SFO DAY EO# 4983-1
ALL WUS ORG AND MISSION HCOs
PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS
ALL WUS ORG AND MISSIONs
Board of Investigation
Findings and Recommendations
The Board met as convened on the 8th. and 9th. of March at the San Francisco Org per SF0 Day Ethics Order 4983. We interviewed the following witnesses in Rey Robles presence:
(....), PS SRCO (Santa Rosa City Office), (....) OS SRCO, (....)(....) and (....) of the San Francisco field.
Due to the information contained in Rey's ethics folders, the Board investigated the following matters:
1.) Rey's claim to be permanently certified as a CL IV auditor and C/S and an interned MCSC when he could not produce any certification of this.
2.) The matter of Rey auditing and C/Sing New Era Dianetics in the field with expired certificates.
3.) The matter of Rey Robles receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology and working as a nurses aide in a psychiatric hospital for 6 months after becoming an auditor and an OT(R) IV in l976.
4.) The matter of monies owed to (....)and (....) as a result of a Chaplains Court decision in 1989, which Rey had refused to pay.
5.) The matter of Rey's conflict with (....), PS SRCO regarding his activities in the SRCO field as a consultant.
6.) The conflict between Rey Robles and (....) regarding their contract, delivering of services by Rey and billings by Rey to (....)
As a result of its investigation and interviews the Board finds the following:
1.) Regarding the matter of Rey's claim to have permanent certification as a CL IV auditor and C/S, Rey could not produce for the Board any of these certificates. Rey stated that he was never issued anything in writing by the San Diego Org or the Flag Missionaire who was at the Org at that time, permanently certifying him as a CL IV auditor and C/S. Rey did claim to the Board to have done his CL IV auditor internship, CL IV C/S course and internship and MSCS and internship at the San Diego Orq under a Flag Missionaire. Rey gave the name (....), former Qual W/Clearer San Diego Org in 1972 as a person who could help confirm Rey having done his internship there. This person was contacted by phone by the Board and he could not verify Rey's claims.
2.) It was established by the Board by actual folder inspection that in January 1990, Rey audited, C/Sed and acted as Qual in the field on NED actions with expired certificates. Rey justified this by saying that this was "student auditing", and a recovery cycle when in fact Rey audited major actions on NED and had the pc attest to entire NED Case Completion. It was established by the Board that Rey's claim to have done this auditing as student auditing was false as he was not currently enrolled on any NED course per HCO PL 8 JUNE, 1979RC Issue II STUDENT AUDITING. The Board verified that he completed his NED course at the Sacramento Org 6 December, l980, but has not done his NED internship nor updated his NED tech. This violates HCO PL 25 OCTOBER, 1976 "PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE EXPIRY".
3.) Rey admitted to the Board in an interview that he received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology from the Sonoma State College and that he subsequently worked as a nurse's aide, in a Psychiatric Hospital (Sonoma State Hospital) for 6 months. This is found to be in direct violation of LRH (TM) policy regarding enrollment in and working for Suppressive Groups. The specific reference is HCO PL 7 MARCH, 1965 Issue II CERTIFICATE CANCELLATION.
4.) The Board found that a valid Chaplains Court was completed in June 1989 regarding the matter between Rey Robles and (....). The matter was thoroughly examined at that time and a decision was rendered in writing on the matter. Rey has not abided by the decision of that Court and has failed to pay the money owed by him to (....). After making some initial payments Rey stated to the Board that he felt that the Chaplain was not qualified to do the cycle but did not bring this up during the Chaplains Court. Rey claims that he attempted to get recourse on this matter by talking to the E.D. and HAS of the SRCO. However, Rey did not put any request in writing and the Board finds that these were not the correct terminals for recourse per HCO PL 5 AUGUST 1966 Issue II CHAPLAINS COURT CIVIL HEARINGS. Per this policy failure to abide by a Court's findings may become an ethics matter.
5.) The Board finds per Rey's testimony at the B of I that he put a dispute between he and (....), PS SRCO on a public persons lines which enturbulated that person and resulted in that public person being ARC broken with SRCO and (....). This is active Third Partying of a staff member per HCO PL 23 DECEMBER, 1965RA SUPPRESSIVE ACTS #35... ENGAGING IN MALICIOUS RUMOR MONGERING TO DESTROY THE AUTHORITY OR REPUTE OF HIGHER OFFICERS OR THE LEADING NAMES OF SCIENTOLOGY OR TO "SAFEGUARD A POSITION".
6.) The Board has found by its investigation that there are mis-dupes and misunderstandings between Rey Robles and (....) regarding their contract and business agreements. However, the Board also found that Rey failed to fully wear his hat as a consultant to (....) and debug problems that arose in completing the program that Rey wrote for (....). A debug step was included by Rey on his program for this but was not fully done. This resulted in a non-optimum situation for (....) PR and Marketing to go unresolved. We find that Rey failed to deliver what was promised per the terms of their contract and Rey's program for (....) even though Rey claims explicitly that he did deliver what was promised.
The Board does hereby recommend the following:
1.) The Board recommends that a Committee of Evidence be convened on Rey Robles per the findings previously stated:
a.) It has been established by the Board and stated in the findings that there is definite cause for cancellation of Rey's certificates for his obtaining a degree in Psychology and employment by a Psychiatric Institution after obtaining Scientology Certificates.
b.) Having been established without doubt that Rey audited and C/Sed NED in the field with no valid Certificates.
c.) Having established that Rey failed to abide by the findings of a Chaplains Court in June 1989 and his failure to pay as ordered by the Court.
d.) Per the information in finding #5.
The Board has found also that the incidents of conflict and upset in the Santa Rosa area involving Rey Robles and other Scientologists have been preceded by similar occurrences with other Scientologists (TM) in the field and Missions in the Bay Area. Specifically, Monterey Mission, (....) ED/Mission Holder 1987, Concord Mission, (....) ED/Mission Holder 1988-89, San Francisco Mission, (....) OS, (....) Purif I/C 1987-88, Santa Rosa Mission, 1976.
2.) The Board recommends a Non-Enturbulation Order be issued on Rey Robles per HCO PL 1 JULY, 1965 ETHICS CHITS and that he limits his comm regarding the matters covered by this Board or any other current conflict.
The Board would also like to point out that there are commendation chits and Success Stories written by attendants of Rey's seminars and that Rey included, in his written evidence to the Board.
The Board would like to thank the witnesses and Rey Robles for their help and attendance.
The Findings and Recommendations are accepted in full. The Board is commended for a job well done
LRH Comm SF0 Day
LRH Comm SF0 Day for the Church of Scientology of San Francisco