|
From: "Virginia McClaughry" <vmcc@icehouse.net> Subject: Post 2-Bill writes a Kr on me Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:36:35 -0800 Message-ID: <3a39926b.0@news2.lightlink.com>
IJC 6/5/99
I have remained in communication with Virginia even after the non-enturbulation order declare and throughout the comm ev cycle. Per earlier agreement we have not discussed the ethics cycle but have been doing a good roads/fair weather comm cycle. The only exception to that was when Virginia asked me to write a KR about the events that I was aware of in our Oct. 3 meeting. She told me part of the bill of particulars of her comm ev was that she, Greg and Debra had decided to start a Black PR campaign. So I wrote an e-mail to Virginia with the data that I saw when I was being shown the LRH references concerning sec checking of Ots in the course of a level. Other than that very little comment would be made about the cycle. Last night however, Virginia got into it more telling me because Greg and Debra were being black pr'ed using an interview I had had with April, and saying that I need to know what my name and data is being used for. We talked for over an hour and at one point I just hung up after getting into contentions as specified in following report and she called back. The gist of what she communicated to me was that she is simply holding a position with regards to the LRH reference and that there is a black PR campaign and 3rd party occurring toward her from some terminal in the church and that a great number of false reports about the cycle are being generated. She accused Terese of squirrel tech during a sec check which she received and said that Greg had been called in for a sec check and had also received squirrel tech. The example she gave of this out-tech was being forced to pick up the cans and start the session despite not being sessionable with only 5 hours of sleep. I did not get if this occurred with Greg or with Virginia or both. I told her this was heresay and that I didn't want to hear anymore. She also said that the ethics was being handled non-standardly and gave as an example that neither she nor the Barnes’ were being given copies of KRs relevant to the cycle nor copies of the bill of particulars. She also said the Barnes had not received copies of a non-enturbulation order issued on them. She implied that the sec checking she and Greg received and the comm ev were being done with an attitude of guilt and not one of fact finding. She also said she had not been communicating to me the numbers of false accusations which had been accumulating toward her since we had earlier agreed not to talk about it since it was upsetting to me. One example of an outness she has heard of is that friends of Gregs’ who have been brought in to ethics for handling on the cycle have been shown the bill or particulars of the comm ev. She said this is an example of out ethics tech since the bill of particulars is a list of crimes but that a comm ev is a fact finding body and, as such, no facts had been established on the bill of particulars. In other words, the fact that Greg’s friends are being rounded up and brought in and presented with the bill of particulars is an example of black PR since the findings have not come out. As such, by showing the bill of particulars paints a picture that Greg et. Al. Is being very out ethics, when this has not as yet been substantiated by an approved comm ev. She also asserted that she was not suppressive and would not accept nor do an A-E but would pursue the matter on recourse justice lines and had been sending information to the IJC about this. She also said that she also sent data on it to RTC but that all her reports to RTC had apparently not been read at INT; but rather passed on the Mr. Rathbun at Flag for her handling. She also said she had written ED INT but the reply said something to the effect that it was not his hat and was being referred to the correct terminal. She said that she was right about her interpretation of the bulletin and that the cycle wa s similar to the cycle that had occurred with Mayo and that she was holding a position in order to get this violation of LRH bulletin straightened out. She said she was not advocating not using sec checking; rather, using it on pre-Ots who needed it by virtue of manifestations of needing sec checking like not making progress on the level. She said there is gross out-tech occurring and her hat as a pre-ot is to keep Scientology working. I told her she was committing suppressive acts by disaffecting the field in spreading this around and, even if she does have a point, she is going about it the wrong way and should have simply completed her six month check and kept writing KRs about the facts while continuing on the level as she had agreed in the first place. She said I was in fear of losing the bridge and being off the level and said that I was weak in not holding a position on KSW. She insisted that she was not wrong in showing other Scientologists an LRH Bulletin, and that this is not a suppressive act, neither is insisting that other Scientologists apply KSW to an LRH bulletin. She said that she had tried standard lines to get it straightened out and the result of that effort was the black PR campaign which was instigated against her. But she said the truth would win in the end. I told her she was violating Simon Bolivar in not flowing power and making the power wrong. She continued to assert her rightness. She told me because I was not backing her up that I was not a friend and that I was an enemy to her. I told her I was being a friend in telling it to her how I saw it. She asked about child support and I told her that if she was Declared, I would continue to send checks but would send them directly to the kids. After discussion of this, she agreed that this could be done this way should she get Declared. Also during our conversation I told her a number of times to just come and finish the sec check but she said she would not be participating in such out-tech as occurred in her sessions with Therese, any further. Bill Rhodes |
