Lurkers, etc. I am a SNCC graduate and this is my story.
Virginia McClaughry
the Church when you discover the degree to which squirreling is occuring. If
anyone is interested in all the supporting documents, please let me know.
FYI (This story was originally written in the third person, as a report, so
for simplicity I kept it that way)
Prelude-(important background data)
In 1982
The six-month check line for people on OT 7 is started.
A BFO written by RTRC I/C Int in 1996, says: “….in 1982 LRH was consulted
regarding a situation with SOLO NOTS auditors at the time, to which LRH
responded “ get them in, get them cleaned up, and keep them cleaned up”.
Thus, the six month check line was born……..”.
24 April 1983
LRH revises HCOB 8 March 1982 Confessionals And The Non Interference Zone.
In this he says:
“Because it has not been previously specified whether Confessionals could be
done during the Non-Interference Zone, it tended to leave the matter open to
interpretation, and a common interpretation has been that one must not do
any kind of Confessional or O/W pulling during the Non-Interference Zone.
But what about a case who is out-ethics and not making progress due to
continuous overts and withholds or, even worse, undisclosed overts or crimes
against Scientology? Such a case won’t make any progress until these are
gotten off.
A person who is NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise exhibiting O/Ws or out
ethics must be handled so that he can make case gains.
CAUTION
A pre-OT who is running well and making case gain should not be interrupted”
.
1983 to PT
In violation of this HCOB, SOLO NOTS auditors who are running well and
making case gain are interrupted by being given a sec check every six
months.
Omitted application of the “CAUTION” section of HCOB 8 March 1982
Confessionals And The Non-Interference Zone:
RTC terminals, Flag C/Ses and Auditors, SNR C/S INT
2 October 1983
-------------Note: I did not find out about this LRH revision (C/S Series
73RA) (that was altered with 7 pages deleted by RTRC) until after the
commev.
Virginia
LRH revises HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73, The No-Interference Area
Clarified and Re-Enforced. In this he says:
“SECTION III: THOSE PERSONS COMPLETED ON OT III AND/OR COMPLETED
ON ANY LEVEL ABOVE OT III:
A. CAN BE GIVEN, BETWEEN ANY OT LEVELS ABOVE OT III:
1. Auditing:
Any required PTS Handling that does not use Dianetics.
Prepared Lists, as applicable, with special instructions followed for
handlings on
Clears and OTs.
Purification Rundown.
Happiness Rundown
L10, L11, L12.
Confessionals.
The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes
or evil intentions.
False Purpose Rundown.
O/Ws.
Disagreement Checks.
Black PR handling.
Rudiments.
Method One Word Clearing.
--------------Note that it says above BETWEEN OT levels-not MID them.
1983 to PT
In violation of HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73RA, The No-Interference
Area Clarified and Re-Enforced, SOLO NOTS auditors are given a Confessional
every six months, while they are still on the level, rather than waiting
until they are between OT levels.
SOLO NOTS auditors who have not manifested “NCG, nattery, critical or
otherwise exhibiting O/Ws or out ethics”, and who are “running well and
making case gain” are given a sec check every six months.
Omitted application of HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73RA, The
No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced:
RTC execs and Flag tech terminals and SNR C/S Int
2 October 1983
LRH revises HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73, The No-Interference Area
Clarified and Re-Enforced. Another technical datum given in this HCOB is:
“NOTE: The services listed above which may be given between one completed
OT level above OT III and the next must only be given by persons qualified
to audit, C/S or supervise these actions and who (if the service calls for
any case handling type of action) are of the same or higher case level”.
1983 to PT
In violation of HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73, The No-Interference
Area Clarified and Re-Enforced, most of the C/Ses and auditors and D of Ps
and MAAs who handle the cases of SOLO NOTS Pre-OTs, are not themselves on OT
7.
Note:-----NOT ONE MAA AT FLAG IS ON OT 7, let alone finished it. A large
percentage of the auditors who audited us (solo nots guys), were also NOT on
OT7. Virginia
Omitted application of HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73:
RTC execs, Flag tech terminals and SNR C/S INT
2 August 1990
note:--------the issues says revision assisted by RTRC, which is NOT part of
RTC, it is part of the Senior C/S Int's office, which is part of CSI.
However, RTC is certain to have ordered, and approved of the revision.
Virginia
Somebody changes LRH HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73, The
No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced. They issue a non-LRH
revision called HCOB 23 December 1973RB. Their revision changes things LRH
said in his issue, plus it omits things he said and is seven pages shorter
than the LRH HCOB.
----Note: as an obvious example of the butchering of 73RA, here is a fair
use quote from 73RA, which if you check your current tech vol version
(73RB), you will see that this part at the end of the original bulletin, has
been completely deleted. Virginia
"Realize that from Clear on NEd through OT III and for those in progress on
New OT IV (OT Drug RD), New OT V (Audited NOTs) or in progress on a higher
OT level, you have a closed band for other major actions. the only
exceptions are those few given on the lists herein. And in the future, as
new technical breakthroughs are made and new auditing rundowns are released,
these lists will be updated to show at which points such RDs can and cannot
be safely delivered......
Due to the tremendous number of technical advances which have been made in
the past decade, and the nature of these advances, maintaining the
No-Interference Area rules to ensure that pcs move rapidly up the Bridge
becomes the responsibility of every org, every mission, every unit and every
individual Scientologist on this planet.
It is not only a responsibility.
It is a trust.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
Copyright 1971,1983,1985 L. Ron Hubbard
Note copyright is by LRH,
NOT LRH library, CST, etc. etc.
1994
Virginia McClaughry has been auditing on SOLO NOTS since February 1990. She
went to Flag for a six months check every six months. By independent home
study of LRH materials on the subject of auditing, her ability to audit
improved markedly. She started doing really well on the level and then a
phenomenon started, where the six-month checks started to act like an
interruption.
June 1996
Someone revises and changes a confidential LRH HCOB and 75% of it is in
script. The subject is how to audit FPRD on OT 5 and above. A change is made
in how six months sec checks are being done on OT 7s because of this. The
special handling LRH gave for OT III and above is not now done on the
handling of O/Ws. Also, they started running the sec checks FPRD style from
this time on.
These changes start causing BPC on at least some OT 7s receiving sec checks,
thereafter.
There is a Caution section of the HCOB that is being violated.
September 1997
Virginia McClaughry is getting a six months sec check at Flag. Something was
different about the sec check. It was grueling, drawn out, engramic and
caused BPC. She wrote to her SOLO NOTS C/S and said something is very wrong.
She said that it should not be the case that she is running along fine on
the level at home and then when she comes to Flag her case gets messed up.
LRH wrote an HCOB giving a special handling for OT 3 and above. Someone
revised it and the special handling was no longer being done on Confessional
questions. This was unknown to Virginia at the time, but it was this change
that was messing up the case and causing BPC.
Incorrectly included squirrel special handling of OT IIIs and above:
Whoever changed the issue.
September 1997
Virginia McClaughry is coaching other students in the course room. She
needed a reference for one of the drills and went and got the needed tech
volume. The book fell open to the first page of C/S Series 73RB. She glanced
at it without really reading it.
The next day, she had to go to the tech volume again, and the book again
fell open to C/S Series 73RB but this time to the section on OT levels
following the completion of OT3.
Virginia read Section B and the first line of the Exception Section, said
“holy shit” and closed the book. She could not confront what she had just
read. Three days later, she’s in the course room and the book fell open to
C/S Series 73RB again and this time she read it fully.
She then brought it up in session and asked the auditor what reference was
being operated on regarding sec checking her in the middle of an OT level.
Virginia said she could not find a reference that said to do that, and in
fact had found one that said not to.
Despite repeated TR3 to the C/S to answer, it took a week before she was
given a D of P interview in which she was shown HCOP/L Eligibility For OT
Levels, last para, 1st page. This was verbally interpreted by the D of P
that LRH was saying she had to do this every six months because she was
returning to Flag every six months.
Virginia said the issue does not say anything close to that. The D of P then
threatened to send Virginia to Ethics. So, even though she didn’t believe
it, she dropped it. When routing through the MAA office after completing her
six months check, MAA Alfonso asked if she ever got her questioned handled
regarding the legality of six-month sec checks and she said no, the
reference I was shown didn’t say anything like that.
So, he gave her the reference HCOP/L 9 March 1982RB Eligibility For OT
Levels. Again, Virginia said that doesn’t say that I need to get sec checked
every six months, nor does it say that a person’s eligibility is only good
for six months. Alfonso responded with hostility, “well we can always handle
that here in Ethics”, implying that she would lose her eligibility if she
persisted on this.
Although Virginia disagreed that the six-month checks are a standard line,
she backed down out of fear of losing her eligibility. She non-confronted
this for another year.
False interpretation of HCOP/L Eligibility For OT Levels:
Incorrectly included extortion to accept the misinterpretation or lose
Eligibility:
MAA Alfonso, Flag tech terminals handling OT 7s
NOTE: HCOP/L 9 March 1982RB Eligibility For OT Levels says:
“Those returning to an AO or the FSO for further OT levels after an absence
also receive an OT Eligibility Check and once this is passed a new
eligibility chit is issued (signed and dated as before, by the C/S, minister
and MAA)”.
Their interpretation is incorrect. The way they are in interpreting it, you
could go to lunch, come back, and need a new eligibility, because of an
absence. Absence from what? They take it to mean Flag. Flunk. The subject is
the OT levels. LRH means an absence from the OT levels, not Flag. And,
someone continuing to audit along on the OT level he is on, even while away
from Flag, is not absent from the OT levels. The fact of him being away from
Flag for awhile has nothing to do with it and does not require a new
eligibility to be done.
Also, they have a misunderstood on the word “further”. They look it up as an
adverb and then get the idea that it means “more of the same”. Flunk. It is
an adjective in that sentence and the adjective definition says “additional”
. And looking up “additional” that means “ additional things are extra
things apart from the ones already present”.
So, if we supplant the word OT levels for the word “things” in the
definition, it reads:
Futher OT levels are extra OT levels apart from the OT level already
present. And that is the correct concept for “further OT levels” in the
above reference.
So, if a Pre-OT finished an OT level, and did not go straight on to his next
one, he would require a new eligibility when he returns for further
(additional) OT levels after an absence (from the OT levels). Someone going
along on the same OT level or going straight onto his next OT level after
finishing the one he is on, does not need a new eligibility. That is what
the P/L says and means.
What is happening here is that RTC/Flag are violating LRH HCOBs on how to
audit the SOLO NOTS case. Instead of admitting the truth, they are looking
for a justifier! This causes them to misinterpret other LRH issues, in an
effort to justify their out tech. Well, it doesn’t work because the other
LRH issues do not align with what they are doing because what they are doing
is out tech.
False interpretations of other LRH issues to justify out tech on SOLO NOTS:
RTC terminals, Flag terminals in both tech and admin
September 1998
Virginia McClaughry is back at Flag for another six months check. In the
middle of her six-month sec check, she realised the magnitude of the overt
that she had committed by backing down on the application of HCOB C/S Series
73RB. It was out KSW and out integrity for her to do so. The auditor then
ran the overt to full EP, including FPRD. Virginia had a major win on this
of regaining her integrity.
After the session she assigned herself a condition of Liability. She wrote
up her Liability formula, stating the amends was that she was going to
ensure the application of HCOB C/S Series 73RB to all SOLO NOTS auditors and
get the out tech corrected. She routed it to her pc folder.
She then refused to continue the six months sec-check as it was a violation
of LRH HCOB C/S Series 73RB to have ever started it in the first place. She
had not fit the criteria listed in the HCOB as being in need of a sec check,
therefore there was no need to interrupt her progress on the level. And also
as evidenced by her SOLO NOTS C/S statement on her arrival that she was
moving along well on the level.
She then wrote a comm to the HGC C/S that per HCOB C/S Series 73RB, she
should just do her cram, get her materials and go home. And, that she would
not return until she was stalled or moving slowly or in need of a cram. She
said if this HCOB was not going to applied that she was not going back on
the level because it was out tech.
September 1998
The C/S ignored her repeated TR3s on this subject, and in violation of HCOB
18 June 1990 PCs Who Refuse Auditing, the HGC kept trying to get Virginia to
finish the sec check. Four times a correction list was done with the BPC
being that the sec check was an unnecessary action, ending in F/N and VGIs.
And yet, the C/S ignored it and ordered more sec checking.
Finally, the C/S ordered the D of P to show Virgnia HCOP/L Eligibility For
OT Levels as the reference that is being used as the basis of the six months
sec checks.
Virginia told the D of P, this reference does not say what you are trying to
say it says. The D of P specifically points out, last paragraph, 1st page
with heavy emphasis on the after an absence part of the paragraph. Virginia
says flunk to the D of P, you have an MU on what the word further means in
that sentence. She then told the D of P to write this down verbatim for the
C/S. “If he did not produce a reference that changes HCOB C/S Series 73RB,
or an LRH HCOB or HCOPL that specifically states that she has to get sec
checked and re-eligibility every six months, that she was leaving because
Flag is off source. And I will take this up lines”.
Omitted application of HCOB 18 June 1990 PCs Who Refuse Auditing:
Omitted application of HCOB C/S Series 73RB:
Omitted application of the “CAUTION” section of HCOB 8 March 1982
Confessionals And The Non-Interference Zone:
False interpretations of other LRH issues to justify out tech on SOLO NOTS:
Omitted application of HCOPL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
Flag C/S Dusty Rhodes
September 1998
At 10PM that night the D of P calls Virginia in for a D of P interview. When
she goes in she is body routed to the MAA office. The MAA Cosima, D of P
Karen Hill, and her auditor, Christina Tidu are all there. Virginia was
shown various references on sec checking, none of which were in disagreement
with HCOB C/S Series 73RB, when duplicated as written, instead of trying to
make an off-source line agree with LRH.
Cosima, Chieff MAA Sandcastle,made justifications as to how out ethics
everybody is on SOLO NOTS. She said they lie on their worksheets, and they
do stuff which she couldn’t even dream up at night. Virginia said, well why
are they on the level then? Why don’t you take their eligibility and give
them a program? Virginia said why are you inspecting-before-the-fact the
rest of us based on what someone else is doing? That’s off policy.
The auditor produced a pack of BFO’s, an inch or so thick, covering the SOLO
NOTS administration line. She showed Virginia the page that covers the
history of the six-month check line. Virginia immediately turned to the back
of the reference to see if LRH wrote it. It was written by RTRC I/C Int.
(This post is part of Senior C/S Ints office.) So, Virginia said, this is
not LRH so I do not have to follow it.
Christina said read this part. This part said that:
“….in 1982 LRH was consulted regarding a situation with SOLO NOTS auditors
at the time, to which LRH responded “ get them in, get them cleaned up, and
keep them cleaned up”. Thus, the six month check line was born……..”.
Virginia then told Cosima the following: that’s an LRH advice to a specific
situation at that time and that there are two HCOP/Ls that apply to this.
One, HCOP/L Orders Vs Arbitraries says that taking an LRH advice and
applying it across the boards is exactly what LRH does not want done. Two,
per HCOP/L Seniority Of Orders, an advice does not take priority over an
HCOB, and a BFO does not take priority over an HCOB, such as C/S Series
73RB.
Virginia additional note:-A BFO is a Base Flag Order. LRH's ADVICE (key
term here), was for THOSE SOLO NOTS AUDITORS AT THAT TIME "Get them in, get
them cleaned up, and keep them cleaned up"
Notice that this advice DOES NOT violate either HCOB Confessionals and the
Non-Interference Zone, or HCOb C/S Series 73 RA or RB. WHY? Because
obviously the above mentioned solo nots auditors were not progressing,
moving well, were stalled, etc. etc. He applied his own HCOB's perfectly in
the proposed problem to him.
The entire current 6 month check line is formed off of this onetime "advice"
by LRH.
-----------
At this point, the terminals stopped trying to prove to Virginia, with
non-LRH references and incorrectly interpreted HCOP/Ls, that the six months
check line was a “standard line”. Cosima then pointed Virginia’s attention
to HCOP/L Advanced Course Rules and Regulations, the rule on not leaving
town without C/S ok. Virginia said ok, that’s LRH, but how am I going to get
C/S ok when the C/S won’t follow LRH on this? The auditor said “we will
handle that”. So, Virginia stayed.
NOTE:
What has happened here is that people who do not qualify to be given an
“Eligibility for OT Levels” chit, per HCOP/L 12 August 1971 OT Courses, have
been given one. And, instead of pulling their chit and giving them a
program, per HCOP/L 9 March 1982RB Eligibility For OT Levels, the unusual
solution of sec checking everyone every six months is being done. This
unusual solution is a violation of how LRH says to audit the SOLO NOTS case,
in HCOB C/S Series 73.
Instead of applying HCOP/L 13 January 1979 Orders, Illegal And Cross and
HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working, all concerned take the
path of least resistance and accept the off-policy and out-tech solution of
sec checking everyone on OT 7 every six months.
Omitted application of:
HCOP/L 12 August 1971 OT Courses
HCOP/L 9 March 1982RB Eligibility For OT Levels
HCOB 23 December 1971RA C/S Series 73RA
HCOP/L 22 May 1969 Orders Vs Arbitraries
HCOP/L 9 August 1972 Seniority Of Orders
HCOP/L 13 January 1979 Orders, Illegal And Cross
HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
RTC terminals, Flag C/Ses and auditors who handle OT 7s, Flag MAAs, Flag D
of Ps,
SNR C/S INT, RTRC I/C INT
September 1998
The next day, Virginia goes in session with Christina, and the C/S is for
more sec checking, albeit not the usual six month check form. Virginia
refused it.
That night Virginia went to Greg and Debra Barnes house. Virginia knew that
Debra had BPC over being sec checked every six months and was off the level
and would not go back to Flag. Virginia, without saying anything about her
cycle, had Debra read C/S Series 73RB. Debra line charged for over an hour,
with the later result of routing into Flag and she got her BPC from out-tech
sec checks, handled.
Most of Debra’s BPC on sec checks was from not applying the special handling
given in an LRH HCOB for OT IIIs and above. (See the June 1996 entry of this
time track, where someone changed this procedure and they stopped doing it.)
After the BPC was handled, Debra said, “you will never do that to me again”,
meaning give her a sec check that omits that key piece of tech.
NOTE:
To this day, the squirreling of this key piece of tech is still being done
on OT 7s.
September 1998
A few days later, Virginia sends a comm to Senior C/S Flag to ask for his
help. While waiting for an answer she studies every reference she can find
on sec checking, eligibility, security, etc. He sends Virginia to cramming,
which gave Virginia the idea he was going to let her do her cram and go home
with her materials, as she requested. She finished the cram and asked for
her materials back.
D of P, Barbara Nelson, calls Virginia and says there is an R-factor from
the Deputy Senior C/S, Calla Reese. The R-factor is that no one anywhere is
going to agree with Virginia. So, Virginia said she is leaving then because
of no intention to follow HCOB C/S Series 73RB.
Virginia then has Barbara read HCOB C/S Series 73RB. Virginia says sec
checking an OT who does not meet the criteria laid out in the HCOB is out
tech. Barbara then says its an ethics matter and you’ll lose you’re
eligibility if you persist on this line. So, Virginia said fine, you do what
you’re going to do and I’ll do what I’m going to do.
Barbara then says what are you going to do? Virginia says take this up with
COB. Barbara says what makes you think he is going to do anything about it?
He’s the one who implemented it.
NOTE: There is a film “Golden Age of Tech For OTs” wherein David Miscavige
says that the six month check line is a standard line. (He is not LRH.
Neither he nor anyone else decides what is standard tech, only LRH HCOBs can
determine that.)
Omitted application of:
HCOB 18 June 1990 PCs Who Refuse Auditing
HCOB 23 December 1971RA C/S Series 73RA
The “CAUTION” section of HCOB 8 March 1982 Confessionals And The
Non-Interference Zone:
SNR C/S Flag and Deputy SNR C/S Flag, D of P Barbara Nelson
Omitted application of HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
All tech terminals at Flag who handle the cases of OT 7s
Wrong Source:
David Miscavige and all terminals in RTC/Flag that accept any of his illegal
orders that violate LRH HCOP/Ls and HCOBs
October 3, 1998
That night, Virginia McClaughry and Bill Rhodes are over at Greg and Debra
Barnes house when 10 Sea Org members show up. Greg was told that Virginia
was mid an HCO sec check and was blowing a reading question. The part about
blowing a reading question was a lie and Greg knew it. This was the
beginning of a black PR campaign against Virginia.
Virginia went in a room with D of P, Barbara Nelson, Chief MAA, Cosima and
auditor Christina Tidu. Cosima issued threats to Virginia and Virginia holds
her position. Cosima says that Virginia is blowing a reading question and
Virginia says to her auditor that is a lie and you know it. The auditor
agrees it’s a lie.
Virginia shows the auditor HCOB PCs Who Refuse Auditing and the auditor says
well we certainly have not been doing this correctly. Virginia was told that
Snr C/S Richard Reese understands Virginia’s point on eligibility and would
Virginia wait for him to return from Los Angeles so that he can handle the
cycle personally. So, Virginia agrees but says she is still taking this up
with RTC tomorrow.
Falsehood about Virginia blowing a reading question:
D of P Barbara Nelson and MAA Cosima
-18-
October 4, 1998
D of P Barbara Nelson writes a KR after the meeting on October 3, 1998.
She says that Virginia McClaughry and Greg and Debra Barnes disagree with
sec checking mid-Solo NOTS. She says they were not at all interested at
looking at other references on the value of sec checking.
Virginia and Greg and Debra find out about this KR later. They correct the
false data and ask for a withdrawal and Barbara withdraws it. The correct
data is that no one disagreed with sec checking, the statement was that HCOB
C/S Series 73 was not being applied.
Also, no one ever said they were not interested in seeing other references
on sec checking, on the contrary, Barbara was told that they did want to see
the other references she was talking about.
Falsehood that Greg, Debra and Virginia opposed sec checking.
Falsehood that Greg, Debra and Virginia were not interested in seeing other
references:
D of P Barbara Nelson
October 1998
The next day, Virginia gets a hostile call from MAA April Buchanan and she
says Virginia has to come in and handle her ethics situation right away.
Unknown to Virginia was that April had a KR written by D of P Barbara
Nelson, which contained false data that Virginia was advocating no sec
checking and that Virginia said that sec checking was out tech. (Barbara
later admits her report is false and withdraws it.)
Falsehood that Virginia said that sec checking was out tech.
Flag D of P, Barbara Nelson
October 1998
Virginia wrote up on what had happened on this cycle and took it to Marina
Pezzotti, RTC Rep Sandcastle. She had already arranged a session for
Virginia because she had been sent a copy of Barbara Nelson’s report.
Virginia goes in session with Senior Qual Sec Checker, Art Webb, and gets M2
on:
HCOP/L HCO Confessionals
HCOB Confessional Tech Policies
HCOP/L Eligibility For OT Levels
HCOB Processes Allowed
HCOP/L OT Courses
HCOB Confessionals And The Non-Interference Zone
No misunderstood words are found.
When reading HCOB Confessionals And The Non Interference Zone, Virginia says
“oh look, here’s another HCOB where LRH says the same thing as HCOB C/S
Series 73RB”. It says, “A pre-OT who is running well and making case gain
should not be interrupted.” The auditors TRs went out and he ended it with
him saying he needed to go get more references.
A few more references were M2 word cleared on Virginia by Christina Tidu.
None of the references changed what LRH says in HCOB C/S Series 73 and
Virginia said so. So, SNR C/S Flag sent her to Qual to do a cramming cycle
on the subject of the 6-month checks.
Qual Cramming Officer Nancy Martin goes over all of the references related
to six-month checks with Virginia, checked her understanding of them and
said it was good.
She checked to see if Virginia had looked at all sides, such as why they
would be doing it, what problem their solving, etc. Virginia responded and
she said “Wow, it looks like you have been very thorough in looking at all
angles of this”.
Virginia said ‘look, this is an LRH HCOB, why can’t we apply it”. The
Cramming Officer said “RTC licenses us and you for only six months at a time
for the use of the materials. So, we can’t change that, you’ll have to take
it up with RTC”.
Virginia realizes that they have no intention of applying HCOB C/S Series
73RB and receives C/S ok to go home for awhile.
November 16, 1998
Virginia McClaughry sends an Orders Query to SNR C/S Flag, stating that the
order for her to finish her 6-month sec check is an illegal order. He does
not approve it.
November 20, 1998
Virginia sends an Orders Query to COB RTC, stating the order for her to have
a six month sec check is an illegal order. This was answered by Marina
Pezzotti, RTC Inspector Sandcastle. She tells Virginia to come see her in
person.
December 4, 1998
Virginia returns to Flag to meet with RTC rep, Marina Pezzotti. Marina says
she has Virginia’s security booklet wherein Virginia had signed and agreed
to do six-month checks. Virginia says that’s not LRH and I should not have
signed it. Virginia shows Marina the section of C/S Series 73RB where it
says:
b) Pre-OTs in the area between the beginning of New OT VI (Solo NOTS
Auditing Course) and the completion of New OT VII (Solo NOTS) may not
receive any other auditing, with the exception of those services allowed in
the No-Interference Area (between the start of New OT I and the completion
of OT III) for pre-OTs who are stalled or moving slowly.
EXCEPTION
Pre-OTs progressing well in the No-Interference Area should not be
interfered with by Sec Checking or anything else. However, when a pre-OT is
stalled or moving slowly, any of the actions listed below, as appropriate,
can be ordered by a qualified C/S……
1) Non-audited PTS handlings
2) Confessionals and O/Ws
3) The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or
evil intentions (False Purpose Rundown)
4) Service Fac handling (bracket method only, no R3RA)
5) Disagreement Checks
Virginia says this is what this is all about and its RTC’s hat to get LRH
applied, so I’m here to get that done.
Marina says there’s lots of other references on sec-checking. Virginia then
tells Marina she has read all of those other references and that LRH does
not contradict himself. Virginia says LRH himself has said when he wants
that entire subject of sec checking used and when he does not want it used.
Virginia says there has been black PR on her from Barbara Nelson, that its
Virginia’s idea that there should not be sec checking on OTs. Virginia says,
look at this HCOB, what do the materials state? This is LRH, not me. Marina
says ok, I see your point.
Marina then says, what would you do if you were RTC? Marina has Virginia
read the RTC brochure that says they are responsible for the security of the
advanced course materials. Virginia tells Marina that RTC’s first
responsibility, according to the brochure, is KSW and that this LRH HCOB was
not being applied and that they should not be sec checking SOLO NOTS
auditors arbitrarily.
Marina again says what would you do if you were RTC? She says that SOLO NOTS
auditors lie, they falsify there worksheets, they don’t pull withholds, don’
t disclose ethics situations in their life, they have out tech and don’t
show it in their worksheets and it is our sec checks that find this out.
Virginia says, I would apply LRH. I would find what LRH reference applies to
the problems you’re having and do what it says. LRH always has a solution.
Marina says yes, but I can’t take any chances. Look at the situation in
Germany. Maybe when the environment is less hostile, we won’t have to worry
about it and not do the sec checking all the time.
Marina says like the 10 OT 7 and 8s who resigned the Church in Germany. This
is a perfect example of why we need to have this sec check line. Virginia
says, no its not, it’s a perfect example of how your sec check line doesn’t
work. Per LRH, you can’t catch a criminal with a meter. Marina agreed.
Marina then says, well how would we know because these guys had perfect
sessions. Virginia says what do you mean by perfect sessions? Marina says
the worksheets say, SOS, F/N VGIs, EOS. And this is session after session
after session, always perfect. And then this happens, they resign the
Church, which was a complete surprise.
Virginia says, “perfect sessions?, that tells you right there something is
wrong. Nothing is happening. The case is stalled and needs a sec check per
this HCOB”. Marina says, “Well how would we know”? Virginia says
indicators, the C/S has to know indicators.
Marina says, well I’m not going to change the whole line. It’s not going to
hurt you to get a sec check. If there is nothing on the question it will
F/N. Virginia said not if you know its out tech and you’re protesting it.
Marina says it’s not a technical point, it’s a security point. Virginia then
said, does he say anywhere in here that you can sec check for security
purposes? Marina says no.
Virginia said what do the materials state, regarding sec checking of SOLO
NOTS OTs who are not stalled or moving slowly. Marina agrees the HCOB says
that you do not interrupt them.
Marina then says per HCOP/L Eligibility For OT Levels it says you have to
have another eligibility sec check when you return to the AO after an
absence. Virginia turned to the HCOP/L and said “what does further mean in
this sentence?” Virginia says several terminals have misinterpreted this
HCOP/L to me with the wrong definition of the word further. And I would be
happy to show you in the dictionary how it is impossible for the way it’s
being interpreted to be correct. Marina said ok, ok, but I’m still not
changing the line.
Virginia said, Marina, this is an LRH HCOB applying to SOLO NOTS pre-OTs.
How can you, as RTC, who LRH specifically entrusted with KSW, say you’re not
going to apply this? Marina says because she also entrusted with the
security of the advanced course materials.
Virginia then says, how can you alter the tech in the name of security? What
are keeping secure then? Squirrel tech? In KSW LRH says its not the
government or High Priests that will destroy us, its our failure to retain
and practice our technology. If we alter the tech in the name of security,
to prevent the advance course materials from getting in the hands of the
SPs, then the SPs have already won. Because it is altering the tech that
will destroy us, not the SPs.
Marina then says, well what would you do if you were RTC? Virginia then
says, Marina, are you 100% for LRH? She said yes. Virginia says good, then
lets do what LRH says in this HCOB. Marina says, well I might be willing to
apply it to you. Virginia says thank you, but it does not just apply to me.
*******Note the attempted bribe there above-Virginia
Marina says I’m not changing the whole line, but I might change it for you.
She said let me check into this. Go do your new program and check back with
me in a few days. Virginia said ok but I’m not doing any sec checking.
After that, Greg Barnes talks to Marina and Marina told him emphatically
that they are not changing the six months check line. Virginia was unaware
of this at the time.
Altered importance of destroying the tech in the name of security:
False thinking that you can’t apply HCOB C/S Series 73 and have security
too:
Incorrectly included disagreement and justifiers regarding applying HCOB C/S
Series 73:
RTC Exec Marina Pezzotti
Incorrectly included betrayal of LRH’s trust to preserve the tech:
All RTC Execs
Incorrectly included tech degrade for refusing to apply HCOB C/S Series 73:
Omitted application of HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
All RTC Execs and Flag tech terminals involved with OT 7
-23-
NOTE:
The LRH tape of 26 October 1961 Security Checking Auditing Errors gives the
answer to Marina’s problem of “how would they know”:
“That is a test: Is a case advancing? If a case is advancing it develops
more withholds; more withholds come into view if a case is advancing.
Withholds, then, make a good test of case advance. Gross Auditing error not
to keep the withholds off a case while you’re running it. It’s the one thing
that can really stall it down to a walk.”
Therefore, if the SOLO NOTS C/S saw no new withholds coming up on the SOLO
NOTS auditors worksheets, then he knows the case is stalled and not
advancing. Or, the SOLO NOTS auditor is not pulling the new withholds.
Either way, that case is stalled and that SOLO NOTS auditor should be pulled
in and sec checked.
Also, the SOLO NOTS auditor should have his tech corrected at the same time
so he does not have to be by-passed again in the future.
December 1998
Virginia was then led to believe by her auditor, Therese Blum, that if she
just answered a few questions she would be given her materials and get back
on SOLO. Virginia was not given any R-factor that these questions were an
HCO Confessional. These questions turned out to be a tailor-made sec check.
In a later session, Therese had an R-factor for Virginia, from the Deputy
Snr C/S. You will not be allowed back on SOLO unless you complete the
current six month sec check and agree to do them in the future. If you
refuse to cooperate with HCO Confessional technology your eligibility will
be suspended.
Virginia then tells Therese that you guys lied to me, you have no intention
of applying HCOB C/S Series 73. Flag is off source and I’m not participating
in this any longer, send the folder back, we’re finished.
Therese then puts down her pen and says she wants to 2-way-comm this. For
the next hour or so Therese attacked and harangued Virginia, accused
Virginia of stupidity, having M.U.s, being stuck on the track, and being out
of valence and didn’t know it. Therese said “you’re not going to Solo
because of a few words out of some HCOB? Which one is the bigger overt? Not
applying the few words out of some HCOBs, when there are lots of references
on sec-checking, or not soloing?”
Therese told Virginia, you are the only one in 18 years that has questioned
this, no one else has a problem with it, so I guess we will just go on doing
what we are doing without you. Virginia was in shock that another
Scientologist, let alone a CLASS IX auditor, could make such degrading
statements about LRH HCOBs that she went into grief, turned her chair around
and said “that’s it, you’re not auditing me anymore with this squirrel
shit.”
None of the above was written down in the worksheets by Therese.
Incorrectly included psych tech into a session, gross eval and inval:
Incorrectly included auditor’s code breaks resulting in ARCXs:
Incorrectly included tech degrade of HCOB C/S Series 73:
False report on the session by not writing down what the auditor was doing:
Therese Blum
Wrong target, attacking, instead of assisting, a Scientologist who is
applying KSW:
Therese Blum and Calla Reese, D/SNR C/S Flag
Omitted application of HCOB 18 June 1990 PCs Who Refuse Auditing:
Therese Blum, Richard Reese SNR C/S Flag, Calla Reese D/SNR C/S Flag
December 1998
Virginia McClaughry asks the Tech Sec at Flag for a different auditor than
Therese Blum. The Tech Sec said ok but then Therese came out and got
Virginia and took her in session. The repetitive question “What are you
withholding” was run.
During all of the sessions, whenever a read happened Virginia would say no
because she wasn’t withholding anything. It is important to know that no new
withholds were found by Therese, only old ones that had already been handled
by Virginia in earlier solo auditing.
So, whenever Therese got a read she would steer Virginia and it was always
something already disclosed and handled. Therese would take it anyway, and
it never had a chain, just one F/N. Therese also never checked it as per
Virginia’s case level it should be checked.
Then the FPRD aspect would be taken up, which of course was still there
because Virginia can’t do that in solo, which is what Virginia thinks was
causing the read in the first place.
This method of handling charge was spinning Virginia and collapsing the
case. She got to the point that whenever Therese said she had a read, not
only would Virginia give her something she had already handled, but she
would embellish it. She had to embellish it because Therese would not
believe what the overt was until Virginia would exaggerate it.
During the next sessions Therese continued running the repetitive question
“What are you withholding?” She accused Virginia of being critical when
Virginia questioned her lack of use of arbitraries when handling a read on
the meter and Virginia’s answer was no.
Virginia said “You’re right, I am critical, and I have tried to give you
this one overt about 10 times and you won’t accept it.” Therese says what
overt? Virginia says the one where Virginia gave in to the pressure when she
first realized that the 6 months sec checks were not per LRH. Therese says
that’s not an overt, it’s natter and enemy line. Virginia says, “Since when
is an LRH HCOB enemy line?” Therese returned to the repetitive question.
Omitted application of HCOB Arbitraries on handling reads:
Incorrectly included tech degrade, calling an LRH HCOB enemy line:
Therese Blum
*********************The above is a brief description of what is called
"reverse auditing" or "Black Dianetics", intended to either cave the person
in to doing whatever you want, or to drive them psychotic. It is a tactic
the Church has been accused of by many people, including Jesse Prince who
has stated that he has seen it ordered on people that OSA/RTC has decided
are "security risks". Suffice it to say, it did NOT produce the desired
result, which is a first from what I can tell in reading the net. If any
scientologist out there is interested I can tell you WHY it didnt work. (I
applied a simple piece of LRH to it).
December 1998
Debra Barnes has been off of OT 7, due to BPC from squirrel sec checks.
After reading HCOB C/S Series 73, she blew enough BPC to route back on
lines. Over the next two months she has 25 hours of review auditing, doing
correction lists on her past sec checks. She gets all cleaned up and is
willingly doing her eligibility program to get back on the level. She is
winning again.
Towards the end of her cycle, she realized the BPC was from Flag not
applying the special handling for OT III and above on her sec checks. She
asks to see the reference they are operating off of and goes to Qual. She is
given the revised confidential HCOB of June 1996, already mentioned on this
time track.
Her hands start to shake because she realizes that someone has been changing
LRH HCOBs on how to audit OT cases.
January 4, 1999
MAA April Buchanan does a metered ethics interview on Bill Rhodes. She asks
Bill questions about a meeting on October 3, 1998, wherein Bill, Greg and
Debra Barnes and Virginia McClaughry are present.
She then writes a KR on Bill Rhodes, Greg and Debra Barnes and Virginia
McClaughry. Her KR is hearsay. (April says that Bill says that Virginia,
Greg and Debra say) As such, it contains false data because it is a
misduplication of what was said at the meeting. April then draws a lot of
false conclusions that are her opinion.
She later uses this KR to black PR Greg and Debra Barnes and Virginia
McClaughry, by showing it to other Scientologists connected to them. She
also uses this to say there was a mutiny meeting held by these people. She
also uses it to say that these people are against sec checking. She also
uses to say that these people decided to start a black PR campaign at this
meeting. She later draws up comm ev charges of mutiny and being opposed to
sec checks, based on her hearsay false report.
In the first place, there was no “meeting”. It was simply a social get
together of friends. It had no dark secret motives.
All of these people are on OT 7 and the subject of out tech on OT 7 came up.
The concern was that they had reported the out tech to org posts who should
have corrected it, but there was a refusal to correct it. The subject of
discussion was what the out tech was and what could they do to get it
handled.
Practically the whole KR is a misduplication of what was really said. There
is no effort here to correct all the false data in April’s KR, except the
three important ones. The three important false statements in April’s KR,
are:
1. Virginia said you don’t sec check someone on the level.
The truth:
Virginia said, that per HCOB C/S Series 73RB, it states when you can sec
check someone on OT 7 and when you can’t. And, that sec checking a Solo Nots
Pre-OT every six months, regardless of indicators, is out tech.
2. If any of the above had a question or disagreement with the six month
check line, the
proper lines should have been followed per LRH references to communicate
that.
The truth:
The proper lines were followed and the terminals who are supposed to correct
out tech:
A. Knew about HCOB C/S Series 73RB and HCOB Confessionals And The Non-
Interference Zone.
B. Disagreed with what LRH says to do in these HCOBs.
C. Refused to correct it and apply it.
3. The above discussion contained black PR, enemy lines and natter on the 6
month
check line, which every Solo Nots auditor agrees to follow.
The truth:
The decision of what to do about the out tech and non-application of LRH
HCOBs was to apply KSW, and not back down in applying KSW, until the out
tech and the responsible persons were handled.
Applying KSW and referring others to LRH HCOBs is not black PR and enemy
line.
Reporting on squirreling and insisting it get corrected is not natter.
It is April’s lie that these OT 7s are against sec checks. It is April’s lie
that there was a decision to start a black PR campaign. It is April’s lie
that this was a mutiny meeting.
Remember the 2 August 1990 entry on this time track. Somebody changed LRH
HCOB C/S Series 73. They issued a non-LRH revision called HCOB 23 December
1973RB. Their revision changes things LRH said in his issue, plus it omits
things he said and is seven pages shorter than the LRH HCOB.
Remember the June 1996 entry of this time track where someone changed the
LRH HCOB that gives a special handling for OT IIIs and above.
The truth is, we have our hands here on a major squirrel, who is guilty of
high crimes of destroying the tech.
And April’s efforts to protect that squirrel by lying about and targeting
us, is only delaying the catching of that squirrel.
April actions are a perversion of Scientology ethics:
THE PURPOSE OF SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS IS TO GET TECH IN, NOT TO PROTECT A
SQUIRREL.
Omitted application of HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
False purpose and use of Scientology ethics, protecting a squirrel:
Added time to catching a squirrel, by throwing everyone’s attention onto a
wrong target:
Wrong target of attacking Scientologists who are applying KSW:
Incorrectly included black PR campaign against Scientologists applying KSW:
False reports on Scientologists applying KSW (as a cover up for the squirrel
reported on):
False Comm Ev on innocent Scientologists, based on her own knowing false
reports:
Altered importance of handling minor outnesses and ignoring the real
situation:
MAA April Buchanan
January 6, 1999
Virginia McClaughry completes the Verbal Data Checklist on the order to get
sec checked and comes to the conclusion it is an illegal order.
She then takes Maximum Recourse regarding the illegal orders for her to get
sec checked, in violation of LRH HCOB C/S Series 73. She writes a KR on the
out tech and sends it to terminals at the RTC and International level. Per
HCOP/L 24 February 1972 Injustice, she cannot be now be punished for doing
or not doing the illegal order.
She also writes high crime reports on the squirrel auditing by Therese Blum.
And, a high crime report on D/SNR C/S Calla Reese and MAA April Buchanan for
violating HCOB 18 June 1990 PCs Who Refuse Auditing.
These reports are sent to Dir I & R Flag. All of the above High Crimes are
condoned, nothing happens to any of the terminals reported on.
Omitted action on high crime reports:
Dir I & R Flag Heather Petzold and RTC terminals
She also writes a High Crime report on RTC terminal, Marina Pezzotti, for
out KSW and a tech degrade regarding refusing to apply HCOB C/S Series 73RB.
Nothing happens.
Omitted action on a High Crime report:
RTC Execs senior to Marina
January 12, 1999
RTC D/Inspector General Flag Land Base, Ann Rathbun, writes a letter to
Virginia saying that her reports to various RTC terminals were forwarded to
her to answer. She says the six-month check line is a standard on source
line. There are numerous LRH references, C/S Series and Solo NOTS references
that this line is based on.
She says that not cooperating with an HCO Confessional will certainly
endanger your future OT eligibility to return to Solo NOTS or do any further
OT levels.
Omitted list of what specific issues she believes makes the six-month check
line standard:
Omitted protection of a Scientologist who is obviously standing up for
standard tech:
Incorrectly included threat to a Scientologist who is obviously on
source/applying KSW:
Ann Rathbun
January 24, 1999
Virginia McClaughry writes back to RTC terminal, Ann Rathbun, and says she
has taken maximum recourse on the illegal order to get sec checked in
violation of HCOB C/S Series 73. Therefore, per policy, even if she now
does the illegal order, she cannot be punished.
Since she cannot now be punished, Virginia says she is willing to go back
and complete the HCO Confessional she is mid cycle on but that April
Buchanan told her she would not be allowed back on OT 7 anyway. She told
Virginia that she would not be allowed back on OT 7 unless she changed her
viewpoint that it is not an illegal confessional.
Virginia asks Ann if this is true. Ann’s answer was that it is true.
Therefore, since Virginia is not going to lie and pretend that LRH HCOB C/S
Series 73 does not exist, she has not returned to complete the HCO
Confessional she is mid cycle on. There is no reason to, since she won’t be
allowed back on OT 7 anyway, unless she wants to lie about LRH standard tech
and go into treason on KSW.
Omitted KSW for HCOB C/S Series 73:
Incorrectly included extortion, denial of OT eligibility unless you go into
Treason on KSW and shut up about the out tech on OT 7:
RTC exec Ann Rathbun
February 7, 1999
Greg and Debra Barnes request in writing the withdrawal of April Buchanan’s
4 January 1999 KR. April answers in writing that she will withdraw the last
paragraph because it contains her opinion. The last paragraph is the one
where she says there was a meeting wherein Greg and Debra Barnes and
Virginia McClaughry decided to start a Black PR campaign.
This turns out to be a lie, because later she continues to show the friends
of Greg and Debra the last paragraph of her KR as a method of black PR’ing
them and Virginia.
Mid April 1999
Debra Barnes is doing great and moving along well on her eligibility
program. She is told that her auditor, Debbie Titus, has a heavy pc load and
if she wants Debbie it will be quite a wait. Debra says that's’ok, I will
wait for Debbie. In the Comm Ev later, Debra is falsely accused of not
being willing to continue with her program. What stopped her from continuing
it, was the squirrel sessions Greg Barnes got from Therese Blum. Debra is
not refusing any standard sec check, it is squirrel sec checks she is
refusing to participate in any longer.
Late April 1999
April Buchanan gives Greg Barnes a 6 hour long metered interview in ethics.
She is asking if Virginia suggested that sec checks are not ok or that 6
months checks were squirrel. Greg says Virginia never said that. Greg says
all she said was what it says in HCOB C/S Series 73.
April asks how it may have affected Greg and Debra Barnes negatively by
Virginia showing them HCOB C/S Series 73.
Greg says that Debra was off of the level and the result of her reading the
reference was that it blew a lot of charge and she then wanted to get back
on the level. Debra then went in and got her past squirrel auditing on sec
checks cleaned up with 25 hours of repair auditing. Greg says this has
changed Debra’s life and their 2D has never been better.
Greg kept telling April that he agrees with HCOB C/S Series 73 and all he
wants to do is apply LRH. April then said a few lines of an HCOB are nothing
compared to all the other data regarding sec checks.
April did not believe him when he said Virginia did nothing wrong. It was
obvious to Greg that April was trying to get something on Virginia.
April asked Greg why he showed other people on OT 7 HCOB C/S Series 73. Greg
says it has to do with everyone on OT 7. April wants to know who he showed
the HCOB to so she can get them in and handle them. Greg says, “handle them
on what?”
April then says she decided that Greg needed HCO Sec Checks for showing
other OT 7s HCOB C/S Series 73.
April wrote a KR on Virginia that Virginia had enturbulated Greg and Debra.
Greg and Debra both said that is not true and to withdraw it.
Incorrectly included tech degrade “a few lines of an HCOB are nothing”:
Incorrectly included withholding of vital data of HCOB C/S Series 73 from OT
7s:
Falsehood that showing others on OT 7 an HCOB is causing them enturbulation:
MAA April Buchanan
April 26, 1999
April Buchanan issues a Non-Enturbulation Order on Virginia McClaughry. It
contains a lot of false data:
“Over the past 7 months, Virginia has engaged in spreading mutinous
malcontent and disagreements regarding the use of security checks every 6
months on pre-OTs auditing on Solo NOTS. She has spread her confused ideas
regarding security checking to at least 6 Solo NOTS auditors. By her actions
she has enturbulated a number of the mentioned Solo NOTS auditors and this
has resulted in slowing Bridge progress of at least 3 pre-OTs”.
The truth:
There is no mention of the fact that Virginia is operating off of LRH HCOBs
on the subject of sec checking pre-OTs on Solo NOTS. It is not mentioned
that these HCOBs are not being followed and that Virginia is applying KSW
and insisting they be applied.
Virginia does not have any disagreements with any of LRH’s tech on the
subject of sec checking or anything else. The shoe is on the other foot. It
is RTC and Flag terminals who have the disagreement on LRH HCOBs C/S Series
73 and Confessionals And The Non Interference Zone.
This order gives the impression that it is Virginia’s ideas on the subject
of sec checking that she is following. It is not her ideas on sec checking
that she is following, it is LRH’s ideas in the two mentioned HCOBs.
All Virginia did was refer others on Solo NOTS to an LRH HCOB. Referring
others to source and applying KSW is not “mutinous malcontent”. That is not
a crime. The opposite is the crime. Not referring others to source and not
applying KSW to LRH HCOBs is a High Crime.
The names of the pre-OTs allegedly enturbulated or slowed are not given. We
know of no one enturbulated by being shown LRH HCOBs. What is enturbulating
about the situation to Virginia and others, is that the HCOBs are being
violated and not followed. This is not Virginia’s doing, that overt lies
with those who refuse to apply LRH HCOBs. Virginia is doing all she can to
get the out tech handled.
“Virginia is currently mid and blown from an HCO ordered confessional at
Flag”.
“For over 4 months, Virginia has taken no action to return to Flag and
complete this confessional despite many orders to do so, in violation of
HCOP/L 7 January 1985 HCO Confessionals. Despite having specific
instructions to return to Flag and complete her confessional, Virginia has
refused”.
The truth:
Virginia has taken continuous action to get this handled. Virginia has a
4-inch high stack of written communications between her and RTC/Flag
terminals, trying to resolve this.
First, remember the psychiatric butchery sessions Therese Blum gave
Virginia. No one in their right mind would submit themselves to more of
that. That’s a perfect set up then, isn’t it? Commit gross out tech in the
sec check session, then when the person sanely refuses to have any more of
it, accuse them of refusing a sec check. Virginia is not refusing any
standard sec check. It is squirrel sec checks she is refusing.
Virginia is not refusing to complete the HCO Confessional she is mid cycle
on. After taking Maximum Recourse on the illegal order to do it, she offered
to return to Flag to complete it since she could not then be punished for
doing the illegal order. However, she was told she would not be allowed back
on OT 7 even if she finished it, unless she agreed that the six months check
line was standard.
Virginia is not going to lie, compromise her integrity and go into Treason
on KSW, in exchange for eligibility for the OT levels. She would be giving
in to extortion. She would cop the Treason condition of the squirrel who is
responsible for the out tech if she did that. And, that’s the real reason
she has not finished it.
It is not the sec check that Virginia is refusing to do. It is having to
make the false statement that the six months check line, as it is currently
practiced, is a standard line that does not violate any LRH HCOBs. That is
what she is refusing to do.
“She has also been instructed to receive word clearing at Flag on LRH
references regarding HCO Confessionals and Security Checking, in order to
clear up her technical queries per HCOB 23 October 1975 Technical Queries.
Virginia has refused to comply”.
The truth:
It is a false statement that Virginia has a Technical Query. Virginia
completed a verbal data checklist of being ordered to a sec check in
violation of HCOB C/S Series 73 and came to the conclusion it is an illegal
order. She then queried the illegal order for her to be sec checked. She
sent an Orders Query Of uplines, not a Technical Query. There is a huge
difference between these two things.
In a Technical Query one has a question on technical procedure. One does not
know. In an Orders Query Of one does not have a question, one has already
concluded the order is illegal because it violates LRH Policy or HCOBs. One
knows.
Virginia has been to Flag twice to handle this and she studied and word
cleared all references given her by RTC/Flag as their references for giving
everyone on OT 7 a sec check every six months. And, the conclusion was, the
other references do not conflict with or change what LRH says about sec
checking OT 7s in HCOBs C/S Series 73 and Confessionals And The
Non-Interference Zone. Therefore, sec checks in violation of those two HCOBs
are out tech.
All of this is omitted in the Non-Enturbulation Order, thus painting a false
picture of Virginia. This is not ethics, it is a Black PR campaign being
done by April to cut the line between Virginia and other Scientologists, to
prevent Virginia from alerting others to the squirrel tech situation on OT
7.
Omitted vital data what HCOB C/S Series 73 says about sec checking OT 7s:
Omitted data that Virginia is applying HCOB Series 73 & that explains her
actions:
Omitted data on the gross out tech sessions Virginia got from Therese Blum:
Omitted data that Virginia is applying KSW to sec checks that violate LRH
HCOBs:
Omitted data that Virginia offered to complete the Confessional she is
mid-cycle on:
Falsehood that Virginia is doing nothing about it:
Falsehood that Virginia has a Technical Query:
Incorrectly included Black PR campaign against Scientologists applying KSW:
MAA April Buchanan
April 29, 1999
Greg Barnes writes to COB and expresses his concern that HCOB C/S Series 73
is not being applied and requests his help in getting it applied. COB does
not answer. RTC Exec Ann Rathbun answers and says the 6-month check line is
on-source.
April 29, 1999
To handle those people who question the 6-month sec checks, D/SNR C/S Flag
mocks up a list of issues that is a study program. The list is attached. A
study of the issues does not change or conflict with what LRH says in HCOB
C/S Series 73. What is noticeable is that HCOB C/S Series 73 is omitted from
the list of references to study!
Omitted Vital Data of LRH HCOB C/S Series 73 on her “study program”:
D/SNR C/S Flag
************Note: also, on this checklist, one of the issues to be "studied"
is HCOPL Counter-Espionage. After which, the person is supposed to write an
essay on "Why six month sec checks would prevent espionage" This is
ludicrous because NOWHERE in this HCOPl does it say ONE WORD about security
checking being the solution. Per LRH the actual solution is "in" tech and
well processed staffs.....".
Virginia
April 30, 1999
Greg Barnes gets a session from Therese Blum. She writes a KR on him after
it. Several days later, April Buchanan shows Debbie the session KR and it
says this:
There was a meeting of Greg and Debbie Barnes and Virginia McClaughry where
they realized RTC was committing out tech and decided it was “us against the
church”. Greg admitted this was mutiny. Greg realized he was going to ride a
new horse and have a new battle. Greg realized he had been covering up his
own out ethics situations by acting completely psycho. I.E., throwing his
kid around, masturbating, invalidating his wife for not having sex, not
paying his bills, spending money on things he should not be buying, and that
he did not pay royalties to Wise when he had a consulting company. Greg saw
how his out ethics led him to not be able to trust people and he became 1.1
like he was with RTC.
Debra asked Greg about this and Greg said his session KR said none of the
above, because none of the above was said by him in his session with
Therese. He never said them because none of the above things happened. For
example, Debra handles the finances, pays the bills, not Greg. This is
important because somebody manufactured a second KR on the session that is
totally false, and showed that to Debra. The suspect for doing this is April
Buchanan.
This is the actual session with Therese Blum. Therese asks “Do you have an
ARCX? Then she looks up and Greg gives her one. She then goes on to PTP.
Greg asks isn’t she going to complete the ARCX? She says it didn’t read.
She then skips the PTP question and goes straight to M/W/H. They spent the
next 45 minutes with Greg unable to find one and they finally got how Greg
was covert in a comm cycle.
She then says she is going to start the sec check. The question was has RTC
missed a withhold on you? Greg could not find anything on it. Therese then
asked for out ethics in general and Greg said he yelled at his son and his
wife and had been invalidative. None are of recent nature.
Therese took up Greg yelling at his son. She said we are going to do this
FPRD style, so she hatted him on it but then didn’t do it. They F/Ned the
overt and ended off.
False session KR:
MAA April Buchanan or Auditor Therese Blum or both
False ethics terminal, manufacturing and acting on false reports:
MAA April Buchanan
May 1, 1999
Valerie calls Greg in for a session. Greg says he only had 5 hours of sleep
and was not sessionable. Valerie says come in anyway, so he does. Therese
takes him in session and Greg says he only had 5 hours of sleep. Therese
puts the cans in his hands and said she was going to do an FPRD Correction
List. Greg says no we are not because he was not sessionable and that’s
squirrel and puts down the cans. Therese tried to get him to pick up the
cans for 15 minutes but Greg refused.
Therese then took him to the MAA and then back to the HGC. MAA Cosima then
told Greg they were going to do an ethics interview. Therese runs “what
overt has been restimulated” repetitively, with no O/Ws he gave being taken
up per standard handling of O/Ws. Greg started to get enturbulated and
asked if there was another question besides this one and Therese says no,
just answer this one.
After 30 minutes of having this question run on him repetitively with no
F/Ns indicated and no standard handling of O/Ws, Greg refused to continue
and put the cans down. MAAs Cosima and April then came in and escorted him
to RTC and said he was uncooperative. Greg told the RTC that the auditor
tried to do an FPRD Correction List on him but he was not sessionable.
April then told the RTC rep that Greg had shown Ed Gonsolin C/S Series 73RB
and that Ed was off of the level. Greg told April that she was lieing. April
then said that 10 people had seen the reference and this was also a lie.
Cosima said that she wanted to do an ethics interview and Greg agreed to.
Then they went back to the HGC and Greg had Cosima tell the auditor what
they were going to do and Cosima did. Then Therese started up with the
repetitive question again. Greg said he thought they were going to do an
ethics interview. Therese said this is it. The repetitive question was run
another 25 minutes and Greg said no more. Greg said he was tired and getting
hungry and Therese said she just wanted this question answered. They
continued awhile more and Greg again said no more.
Greg stood up and said he wanted to go see MAA Cosima. Therese blocked the
door. Greg said he wasn’t going to continue because he was tired and hungry
and was going home to get some sleep. Therese continued to block the door
and Greg started to get angry and Therese said “I know you want to hit me
so go ahead”. Greg said he wasn’t going to hit her, he had just had enough.
Cosima and April then came in and yelled at Greg and showed him HCOB 6 March
1982R Confessional Tech Policies and said if he did not answer the question
they would put a non-enturbulation order on him. Greg said he did not care,
to go ahead because this is going nowhere and I am tired and hungry.
Greg agreed to go at it some more so Therese came back in and continued the
repetitive question “what overt has been restimulated”. This went on another
15 minutes when Greg again said no more. He was giving O/Ws but none were
taken down per how to handle O/Ws and no F/N ever indicated.
After Therese got that Greg was not going to continue no matter what, Cosima
and April came in the room. They both said this question is reading and you
are going to answer it. Greg said he had been answering it. One of them said
you are going to answer it some more. April then sits in the auditor’s
chair and said pick up the cans, I am going to ask you something. April
asked “what overt has been restimulated” and Greg put the cans down and said
no more.
Then Therese came back in the room and all 3 of them were blocking the door.
Greg said this is too weird and that this isn’t Scientology and he did not
sign up for this insanity. Greg tried to get to the door and they were
gently pushing him back and Greg said that’s enough. Greg was threatened
with a non-enturbulation order again and he said he did not care. He said
this situation is over and I refuse to cooperate any further and they could
do anything they wanted to do.
NOTE:
Asking a Class 8 if there was a reference for the repetitive question run on
Greg by Therese “what overt has been restimulated” or the repetitive
question run on Virginia by Therese “what are you withholding”, the answer
was no.
Omitted Auditors Code:
Omitted standard handling of O/Ws:
Omitted L & N tech, running a listing question repetitively:
Therese Blum
Omitted ethics handling of Therese Blum for gross out tech & gross out
auditors code:
The C/S on Virginia McClaughry’s & Greg Barnes’ squirrel sessions by Therese
NOTE:
HCOB C/S Series 73 contains vital data on how LRH says to audit the OT 7
case and it should be in the hat of and known by every Solo NOTS auditor.
This HCOB is being withheld and hidden from those on OT 7. That is a tech
degrade.
Also, referring others to LRH HCOBs is not a crime.
Omitted vital data on how to audit OT 7 as covered in HCOB C/S Series 73:
Falsehood that OT 7s should not see HCOB C/S Series 73:
RTC Execs and Flag tech terminals and MAAs involved in delivery of OT 7
Falsehood that Greg showed 10 people HCOB C/S Series 73:
Falsehood that it’s not ok to do that, even if he had done it:
MAAs April Buchanan and Cosima
Omitted application of HCOPL 17 June 1970RB Technical Degrades:
Omitted application of HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
RTC Execs, Flag MAAs and Tech terminals involved in delivery of OT 7
Therese then asked if Greg could come back tomorrow and Greg said no, have
Kathy call me Monday. Cathy calls him Monday and Greg says he is not coming
in. So Cosima gets on the phone and Greg says that he is mailing her a
letter that will explain everything.
Greg tells Cosima he is not coming in and that he won’t let Debra have done
to her what was done to him because it was squirrel.
Afterwards the Comm Ev Bill of Particulars charges Greg with blowing a sec
check. It was not a sec check session that Greg left and refused to
participate in any further. They called it an ethics interview. Furthermore,
Greg is not refusing any standard sec check, it is squirrel sec checks that
he refuses to participate in any longer.
May 1, 1999
MAA Cosima calls Debra Barnes and says come in for a metered interview with
April. Debra says she can’t do it because she had a beer last night. Then
Greg comes home and tells her about the squirrel session he just got from
Therese Blum. So, Debra does not go in the org after that.
May 3, 1999
A Non Enturbulation Order is issued on Greg and Debra Barnes. They are not
sent it.
May 5, 1999
Based on false reports from MAA April Buchanan, a Comm Ev is convened by
Flag JC. The Interested parties are Mike & Virginia McClaughry, Greg & Debra
Barnes and Ed Gonsolin.
Basically the Interested Parties were charged with being opposed to sec
checks and mutiny.
April Buchanan’s false data about us resulting in the comm ev:
1. That we are opposed to and refusing sec checks.
2. That we had a meeting where we decided to start a black PR campaign.
3. That we held a mutiny meeting.
The truth is:
None of us disagree with any of LRH’s tech, including tech on sec checks. We
said we are opposed to squirrel sec checks that violate LRH HCOBs. Huge
difference. April omits the word squirrel and says we oppose sec checks. It
is a false statement.
Both Virginia McClaughry and Greg Barnes received gross out tech sec check
sessions from Therese Blum. After that, they refuse to participate in any
further squirrel sec checks by Therese or anybody else. They are not
refusing any standard sec checks.
There was a social get together where Virginia McClaughry and Greg and Debra
Barnes discussed the out tech on OT 7 and what to do about it. The decision
was to apply KSW. We also told a few others on OT 7 to read HCOB C/S Series
73. It contains vital data on how to audit OT 7 and every Solo NOTS auditor
should be hatted on it.
There was never a discussion or a decision to run a black PR campaign.
There was no discussion or decision to mutiny or to get others to.
The only thing done was to refer others to an LRH HCOB and to apply KSW.
These are not crimes. They are not Black PR, enemy line, or mutinous.
Our loyalty lies with LRH and standard LRH tech. We have not betrayed anyone
who stands for that. We owe no loyalty to David Mayo or any other squirrel.
Attacking squirrels is not mutiny. We never pledged any allegiance to them
in the first place.
Post titles have nothing to do with KSW. If a senior exec is a squirrel,
such as David Mayo, we owe him no loyalty or support. Any executive who is
on source has our full support and cooperation. No squirrel has our support
and cooperation, regardless of post title.
False report that the Interested Parties are against sec checks:
False report that the Interested Parties decided to run a Black PR Campaign:
False report that the Interested Parties decided to mutiny:
Incorrectly included criminal mind, accusing others of what it is doing:
MAA April Buchanan
Additionally, the Comm Ev acted in an off –policy manner:
The Comm Ev members, in knowing violation of Justice Policy refused to give
a copy of the Bill of Particulars to the Interested Parties.
The Interested Parties were also denied copies of KRs written on them.
When the Interested Parties said there were false reports in the KRs that
needed correction, the Comm Ev responded that it was not a Comm Ev matter
and they were not interested in the rebuttal of the Interested Parties. This
is also off policy in that a Comm Ev is supposed to be a fact finding body
interested in getting at the truth.
The Interested Parties appeared once before the Comm Ev and plead not guilty
to the charges. Since the Comm Ev was not acting on policy, the Interested
Parties wrote a CSW to IJC asking that it be disbanded and replaced with an
on-policy Comm Ev. Thereafter, the Interested Parties, except for Ed, did
not participate in the off policy Comm Ev.
Omitted application of LRH Justice Policies resulting in an off policy Comm
Ev:
False Comm Ev:
False Justice:
Chairman and members of the Comm Ev
Per HCOP/L 24 February 1969 Justice:
“Any false report leading to the unjust discipline of another is an act of
TREASON by the person making the false report and the condition should be
assigned and its penalties fully applied”.
False ethics terminal (for creating and acting on knowing false reports):
False Scientologist (attacks on source Scientologists & protects squirrels):
MAA April Buchanan
Omitted Treason assignment to their junior, April Buchanan:
Dir I & R Flag Heather Petzold (she was also a member of the Comm Ev)
May 21, 1999
Bill Rhodes writes a KR on April Buchanan’s false reports about Greg and
Debra Barnes and Virginia McClaughry. He was present at the October 3, 1998
get together. This is the meeting that April says there was a decision to
start a Black PR campaign and to mutiny.
“Greg and Debra are being accused of meeting together and planning to start
a Black PR campaign about sec checks of OTs. I met at Greg’s house with
Virginia et al on 10/3/98.
There was no mention at that time of starting a Black PR campaign.
There was discussion on the possibility of an LRH reference being violated
and the need to apply KSW to it. But there was no communication suggesting
that there was anything wrong with sec checking in general or that they
should get the word out about this bulletin. Nor was there any communication
to the effect that all the OTs should avoid coming to Flag because RTC is
running the level wrong.
Rather the intention was to straighten out what appeared to LRH tech not
being correctly applied. There was communication to the effect how
beneficial sec checking was”.
May & June 1999
After the Comm Ev, April calls in the friends, clients and employees of Greg
and Debra Barnes. She continues her Black PR campaign by showing them the
Comm Ev Bill of Particulars. She also shows them the false data in her KR of
January 4, 1999, which she earlier stated in writing that she withdrew
because it was her opinion.
This results in people leaving with the impression that Greg and Debra are
bad hats and there was also some lost business clients as a result. This is
breaking the libel and slander laws of the land.
April lies and says she was not soliciting these people that they came to
her. There several KRs written by these people that state they did not go to
her, she called them in to show them this data.
In the first place, a Bill of Particulars is not a statement or finding of
guilt. April presented it that way, as if it were all true and said “their
SP declares are imminent’.
Also, she presented the false parts of her KR January 4 1999 as facts and
did not tell the people that she had earlier agreed to withdraw it.
One of these people, Tony Reid, said he left April with the impression that
Greg and Debra were bad hats. But when he read the KR of Bill Rhodes,
stating he was there and there was no mutiny meeting, etc., and April’s
letter withdrawing her false reports, he decided he could not trust anything
April says.
False use of the Bill of Particulars as a means to Black PR the Interested
Parties:
Falsehood that she was not soliciting the friends of the Interested Parties
to 3P them:
False use of a withdrawn false KR to Black PR the Interested Parties:
Incorrectly included violation of the laws of the land:
MAA April Buchanan
PRESENT TIME
RTC has designed a list of about 60 questions that are used for the 6-month
sec checks. Only the first two questions are related to security. There is
an LRH form for eligibility as mentioned in HCOP/L 9 March 1982RB
Eligibility For OT Levels.
In addition, they do this FPRD style. This is out tech because:
FPRD is a major rundown and its mixing major rundowns since the person is
mid-OT 7. It is the squirrel non-LRH revision, HCOB C/S Series RB that says
you can do FPRD on an OT 7. The LRH HCOB C/S Series 73 RA says you can only
do FPRD between OT levels, not during.
This is possibly mitigated somewhat by HCOP/L 7 January 1985 HCO
Confessionals.
“HCO Confessional Actions can include running a False Purpose Rundown form
or other related rundowns that address O/Ws and nonsurvival intentions.
The fact that a Sec Check or False Purpose RD form is being done as an HCO
Confessional does not mean that the procedure is changed”.
The usual circumstances under which an HCO Confessional is done are that the
person is already undergoing a Comm Ev or other ethics investigatory action
or is working through lower ethics conditions, and the Ethics Officer has
requested that the C/S order an HCO Confessional done”.
There APPEARS to be a conflict between HCOB C/S Series 73 that says those on
OT 7 cannot get Confessionals or FPRD and HCOP/L HCO Confessionals that says
HCO can request Confessionals and FPRD.
So, what does LRH really want done with those on OT 7?
There is no conflict, he answered that question in HCOB Confessionals And
The Non-Interference Zone:
“But what about a case who is out ethics and not making progress due to
continuous overts and withholds or, even worse, undisclosed overts or crimes
against Scientology? A person who is NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise
exhibiting O/Ws or out ethics must be handled so that he can make case
gains.”
One would not embark on a series of Confessionals during another grade or OT
section, but it is imperative that pre-OT on these sections who have missed
withholds get them off and a specific Confessional can and should be done to
accomplish this.”
CAUTION
“A pre-OT who is running well and making case gain should not be
interrupted.”
So, the HCOP/L HCO Confessionals and the HCOB Confessionals And The
Non-Interference Zone align and agree with each other. Because the P/L also
says the person is already under some ethics action such as a Comm Ev or
lower conditions when HCO asks for an HCO Confessional.
But, in violation of:
HCOB C/S Series 73
HCOB Confessionals And The Non Interference Zone
HCOP/L HCO Confessionals
Pre-OTs on OT 7 are being given Confessionals and FPRD who are:
1. Running well and making case gain.
2. Have not manifested NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise exhibiting O/Ws
or out ethics.
3. Are not under some ethics action such as a Comm Ev or lower conditions.
And that is what is out tech about the 6-month check line, as it is
currently being practiced. In addition, in violation of HCOP/L Eligibility
For OT Levels, OT 7s are required to do a new eligibility every 6 months.
SUMMARY OF KNOWN OUT TECH ON OT 7
1. Giving Confessionals and FPRD to people mid-OT 7, instead of between OT
levels.
2. Giving Confessionals and FPRD to people on OT 7 who have not manifested
the
indicators required by LRH, to give them one.
4. Omitting the special confidential handling required by LRH for OT III and
above.
There are two known cases of squirrel non-LRH revisions of HCOBs:
HCOB C/S Series 73
The HCOB that gives the confidential special handling for OT III and above.
An investigation will likely find others.
SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY SABOTAGED THOSE TWO HCOBS.
WHOEVER DID THIS IS INTENTIONALLY SABOTAGING OT 7.
-------------------------------
End of original report made for Upper Executives of the Church.
Quite a bit more has happened since June 1999, which I will fill you all in
on as I can. Not the least of which is that Mike McClaughry, Greg, and Debra
Barnes are now declared Suppressive Persons. Verbally told to me that these
were posted on the bulletin board at the coachman building at flag. Mike's
is dated January 6, 2000, and Greg and Debra's are last week sometime I
believe. Deb and greg recieved theirs in writing, Mike has not, so who
knows, maybe it's hearsay :). You may ask, why did I not get declared? who
knows.......maybe I am. But since the Church is now the biggest squirrel
group in history, and obviously picks and chooses on what LRH it feels like
applying, why bother with a minor detail like "put it in writing" "give the
person a copy", etc. etc
All for now
Virginia
edrhett
Thank you so much for your excellent report on squirrel tech on the OT 7 level.
It looks to me like you documented all the squirrel actions, and that was a
necessary action. Necessary because Scientologists need to become aware of an
outness before they can ever hope to correct it.
I had a similar squirrel tech and squirrel ethics situation in about 1980 in
Austin, Texas, after a DCSI. I cannot quote all the tech and ethics violations,
but when your dog (your best friend) bites you, you know something has changed
forever. This is not a freak occurrence. Your ability to confront evil has just
reached the point where you could see it.
You have courage and integrity, so I must say, congratulations!
Ed Rhett
Phil Scott
wrote:
I dont want to pee to badly in anybodys strawberry patch...but it is
my view that all this technical complexity crap is just that...and a
distractive smoke screen from a host of real issues..... the money rip
off, the stunningly insane cosmology, the nut case and personal
disaster that Hubbard was.....and that the cult currently is.
I suggest instead that one search Hubbards crap for ways that it is
harmeful, backwards, or separates a being from all that is...or his
wife, children and friends,,,and incites him to 'destroy them utterly
if possible'.
After the smoke and mirrors vanish what remains is overwhelmingly
obvious imho.
Best Regards, Phil Scott
tigerlily2000
"Virginia McClaughry" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:38b0f...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Lurkers (scientologists) This is a true, recent, story of what goes on in
> the Church when you discover the degree to which squirreling is occuring.
If
> anyone is interested in all the supporting documents, please let me know.
Just wanted you to know that I saved a copy of your long report. Certainly
is interesting. It is as I suspected, but couldn't say because I had no
objective evidence.
I knew back in 1983 when I was being lied to that it was the beginning of a
more serious problem.
Thank you for writing all of that. There is a great OTVIII expanded on Ralph
Hilton's website. Do a lot more for you than the six months Sec Checks
whether you need them or not. Just make sure there is no ptsness when you
run it.
Pat Krenik