Likewise in the case of the thief, you can get him to look at the fact that, yes, he did steal these things, and what did he steal and who did he steal them from. Get him to differentiate and come to see that, yes, he stole this and this… maybe he stole six things. He did those actions but he is not a thief. At the time of action, (while he was stealing it), yes, he was a thief. But he isn’t a thief all the time and he doesn’t have to go on being a thief in the future. So, you get separate instances of time and a separation out from the identity.
The cycle is:
- The first encounter with the object, person or situation
- Engaging in an activity; especially a repeated action
- The assumption of an identity
If you get stuck with it – it is a mistake, because it is not what you are. It is something that you thought you became because you did it. If the repeated action is an unethical one, it is more probable that the assumption of the identity will be permanent, or virtually permanent.
A rule can be made from this: people tend to become that which they do.
If you do something a lot, you are likely to end up becoming it, or thinking you became it. The truth is you can do something a lot without being that activity; you don’t have to have that as your identity. I can do a lot of plumbing without thinking of myself as a plumber. If somebody said that I was a plumber, I might feel I had to explain to them, “No, I’m not a plumber, although I do know how to do plumbing, and I can fix that tap – but I’m not a plumber.”
Question: Say there was a person who really considered himself as a murderer, and it started when they were little and they had been doing it all of their lives, it would seem like it might take a long time to go through it with them to get to the point where they would say, “Ah hah! I’m not a murderer, I’m just a person who has done all these murders.”
Answer: Yes, it would take a lot. Especially with something as harmful as murder, as it is something that you can’t rectify. They can’t go back to the people that they killed and say, “Sorry about that,” and pull the knife back out so that pop, up they come, and they start walking again. It can’t be undone. If it is something that hasn’t caused permanent harm, then it is far more easy to handle by just looking at it subjectively.
You will find as more of a common example, somebody who feels that they are a liar. You could ask the person to tell you about each of the times that they lied. They’ll start out with the idea that they do it all of the time. They’ll tell you about times and they may tell you about half a dozen times – maybe seven, maybe eight times when they lied, but they are going to run out. They won’t be able to think of any more times. Then they will find another one, so maybe it is nine times that they have lied. Even that changes their perspective. They have gone from, “I’m a chronic liar”, to “Well, I can remember having lied nine times and it is suddenly is like, “Well, that isn’t as much as it looked like earlier.
The following are two quotes re-published here with Mark’s permission from his comments on the other website. The links to the original comments can be found under the quotes. (TB)
“…Mayo was not interested in being ‘source’. Mayo was never himself interested in holding ‘power’ or collecting acolytes as Ron & others of Ron’s acolytes have been and remain.
Mayo’s only interest was in helping others through the delivery of tech. He did not seek to create a powerbase. He merely opened his doors offering assistance to others and found himself flooded with those who were disaffected with the church and the Sea Org. For this act of independence he was attacked by the church with a full fury at Ron’s explicit orders. At that time the church was especially eager to quell independent practice of scientology within the u.s.. The fight over the AAC’s was to be the ‘main bout’.
Given the nature of intellectual property laws in this country Mayo had to establish a legal basis for his possessing and using those parts of the tech which were not readily & widely available publicly AT THAT TIME. Now, anyone with internet access can readily obtain any ‘confidential materials’ he may wish. That was not so then.
Mayo’s participation in and co-development of the NOTS materials were a significant LEGAL ARGUMENT that could be made to counter the church’s attempts to deny him (and by extension others) the right to use such materials without Co$ approval. Ultimately the court found that, whereas Mayo had written the NOTS materials, he had done so while in the employ of the Co$ and as such an organ of the church held the legal copyrights.
This unfortunate outcome had a chilling effect on the independent practice of scientology in the u.s.. Europe was a different matter. Although, the church was able to harass the independent field in the u.s. into quiescence, european laws have allowed much more leeway for independents to practice relatively free from church harassment. Hence, whatever one’s personal view of the Ron’s Orgs, this accounts greatly for the relative degree of their growth & impact in Europe over time, especially in contrast to what has transpired in the u.s..
So the genuine source of suppression for independent scientology in the u.s. for nearly the last thirty years was in fact the Sea Org minions of L. Ron Hubbard, acting directly on his orders to impede & prevent the growth & practice of scientology independently of the Church & Sea Org.
As to David Mayo coming out of retirement to defend himself. it should be born in mind that David is now fairly advanced in years. I, for one, would be delighted to see him return to public engagement. However David, never having been one who sought power or notoriety for himself, has very little real motivation to trouble himself further by reappearing on boards such as this to counter slanderous remarks. Especially as some few among the individuals who challenge him to do so in the present are among those who bear the shame and the burden of responsibility for many of the evils he endured so many years ago.”
“When a nearly 50 year old man who spent his life promoting the success of the tech of scientology is forcibly kidnapped, tortured, his health physically ruined, then escapes, manages to set himself up in an ongoing activity where he is then criminally harassed by ignorant goons acting on behalf of the man who betrayed him to begin with, subsequently finds himself attacked by a multi-million dollar enterprise which involves him in an intentionally extended litigation proceeding in order to break him and crush his fledgling operation (all by orders of the man who betrayed him), manages to survive nearly 10 years of this extensive legal harassment and FINALLY in his 6th decade is offered a chance to let the incessant harassment end AND obtain a cash settlement to PARTIALLY COMPENSATE him for ALL THAT HE HAD ENDURED at the hands of L. RON HUBBARD & the Church of Scientology …
then HE has earned the right to take the money and walk away.”
When I first became interested in Scientology I felt a huge resurgence of hope about the future and what it held. Prior to that I’d had a lot of questions about life, about its meaning and purpose. Questions such as: “Why are we here? Is there an overall purpose to the scheme of things? Is there a god? What happens when you die? Where did we come from?” …the usual questions. It’s not that I got answers to those questions, but I did have the hope it would be possible to attain the answers.
Then, certain things happened that didn’t seem to be consistent with that hope. In other words, I expected a tremendous amount from scientology – I expected the tremendous amount from the people involved with it; I thought they would be ideal or perfect beings. I assumed that anyone involved with this movement would be unaberrated and rational. When the first major divergence from the stated aims and goals of scientology occurred – a disagreement over a policy letter which turned into a bitter feud – I got quite a shock, what we’d call a secondary. My most immediate reaction was: “How could this be happening in scientology?” After such an incident, one could start to question the validity of the tech. I think that’s a natural thing – to question whether it’s so or not and whether one’s aspirations are toward things which may not come about and could end up in a betrayal of expectations. I remember going out then, taking a walk and suddenly realizing that my havingness was down. I started noticing things around me and my havingness came up. This was a rehabilitation of the earlier point when I’d realized that the tech DOES work.
Over the years the organization which was promoting scientology often acted in a manner inconsistent with its goals and purposes. Today I hear in various letters and conversations that some people have decided they don’t want anything further to do with scientology. I wanted to go into the reasons for that.
For some any further involvement with scientology is too emotionally painful. Many people have withdrawn or departed from the subject entirely, having wanted and expected so much and then having been let down. That situation, however, is not optimum. A friend of mine went through such a reaction and I watched it happening. This person felt that the tech didn’t work – that it was all just subjective. He thought that people’s cognitions and gains were simply imaginary. This attitude was quite at variance with what I’d known of this person and what he’d experienced earlier. In listening further and asking questions, what surfaced was this person had wanted more than just the gains he’d received. He had wanted additional gains so much that he had felt betrayed when they did not occur. His solution to this huge reality break was to say, “Well, I didn’t think that the tech worked in the first place.” – an example of rationalization.
Some people who worked in the sea org for many years – 10, 15, 20 years – came to the realization that the sea org was not carrying out the original goals and purposes for which they had joined. Feeling reflected in thoughts such as “What have I done? I’ve wasted those years of my life,” often followed. Some then got into a hectic frenzy of trying to make up for the lost time. It’s very hard to make up for lost time – it tends to park one in the past. The rational reaction would be to simply accept what had happened and go on from there, having gained valuable understanding from these experiences.
So I that one of the reasons people become disillusioned and tend to become inactive due to an ARC break of such magnitude that they feel their only course is to withdraw. They try to hope their experiences didn’t happen and try to show that they were right for doing what they did – even though they now think they shouldn’t have done it, whether it was joining the sea org, or buying auditing, or whatever.
Interestingly enough, another person going through that particular phase told me that he didn’t think that the tech worked. He was, however, using the tech to handle his dilemma by withdrawing in order, as he put it, destimulate.
The way to handle disillusionment with scientology is not to withdraw or rationalize, or try to change the fact, that one has been hurt. The solution is to become more involved and to understand the factors that brought about the situation. That’s the ultimate solution.
AS YOU PROBABLY ARE aware, I used to hold the post of Senior C/S Flag. That was until the end of 1978. Let me start this narrative article from that point.
In September of 1978. I was sitting in my office one day C/Sing some folders and a messenger came into the office with a telex which was one of these very secret “your eyes only” telexes. So I grabbed some clothes, raced off to the airport at Tampa and caught a plane to Los Angeles. I arrived in Los Angeles at night. As I’m sure you all know, the Sea Org places a great significance on what they call security. There was to be one security-cleared person meeting me at the airport and nobody else was supposed to know he was coming to meet me. It was very confidential and I had to go with him. I was still quite mystified as to why I was being called to California. We took off down the highway and headed off toward Palm Springs.
A security breach!
After we got started down the freeway he said, “Look, no offense or anything, but you have to wear these dark glasses”. I said, “Why? It’s night time”. He has a pair of sunglasses they’d sprayed aluminum paint on the inside of so that you couldn’t see through them and he wanted me to put these on so I wouldn’t see where we were going as it was so secret that even I shouldn’t know. It was about one o’clock in the morning by this time and I’d been flying for many hours and could do with some sleep. I put the glasses on and dozed off. We eventually came to the exit we were going to take near Palm Springs and the driver almost overshot it. He hit the brakes suddenly and I was jostled and the glasses flew off just as the sign came up on the freeway that said “Indio Exit”. I picked up the glasses and put them back on. The guy who was driving said “Oh God! I hope you didn’t see that sign”. I said, “Well, you’d get into trouble if I did,wouldn’t you?” “Yeah”. He said. I responded, “Then I didn’t see anything about Indio”. And he said, “Oh, great”.
Finally we arrived at the headquarters of CMO Int, La Quinta at about four o’clock in the morning. I was taken into the house where LRH was living and was told that LRH had become quite ill and they were concerned whether he was going to live or not and that was why I had been brought there. I had some of his folders given to me, I studied them and got ready to give him a session. It had been some time since I had seen LRH. When I went into his bedroom I must admit I got quite a shock, because the last time I’d seen him he’d been full of energy and active and it was a surprise to see him lying on his back in the bed and in the physical condition he was in.
I had some folders and the main thing that I could see from the folders was that he’d been having quite a lot of auditing on NED and that there were various strange indications. His TA had been getting higher and higher and the needle had been getting tighter. Various somatics had been turning on and the more somatics that turned on, the more they’d try and run these somatics out with NED and then more somatics would turn on, and so on.
Hubbard’s condition and handling it
He wasn’t able to speak. He was lying there almost in a coma although he had his eyes open. When I went into the room and said hello to him his eyes flickered and he gave a little smile. I put the cans in his hands. From the folder I’d ascertained certain things that were probably the cause of the bypassed charge and I’d written up a little C/S. The first thing I did was ask these questions to locate the bypassed charge. His TA was up around five or five and a quarter and the needle was almost stuck. I had to have the sensitivity cranked up to get any reads and when I checked through my list of possible sources of bypassed charge and got something that read, I indicated it and the TA came down about a quarter of a division, and we got a very, very small F/N, at which point I ended the first assist.
Then about an hour or two later I did another short assist session, and this time at the end of that session he was talking. Two hours later I did the third session. During that session he got up out of bed and sat in the chair and it lasted for about a quarter of an hour and we got normal F/N at the session end. He was starting to smile and even cracked a little joke. From then on in September ’78 I audited him daily. Usually about two sessions a day, sometimes three sessions a day, for quite some time thereafter.
Because my post was Senior C/S Flag and I had been absent for some time from Flag, people were starting to ask questions as to where I was. The CMO decided to invent a “shore story”. A “shore story” is Sea Org slang for a story that is false. It’s intended to give people something to think about so that they won’t consider the real reason.
The following are brief accounts of what I consider to be the more germane points of:
a) the events leading to my removal from the post of Snr C/S Int and the subsequent CommEv, declare etc., and
b) the visit from Geoff Shervell in August ’83.
This story probably starts at the end of ’81 when several apparently unrelated events occurred.
It starts with the re-opening of a comm line from LRH to and from CMO INT and others in late 1981 after a period of almost two years of little to no comm from (or to) LRH (from Feb ’80 to Sept ’81). Unfortunately, although the comm line was re-opened in late ’81, it was a very limited comm line in that all communications travelled through Annie Broeker, Pat Broeker to David Miscavige and back up in reverse order. Pat and Annie were living with LRH and David Miscavige was living primarily at CMO INT. Other than Pat and Annie, no one, including Miscavige, knew of LRH’s location. Miscavige would receive a phone call from Pat Broeker and then would go to a restaurant or parking lot and meet Pat Broeker to pass the mail. Thus, there was no way for any comm to get to LRH without it going through those persons.
I was one of four people who originally received and sent comm via that line in Sept/Oct ’81, these comms from LRH and to LRH were technical.
In late ’81 (about November), LRH sent down orders to CMO INT to collect up and send him data on the state of the orgs and Scn internationally. The data he asked for was very comprehensive and took about two weeks for the FB (Flag Bureaux) to collect and send to CMO INT for relay to LRH! Then an evolution began at CMO INT of rewriting/retyping all these reports to omit and add data so as to make things appear to be much better than was the actual truth. I was horrified that this was being done and the extent to which it was being done and particularly at the intention to deceive LRH into thinking that things in Scn were much better than they were. I first discovered this when one of the reports that I had written to LRH came back to me to sign after having been re-written. I then found out that all three of the reports I had written had been or were being re-written so as to grossly falsify them. I had carbons of the originals of these reports and began to argue with those concerned about the re-writing of these reports on the grounds that I insisted that LRH should be truly informed of the actual conditions existing in Scn internationally.
At the same time as this, I received the order from LRH to sec check Pat Broeker on certain subjects and did so (meeting Pat Broeker secretly at motels). I brought the matter of the falsification of the Scn reports to LRH to Pat Broeker’s and David Miscavige’s attention, asking them to intercede as they had seniority in the CMO. At first, both seemed reticent to do anything about it, then assured me they would handle it after Pat had consulted with Annie Broeker. Pat later spoke to me about the “undesirability of putting upsetting news on LRH’s lines, but when I didn’t agree with the falsification of these reports, he again assured me they would be handled. Pat’s sec check and some other auditing was completed and I wrote a summary report to LRH. This report was later retyped in Pat’s favour. The attempted falsification of the international reports on Scn to LRH were used as the reason (or one of the major reasons) for the removal of Gale Irwin by David Miscavige and Pat and Annie Broeker – from the post of CO CMO INT. Although I was assured at the time by Miscavige and Broeker that the correct reports would be forwarded to LRH, I later learned that that wasn’t done. And, even later realized that Miscavige and Broeker had only used the…. of the falsification of the reports as an explanation and convenience to get rid of Gale Irwin as CO CMO INT. (Some months earlier, Miscavige and Broeker had busted Dede Voegeding as CO CMO INT for “security reasons” which later turned out to be because she was considered a threat to their authority.) Although these reports to LRH were falsified, it was usualy quite some time before I discovered the fact – partly due to the time before a reply came back and partly due to the practice at that time of simply passing on the LRH reply and keeping what went up in files (so unless one got access to and went into these files one wouldn’t see what went up, just what came down).
CHURCH OF THE NEW CIVILIZATION
SCI – 30
3 March 1994
Revised and Expanded.
Copyright (C) 1992 David Mayo
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Re: 10th Anniversary of the Church of the New Civilization
News Flash – Legal News
In 1985, the Church of Scientology filed a lawsuit against the CNC, David Mayo and several independents. The burden of this lawsuit has been nothing short of incredible. In April 1986, David wrote in the AAC Journal: “It is important that we win the lawsuit for the freedom to apply basic philosophical principles and procedures.” The CNC, David Mayo and supporters have persisted in this struggle for 8 years. In April 1992 the Court dismissed the C of S lawsuit against the CNC, David Mayo and the names independents.
On January 13 1993, the court ordered the following concerning the C os S: “Plaintiffs’ counsel are admonished that any subsequent violation of the Rules of Professional conduct shall result in such offending counsel being referred to the Standing Committee on Discipline and subject to contempt proceedings for violation of this Order and the penalties contained in Local Rule 2.6.7″
On January 20, 1993 the court granted our motion for the Plaintiffs (C of S, RTC) to pay our attorney fees. In a memorandum of decision the Honorable Janes G. Kolts, (Special Master), stated: “Plaintiffs have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia (among other things), to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes ‘extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct.’ As such, this case qualifies as an ‘exceptional case’ and fees should be awarded pursuant to the Lanham Act”… “It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith legislation than this. Therefore, it is appropriate to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to the copyright statute”… “As already stated, the Special Master finds that plaintiffs engaged in egregious bad faith litigation conduct…”
What happened then:
In January 1993 the CofS/RTC filed yet another federal lawsuIt against CNC (AAC), David Mayo etc. This case sought to re argue much of the earlier two cases against AAC, David Mayo et al., that had been filed by the CofS in 1985 and dismissed in 1992.
Our lawyers, Gary M. Bright and Jerry Fagelbaum, filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the newest case. That motion was heard on November 29, 1993, before the federal district court Judge A. Wallace Tashima. Judge Tashima was recently assigned to the cases when the prior Judge, James M. Ideman, recused himself as no longer able to maintain his objectivity in light of the CofS’s ongoing personal attacks on the judge and the ongoing harassment of his former law clerk. Following oral argument, Judge Tashima dismissed the CofS’s case with prejudice (which means they are not allowed to refile it.)
Where we stand now:
The original counterclaims by CNC (AAC) and David Mayo which see damages and injunctive relief for harassment and emotional distress arising from the CofS’s retrIbutive campaign against David and the AAC in Santa Barbara are tentatively scheduled by Judge Tashima for a two-week trial this summer (1994).
The Church of the New Civilization was founded in 1983 in Santa Barbara, California. It had as its purpose: “To increase personal abilities and thereby increase the level of ability of society which would in turn bring about a New Civilization, free of suffering – a civilization where Man could advance to his full potential and live in harmony.”
In keeping with that purpose, the Church of the New Civilization opened the Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara. The AAC utilized self-discovery procedures to educate and to advance abilities.
The Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara is no longer in operation, however, we believe that it still exists in the hearts of its members. Once again, we invite you to join in the dream of a better civilization where basic and advanced abilities are fostered.
In keeping with that vision, and as the next step, the CNC is publishing the Ability Advancement Center Journal. If you would like to participate in forwarding the CNC’s vision and would like to become a member, please let me know. If you know of someone else who would like to receive the publication please let me know. As it has been a number of years and many changes (including changes of address) since the last CNC mailing, I need your help contacting those members who would like to receive the Journal once again.
The Ability Advancement Center Journal is dedicated toward the dissemination of knowledge and insight gained in the field of self-discovery. Its purpose is to educate and stimulate interest in ability advancement.
The Journal will be reporting on ability advancement results and will keep you posted on research projects. In recent research, David has made some extraordinary discoveries in two areas, fortuity and telepathy.
David and I are approaching 1993 with very high hopes and expectations. We hope that you will share our visions and dreams through the AAC Journal.
All the very best from both of us,
The Journal of the Ability Advancement Center is published quarterly by the Church of the New Civilization. Members that have donated $45 or more per year to the Church of the New Civilization will receive the Journal. Note: The CNC has been granted tax exempt status under IRS Code 501(c)3. Your donations are tax deductible in the United States.
David and Julie Mayo,
20533 Biscayne Blvd.,
No. 4-429, Aventura,
It is the time to look at what have accomplished in the Independent field and at the Advanced Ability Center over the last few years and to take a look at what lies in store for us in the future.
As you remember, 1983 was a significant year: the year when it became possible to get auditing and training outside of the C of S. It was a year of great courage on the part of many. We stood up and asserted our right to practice our religious philosophy in the manner that we felt was the most ethical and beneficial. With the help of many others, I began delivering auditing and training at the Advanced Ability Center. I had several purposes in mind. One purpose was to make high quality tech available and affordable at a safe location. That purpose was achieved very early. As soon as we opened up the doors, the Advanced Ability Center became very busy with people from all over the world.
My second purpose was to continue in any way I could to the creation of large numbers of Independent Centers. And indeed, 1983 and 1984 were periods of great expansion. Independent Centers and Advanced Ability Centers came into operation all over the world. To name just a few, there are AACs in Switzerland, Palo Alto, Italy, South Africa, Australia, Florida, Michigan and Arizona. There are also many independent auditors and centers in other locations. There are no longer only a few places where one can receive auditing and training, but many, often conventionally close to home.
But there is much more that can be done and needs to be done. The C of S is trying to maintain that part of the tech is a religious trade secret belonging to them alone. We must disprove this claim in court. This is an issue that affects all of us. If we do not successfully meet this challenge, our ability to freely apply our philosophy will be severely hampered. As you know, the C of S won a preliminary injunction in November of 1985, which has prevented the Advanced Ability Center from delivering AAV – VII. This has hurt the AAC financially and the AAC is having to cut down it’s overhead by reducing the number of its staff and by getting less expensive premises.
In the midst of this bad news, however, there is some good news. Just last week the injunction was put before an Appeals Court and the resolution of this matter in the direction of religious freedom looks very promising indeed. You can be sure that all your support and the support of the legal defense fund is been put to good use for our future philosophic freedom. If we continue to press for our religious and philosophic rights and continue to support our cause vigorously through legal defense fund contributions, and in other ways, we will surely win the freedom to use the materials of our religious philosophy.
I think that the tech needs the further refinement. At the lower levels it needs to be written in language that can be readily understood, to facilitate dissemination. At the upper levels, more research and development is needed before new levels can be released. In order for the tech to win the widespread acceptance it deserves, it needs to be subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Despite the C of S PR line, the issue of whether or not OT powers can be stably produced is as yet unproven. Also it appears that there may be some technical bag as yet undiscovered and unresolved that has resulted in the severe conflicts of recent years. Overall, the subject of scientology became progressively more and more materialistic and less and less spiritually oriented. This needs to be reversed.
I have decided to take responsibility for the tech and to become more accessible to all independent centers and auditors. It is now time for me to devote myself fully to the hat which I am best qualified to wear: that of technical consultation and research. This is my own purpose line, and in truth, I have gotten far too involved in running a center and the legal battles. In fact it is long past time for me to get on with it, as many of you have pointed out to me and rightfully so! I feel very excited about the future. Soon, I plan to devote my time to the research and piloting of tech. I intend to put out a technical newsletter, to spend time with all the AACs and other independent centers in helping train more auditors, and to open up my lines to more technical consultation than has been possible up to now. Work along these lines is, it seems to me, the most valuable contribution I can make to the work we are all engaged in.
It looks as though 1986 will be another significant year in the evolution of our philosophy. With your continued support via the legal defense fund, it can become known as the year when we won a definitive victory in safeguarding our freedom to use our religious materials. Even dearer to our hearts, I think, is that 1986 will become known as the year when our attention went back onto the philosophy itself: onto use further development.
One of the biggest problems we have to face in the future is that of disseminating – I tried doing so recently and quickly discovered that there were very heavy obstacles to overcome; obstacles created by a multitude of unsavory incidents which have tarnished the once-gleaming reputation of scientology.
I was told, when I was a staff member, that the negative stories I had heard were all black PR and that our “enemies” had generated these false reports. The handling whould be to tell someone who had heard such stories that they were false. After I left the sea org I heard other stories from people who had no previous contact with scientology. These were true stories which came from people to whom these incidents happened – incidents which were inconsistent with the basic philosophy of scientology.
There are many reasons why such incidents and situations came about – maybe we came into scientology for the wrong reasons; maybe we came in hoping that somebody else would give us all the answers, would make the decisions, and that we wouldn’t have to evaluate data, and yet would still know that we had the truth. If that were the case, one would have been sitting aside one’s own ability to determine the truth of data and, in so doing , would be giving away responsibility. It wouldn’t matter if the data were true or not – it would still be an act of irresponsibility, an act of assigning cause and responsibility for one’s decisions, purposes, and goals to another person. And it would be assigning how one is going to conduct oneself in life to another person.
It’s also possible that one came into scientology to look for the truth and to evaluate each datum for oneself. Then, after studying and evaluating the data, one may have come to a dilemma when faced with the price of the next intensive, thinking, Well, wait a minute, this doesn’t make sense.” But at such point, if one is told, “That’s the way it is. You either go along with it or you miss out,” what coice does one have? If there were no alternative, one could say that there is no choice but go along with the program.
Unfortunately, when one sacrifices one’s integrity in order to get a service which would raise one’s integrity, integrity is defeated – the service is not delivered. Actually, the existence of such conditions is sufficient to prevent the tech from working at all.
Here’s a classic example – an exaggerated version of this type of situation. On a particular day, the CofS was conducting a large, senior-exec Comm Ev. The executives were told to either toe the line or lose their eternity. Faced with such a choice, which magnifies the problem much more than mere high price of harsh ethics, the decision one should make becomes obvious.
Faced with the coice of agreeing with things that one doesn’t really agree with in order not to lose one’s eternity, it becomes clear that either way one would lose one’s eternity – and that the only way to maintain one’s integrity would be to simply say NO.
What’s actually harder to handle are the little things – the prices were just a little too high, not too much too high; or, that the reason to do this or that was because there were enemies (albeit unseen) who were out to destroy Scientology. But then one could say “Who am I to say, maybe these enemies exist somewhere else on the planet… or off the planet… or maybe on some other time track… or as part of an engram.” Had they been handled as part of someone’s engram, we might be in a very different situation than we are today.
The point is that it’s much easier to make a small compromise of one’s integrity or to accept a small untruth, in order to gain something seemingly much more important. I feel that’s a trap because it’s the small instances of losing one’s integrity that add up to one’s becoming the effect of further oppression in the future. The solution to this sort of thing is to maintain one’s integrity in the present, day to day, and moment to moment. Now that’s a very high thing to ask for because none of us, myself included, has reached that level yet. But it is possible to increase one’s level of integrity – to spot instances where one has sacrificed integrity and do what is necessary to regain it.
It goes a lot more basic than this too. We’re all familiar with the eight dynamics, and that the 7th and 8th dynamics possibly seem less tangible than the others. The 7th dynamic relates to being and spiritual entities including oneself and others. There are some things which have happened which negate that very idea. For example, when I fell from grace, and when I chose to leave, I ceased to be a person – in print. I was described as a “squirrel”, or as an “alter-of-tech”, or as one with bad motives. The descriptions failed to regard me as an individual, as a person. I’ve seen this de-personalization happento a large number of other people too – a disregard of the person as an individual and an effort to move him into some abstract identity – usually a negative identity.
Now we could make the same error and say that what is wrong is “the management” – which is also an abstraction. But I don’t feel that is actually what went wrong. I feel anything that went wrong with the management happened late in the sequence of things. I think the cause of it was already present long before. If such tactics were simply the fault of some people called “the management”, our stating this might have brought about some betterment of the condition. That certainly did not happen. If we de-personalize the trouble, we’ll make the same error now.
The 7th dynamic as a concept is workable and it gives hope – that is, we need to regard people as beings – not as SP’s or PTS’s or people who bought the enemy line. If you regard people as beings then it’s possible to get into communication with them and find out what happened to cause him to act in a way which is puzzling or with which one is in disagreement. It’s easy to use communication as a solvent.
This brings us to the 8th dynamic. I feel that in the past, we tended toward the belief that we didn’t need to worry about what is the 8th dynamic. At present, it’s been relegated to an area of lower importance. There are statements about the the 8th dynamic, ranging from the idea that the 8th dynamic is a supreme being, to the possibilities of supreme beings, to infinity, to a much less tangible idea that the 8th dynamic might encompass all that is not contained in the other 7 dynamics. I feel that this selection of possibilities is actually a negation of the idea of the 8th dynamic. This is not any different from formulating what one believes on any of the dynamics. I think that we must formulate our own personal beliefs, and communicate about them with other people, and listen to others communicate about their personal beliefs.
This negation of the 8th dynamic has at times led some scientologists to believe that they were gods – or gods in the making. As soon as they reached OT, they would be a “god”. And yet none of us have any real proof that there is a supreme being. However, negating that possibility made it possible to set ourselves up in a position of arrogance. Believing that the organization of which we were a part was right, could make no error, and therefore could not be questioned or checked. I feel that this is why many people have become disillusioned with the tech and I feel this arrogance made it possible for sadness and disillusionment to occur over the last few years. If one negates the idea of a supreme being – one is negating the idea that there could be an overall purpose to the scheme of things.
There are other ideas along these lines – the idea that there is such a thing as good, or ultimate truth, rightness as compared to wrongness. I think there is something to believe in called “justice” or “good”, and I do think people will rise to make truth known, whether by facing it themselves or by communicating it to others. I think it’s possible for those things to become ascendant over the tendency toward evil. There is also such a thing called “hope” – and a future. I think it’s up to us to bring it about.
We all have a tendency to expect people to be more enlightened than they actually are because who wants to listen to someone who has human foibles and weaknesses? People want a leader or a guru – I know I have and often still do. It would be so convenient if we could plug into somebody who could tell us the answer to a problem or situation. But it would also be a lessening of responsibility.
I used to pray to God when I was a kid and ask, “Sould I or should I not?” If there is a God, and if He’s as wise as He’s supposed to be, He would leave that decision to the person asking it.
So the ultimate message is that one has to look at life and make one’s own decisions about all aspects of it. We feel that we have a tremendous amount of freedom in the independent field. In order to safeguard that freedom we must make a consistent practice of evaluating our beliefs and decisions – making sure that they are truly our own, and that our actions align with those beliefs.
Frankie and Mary were on the ship with LRH where they were both trained by him on the first Class 8 Course. Frankie was the first “personally certified by LRH” Permanent Class 8 Auditor and C/S. Aside from doing various missions directly under LRH, he also sent Frankie to all the orgs to “certify or cram” the Class 8 C/S’s around the planet, which he did. Around 1969 – 1970 Frankie was the Senior C/S of AOLA. During that time he made well over 100 Clears. Around 1975, he became the Qual Sec of the Flag Service Org. LRH trusted Frankie to such a degree that he was assigned as Diana Hubbard’s personal auditor for a year.
In 1982-83 Frankie and Mary left the church. Their parting words were, “when you start applying your own codes and creeds, we’ll talk”. They never looked back.
Planet Freeman: http://community.freezone-tech.info/freeman
Report by John Barnes
Photographs by Nik Wheeler
Oct 28, 1984
“Corrupt, sinister and dangerous”‘ were the words used to describe the Church of Scientology in a judgment given by Mr Justice Latey this summer. He also referred to it as “immoral and socially obnoxious”.
But who controls the Church now?
A major Sunday Times Magazine investigation into the activities of the cult in America and Britain has uncovered a disturbing and extraordinary story – the takeover of the organisation by a small band of youthful fanatics following the disappearance of the Church’s founder and inspiration, L. Ron Hubbard.
The temperature must have been well over 100°F, a dry burning heat that shimmered the figures on the roof. They were dressed in faded blue denim, heads bare under the sun. One looked towards the road and our car. But the guard below yelled and the man bent his head back to his work of resurfacing the roof. My companion in the car said quietly, “That’s a Rehabilitation Project Force. They’re RPFers, psychological prisoners -slave labour – , in a way.”
This was America, summer 1984, on a major highway between the southern Californian city of Riverside and the millionaires’ playground of Palm Springs. Here, in the cactus hamlet of Gillman Hot Springs, where the masts of a $565,000 clipper ship sway incongruously in the desert winds, is the world headquarters of the Church of Scientology.
Yet the great helmsman of this bizarre cult was not on board. No one knows for sure whether L. Ron Hubbard, the 74-year-old founder, is even alive. His round, smiling face gazes down from the walls of more than 100 Scientology offices around the world, orders are given in his name, but he hasn’t been seen in nearly five years. He may be in seclusion, as Church leaders claim, or he may be, as recent defectors believe, either dead or in failing health and under the control of half a dozen young followers who are manipulating big fortune.
These are the children. Well, actually, they are in their early 20s now. But they were only 11, 12, 13-year-olds when Hubbard, haunted by fear of enemies, was sailing the world’s oceans aboard a 3280-tonne convened British ferryboat called the Apollo. Some 500 scientologists, many of them English, took their children with them aboard the boat. Hubbard was the Commodore. The kids were the elite “Commodore Messenger Org.”
FROM DAVID MAYO
Hello dear friends,
I am extremely happy to be able to openly communicate to you once again. It has been a long time; an overly long and somewhat difficult period for many of us. Those of you who know me may have wondered what I have been doing over the past year, so I am grateful to have this space to let you know of my activities and future plans.
I believe it is important to provide a background to all of this. It is important so that you can share my reality on the depth of my commitment to the tech and to you.
From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 5 – March 1992
(First published by The International Society of Independents, 431 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA, USA as Update Series 1 on December 16th 1986).
The term “service facsimile” originally meant a facsimile (or mental image picture) that was of service or use to the preclear. A key point made on this subject was that a service facsimile is a mental mechanism used by the individual to explain failure. Perhaps that is the main purpose of a service facsimile. That is a relatively simple and easily understood idea.
However, when running service facsimiles, auditors generally spend a lot of time clearing what is meant by “service facsimile” and “computation” and getting across the idea that the auditor expects the pc to give the auditor a computation in answer to a listing question (even though these listing questions do not ask for a computation). Despite the time and effort spent on such “clearing”, when listing to find a service facsimile, the pc very often doesn’t answer with a computation. As this is a listing action, the auditor is then in the predicament of either having to reject the pc’s answers (items) or risking ending up with an item that is not a computation.
But that isn’t all there is to it. The meaning of the term “service facsimile” has been changed over the years. There are at least two (and possibly more) different mental mechanisms referred to as service facsimiles. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion to technical personnel. It has also resulted in at least one unusual solution in auditing. Possibly none of the versions of the service facsimile are routinely fully run out due to these confusions.
As a facsimile?
The first type of “service facsimile” discovered, described and addressed in auditing was a facsimile that the pc (reactively) thought was of use or service to him. Hence the term “service facsimile”. Injuries or illnesses, especially in childhood when an ally was present, can result in such a “service facsimile”.
Service facsimiles have also been called sympathy engrams. An example of this is an incident in which a child breaks his leg and is given sympathy, looked after and taken care of by an ally. If care and attention were unusual for that child or if the ally was not usually an ally, then the broken leg would seem to be valuable to the child’s survival and the facsimile of that incident would be kept around ready to be called into play in the future when there seemed to be a need for it.
One could then say that the facsimile in the example above, was “reactively computed” to have survival value. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was an actual computation, just that the service facsimile seemed to have survival value. As such this would be more accurately described as a reactive assumption rather than a computation. The idea that a service facsimile is a “computation generated by the pc not the bank” is a later additive which is not correct. This, in itself, could explain why so many auditors have so often had to work so hard to get pc’s to answer with a computation when asked for a service facsimile.
Chronic disabilities – ally presence
The type of service facsimile described above is best found by asking for a chronic disability and then running out the incident of its inception. E.g., if the disability is a lame leg, one would run out the entire incident when the pc got the lame leg, paying particular attention to any ally present at the time and an “ally computation” in that incident or as a result of it. When that disability has been run, ask for another, as there may be more than one. (One could also ask for a “fixed condition” rather than a chronic disability).
This type of service facsimile is best handled by running it out – as a secondary or engram – since it is a facsimile.
Another type of “service facsimile” was mentioned by Hubbard. Hubbard stated that the present time “Term” and “Opterm” package were the pc’s service facsimile. It is not clear how or why he considered that to be so, nor did he make any further clarification of this. Furthermore, no technique was given to handle this phenomenon.
The next type of “service facsimile” is a computation or, perhaps more accurately, an assumption. It is not a “service facsimile” in the original meaning of that term and it is not a “facsimile”, by definition. This is what came to be called a “service facsimile” in about 1963, but it is really a computation or an assumption. This type of computation is illogical analytically, is considered sensible reactively and is considered essential to one’s survival or at least to enhance one’s survival. Such a computation was thought to have been formed during a period of confusion and low analytical ability. A well known (but unreal) example of such a computation is : “All horses sleep in beds”. It has also been described as an “idee fixee”.
There have been different methods of finding this computation type of “service facsimile” over the years. In my experience the most useful were released in 1963 (during the same time period that this computation “service facsimile” was being described, and shortly thereafter). Some could argue that these methods of finding service facsimiles do not always result in a computation as the item found. True. But running the item found by these methods usually gets enough charge off so that the computation comes into view and blows by cognition during the running of the process. At least this is an approach that adheres to the Auditor’s Code rather than evaluating for the preclear by “clearing” that a “service facsimile” is a computation and that he is expected to give computations as answers (even though the listing question does not specifically ask for computations).
The more recent method of finding service facsimiles by listing from each command of the service fac brackets is the least workable, in my experience. This is partly because of the excessive amount of “clearing” (evaluating) what the auditor is asking the pc to find in answer to the listing question, including having to explain to the pc that he needs to answer with a computation. The nature of the computation the pc is supposed to have is also “fed” to the pc by the wording of the bracket commands, used as listing questions. For instance, “What do you use to make others wrong?” really feeds the pc the cognition that he is using something to make others wrong. It’s like the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” So, in a sense those listing questions require that the pc cognite on his service facsimile “in advance” i.e., while looking for what the service facsimile is and before having run the charge off it.
Then the change (circa 1978) of trying to run out the service facsimile dianetically after it had been run in the service fac brackets, is an unnecessary action. It probably follows from a confusion of the original idea of a service facsimile (sympathy engram) with the later idea of a service facsimile as a computation.
Method of handling
In my experience, the most effective method of handling a “computation” type of service facsimile is by using the PreHav scale. Start by assessing for a PreHav level (doingness) and then list from that as follows. Assess: “In this lifetime have you mainly__________(PreHav levels)?”
Then using the item so found, list:
“In this lifetime what have you__________(PreHav level found)?”
Example: If the PreHav level assessed out to “Failed to control” then the second question would be “In this lifetime what have you failed to control?”, which is listed to find the item. If the item was “My emotions”. Then the item to be run in the brackets would be “Failing to control my emotions”. (Yes, we know that that item is not a computation).
During the running of the item in the example above, as charge comes off, one or more computations will come to view and blow off.
There is yet another meaning that developed for the term, “service facsimile” which might be best described as considering a ser fac to be an impulse or an intention, e.g., to make self right, to make others wrong, to dominate others, etc. Al – though this is far removed from the original meaning of the term “service facsimile”, during the 1980′s the expression “make wrong” was used so interchangeably with the term “serfac” that the two became almost synonymous. This same concept was also referred to as an “evil intention”. Whether you consider these to be “service facsimiles” or not, they would probably respond best to expanded dianetic techniques.
Three kinds of serfac
So there are at least three different types of “service facsimile”, the facsimile, the computation and the intention. These different types of aberration require and respond best to different methods of handling.
Not everyone has a service fac. Making a pc look for one (or in some instances even asking for one) can start an endless search – for something not there.
It is noteworthy that over time there has been a shift in attitude that parallels the shift in definition of service facs. from a benign attitude toward the pc or the pc’s case to a more accusative attitude, one where in the pc (or his case) is accused of “willfully and knowingly making others wrong”, etc..
Not only individuals have service facsimiles; groups and organizations can, too. In fact, one of the characteristics of any cult or mass movement is that they are “service facy” – the more fanatical, the more “service facy” they are.
By David Mayo, USA
In late 1978, the state of “dianetic clear” was announced. Within a few months two other “states of clear” were introduced: the state of “natural clear” and the state of “past life clear”.
This change had two immediate consequences:
1. The number of people attesting (correctly or falsely) to having attained the “state of clear” increased enormously.
2. During and after that period, there was a considerable amount of upset and confusion about the “state of clear”.
There were those who considered that a dianetic clear was not a “real clear” and that the only “real clear” was one who (like them) had done the Clearing Course. Some felt that they had gone clear in their last lifetime. Some felt that dianetic clear explained why they had never been able to run dianetic auditing successfully. A large number of auditors, C/Ses, and others felt that there were a lot of people falsely attesting to the state of clear and either
a. Felt unethical about letting the person attest, or
b. Tried to handle it and ended up involuntarily invalidating the pc. No matter how this was “handled”, it has persisted as a problem. So we can at least assume that there are aspects of it that haven’t been taken into account and handled.
Let us examine more closely what happened in late 1978 and early 1979. LRH was being audited and concluded that one of the things wrong with his case was that he had been audited on dianetic auditing after he had attained the “state of clear” (which he at first thought had occured in objective processing). He then issued a bulletin forbidding the running of dianetic auditing on clears and made various other technical and administrative changes.
He cancelled the state of “keyed out clear” by stating that it was the same state as “clear”. He changed the definition of “clear” (and subsequently changed it several more times). He order ed that the folders of pcs (and the pcs themselves) who might have gone clear in orgs and missions be routed to Advanced Orgs. This action resulted in an emptying out of the orgs and missions and a flood of people arriving at the AOs.
Tape Briefing concerning the Facts surrounding his Arrest in Denmark
SHERIFF COURT, ABERDEEN
LETTERS OF REQUEST
to examine a witness
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER Plaintiffs
ROBIN SCOTT and OTHERS Defendants
Examination of Robin Scott by Mr. Watt
[excerpts from the deposition]
Question: “Did any of David Mayo, John Nelson, Harvey Haber, Dede Reisdorf, Jon Zegel, Vivian Zegel or anyone connected with the CNC, Santa Barbara, ever participate in the actual removal of any materials from the Advanced Organization in Denmark in December 1983?”
Answer: “Absolutely not, they knew nothing about it and had nothing to do with it.”
Question: “Were any of these people involved in the conspiracy to remove the documents from an Advanced Organization in Denmark?”
Answer: “Well now, I have already explained that Morag Bellmaine, Ron Lawley, Steve Bisbey and to a lesser extent my wife, Adrienne Scott, were involved with me in the removal of the materials from the Church. I can categorically state that none of the other people knew anything about our plans or in any way had anything to do with this alleged conspiracy.”
Question: “On Page 29 of the document, you state that David Mayo is the prime target. What are your reasons for stating this and what other evidence do you have to substantiate this?
Answer: “Well, I will try and be brief in my answer to this question, but I feel it is a very important question and it is very central to the whole dispute that we are all involved in. This particular Affidavit is perhaps the best evidence of the case that the Church is trying to make, not only against myself but against all the other people named here. This Affidavit was presented to my lawyer while I was in prison facing a possible four year sentence. I was in a foreign country, with my wife and children at home, without me. I was under, as you can imagine, a considerable amount of stress, confronted with an organization with millions of dollars of reserves stacked against me, and a stated policy of using legal procedure to harass, bankrupt and financially ruin anybody who dared to speak up against the management of the Church. I can substantiate all of these remarks. Now, what I want you to understand is the degree of duress that was placed on me at that time, and the deal was that if I was willing to sign this document, they would drop charges. The document itself is almost laughable in the ludicrousy of its allegations, that some of these people – some of them I have never even met – had been involved in my actions, is just ridiculous.
“What the Church was trying to achieve with this document was two things. One was to try and incriminate David Mayo specifically. If you look at that Paragraph 20, you will see that he is a prime target, that they wanted him specifically named as somebody who I had given a pack of materials to. What they were basically trying to do with this Affidavit was put me under enormous amount of emotional pressure to sign, in effect, a pack of lies in order to get myself off the hook and to give the Church spurious evidence with which to try and harass and cause problems for the other people who had also had the integrity and moral courage to speak up against the activities of the Church.
“Now, the reason why David Mayo is a specific target is that he is, of course, the most competent and highly-trained person probably in Scientology worldwide. He had the reputation, for many many years, as being Ron Hubbard’s most trusted technical adviser, and he was the most highly qualified man. He had been in that position for many years until he was removed in very unpleasant circumstances. He then set up as an independent centre, as I did, and he posed a very serious threat to the Church, both in terms of the credibility of what he was doing, and in purely financial terms, because by setting up these independent centres, we, and David Mayo particularly, broke this fraudulent monopoly which the Church had exercised and with which it has extorted thousands of dollars from vulnerable people. So, the Church has been very very adamant and very very hard working in trying, basically, to nail David Mayo particularly, because he was their adversary who had the greatest credibility. I hope that answers your question.
SHERIFF BELL: “Could I just have the question again, to see whether it has been answered.
MR. WATT: The question was, on Page 29 of this document, you state that David Mayo is the prime target. What are your reasons for stating it and what other evidence do you have to substantiate this.
SHERIFF BELL: “Thank you.”
EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WATT: “What terms did the representatives of the Church of Scientology offer you if you agreed to sign this document?”
ROBIN SCOTT: “Well, it is very interesting to note that this was not the only time that the Church basically offered me or my associates some sort of deal in an attempt – in fact, I have been offered a deal within the last week, and it is probably the tenth or twelfth time I have been offered a similar sort of deal. Now, what they want from me is to sign an Affidavit similar to this one. Similar offers were made to my wife by a Private Investigator acting an behalf of the Church, that if we returned the materials, all charges against me would be dropped. Similarly, this was put to Ron Lawley, that if he returned the materials, I would be released from the prison in Denmark. Neither of those offers were honoured. This Affidavit, to answer the specific question, this Affidavit was presented to me under considerable duress, in prison, in the hope that I would sign this, thus incriminating all sorts of innocent people in crimes which they had nothing to do with, and that would save my bacon, they would then effect my release and drop the charges against me. Subsequently, the Church has on at least three or four, or maybe five occasions that I can recall, made a similar offer to me. They have threatened me with expensive litigation and legal proceedings in exchange for releasing me from this duress and they have asked me to sign these spurious Affidavits incriminating innocent people.”
Question: “Do I understand from that then that the terms offered you, if you signed that, were your release from custody in Denmark?
Question: Those were the terms?”
Question: “What consequences were stated if you did not sign the document?”
Answer: “Well, the consequences were not specifically stated, but were implicit in their offer, that I would go, possibly, to jail for an unspecified amount of time, which obviously would cause me considerable distress and hardship, and to my family as well. Also, there was the implicit threat of continued expensive litigation against me, a private individual, by a very wealthy international organization. I knew fine well that the Church had several explicit policies which dictate that anybody who is opposed to the Church in the way I have been, should be hounded until bankrupted and ruined. So I knew fine well, by taking on the Church, that if I didn’t accept this view with them, they would do everything to cripple me financially.
Question: “What was your understanding of the purpose of this offer by the Church of Scientology?”
Answer: “Well, my understanding was that what they really wanted was evidence that they could use in court, and the other people that you have mentioned, that you have asked me about, but specifically David Mayo. I have attempted – saw earlier a document where I attempted, on my own initiative, to reach an amicable settlement with the Church, and it became very clear to me that their purpose in making such offers was not in fact at all to effect a settlement. They don’t want to settle. They merely want to string me along with the promise of getting off the hook and persuade me by these false promises to incriminate innocent people in crimes which they did not commit. So, what they really want is the dirt on other people. They don’t genuinely and honestly want to settle, that is merely a false apparency.”
Question: “Did you sign the document?”
Answer: “Of course not, it was laughable.”
Question: “The next question is, why not?”
Answer: “Well, in the first place, it is completely untrue. I would have been perjuring myself if I had signed it. In the second place, I had no inclination to be intimidated by the Church and to capitulate. I was quite willing to go to prison if I had to. I was not about to compromise my own integrity in a misguided attempt to save my own bacon.”
Question: “Would you look please now at two documents each of which bear the identification Exhibit 120. Is one identified as A and one B?
Answer: “They both seem to be numbered 120.”
Question: “I think one document, which appears to be a declaration by Adrienne Scott, is identified as No. 120A?”
Answer: “That is correct.”
Question: “And the other appears to be a declaration by Gaye Allen and is identified as 120B?”
Answer: “That is correct.”
Question: “Can you identify the document?”
Answer: “Yes. Let us take Exhibit A first. This is a statement which was written in her own hand by my wife on the 22nd March 1984. It was witnessed by two people at Candacraig at that time. During the time that I was in prison, my wife was subject to a considerable degree of intimidation and harassment from the Church – - bearing in mind she was the mother of three small children, that her husband had just been imprisoned in a foreign country and she was obviously under considerable strain and stress. It simply lists out some of the dirty tricks that the Church used to try to put pressure on her in order to get their way. But the other is a document from a girl called Julie Allen, and I think this is a good example of the sort of dirty tricks that I have just been talking about. She has signed the Declaration, a statutory Declaration, in front of a solicitor in, I believe, East Grinstead in Sussex, on the 11th April 1984. It simply states that a man called Ian Hepplewhite had told her that the Church of Scientology had really nailed Robin Scott. He said that he had personally found out the name of Robin Scott’s building society and had given that to a staff member in the Church. He said that the building society had been rung and told that Robin Scott was in jail in Holland and he would be in prison for at least two years and more like four years and would not be able to pay the mortgage. He said that the mortgage company was taking back the property. Apart from the fact that Ian Hepplewhite actually phoned the wrong building society, this report is extremely accurate. But, it does give the court, I think, a good taste of the sort of tricks that the Church of Scientology used in trying to intimidate and harass individuals who speak out against it. My wife, of course, will be able to provide you with first-hand details of several other incidents that occurred during that time, and subsequently.”
Question: “The next one is, to the best of your knowledge, what were the circumstances leading up to the writing of these documents?”
Answer: “Well, I think I have largely answered that and I suggest, really it would be better for my wife to elaborate on this particular aspect of the case, because I feel it is a very important aspect of the case and it should not be neglected by the court.”
Question: “What reasons did the Church give you to offer you leniency in exchange for implicating David Mayo?”
Answer: “Well, there has been a consistent thread in the approaches I have received from the Church. The Affidavit I received while I was in prison was only the first such approach from the Church. I was subsequently approached in 1985 on several occasions by a man called Andy Hutton and a Kurt Weiland whom I have already mentioned. They were acting on behalf of the Church. They approached me. Later, Kurt Weiland and Jessie Prince whom I have already mentioned, contacted me on two occasions during 1985. I have subsequently been approached this year, through my solicitors, by Mr. Moffat, who is present today, I believe with yet another supposed offer of settlement. So, I think that makes at least five or six occasions on which I have been approached by the Church with an offer of leniency in exchange for implicating David Mayo. I think it is important for me to try and describe the actual contents of the Church’s approaches, because what is stressed in all of my meetings with representatives from the Church is that the Church is an immensely wealthy organization which is capable of sustaining prolonged litigation against an individual. I mean, I currently have no less than, I think there are six lawsuits against me, which the Church has brought against me in different countries. I am defending six lawsuits around the world. The argument that the Church uses is to insinuate that if I don’t agree to their terms then they will continue with this expensive litigation, and the implication is that, of course, as a private individual, I am quite unable to sustain that level of litigation, and they will ruin me. When I bear in mind that the stated policy of the Church is to bankrupt anybody who speaks against it, then, to answer your specific questions, the real reasons the Church gives to offer me leniency is simply so that they can frighten me into implicating David Mayo in something that he never did. The reasons that they suggest for my accepting their offer is that it makes good sense financially for me to get myself off the hook at David Mayo’s expense. That is, in essence, shall we say, the undercurrent of all their approaches.”
Question: “Did you ever meet, or talk with Mr. Ingram or anyone else from his agency, and if so, when, and what was said?”
Answer: “I have never talked to Mr. Ingram. I believe that he approached my wife on several occasions while I was in Denmark, and you would have to find out from her what was said at that time…
EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WATT: Did you have personal knowledge of anyone else who has been approached with any offers by the Church if they would implicate David Mayo in the taking or receipt of documents from the Church of Scientology in Denmark –
BY THE COURT: “Personal knowledge? – Yes, Mr. Ron Lawley, I know, has been approached with a similar offer and also, I believe, Steve Bisbey.”
Question: “Do you know from them personally?” -
Answer: “Yes, from them personally, they have talked to me and told me that they have had similar offers – Steve Bisbey and Morag Bellmaine.”
[end of excerpts]
The following is re-posted with author permition. (TB)
“Yes, you are free to post it as is. Please attribute it to Everfree.
I got into CofS a while after the DM takeover. Sadly, I have to admit that I bought into the anti-Mayo group-think to the point where I rounded up all the Mayo side-checked Tech Dictionaries at the org and tossed them, not that I had any personal knowledge of what actually happened. I read “Story Of A Squirrel”, the anti-Mayo screed, many many times.
One thing that did always bug me about SOAS is that in it, Hubbard purportedly calls Mayo a “bird dog” or enemy agent. That was a heck of a charge to bring against someone who had been involved for something like 30 years and was one of the first SO members. He’d worked long and hard for Hubbard, I couldn’t imagine such a person being an enemy agent. Which “enemy”? Yet not a single shred of evidence was provided to back up such an outrageous claim.
One day well into the 90s (many years after the fact) an IAS reg came to town. They mentioned Mayo and said that he was an enemy agent. That reminded me about my long standing question about it. I asked the IAS reg what proof they had about it. They said they’d talk to me after.
Later I got a chance to ask about it. What was the proof? Story Of A Squirrel! Basically, Hubbard said so. Or was reported to have said so. Sigh.
That was a reminder to me to stay vigilant and not accept ideas based only on hearsay or authority. I was embarrassed that I had allowed my opinion of someone be so easily swayed. It made me wonder if there were other people who had perhaps been injustly accused.
From: David Mayo
Subject: My position on a.r.s
Date: 12 May 1996 20:55:54 -0400
I did not come to a.r.s to convince anyone of my beliefs nor did I come to a.r.s to proselytize nor to win friends and influence people.
I came to give information.
I have information that I think will be of interest and/or assistance in regard to Scientology(tm) both by those who want to know more about it than is available in promo and by those who may have an interest in it sociologically. I spent about 25 years in Scientology(tm) beginning at around the age of 17 years.
I am not here as an “anti”, a “meatball”, a “dreamball”, a “basher”, a “fluffball” or even as a squirrel, though having been accused of being a squirrel seems, perhaps out of perversity, I have acquired an affinity for that identity.
I am not a Scientologist now and have not been for many years — at the moment there is no precise point when I ceased to be one — if pressed for that point of departure, it seems as fuzzy as my logic.
When I was a scientologist, I worked very hard for it and to study and learn as much as I could of it, especially in regard to its “tech”. Before I was “busted” I was held in regard by many scientologists, including public, staff and executives (with some distinct exceptions) and most of the time, by L. Ron Hubbard.
As for the reprehensible aspects of Scientology(tm), as I became aware of them I tried to change them or figured that one day I might rise high enough in it to change them or get someone else to. Even so, I was sheltered from much of the illegal or clandestine activities until near the end and learned of far more after I left.
I now consider that the conduct of Scientology(tm) and the especially the patterns of conduct of Scientology(tm) make it a dangerous cult.
But I do not think effort directed at the beliefs of Scientology(tm) or at the Church of Scientology(tm) is as correctly targeted or as efficiently targeted as effort directed toward education about Scientology(tm) and effort directed against that conduct which adversely impinges on the freedoms and rights of others. A meme which may be self-correcting.
Having experienced litigation, I would also like to share that experience where it will help, interest or entertain.
Now for the disclaimers, I am not a lawyer and can not and do not wish to give legal advice. I have been under a tremendous (to me anyway) amount of litigation from 1984 through the present. I will at times abstain from comment if I think the subject is one that relates to any lawsuit that I am or may be involved in or on the advice of counsel. This tends to leave my communication far more hampered than I would prefer.
I do not believe in the idea of “religious trade secrets” as I have said before but until that issue has been decided in court with a sufficient degree of finality, I will seek to avoid leaving myself open to more litigation even when I think that litigation would ultimately prove to be without merit.
I do not believe that the trade marks or service marks of Scientology(tm) would stand thorough judicial inspection and I think that there is an obvious incompatibility with the concept of religion and commercialism.
Scientology(tm)’s copyrights or at least some of them have been questioned and should be questioned. I will seek to abide by their registrations in the meantime and I will not partake in copyright infringement.
I do not think that “civil disobedience” is the answer and for that reason I have not participated in nor will I participate in such activities. I also hold a position that will not be universally popular in this group, that acts of copyright infringement have played into Scientology(tm)’s hands more than any imagined benefit from those infringements.
I would prefer to answer questions that I can answer with information rather than my opinion or belief and if asked that way I may be more forthcoming than otherwise.
I cannot and do not read all of a.r.s and I do not and cannot answer all posts or email that I receive. I pgp sign all my posts for obvious reasons.
Copyright (C) 1994 David Mayo
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
I, David Mayo, declare as follows:
1. I submit this Declaration in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment based upon personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto From 1959 to 1983, I was affiliated with the Church of Scientology and, although officially designated as a “staff member,” throughout the period of my affiliation I was paid typically only $10 to $22 per week for full time work for the Church. In February, 1983, I left the Church after being subjected to a six-month period of forced captivity and torture involving physical abuse and emotional distress imposed because of voicing concern about unethical and criminal activities being committed by officials of the Church
2. I have never been offered, nor have I ever requested, immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for providing information, cooperation, or testimony with regard to criminal prosecution or legal action by the IRS or any other public agency against the Church of Scientology, the Religious Technology Center or any of their affiliates
3. I have never been charged with or convicted of any criminal offense I have never been informed that I was the subject of a criminal investigation
4. And and all testimony given by me in any legal action by federal authorities against the Church of Scientology, the Religious Technology Center, or any of thier affiliates was pursuant to subpoena by a public investigative agency
On this lecture, David Mayo talks about honesty and case gains. It is definitely worthwhile listening to:
The Firefox browser may not show the audio player above. If that is the case, open this page in Google Chrome browser, that can be downloaded from here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/ or safe the audio-file from here.
( Written by James Moore. )
The early 1980′s were turbulent years for Scientology. The official Church declared many people Suppressive, many of them top technical people, and many others left. Amongst them was David Mayo, a New Zealander who had been in Scientology many years, worked close to Ron, and traveled widely in his top Tech post. David, after recovering (his trials and tribulations are described elsewhere) set up an alternative Scientology centre in California, which delivered standard Scientology for a year or so, until the official “Church” of Scientology managed to harass it out of existence. During this period his Advanced Ability Centre (AAC) delivered auditing and training, and also held informal get togethers on Sundays, where David gave short talks. Here are the lectures we have available at the moment. David was rather good at pointing out where the Church had deviated from Ron’s original principles, and therefore the Church has been busy since then, painting an untrue, black, picture of him. We suggest you listen to David himself, and form your own judgment.
ST-3 Duty, Integrity, Loyalty
ST-4 First and Second Dynamics
ST-15 Idealism and Misuse of Force
ST-19 Value of Philosophy
ST-21 (Side One) Goals & Happiness
ST-22 (Side Two) Disillusionment
LRH Series (5 Cassettes) Experiences w/LRH
You can help creating this website by providing the copy of missing tapes (in digital format preferably). Please, contact website admin here.
|#1 “Tech Purity; LRH Hat Verification” – Dec 4th, 1983||
|#2 “AAC. Training And Purpose.” – Jan 19, 1984||
|#5 “On The Fence“||
|#6 “Tech Does Not Equal Management”||
|#7 “On The Subject Of Ethics”||
|#8 “Standard Tech. What Does It Mean.”||
|#9 “There Is No Illegal PCs”||
|#10 “Church Allegations”||
|#11 “Church Disconnections And The Shortage of Auditors”||
|#12 “ARC Versus Force”||
|#13 “Preserving The Tech (With Guest Milt Gordon on “Friends”)”||
|#14 “Responsibility For Confidential Materials”||
|#16 “Dealing With Entheta“||
|#17 “Free Zone Field and Tech Evolution”||
|#18 “Training and Inval – Why Auditors Don’t“||
I am frequently asked whether we practice “Standard Tech”. Unfortunately, the term “Standard Tech” has been so abused that in order to give a comprehensive answer, I feel it is necessary to clarify a distinction between “Standard Tech” and “Technical Standards”.
For many years there has been a great deal of talk about “Standard Tech”. Yet term in actual use today is more frequently used to mean “what the orgs are doing” or “the latest change”. There is nothing standard about that. Often these changes are heralded as the “latest breakthrough from LRH” only to be later cancelled as “an alter-is by another”. Sometimes these cancellations are changed, then re-issued, sometimes not.
Most are familiar with this having occurred in recent times regarding the changes in the grade chart, the HRD, NOTs and Solo NOTs. But this has been going on for years.
For example, Expanded Dianetics was released as an LRH breakthrough at the time, only to be cancelled years later as “alter-ised by another”.
Power processing was taken out of use and orgs and Scientologists were told that LRH would be replacing Power with his latest breakthrough, “Super Power”. (In this instance, Super Power was never released.)
Each of these changes was done in the name of “Standard Tech”, but the result has been constantly changing tech.
Here at the AAC we are devoted to keeping our technical standards high, to safeguarding the purity of the tech and ensuring that it is applied for the benefit of the pc.
We have completed 12 people on Advanced Ability VII (which the Church of Scientology refers to as Solo NOTs), while the Church is just now announcing their first completion. Why is this?
This devotion to the purity of the tech and a personal refusal to compromise was one of the main reasons for my departure from the Sea Org and the Church of Scientology. As this part of the story has not been told before and as there have been many false and maligning reasons put forward by certain persons in the Church of Scientology/RTC, I feel it is important to clarify some important issues.
First, let us review some very basic technical rules:
- One very important fundamental is that Man is basically good.
- Other very important fundamental rules are: that the tech must be applied in the direction of raising the self determinism of the pc, it must be applied for the benefit of the pc, and that it must be done with ARC. When auditing is applied on the above basis, the being’s basic goodness and rightness are validated, he is helped to become more himself, and gains inevitably result.
To do otherwise results in invalidation of the being, his basic goodness and his self deter-min-ism That is a dramatization of other earlier practices which did not have Man’s best interests at heart such as mind control, implanting etc., – efforts to change the being through the use of force.
As I had devoted some 23 years of my life to the tech, it was with considerable horror, repugnance and disgust that I saw instances of “black dianetics and scientology” within the Church.
One of these was called the “Severe Reality Adjustment” or “SRA”. It consisted of first heavily invalidating the staff member (especially invalidating his good intentions and constructive products), then forcefully giving him/her a “wrong item”, “wrong indication” or “wrong why” (an implant), then persuading the person that he/she should be more co-operative with the current party line. I saw an an increasing number of these “SRA”s being done on staff and later on the public, too. Far from being something that an isolated erring executive had done in an irrational moment, “SRA”s became more and more frequently used.
I protested to various RTC executives concerning the “SRA” abuses. These included Steve Marlowe, then ED of RTC, Vicki Aznaran, Inspector General of RTC, David Miscavage, etc. My protests only resulted in my being forcibly dragged out of bed and given “SRA” by those same persons! The confidentiality of my pc folders was violated and used for purposes of invalidation and ridicule on this, and on numerous other occasions.
Fortunately, my knowledge of the technical laws involved enabled me to withstand and remain exterior to these “SRA”s. The many other staff and public who have been subjected to them, may not have been as fortunate.
As a C/S and SNR C/S, I frequently repaired cases that had been messed up by “SRA”s; the usual tool being an L4B and an LIC, though sometimes the “SRA” incident was so severe that it was necessary to run the incident out dianetically. (This is the repair that I recommend to other auditors and C/Ses who encounter cases who have had “SRA”s.)
The notorious “Mission Holder Conference” of October 1982 in San Francisco was an attempted mass “SRA”.
Prior to the practice of “SRA”s becoming widespread, there had been a non-standard checksheet and drills issued, called the “Ethics Specialist” course. Students on this course were trained and drilled into evaluating, invalidating and “why finding” during “Ethics Interviews”. I later cancelled this checksheet and course when I discovered this, brought to my attention by cases messed up by these actions.
I wrote HCOB 30 Oct. 81 “C/SING FOR THE PC”, in an effort to prevent such actions from recurring and to get auditors and C/Ses who had been influenced by such out tech back onto the original purpose for auditing: the benefitting of the pc.
A new piece of “tech” that came into use over the last two years in the Church is called “Roll Back”. “Roll Back” is a method of attempting to change a person’s ideas or opinions where these disagree with those of the current management of the Church. Such a person is said to be “disaffected”. An unacceptable idea that the person has expressed (e.g. “the prices are too high”), is taken up on a meter and an effort is made to trace this idea back to someone else who expressed it to that person. The idea being to convince the person that it was not his/her own idea but that he/she was “influenced” by someone else. “Roll Back” is an attempt to change a person’s opinion for the benefit of the organization and as such, violates one of the basics of Tech.
Sometimes the person is asked for overts or evil purposes in an effort to explain away his/her disagreements with management or the organization.
After my removal as SNR C/S INTERNATIONAL, that HCOB (30 Oct. 81 “C/SING FOR THE PC”), was cancelled and the predictable, obligatory derogatory statements were made to the effect that I was “anti-ethics”. I was not “anti-ethics”. I was against the misuse and abuse of Ethics and Technical actions in violation of the basics of the Tech!
With the massive SP declares over the past 2 years, re-introduction of DISCONNECTION, the FAIR GAME LAAW, Denial of The Bridge for Eternity, I thought it would be appropriate to take a look at the subject of SPs and PTS-ness.
Some have expressed the idea that Scientologists generally are in a PTS condition. Certainly it is true that they have had a “can’t have” run on them as regards the tech and the bridge. Many have been reduced to financial ruin through imprudent loans and by over-extending themselves financially.
They have been threatened with “loss of their eternity”, threatened with loss of their friends and family, financial loss, loss of the confidentiality of their pc folders/confidences, loss of their self-determinism, loss of their right to be. There seems to be no limit to the threats imposed upon Church members, during these recent troubled years.
Auditing and training raise self-determinism. When management and the organizations of the Church seek to reduce self determinizm, the explosion which follows is inevitable.
It is unfortunate that, in the viewpoint of today’s Church, auditing is no longer for the benefit of the pc, but is done for the benefit of the organization. Auditors and C/Ses in the orgs are being trained not to audit for the pc but to sec check or “Roll Back” for the “benefit of the 3rd dynamic”.
(Also, note that “the third dynamic” is a generality. How could auditing be done “for the benefit of the third dynamic”?)
This amounts to a PTS condition; the individual being suppressed by the Church.
One of the main techniques developed to handle PTSness is the S & D (Search and Discovery). When correctly used these often gave a spectacular resurgence from PTS-ness. But we do not often hear of S & Ds being used today. Are they becoming a lost Tech? If so, why?
Technically an S & D is a Listing and Nulling apply. One of the fundamentals of Listing and Nulling is that the right item will BD, FN and produce VGIs on the pc. Conversely, denying the pc his item (the right item) will result in considerable by-passed charge. One of the “rules” introduced into the subject of S & Ds was that it was NOT OK to find, as the item on an S & D, any Scientology organization, any Scientologist in good standing or any of the executives or principals of Scientology. Whether that “rule” had any validity or not at the time when it was first introduced, it is not a technical rule but an administrative or political rule and it certainly is not valid today. Much has changed over the years since the “rule” was introduced in the 60s. It is a false datum and could prevent a pc from getting the right item on an S & D. PCs who have had S & Ds in the past may well have had the right item denied them and auditors and C/Ses are altered to this so that they can repair this situation where it has occurred.
By discarding the above false datum, auditors and C/Ses may well find that newly done S & Ds become just as spectacular again as they were originally and are urged to correctly use S & Ds to handle PTS conditions.
What I have said here is stated in the interests of the purity of the Tech and pc results.
ON THE NEW GRADE CHART
It was not all dianetic auditing which was placed after Grade IV, just NED auditing. A common mistake has been to think that no dianetic auditing could be done before grades, or to think that NED replaced dianetics, which it didn’t! Many people still in the Church have these misunderstoods and it shows in the bulletins.
1) Re Out Int: The confusion mentioned above was entered into the INT HCOBs. Before a pc has been run on NED, he would have INT handled either by dianetic running of Int Rundown or by recall (E of E Int RD).
2) Re R3SC: As the pc has not yet had any NED, the Ser Fac should be run by RsRA if it is still charged after the R3SC brackets, not by NED (as the pc has not yet had any NED).
3) Re Grade Chart: The correct sequence is: dianetic auditing (either Book One or R3RA), then grades, then NED.
You also might be interested to know that here at the AAC, we are also running Ability V and VA (Power), Ability VI (R6EW) and Ability VII (Clearing Course) where it is appropriate and getting very good results. (This is noted here as some confusions and false data were entered during the “dianetic clear” and new grade chart periods. In subsequent articles, other technical points will be taken up.)
I hope this helps. It may require some training/false data stripping and restudy of basics to fully straighten out these subjects. If you can do this yourself, great! If not, please remember that the AAC was created to ensure that the integrity of our technology is maintained. And that simply means that we are here, above all, for you.
Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 5
Special thanks to Candy Swanson for providing a copy of AAC journal.
Written by Jesse Prince in 1998:
“In 1985, when I was Deputy Inspector General for External Affairs for the Religious Technology Center (RTC), I hired Earle Cooley to represent RTC in a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit against David Mayo’s Advance Ability Center (AAC), a Scientology splinter group, as lead counsel. This decision was not made by the board of directors of RTC. This decision was made by a trustee of RTC who is also the managing agent of the entire Scientology empire, David Miscavige. At the time I was on the board of directors of RTC.
“The key piece of evidence provided in the RTC RICO case for a preliminary injunction against the aforementioned Scientology splinter group (AAC, David Mayo) was a newly authored rendition of one of Scientology’s most sacred (only to them) scriptures, NOTs.
“David Mayo was principle in the authorship of the NOT’s materials as practiced in Scientology today, but surrendered his rights to authorship, or more correctly stated, his co-authorship with LRH. After Mayo was expelled from Scientology he authored another version of NOTs for his own movement, and market share of dissident Scientologists from which he found success, much to the dismay of Scientology. Believe it or not, the point of David’s rights to authorship never gained recognition in the RICO case because Mayo’s lawyers never argued the point. I wonder if Mayo had a lawyer hired by Scientology to represent him? Every NOTs issue bore the initials DM, which stands for David Mayo, not David Miscavige.
“So deep was the deception in this case, that in his own defense Mayo never questioned how Scientology ever obtained a copy of his newly authored NOTs issues being used against him in a court of law. The fact of the matter is that RTC paid and hired an informant to steal these materials from under
“During September 1982, through spring of 1987, I attended biweekly meetings at Author Services, Inc. (ASI), which at the time was located in the 6700 block of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA.
From late 1982 until the spring of 1983 I held an executive position in the Religious Technology Center (RTC) titled Inspector General Cramming Officer. During the spring of 1983 I was promoted to Inspector General External and Treasurer on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. There were two other board members; Vicki Aznaran, Inspector General and President, and Warren Mc Shane, executive over legal matters concerning RTC, was a member. David Micavage, Norman Starkey and Lyman Spurlock were the trustees of RTC. It was during this time that I learned the true nature of Scientology management and how it ran its affairs.
The meetings I attended at ASI were always called and run by David Miscavige. It was here that I learned that David Miscavige was a managing agent of the various Scientology corporations, including but not limited to ASI, RTC and Church of Scientology International (CSI). Each senior executive of RTC, CSI and ASI met once or twice a week to give a report concerning each of the above corporations. This in fact was the inner circle of Scientology’s elite and as a result of my position I was involved in and received communications concerning Scientology’s most secret operations.
During my time as an executive and senior executive in RTC, David Miscavige was the decision maker concerning all legal suits filed by any of Scientology’s corporations. Miscavige had complete authority concerning all litigation within Scientology, and he made the final decisions as to how each case would be litigated as well as which lawyers would be used in each and every case. Miscavige had two Scientology staff, Marty Rathbun and Lyman Spurlock, who assisted in Scientology litigation matters, but Miscavige always made the final decisions. CSI majorly operated on orders from LRH, which were called advices to avoid legal problems for himself and Scientology, since he supposedly had not managed any of the corporations of Scientology since 1966, when he had officially resigned as Executive Director.
“From 1982 through 1986, LRH would use a dictaphone to dictate his orders to the various Scientology corporations. The tapes from the dictation would be delivered by LRH’s top aides Pat or Annie Broeker to the Scientology location at Gilman Hot Springs. At this location a special unit, headed by a staff member named Susie Bennick, would transcribe the tapes and issue hard copy dispatches to various executives and staff of ASI, RTC, CSI, CST and CSC. Often, these dispatches had certain time deadlines for compliance as mandated by LRH. I’ve seen as many as 150 orders dictated by LRH in one run. Often the staff who had orders issued to them were not allowed to sleep until they complied to the LRH order issued to them. David Miscavige oversaw the transcribing operation and enforced compliance to LRH orders by staff in all Scientology corporations.
Scientology Legal Procedures
During my tenure as an executive and senior executive in RTC, I was taught how to aggressively go about destroying an enemy or critic of Scientology. Enemies and critics of Scientology are considered to be suppressive persons or groups. In Scientology the suppressive element is basically dealt with in the same way: investigation, black operations, black propaganda and frivolous litigation. Scientology believes anyone labeled a suppressive is “fair game” and can be cheated, tricked, lied to and even physically harmed in order to “save” Scientology as mandated in policy by L Ron Hubbard. The following are specific instances I have either been a party to or observed being done to persons labeled “suppressive.”
David Mayo was once one of the top senior executives in Scientology. He worked directly with LRH on technical policies, he was LRH’s auditor, and even authored the “Ned for OTs” series when it was first issued. By the time I arrived in September 1982 at the secret management base located in Hemet, CA, David Mayo had fallen from grace. Upon my promotion to this secret location, the first duty I had was to security check (interrogate) Mayo endlessly. LRH had the idea that Mayo had been bought off by Scientology mission holders and was either a dupe or a plant. At this time Scientology was once again getting rid of its criminals. The executives of all management organizations had been removed and brought to Hemet to receive severe Scientology justice and ethics. Mayo was part of a group of 11 management executives being given a comm eve that went on for 3 months. Nearly all 11were eventually labeled suppressive persons and left Scientology.
Once David Mayo was off staff he decided to start his own church, the Advanced Ability Center (AAC), that was an alternative to Scientology and used many of the same techniques used by LRH. At this point David became the target for “fair game.” DM became infuriated and ordered Mayo’s new group to be destroyed using all means possible.
Bob Mithoff, brother of Senior C/S Int Ray Mithoff, was placed by RTC in David Mayo’s new church as a plant to obtain financial and critical legal information to forward a planned attack on his group. Week after week Bob Mithoff provided financial information to RTC concerning Mayo’s new group. The fact of the matter is Mayo had drawn a good amount of people who were ex-Scientologists to his new church and was making $20,000 to $30,000 gross income every week. This was better than most Scientology Class 4 organizations. Mithoff stole a copy of the AAC’s mailing list and provided it to RTC. Within four months of its inception, AAC had a standard newsletter it mailed to its adherents.
With the stolen mailing list RTC operative Gary Klinger designed a similar newsletter that contained disparaging information concerning AAC to the same mailing list. This list was used by RTC to contact members of the AAC for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.
Mithoff also stole a copy of the NOTs materials that David Mayo had rewritten, and he provided it to RTC. At one point before her “suicide” Flo Barnett, David Miscavige’s mother-in-law, became a member of the AAC. More black operatives were sent into the AAC by RTC. Black operations included renting the office above Mayo’s AAC to electronically bug him. At one point private investigator Gene Ingram was hired to pose as an investigative reporter and Mayo was duped into believing he was participating in a TV program to promote his new group. Through Mithoff, it was learned that David Mayo planned to travel abroad to Europe. Through investigator Gene Igram, it was arranged to have Mayo stopped at customs as a suspected drug dealer, which did happen, and he was detained for hours based on false information by European customs officials. Gene Ingram received his instructions on these matters from Gary Klinger, an executive in RTC.
Ingram’s fee was paid by CSI through the office of John Peterson, who was retained as in-house counsel by CSC. As a note, John Peterson was not fully aware of why his office paid private investigator expenses to Bob Mithoff.
Prior to Mayo writing his own version of the NOTs materials it was learned through Mithoff that several other ex-Scientologists had copied and were planning to use Scientology HCO P/Ls and HCOBs. A former mission holder, Sarge Gerbode, had an ongoing project to copy via computer all HCOPLs and HCOBs and sell them to Mayo or trade them for Scientology OT materials. Through Mithoff we learned that Mayo and Gerbode had come to an agreement and Mayo’s new group was in fact more computerized than most Scientology facilities.
As part of the weekly ASI meetings, Vicki and I were confronted by David Miscavige concerning what we planned to do to put an end to Mayo and the AAC. The first option we suggested was to bring a copyright suit against the AAC. David Miscavige called in LRH Personal Secretary Pat Brice to get a briefing on the status of current church copyright filings. He was sorely disappointed when he found out that no one in the entirety of Scientology was responsible for copyright filings since the Guardian’s Office had been reorganized by him. He decided at that time to give Pat a project to file for copyright protection ofall Scientology bulletins and policies. This is the reason most Scientology copyright filings have a date starting in 1983 forward. The best option for the church to sue Mayo was through trade secrets and trademarks. Then-RTC lawyer Joe Yanny recommended a RICO complaint be drawn up, as evidence existed that David Mayo had formed agreements with other Scientology dissidents to exchange Scientology materials to strengthen the alternative movement which David Mayo was the leader of.
While all of this was going on Mayo and the AAC were successful in getting a Temporary Restraining Order against RTC and CSI because of the constant harassment and plants sent in. The specific incident which resulted in the TRO was in fact when Gary Klinger posed as a Jewish rabbi and went to a barbecue the AAC had one weekend and created havoc at the party. There is no difference between the black operations executed by the “Old GO” and the then new RTC. Because of the very nature of Scientology it will never change. L Ron Hubbard himself issued the marching orders for Scientology to become a criminal organization and people are trained to lie from the moment they walk in the door and take a Scientology course.
“The RICO suit was filed against the AAC and black operations against it by RTC were at an all time high. There was a preliminary injunction hearing in the RICO case. The day before the hearing I was drilled by Earle Cooley and other church lawyers as to what I would say because I was an expert witness in this case. The fact of the matter is that I was drilled all day, all that night and up until the time I arrived in the courtroom as to what I would say as a witness. It’s funny how Sandy Rosen, Scientology’s replacement for Earle Cooley, asked me in my deposition in the FACTNet case in Denver several weeks ago if I had been coached at all by my lawyer before the deposition. He knows he works for criminals and that they are the ones who commit the crimes of which they accuse others.
RTC won its injunction against AAC, and Mayo was effectively shut down at that point.
Following is an excerpt from an article written by Jesse Prince on Jul 18, 2000
Hubbard Alters the OT Levels
A new NOTs course was issued, and a mad panic ensued to train auditors and case supervisors to deliver the new OT levels internationally. I was sent down to Flag to be one of the people that trained the auditors and case supervisors, and this was a very daunting task. David Mayo was the person who introduced NOTs to everyone, and he was traveling back and forth from Int (Gilman Hot Springs) to Flag (Clearwater) every month. He would instruct us to train the students to audit in a certain way, but then when he came back the next month to check on how everyone was doing, it would all change. Every time David came the “tech” changed, so what an auditor learned in March would change by April.
I had a lot of trouble training the NOTs auditors. Some auditors grumbled that Mayo was making up the NOTs tech as he went along. Others were upset because they thought Mayo had a hidden data line to LRH. In Scientology, a “hidden data line” means someone is getting info from LRH that isn’t written in a policy, bulletin or tape. In fact, as I would learn when I was promoted to RTC three years later, Mayo was making it up as he went along because he was the main author of the NOTs tech. It was also true that he had a hidden data line to LRH because Mayo had been auditing LRH on NOTs before anyone else knew anything about it. Mayo’s name was on every bulletin concerning NOTs, and rightly so, because he wrote the bulletins.
Later, in 1982, LRH got the idea that Mayo was sympathetic to the mission holders, who were trying to take over Scientology, or so LRH thought. So LRH ordered that Mayo be taken off post as Senior Case Supervisor International – Senior C/S Int, that is. He ordered him and all the Senior C/S Int staff onto the Running Program, had them all labeled security risks, and finally had them all declared Suppressive. (Mayo opened his own auditing center, known as the Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara after he was booted out by LRH. I was one of the people in charge of sending plants into the AAC to make sure it was totally destroyed, and we succeeded in destroying Mayo and his center.)
RTC brought a RICO suit against Mayo, because he had AAC centers all over the world and Mayo’s centers were making a lot more money than the Scientology orgs were. The RICO charges were based on the idea that Mayo had stolen the NOTs materials. Mayo’s defense was that he had been the primary author of the materials anyway. The suit went on and on, and it was becoming clear that Mayo was going to win the suit. So finally RTC offered Mayo a hefty settlement in return for keeping his mouth closed about being the main author of the NOTs materials. The last I heard of Mayo, he was driving a Ferrari.
[Related to David Mayo excerpt from the article by Jesse Prince: http://www.lermanet.com/jesseprince.htm]
UK PROJECT – THE PRESERVATION OF STANDARD TECH
ISSUE OF 17TH SEPTEMBER 1983
(compiled from an issue prepared by the Centre for Personal Enhancement, 15 Birdwood Road, Melville, Western Australia)
CREDIBILITY OF THE RTC
The credibility of the RTC across the world depends upon a number of beliefs being held. If these beliefs are not held, that credibility would disintegrate. Foremost among such beliefs are the following:
That the RTC represents Source
The RTC say that they are on-Source. However, if you read the transcript of the US Mission Holders’ Conference, San Francisco, 17th Oct 1982, SO ED 2104 INT, 7th Nov 1982 (and we strongly recommend that you do), you will find that LRH is barely mentioned. They place themselves as the source of an entirely new corporate structure:
- “…Prior to the end of 1981, a few of us got together and took a look at the corporate structure of the Church with the view in mind of making it more defensible and more regular and to make an overall improvement.” – WARRANT OFFICER LYMAN SPURLOCK (page 4).
They proceeded to totally invalidate the structure established earlier by LRH:
- “look like there’s a whole bunch of corporations dealing with each other and this whole spaghetti that somebody, someone comes in and takes a look at this and they go, “what the hell is this?” They couldn’t understand it.”
- “Just to show you how crazy it was,…”
- “Kind of a schizophrenic line-up.”
- “so, in late 1981 we took a look at this and said, this can’t go on; it’s not very defensible, it doesn’t make sense.”
- “…it was kind of loosey-goosey.”- WARRANT OFFICER LYMAN SPURLOCK (pages 4 – 6)
In fact, far from being on-Source, the RTC has attempted to invalidate Source, i.e. LRH.
That Ron has been fooled over a long period
According to the RTC scenario, Ron has been fooled for a period of many years by an alleged “bird dog” (ref: SO ED 2344 INT). This person is David Mayo who, during the 1970s, was selected by Ron to wear various Tech hats including those of auditor under LRH as – C/S, C/S under LRH, Senior C/S Flag, C/S for LRS’s auditing, auditor to LRH, Senior C/S International and assistant to LRH on technical research. This was a time of technical excellence and of great expansion for Scientology.
We believe that you will share our view that LRH possesses, amongst his many other abilities, an unparalleled perception, at a theta level, of other beings, and it is a total invalidation, indeed inconceivable and insulting, to depict LRH as being fooled for such a long time.
Does the alleged picture match up to your perception of Ron?
You be the judge.
That everything which is now issued over the name of LRH is actually written by him
The RTC claims ownership of the “Trademarks of Scientology” (SO ED 2104 INT). The trademarks include the name “L. Ron Hubbard”, the signature “L. Ron Hubbard”, and the initials “LRH”. Does this mean that they can use Ron’s name as they like? They are certainly exercising their power over the other trademarks to its fullest extent.
It has commonly occurred in the past that others have issued material in Ron’s name in his absence and without his knowledge. When he has returned on lines, such issues have been cancelled. What fate do you think will befall the current issues on David Mayo?
How do we identify a genuine issue?
We can only follow the advice of Ron himself and “Judge a person by his products”.
David Mayo was the senior spiritual technical person who L. Ron Hubbard initially entrusted to oversee the whole Scientology spiritual practice legacy in 1982, when the aging Hubbard realized he didn’t have many years left. Mayo’s title was the Senior Case Supervisor International. Mayo fell from grace just months after the April 1982 20 page despatch from Hubbard where Hubbard detailed to Mayo what Hubbard wanted. This talk discusses that 20 page despatch and other relavant events. This talk is one of several dozen talks recorded of David Mayo speaking in 1983 or 1984 at the center in Santa Barbara where David’s group of ex official Scientologists were based. Mayo’s Scientology splinter group probably formed the largest and most skilled schism group of ex official Scientologists in the history of the Scientology movement, and from these tapes of Mayo’s group’s informal weekly graduation ceremonies, it can be heard that his schism group’s offered services were almost the same services official Scientology delivers, with just different names. Mayo’s group operated within a milder atmosphere, minus the harsher atmosphere of official Scientology. Mayo’s Santa Barbara group was hit with suits and infiltration by official Scientologists and the Mayo group fell apart within a few years. But while it was operating, Mayo’s group constituded the largest schism group in the Scientology movement’s 60 or so years of history so far.
Thanks to Chuck Beatty, ex Scientology (Sea Org) staffer 1975-2003 providing this lecture to the website.
To read the whole post, click on it’s title (in blue) that will open the post in a new window.
- John Zegel – tape # 1, 1982 (0)January 27, 1982
- Ian Waxler, Class VIII – “I have nothing but the highest regards for David Mayo…” (0)June 11, 2012
- Mary Freeman, Class VIII – Now and 30 Years Ago (0)October 28, 2011
- Frankie Freeman, Class VIII – About David Mayo, C/S (1)March 28, 1984
Articles, Affidavits and Open Letters
- We did share some good times and adventures on a personal level… (0)April 1, 2013
- I was embarrassed that I had allowed my opinion of someone be so easily swayed… (8)February 2, 2013
- Mary Freeman – A little history (0)August 12, 2012
- Robin Scott – David Mayo is the prime target (1)August 4, 2012
- Kevin Mackey – I’d like to apologise to David Mayo… (3)August 1, 2012
- Mark A. Baker – “Mayo’s only interest was in helping others through the delivery of tech” (0)June 24, 2012
- Juanita Pyle – “HE CARED” (0)June 23, 2012
- Raymond J. Krenik, Jr. – It is my fervent wish that David Mayo will soon once again be free to communicate with us all… (0)June 19, 2012
- Mary McConnell – “He was driven by his desire to help” (0)June 17, 2012
- Ralph Hilton – “I must admit I was somewhat amazed…” (3)June 11, 2012
- Dan Koon – “It just can’t happen” (2)May 30, 2012
- Pat Krenik – “David Mayo” (0)May 30, 2012
- Robert Dam – Who stole NOTs (0)January 28, 2004
- Jesse Prince – “The following are specific instances I have either been a party to or observed…” (1)October 2, 1998
- FreeZone.Org – CREDIBILITY OF THE RTC (0)September 17, 1983
- FreeZone.Org – THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DAVID MAYO (0)September 15, 1983
- David Mayo – photo (4)January 22, 2013
- Forbes – website (1)August 15, 2012
- Santa Barbara Independent 23 January 1993 (0)January 23, 1993
- Sinking the Master Mariner (Sunday Times Magazine) (0)October 28, 1984