My Story

From: "Virginia" <vmcc@icehouse.net>
To: <freezone.org>
Subject: my story
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:47:03 -0800

Hello,

Virginia

Lurkers (scientologists) This is a true, recent, story of what goes on in the Church when you discover the degree to which squirreling is occuring. If anyone is interested in all the supporting documents, please let me know.

FYI (This story was originally written in the third person, as a report, so for simplicity I kept it that way)

Prelude-(important background data)

In 1982

24 April 1983

1983 to PT

2 October 1983

    -------------Note:

    I did not find out about this LRH revision  (C/S Series 73RA) (that was altered with 7 pages deleted by RTRC)  until after the commev.

    Virginia

    LRH revises HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73, The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced. In this he says:

        “SECTION III:  THOSE PERSONS COMPLETED ON OT III AND/OR COMPLETED ON ANY LEVEL ABOVE OT III:

      • CAN BE GIVEN, BETWEEN ANY OT LEVELS ABOVE OT III:

        • 1. Auditing:

          Any required PTS Handling that does not use Dianetics.
          Prepared Lists, as applicable, with special instructions followed for handlings on
                Clears and OTs.
                Purification Rundown.
                Happiness Rundown
                L10, L11, L12.
                Confessionals.
                The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes
          or evil intentions.
                False Purpose Rundown.
                O/Ws.
                Disagreement Checks.
                Black PR handling.
                Rudiments.
                Method One Word Clearing.

    --------------Note that it says above BETWEEN OT levels-not MID them.

1983 to PT

2 October 1983

1983 to PT

2 August 1990

1994

June 1996

September 1997

September 1997

September 1998

September 1998

September 1998

September 1998

September 1998

October 3, 1998

October 4, 1998

October 1998

October 1998

November 16, 1998 

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:

    1. 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.

      2. EXCEPTION

      Pre-OTs progressing well in the No-Interference Area should not be interfered with by Sec Checking or anything else. However, when a pre-OT is stalled or moving slowly, any of the actions listed below, as appropriate, can be ordered by a qualified C/S……

      1. Non-audited PTS handlings
      2. Confessionals and O/Ws
      3. The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions (False Purpose Rundown)
      4. Service Fac handling (bracket method only, no R3RA)
      5. Disagreement Checks

    Virginia says this is what this is all about and its RTC’s hat to get LRH applied, so I’m here to get that done.

    Marina says there’s lots of other references on sec-checking. Virginia then tells Marina she has read all of those other references and that LRH does not contradict himself. Virginia says LRH himself has said when he wants that entire subject of sec checking used and when he does not want it used.

    Virginia says there has been black PR on her from Barbara Nelson, that its Virginia’s idea that there should not be sec checking on OTs. Virginia says, look at this HCOB, what do the materials state? This is LRH, not me. Marina says ok, I see your point.

    Marina then says, what would you do if you were RTC? Marina has Virginia read the RTC brochure that says they are responsible for the security of the advanced course materials. Virginia tells Marina that RTC’s first responsibility, according to the brochure, is KSW and that this LRH HCOB was not being applied and that they should not be sec checking SOLO NOTS auditors arbitrarily.

    Marina again says what would you do if you were RTC? She says that SOLO NOTS auditors lie, they falsify there worksheets, they don’t pull withholds, don’t disclose ethics situations in their life, they have out tech and don’t show it in their worksheets and it is our sec checks that find this out. Virginia says, I would apply LRH. I would find what LRH reference applies to the problems you’re having and do what it says. LRH always has a solution. 

    Marina says yes, but I can’t take any chances. Look at the situation in Germany. Maybe when the environment is less hostile, we won’t have to worry about it and not do the sec checking all the time.

    Marina says like the 10 OT 7 and 8s who resigned the Church in Germany. This is a perfect example of why we need to have this sec check line. Virginia says, no its not, it’s a perfect example of how your sec check line doesn’t work.  Per LRH, you can’t catch a criminal with a meter. Marina agreed.

    Marina then says, well how would we know because these guys had perfect sessions. Virginia says what do you mean by perfect sessions? Marina says the worksheets say, SOS, F/N VGIs, EOS. And this is session after session after session, always perfect. And then this happens, they resign the Church, which was a complete surprise.

    Virginia says, “perfect sessions?, that tells you right there something is wrong. Nothing is happening. The case is stalled and needs a sec check per this HCOB”. Marina says, “Well how would we know”?  Virginia says indicators, the C/S has to know indicators.

    Marina says, well I’m not going to change the whole line. It’s not going to hurt you to get a sec check. If there is nothing on the question it will F/N. Virginia said not if you know its out tech and you’re protesting it. Marina says it’s not a technical point, it’s a security point. Virginia then said, does he say anywhere in here that you can sec check for security purposes? Marina says no.

    Virginia said what do the materials state, regarding sec checking of SOLO NOTS OTs who are not stalled or moving slowly. Marina agrees the HCOB says that you do not interrupt them.

    Marina then says per HCOP/L Eligibility For OT Levels it says you have to have another eligibility sec check when you return to the AO after an absence. Virginia turned to the HCOP/L and said “what does further mean in this sentence?”  Virginia says several terminals have misinterpreted this HCOP/L to me with the wrong definition of the word further. And I would be happy to show you in the dictionary how it is impossible for the way it’s being interpreted to be correct. Marina said ok, ok, but I’m still not changing the line.

    Virginia said, Marina, this is an LRH HCOB applying to SOLO NOTS pre-OTs. How can you, as RTC, who LRH specifically entrusted with KSW, say you’re not going to apply this? Marina says because she also entrusted with the security of the advanced course materials.

    Virginia then says, how can you alter the tech in the name of security? What are keeping secure then? Squirrel tech? In KSW LRH says its not the government or High Priests that will destroy us, its our failure to retain and practice our technology.  If we alter the tech in the name of security, to prevent the advance course materials from getting in the hands of the SPs, then the SPs have already won. Because it is altering the tech that will destroy us, not the SPs. 

    Marina then says, well what would you do if you were RTC? Virginia then says, Marina, are you 100% for LRH? She said yes. Virginia says good, then lets do what LRH says in this HCOB. Marina says, well I might be willing to apply it to you. Virginia says thank you, but it does not just apply to me.

    *******Note the attempted bribe there above-Virginia

    Marina says I’m not changing the whole line, but I might change it for you. She said let me check into this. Go do your new program and check back with me in a few days. Virginia said ok but I’m not doing any sec checking.

    After that, Greg Barnes talks to Marina and Marina told him emphatically that they are not changing the six months check line. Virginia was unaware of this at the time.

    Altered importance of destroying the tech in the name of security:
    False thinking that you can’t apply HCOB C/S Series 73 and have security too:
    Incorrectly included disagreement and justifiers regarding applying HCOB C/S Series 73:

      RTC Exec Marina Pezzotti

    Incorrectly included betrayal of LRH’s trust to preserve the tech:

      All RTC Execs

    Incorrectly included tech degrade for refusing to apply HCOB C/S Series 73:
    Omitted application of HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:

      All RTC Execs and Flag tech terminals involved with OT 7

    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

December 1998

December 1998

January 4, 1999

    MAA April Buchanan does a metered ethics interview on Bill Rhodes. She asks Bill questions about a meeting on October 3, 1998, wherein Bill, Greg and Debra Barnes and Virginia McClaughry are present. 

    She then writes a KR on Bill Rhodes, Greg and Debra Barnes and Virginia McClaughry. Her KR is hearsay. (April says that Bill says that Virginia, Greg and Debra say) As such, it contains false data because it is a misduplication of what was said at the meeting. April then draws a lot of false conclusions that are her opinion. 

    She later uses this KR to black PR Greg and Debra Barnes and Virginia McClaughry, by showing it to other Scientologists connected to them. She also uses this to say there was a mutiny meeting held by these people. She also uses it to say that these people are against sec checking. She also uses to say that these people decided to start a black PR campaign at this meeting. She later draws up comm ev charges of mutiny and being opposed to sec checks, based on her hearsay false report.

    In the first place, there was no “meeting”. It was simply a social get together of friends. It had no dark secret motives. 

    All of these people are on OT 7 and the subject of out tech on OT 7 came up. The concern was that they had reported the out tech to org posts who should have corrected it, but there was a refusal to correct it. The subject of discussion was what the out tech was and what could they do to get it handled.

    Practically the whole KR is a misduplication of what was really said. There is no effort here to correct all the false data in April’s KR, except the three important ones. The three important false statements in April’s KR, are:

    1. Virginia said you don’t sec check someone on the level.

      2. 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.

      3. The truth:

      The proper lines were followed and the terminals who are supposed to correct out tech:

      1. Knew about HCOB C/S Series 73RB and HCOB Confessionals And The Non-Interference Zone.
      2. Disagreed with what LRH says to do in these HCOBs.
      3. Refused to correct it and apply it.
         
    3. The above discussion contained black PR, enemy lines and natter on the 6 month check line, which every Solo Nots auditor agrees to follow. 

      4. The truth:

      The decision of what to do about the out tech and non-application of LRH HCOBs was to apply KSW, and not back down in applying KSW, until the out tech and the responsible persons were handled. 

      Applying KSW and referring others to LRH HCOBs is not black PR and enemy line.Reporting on squirreling and insisting it get corrected is not natter.

    It is April’s lie that these OT 7s are against sec checks. It is April’s lie that there was a decision to start a black PR campaign. It is April’s lie that this was a mutiny meeting. 

    Remember the 2 August 1990 entry on this time track. Somebody changed LRH HCOB C/S Series 73. They issued a non-LRH revision called HCOB 23 December 1973RB. Their revision changes things LRH said in his issue, plus it omits things he said and is seven pages shorter than the LRH HCOB. 

    Remember the June 1996 entry of this time track where someone changed the LRH HCOB that gives a special handling for OT IIIs and above. 

    The truth is, we have our hands here on a major squirrel, who is guilty of high crimes of destroying the tech. 

    And April’s efforts to protect that squirrel by lying about and targeting us, is only delaying the catching of that squirrel.

    April actions are a perversion of Scientology ethics: 

    THE PURPOSE OF SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS IS TO GET TECH IN, NOT TO PROTECT A SQUIRREL.

    Omitted application of HCOP/L 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working:
    False purpose and use of Scientology ethics, protecting a squirrel:
    Added time to catching a squirrel, by throwing everyone’s attention onto a wrong target:
    Wrong target of attacking Scientologists who are applying KSW:
    Incorrectly included black PR campaign against Scientologists applying KSW:
    False reports on Scientologists applying KSW (as a cover up for the squirrel reported on):
    False Comm Ev on innocent Scientologists, based on her own knowing false reports:
    Altered importance of handling minor outnesses and ignoring the real situation:

    MAA April Buchanan

January 6, 1999

January 12, 1999

January 24, 1999

February 7, 1999

Mid April 1999

Late April 1999 

April 26, 1999

April 29, 1999

April 29, 1999

April 30, 1999

May 1, 1999

May 1, 1999

May 3, 1999

May 5, 1999

    Based on false reports from MAA April Buchanan, a Comm Ev is convened by Flag JC. The Interested parties are Mike & Virginia McClaughry, Greg & Debra Barnes and Ed Gonsolin.

    Basically the Interested Parties were charged with being opposed to sec checks and mutiny. 

    April Buchanan’s false data about us resulting in the comm ev:

    1. That we are opposed to and refusing sec checks.
    2. That we had a meeting where we decided to start a black PR campaign.
    3. That we held a mutiny meeting.

    The truth is:

    None of us disagree with any of LRH’s tech, including tech on sec checks. We said we are opposed to squirrel sec checks that violate LRH HCOBs. Huge difference. April omits the word squirrel and says we oppose sec checks. It is a false statement.

    Both Virginia McClaughry and Greg Barnes received gross out tech sec check sessions from Therese Blum. After that, they refuse to participate in any further squirrel sec checks by Therese or anybody else. They are not refusing any standard sec checks.

    There was a social get together where Virginia McClaughry and Greg and Debra Barnes discussed the out tech on OT 7 and what to do about it. The decision was to apply KSW.  We also told a few others on OT 7 to read HCOB C/S Series 73. It contains vital data on how to audit OT 7 and every Solo NOTS auditor should be hatted on it.

    There was never a discussion or a decision to run a black PR campaign. 

    There was no discussion or decision to mutiny or to get others to. 

    The only thing done was to refer others to an LRH HCOB and to apply KSW. These are not crimes. They are not Black PR, enemy line, or mutinous.

    Our loyalty lies with LRH and standard LRH tech. We have not betrayed anyone who stands for that. We owe no loyalty to David Mayo or any other squirrel. Attacking squirrels is not mutiny. We never pledged any allegiance to them in the first place.

    Post titles have nothing to do with KSW. If a senior exec is a squirrel, such as David Mayo, we owe him no loyalty or support. Any executive who is on source has our full support and cooperation. No squirrel has our support and cooperation, regardless of post title. 

    False report that the Interested Parties are against sec checks:
    False report that the Interested Parties decided to run a Black PR Campaign:
    False report that the Interested Parties decided to mutiny:
    Incorrectly included criminal mind, accusing others of what it is doing:

      MAA April Buchanan

    Additionally, the Comm Ev acted in an off –policy manner:

    The Comm Ev members, in knowing violation of Justice Policy refused to give a copy of the Bill of Particulars to the Interested Parties.

    The Interested Parties were also denied copies of KRs written on them.

    When the Interested Parties said there were false reports in the KRs that needed correction, the Comm Ev responded that it was not a Comm Ev matter and they were not interested in the rebuttal of the Interested Parties. This is also off policy in that a Comm Ev is supposed to be a fact finding body interested in getting at the truth.

    The Interested Parties appeared once before the Comm Ev and plead not guilty to the charges. Since the Comm Ev was not acting on policy, the Interested Parties wrote a CSW to IJC asking that it be disbanded and replaced with an on-policy Comm Ev. Thereafter, the Interested Parties, except for Ed, did not participate in the off policy Comm Ev. 

    Omitted application of LRH Justice Policies resulting in an off policy Comm Ev:
    False Comm Ev:
    False Justice:

      Chairman and members of the Comm Ev

    Per HCOP/L 24 February 1969 Justice:

    “Any false report leading to the unjust discipline of another is an act of TREASON by the person making the false report and the condition should be assigned and its penalties fully applied”.

    False ethics terminal (for creating and acting on knowing false reports): 
    False Scientologist (attacks on source Scientologists & protects squirrels):

      MAA April Buchanan

    Omitted Treason assignment to their junior, April Buchanan:

    Dir I & R Flag Heather Petzold  (she was also a member of the Comm Ev)

May 21, 1999

May & June 1999

PRESENT TIME

    RTC has designed a list of about 60 questions that are used for the 6-month sec checks. Only the first two questions are related to security. There is an LRH form for eligibility as mentioned in HCOP/L 9 March 1982RB Eligibility For OT Levels. 

    In addition, they do this FPRD style. This is out tech because: 

    FPRD is a major rundown and its mixing major rundowns since the person is mid-OT 7. It is the squirrel non-LRH revision, HCOB C/S Series RB that says you can do FPRD on an OT 7. The LRH HCOB C/S Series 73 RA says you can only do FPRD between OT levels, not during. 

    This is possibly mitigated somewhat by HCOP/L 7 January 1985 HCO Confessionals.

    “HCO Confessional Actions can include running a False Purpose Rundown form or other related rundowns that address O/Ws and nonsurvival intentions. 

    The fact that a Sec Check or False Purpose RD form is being done as an HCO Confessional does not mean that the procedure is changed”. 

    The usual circumstances under which an HCO Confessional is done are that the person is already undergoing a Comm Ev or other ethics investigatory action or is working through lower ethics conditions, and the Ethics Officer has requested that the C/S order an HCO Confessional done”.

    There APPEARS to be a conflict between HCOB C/S Series 73 that says those on OT 7 cannot get Confessionals or FPRD and HCOP/L HCO Confessionals that says HCO can request Confessionals and FPRD. 

    So, what does LRH really want done with those on OT 7? 

    There is no conflict, he answered that question in HCOB Confessionals And The Non-Interference Zone:

      “But what about a case who is out ethics and not making progress due to continuous overts and withholds or, even worse, undisclosed overts or crimes against Scientology? A person who is NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise exhibiting O/Ws or out ethics must be handled so that he can make case gains.”

      One would not embark on a series of Confessionals during another grade or OT section, but it is imperative that pre-OT on these sections who have missed withholds get them off and a specific Confessional can and should be done to accomplish this.”

      CAUTION

    “A pre-OT who is running well and making case gain should not be interrupted.”

    So, the HCOP/L HCO Confessionals and the HCOB Confessionals And The Non-Interference Zone align and agree with each other. Because the P/L also says the person is already under some ethics action such as a Comm Ev or lower conditions when HCO asks for an HCO Confessional.

    But, in violation of:

    HCOB C/S Series 73
    HCOB Confessionals And The Non Interference Zone
    HCOP/L HCO Confessionals

    Pre-OTs on OT 7 are being given Confessionals and FPRD who are:

    1. Running well and making case gain.
    2. Have not manifested NCG, nattery, critical or otherwise exhibiting O/Ws or out ethics.
    3. Are not under some ethics action such as a Comm Ev or lower conditions.

    And that is what is out tech about the 6-month check line, as it is currently being practiced. In addition, in violation of HCOP/L Eligibility For OT Levels, OT 7s are required to do a new eligibility every 6 months. 

    SUMMARY OF KNOWN OUT TECH ON OT 7

    1. Giving Confessionals and FPRD to people mid-OT 7, instead of between OT levels.
    2. Giving Confessionals and FPRD to people on OT 7 who have not manifested the indicators required by LRH, to give them one.
    3. Omitting the special confidential handling required by LRH for OT III and above.

    There are two known cases of squirrel non-LRH revisions of HCOBs: HCOB C/S Series 73

    The HCOB that gives the confidential special handling for OT III and above.

    An investigation will likely find others.

    SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY SABOTAGED THOSE TWO HCOBS. WHOEVER DID THIS IS INTENTIONALLY SABOTAGING OT 7.

    End of original report made for Upper Executives of the Church.

    Quite a bit more has happened since June 1999, which I will fill you all in on as I can. Not the least of which is that Mike McClaughry, Greg, and Debra Barnes are now declared Suppressive Persons. Verbally told to me that these were posted on the bulletin board at the coachman building at flag. Mike's is dated January 6, 2000, and Greg and Debra's are last week sometime I believe. Deb and Greg recieved theirs in writing, Mike has not, so who knows, maybe it's hearsay :).  You may ask, why did I not get declared? who knows....... maybe I am. But since the Church is now the biggest squirrel group in history, and obviously picks and chooses on what LRH it feels like applying, why bother with a minor detail like "put it in writing" "give the person a copy", etc. etc

NavLeft NavRightNavUp