Now that the raw data is there, we can do the fun part-the comparison of truth versus fiction.

To start with let's go for the obvious outpoints.

Mike's FlB ethics order issue number is 866, Greg and deb's is 867, mine is 878.

Now the interesting thing is that between February (greg/deb's declare) and March, (my declare), there is a gap of 10 between the actual numbers. This means that 10 other people were declared in one month, at the Flag landbase.

That's a lot.

Anyone know who they are? I'd like to speak with them :)

Next let's look at the number of High Crimes. Greg, Deb, and me, all have 9 High Crimes, whereas Michael has 10.

This is odd, let's see which one Michael has that we don't.

He has "Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations".

My my, what COULD Michael have done to earn this dubious honor??

Answer, Mike says that is probably because he sent about 10 people information on the changing of the tech, at Flag. What an interesting twist that is, how can a scientologist be in good standing, who is allowing the altering of the tech? Per policy, THAT person should be declared, not the person making this behaviour known. But, David Miscaviage and company do not need a piece of paper declaring them suppressive. A piece of paper does not a suppressive make. Ahh but his actions, or inactions, that is what makes one a suppressive, and a menace to society. And many people know who, and what he and his friends are, without the "goldenrod".

Back to the High crimes....our favorite high crime that we are accused of (we always laugh together about this one), is "Issuing alter-ised scientology technical data or information or instructional or admin procedures, calling it scientology or calling it something else to confuse or deceive people as to the true source, beliefs and practices of Scientology"

This is just the tiniest smidgeon (facetiously speaking) of "the pot calling the kettle black", or for you techies out there "the criminal accuses others of what he is doing"

We think it is just a riot that Greg and Deb, Mike and I, are accused of actually issuing data, as in classic definition. Writing bulletins and publishing them.

Isn't that what RTC and CST do? Naah. :)

Well, let's see if they do, just for kicks.

From my writeup of our story

"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. "

Now let's see what an authorized RTC representative had to say when confronted with this data:

(from my story)

"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"

------What was that again Marina?? Let's look again, especially at this part..

"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."

HMMMMMMMM, exactly who is "issuing alter-ised Scientology technical data or information or instructional or admin procedures......" and calling it Scientology?

Us, or RTC/CST?

That's a toughie, I know guys, I am sure you can muddle your way through it somehow.

:)

I know it's not my name on those BFO's making up a 6 month check line....

Number 8 of our high crimes is probably our 2nd favorite one.

"refusal to allow staff or public to progress up the bridge or creating blocks on the bridge preventing such progression"

I'd say altering the technology, reverse auditing people, black pring them, is definitely putting some blocks on people's progress up the bridge.

We think this is another amusing, and infamous example of some people's apparently limitless stupidity, exposing what they are doing by what they try to accuse others of, a fact that sadly, held true every time.

The last High CRime we are accused of follows a close second to the above one, for amusement and that is "violation or neglect of any of the ten points of keeping scientology working".

Gag me with a spoon, RTC, really.

And by the way OSA, if you are reading this.

I WANT MY MONEY BACK FOR THE NON-STANDARD SERVICES I RECEIVED.

That's over 200,000 dollars, in case it has slipped your mind. __

Now, where was I, oh yes, truth versus fiction.

Let's get into the meat of it now.

Let's compare Mike's and my declares first.

Mike's

'In Decmber 1998, Mike urged his wife, Virginia McClaughry to blow from Flag while in the middle of an HCO confessional. Virginia then did blow Flag and as a result made no further progress on The Bridge. Attempts were made to get him to come to his senses and to assist him in straightening out his situation. He refused the efforts to help him."

Mine

'In December 1998 Virginia McClaughry blew from Flag while in the middle of an HCO confessional. She had been in communication with her husband who was encouraging her to blow while mid the confessional and without completing it. Attempts were made to get her to come to her senses and to assist her in straightening out her situation.She refused the efforts to help her.'

"....She as well prevented her husband from getting cleaned up when he was offered the opportunity. She interfered with the offer of help to him and as a consequence her husband was blocked from getting Standard Tech.'

Ohh, this is good, at first glance here is a big contrary fact.

Mike's

"Attempts were made to get him to come to his senses and to assist him in straightening out his situation. He refused the efforts to help him."

Mine

"....She as well prevented her husband from getting cleaned up when he was offered the opportunity. She interfered with the offer of help to him and as a consequence her husband was blocked from getting Standard Tech.'

Now which is it????? Mike "refused the efforts to help him", or I "prevented him from getting cleaned up".

These guys can't even keep their lies straight, tsk tsk.

Want to know why mine had the bit invented about me preventing my husband from getting cleaned up?

Thought you might.

This data I am about to give you is not part of my story, it happened after that was all written.

I think it was June/July, when we were all still laboring under the delusion that SOMEWHERE in the Church was someone who would apply policy correctly, so Mike put this whole story on someone's lines he had no reason to distrust, Kathy O'Gorman, his old senior who is the CIC officer International at OSA International. I know, I know, this was like stumbling into the lion's den of criminality, as we know now, but anyway that is who he asked for help.

The "help" appeared in the form of Ms. True, Class IX OSA auditor assigned to "handle" us. Ms. True was sent to Clearwater to handle the Barnes's, but we called her up and asked to speak to her as well.

Ms. True spent quite some time going over with Michael his history in Scientology, his wins in auditing, wouldn't he like to have some auditing, she could arrange it, all stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with what we had called her about. Michael was following along with the conversation, but I, having a low tolerance for 1.1's that I do (smile), became impatient with all this buttering up and Q and A. So, I said "this is all well and good, Michael's happiness with the tech is not in question, so let's get back to the point. What about this LRH HCOB that is not being followed, and the reverse auditing by Therese? What are you going to do to correct this, as is your hat?" Let's just say that she was not pleased that I had not fallen for her sweetness and light routine, it definitely rattled her TR's and she got off the phone quite quickly after that. (heh)

So, in my opinion, the reason my declare has an opposite story over Michael's, regarding his reaction to their offer of "help", is because of Ms. True. She was not happy for me to have wrecked her little ploy's momentum on the phone, and it looks like either her, or someone she reported it to was still miffed about it over 6 months later.

Isn't that just a bummer for Ms True? Well, she joins good company. Rumor had it later that Flag was so annoyed with my ability to talk to public or staff, (or rather shoot down their lies), that it was ordered that noone talk to me. (which doesn't usually happen BEFORE you are declared)

:)

Anyway, that's my two cents on that particular outpoint in our declares.

To end with for tonight (it's getting late), let's go over this Virginia blowing flag business.

First of all, it's news to me that my husband was "urging me to blow flag", just as an aside, that was completely invented. My thought on Mike's declare is that they didn't have much to declare him on, so they had to invent something that the rest of the public just might be desperate enough to fall for. It raised quite a few eyebrows publicly what was happening with us, was unstabilising to say the least. Look at the stats I recently posted, ie 0, from the solonots newsletter. Ripple effect is taking hold. But be that as it may they had to come up with something, and this lie was a good as any I suppose.

What is interesting is that in December 1998, RTC herself, Marina, APPROVED MY LEAVING! She is the last person on the routing form, and all you lurking OT's out there who go to Flag know that.

So I guess if I theoretically "blew", RTC sanctioned it!

Also, I believe too many people had heard stories of what really happened with me, and something had to be concocted that would divert people's attention (they hoped) off of the real outpoint, the six month check line.

----

Note to OSA, you should tell RTC that was a bad idea, it actually made people realise that Flag was covering up the truth, bad move, really bad move. But good for me, as I have a lot of new friends now!

And, in case you missed it I WANT MY MONEY BACK.

-----

So you know guys, OSA requires a lot of TR-3 you know, and this is the fastest way to reach them. I thought I would start using this public line as well as the private lines I am currently using.

I just noticed something that occurred in December 1998, with Marina, April Buchanan, and two unnamed ethics type personnel, that was not in the original writeup I did, but has been covered briefly in my refund letter to the Church.

I had a plane reservation made prior to arriving at Flag. The day came when it was time to leave, and after the truly unbelievable "handlings" I had at flag, with no application of the LRh bulletin in sight, I was set to leave. I came in the morning to meet with April to "work up an ethics program for me to do while I was at home". I was seated in a small office in ethics, with April on the side where the door is.

We spent the morning there, and as it was approaching the time that I needed to leave to make it to the airport, April said that I could not go, and said hold on a minute. As she opened the door, I noticed there were 2 male sea org uniformed personnel on either side of it, guarding it apparently. I did not know until then that I was being detained. April came back and said you can't leave, and I said I have no reason to be here, you are not following this bulletin and I am leaving. She then said can you wait a few minutes RTC is on her way. Marina bursts through the door and points her finger at me, and in her best "Admin TR's" voice says "You are not leaving". Now again, me, not being the quiet type, I started to stand and said "Oh, yes I am." Marina, her tr's slightly shaken (at such nerve I believe), says quite haughtily "Excuse me?", And I said with definite antagonism at this point, "You heard me.", and I started to leave. Marina blocked the door, and said again "You can't leave, this is not a good Flag product". I said "now that's for damn sure". Marina said, give me a chance to see if I can get Flag to correct this,so I was mildly curious at what that could possibly be, so I said I would wait for her to see what she could do.

I still was not allowed to leave this room, and was, guarded, until approximately an hour later.

I think this might be what as known, as illegal detention, held against your will, that sort of thing.

Especially where I was trying to leave to catch my plane and was stopped from doing so.

April also followed me EVERYWHERE the rest of that day, and into the next (except for at night), which I found amusing, in a macabre sort of way.

I think those of you lurking out there who are OT's, should know what is behind the 1.1 mask of "the friendliest place in the world", and this is one good example.

Ok, that's all for tonight, more to come.

Nite all,

Virginia