REPOST FOR ANY NEW LURKERS
------note this illegal, not LRH six month sec check provides approximately 30 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR Flag, in Clearwater, Florida.

This is OVER HALF of their entire weekly income.

Virginia Scientologist (out of the church) ---------------------- This is a true, recent, story of what goes on in the Church when you discover the degree to which squirreling is occurring. If anyone wants all the supporting documents, let me know.

(This story was originally written in the third person, as a report, and I kept it that way) Prelude-(important background data) 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.

It 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
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&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”.
Note:-----NOT ONE MAA AT FLAG IS ON OT 7. A large percentage of the auditors who audited us (Solo NOTs guys), were also NOT on OT 7. Virginia

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.
Omitted application of HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73RA:

RTC execs, Flag tech terminals and SNR C/S INT













2 August 1990
Somebody changes LRH HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73 RA, 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 C/S Series 73RA, here is a quote from C/S Series 73RA, which was deleted from C/S Series 73RB. Look up C/S Series 73RB in your current technical volume 1, page 250, and you see that this is missing:

“Realize that from Clear on NED through OT III and for those in progress 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:

The copyright for C/S Series 73RA is by LRH.

C/S Series 73RB says - Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations (RTRC is in the office of the Senior C/S, not in RTC.

But, RTC approves everything done by RTRC before it is issued.)



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 also 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 that was messing up the case and causing BPC.

Incorrectly included squirrel special handling of OT IIIs and above:

RTRC, SNR C/S Int, RTC, Flag C/Ses and auditors








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, we get:

Further 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 realized 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 be 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 The D of P calls Virginia in for a D of P interview, at 10PM that night.

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, Chief 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.

1. 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.

2. 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 path of least resistance and accept the off-policy and out-tech solution, 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

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 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 73”. 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 by 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 they’re solving, etc.

Virginia responded and Nancy 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 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 -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:

Falsehood 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 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 accuses 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 Note from Virginia:

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 former RTC exec, 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 didn’t 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:


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 six 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 73RA. 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.



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:

RTC exec 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 to - 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 PRing 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 “reverse auditing/Black Dianetics” 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.

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


Based on this interview, April comes to the false conclusion that Virginia enturbulated Greg and Debra by showing them HCOB C/S Series 73 and she issues a Non-Enturbulation Order on Virginia McClaughry, as follows….

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 January 1985 HCO Confessionals. Despite having specific instructs 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 - Calla Reese
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.

April omits the word squirrel and says we oppose sec checks.

Huge difference. 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 (Black PR):

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, squirrel, 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 are 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:

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 OT7. 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.

Go Back