The Sea Org members were there until after midnight, so they are there on October 4 . .
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.
October 4, 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: th
HCO P/L HCO Confessionals HCOB Confessional Tech Policies HCO P/L Eligibility For OT Levels HCOB Processes Allowed HCO P/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 73 RB and decides she is going to go home. .
October 5, 1998
Cosima had threatened Virginia with a car accident the day before. Virginia was set up for a car accident only one day after the threat. The Church has a history of causing car “accidents” on people the Church is attacking.
After Lisa McPherson said she was leaving Scientology, she was in a car accident in Clearwater. Gerry Armstrong was under surveillance by Church operatives, one day when Gerry was walking, one of these operatives drove a car into his body. They also tried to involve him in a freeway accident on two occasions.
Rick Aznaran, while under surveillance by Church intelligence agents, was the victim of a hit and run auto accident. Joseph Y anny stopped being an attorney for the Church due to not wanting to be involved in crimes being committed by Church executives. Y anny was attacked by the Church, including involving his fiance, Ms. Wilske, in a hit and run auto accident involving the collision of the front and rear of her vehicle, destroying the car and injuring her.
Cosima knew what she was talking about when she threatened Virginia with an auto accident. On 5 October, at 4:32 PM, a car accident was arranged on Drew Street at the corner of Missouri during rush hour traffic.
Virginia was driving West on Drew Street in a 1998 Dodge Stratus, much like this one:
The car has a long front end, the steering wheel is quite a distance from the front bumper.
At the intersection of Drew and Missouri, Virginia was waiting to turn left into a gas station. A white Toyota pickup truck was in the left lane of the oncoming traffic on Drew Street. The driver of the pickup stopped and began waving Virginia through. Virginia starting inching through her turn in front of the pickup. Before she could see around the pickup from her position in the driver’s seat, the front end of her car was crossing into the other lane of oncoming traffic.
The driver of the pickup made a show of looking back behind him and waving Virginia through again. Virginia inched forward some more and when she got to the point she could see the other lane, she saw a car barreling down on her at 40+ miles per hour.
The oncoming car was built like a tank, it was a 1972 Oldsmobile driven by a Mr. Cassisi. It was similar to the car in the photo below.
It did not brake at all, it crashed into Virginia’s car at full speed. Virginia’s car was spinning around and ended up facing the wrong direction in the Westbound lanes of traffic. Virginia’s car was a total wreck, the Oldsmobile had little damage.
A witness told the police he saw the Toyota pickup driver wave Virginia through directly into the path of the Oldsmobile, literally causing the accident, and then he saw the Toyota flee the scene. 2
Virginia walked away unhurt except for a bruised and swollen ankle. The other driver was not hurt.
While Virginia was sitting down at the scene of the accident, she received 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 was false and withdraws it.)
Virginia was even more angry at Church personnel for this attempt to divert her. She let various persons know this in no uncertain terms. After bringing it to certain persons attention that Cosima had threatened Virginia with this car accident and that that fact could bring a lot of heat should Virginia desire to pursue it, the entire demeanor of the involved Flag’s personnel changed at this point. The whole “attack” and “handling” re: the six-month check was completely dropped and Virginia was offered Assists auditing to help with any trauma from the car accident.
The arranged car accident is a crime called attempted vehicular manslaughter, and there is no statute of limitations for that crime.
Virginia accepted the Assists. She then received C/S ok to go home for a while to assist in the birth of Mike’s first grandchild. .
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 73 RB 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
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 their 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 ten 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.
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. Y ou 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. 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 never checked if it was a BT’s withhold or Virginia’s withhold.
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