Suppressive Person Defense League

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Cult Interrogation Tech

Cult Interrogation Tech

by Leave a Comment

Scientology’s FAQ: Is information divulged during auditing sessions always kept confidential?

Q Is information divulged during auditing sessions always kept confidential?1

A Absolutely and without exception. Traditionally, all communications between a minister and his parishioners have been privileged and confidential. That is certainly the case in Scientology, and this trust is never violated. The confidences given in trust during an auditing session are considered sacrosanct by the Church, and are never divulged. In fact, the Church would invoke all legal protections under its priest-penitent privilege to safeguard this confidentiality.

Notes

  1. Authentic Information & Answers to Questions About Scientology: Is information divulged during auditing sessions always kept confidential? (n.d.). authenticscientology.org. Retrieved 18 May 2010 from http://www.authenticscientology.org/page37a.htm ↩

by Leave a Comment

ESMB: The Dreaded “Final Assessment”

ExVet1: I looked around and this subject doesn’t look like it’s been kicked around on this forum before. Not for a while anyway. As many of you know, the RPF issues were leaked to Wikileaks nearly a year ago. I happen to know who did that. In the “Discussion” portion of that Wikileaks entry is an article on the dreaded RPF Final Assessment. I know who wrote that too. I also know from my own personal experience that write-up is deadly accurate. For your edification, I am leaving the report on the Final Assessment right here. I hope it pisses you off as much as it does me. I wonder if there are any French nationals on the program currently? If so, perhaps the gov’t there would appreciate the information (evil laughter and much hand-wringing)….

The leaked issues are the complete set of the Sea Organisation policies concerning the set-up, organisation and running of all of Scientology’s Rehabilitation Project Forces (RPF). This includes the “technical” program that is used to get RPF inmates to confess to their “crimes” and rid themselves of the “evil purposes” that prompted them to commit those “crimes”. These issues are the current policies in use today.

[edit] Historical Significance

These documents are genuine. They are what is in use today in the Scientology re-education camps.

The Sea Organisation is that “elite” group of Scientologists who run Scientology. The SO was established by L. Ron Hubbard in 1967 who then ran his new organisation with a very high level of discipline. In early 1974, he established the Rehabilitation Project Force for Sea Org members whom he perceived to be treasonous and destructive to the organisation or to have seriously broken its disciplinary rules, including just plain dissention.

SO members who are assigned to the RPF are considered to be serious criminals.

The RPF is still in operation today in the Sea Organisation and it uses the RPF policy issues that were just leaked. In fact, there are several “camps” located in the following areas: The SO’s Los Angeles facility known as the “PAC Base”, the “Flag Land Base” in Clearwater, Florida, the “ANZO” base located in Sydney, Australia, the UK Base located in East Grinstead, West Sussex, England and the “EU Base” located in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Cursory Analysis

There is a point concerning the technical program that is worth explaining in a bit more detail, and that is the “Final Assessment” that is done at the very end of the program. This “assessment” is done on the following questions. These are asked of the inmate while he or she is hooked up to the e-meter (glorified lie-detector) to see if these questions are still “charged” in the inmate or if the questions are “clean.” It is this last action which tends to drag out the program for years on end. If you look at the questions you will see why. The bottom line is the inmate would have to have full respect and even reverance for David Miscavige and his RTC organisation as well as the rest of Scn management. The fact that this action takes so long to complete (if it gets completed at all) says a great deal. Here are the questions:

1. Regarding Int Execs, do you have an evil purpose?
2. Regarding Int Execs. do you have a vicious intent?
3. Regarding Int Execs, have you been spreading Black PR?
4. Regarding RTC Execs, do you have an evil purpose?
5. Regarding RTC Execs, do you have a vicious intent?
6. Regarding RTC Execs, have you been spreading Black PR?
7. Regarding LRH, do you have an evil purpose?
8. Regarding LRH. do you have a vicious intent?
9. Regarding LRH, have you been spreading Black PR?
10. Regarding LRH, do you have any bad thoughts?
11. Are you secretly disaffected with Management?
12. Do you have any withholds from RTC?
13. Do you have any intention to stop Scientology?
14. Do you have any intention to stop Scientology dissemination?
15. On your RPF program, has an evil purpose been missed?

The program blatantly does NOT work as evidenced by the fact that it takes YEARS to get through it, if indeed one gets through it AT ALL. The original 1974 program was supposed to take 3 months to get through. The program has been severely altered since that time and now takes years to complete (or fail to complete). A key example of an alteration is the final assessment above, which was never advised by Hubbard and was made up by somebody else.

The RPF issues position this program as something compassionate which no other organisation offers to employees who have wronged the organisation they work for. As other organisations simply fire or prosecute errant or criminal employees, RPF inmates are supposed to consider that they are lucky that they have the “opportunity” to participate in this program. However, with these inmates being incarcerated for years on end with only 7 hours sleep, 5 hours per day of compulsory confessions, a full days hard labor and three 20-minute meal breaks, it is plain to see that this program is tantamount to an illegal internal prison system run by the Church of Scientology. Can you think of any other “religion” that treats its employees like this?

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Scientology Marriage Counseling

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 19 DECEMBER 1988
REVISED 30 JANUARY 1990

Remimeo
All Orgs and Missions
Chaplains
C/Ses
Auditors

SCIENTOLOGY MARRIAGE COUNSELING

Refs:

Tape: 5912C10 “Demonstration of New HGC Process”
HCOB 31 Dec. 59R Rev. 21.8.87 BLOW-OFFS 1
Tape: 6001C02 “Marriage” 2
HCOB 10 July 64 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING 3
HCO PL 27 May 65 PROCESSING

Scientology Marriage Counseling is a very powerful technique for restoring ARC between marital partners whose relationship has become strained or is headed for divorce.

Use of this technique is depicted in the public film The Married Couple.4

DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

Scientology Marriage Counseling can be delivered by a certified Class II Auditor who is an ordained Scientology minister (or minister-in-training) and who has been high crime checked out and passed in Qual on Scientology Marriage Counseling procedure. (Ref: HCO PL 8 Mar. 66, KSW Series 13, HIGH CRIME)

The length of time required to complete Scientology Marriage Counseling can vary, but ordinarily it can be done in one or two intensives.

This processing must be done at an org which is qualified to deliver auditing to the partner with the highest case level. For instance, if one of the partners is OT III and the other is a Grade IV Release, the counseling may be delivered at an Advanced Org, but not in a Class IV Org or mission.

PROCEDURE

Scientology Marriage Counseling is actually classified as an assist. It is meant to alleviate difficulties a couple are experiencing in their relationship with each other by helping them to unburden their accumulated overts and withholds.

Unlike most other processes, this procedure is done with three people in the auditing room—the auditor and two preclears (the marital partners).

The procedure is as follows:

1. Set up the auditing room as per HCOB 4 Dec. 77R, CHECKLIST FOR SETTING UP SESSIONS AND AN E-METER. Be sure to provide comfortable chairs for both partners. The chair used by the partner who is not holding the cans is placed to one side of the auditing table, facing the pc’s chair and slightly behind the auditor.

2. Ensure both partners understand what will be taking place in the counseling sessions. If both partners are already trained as auditors or have had a Scientology C/S-l, these points need only be briefly reviewed to ensure both understand them. If one or both partners has never given or received metered auditing before, then each of these steps must be done in full:

a. Explain that everything said in the counseling you will be doing is held in strictest confidence, according to the traditional rules of pastor/parishioner confidentiality.

b. Describe how the counseling will be done, i.e., that you will be asking a set of questions, called a “process,” of one partner until a certain result is reached, then asking the same questions of the other partner. Ensure it is understood by both partners that when one of them is holding the cans and answering your questions, the other is to remain quiet and just listen, no matter what is said and no matter how much he or she may want to comment. When you are finished directing your questions to one partner, the other will be given his or her turn.

c. Briefly explain to both partners what the E-Meter is used for. For demonstration, do a “pinch test.” Explain to both partners that to show how the meter registers mental reactions, you will give the partner holding the cans a pinch. Do so. Then get that partner to think of the pinch (while still holding the cans), showing both partners the meter reaction. (Ref: The Book of E-Meter Drills, E-Meter Drill 5RB) Keep t his demonstration and explanation very simple. You can use the book Introducing the E-Meter to help handle any questions, but do not complicate this step unnecessarily.

d. Explain what the word “floating needle” means and that a floating needle indicates that you have reached a good point in the process. Let both partners know you will indicate a floating needle when one occurs in the counseling.

e. Explain that when you have finished a counseling session, you will take both partners to the Examiner. Explain that the Examiner will have the pc hold the E-Meter cans, that the pc may say anything he wishes, and that the Examiner will not say anything other than acknowledging and indicating a floating needle when one is present.

f. Clear the words “moral code,” “overt act” and “withhold” with both partners, using the definitions sheet attached to this HCOB.

g. Clear the commands of the process with both partners, making sure they understand very clearly what is meant by “done to” and “withheld from” in the questions. Explain that when the first question is answered, you’ll give the second question and so on, back and forth between the two questions. The questions are:

1. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO (spouse’s name)?

2. WHAT HAVE YOU WITHHELD FROM (spouse’s name)?

3. Put one of the partners on the meter, set the sensitivity for the pc, do a metabolism test and check to be sure the pc is well rested, has eaten and is not hungry.

4. Start the session by saying “THIS IS THE SESSION.” (Tone 405)

5. Run the process commands alternately (1,2,1,2,1,2, etc.) until the pc has an F/N, cog and VGIs6 Indicate the F/N and give the pc the R-factor7 that you have finished directing the questions to him/her for now.

6. Have the second partner sit in the auditing chair holding the cans while the first partner sits in the third chair, observing. Start a new worksheet for the second partner.

7. Give the partner on the cans the R-factor that you’ll now be directing the same questions to him/her. Ask if he/she has any questions before you begin. Set the sensitivity, etc., as in step 3.

8. Repeat steps 5-7, each time running the process to an F/N, cog and VGIs for the partner on the meter.

9. When the minister ends a session, such as for a meal break or to end off for the day, both pcs are taken to the Examiner. When counseling is ended for the day, the minister should see that the couple is scheduled for their next counseling session.

10. Write up the counseling session using a separate Auditor’s Report Form and set of worksheets for each pc. In order to ensure that a complete record of the session exists in both pes’ folders, a photocopy of each partner’s work-sheets should be included with the original worksheets of the other when those are placed in the pc folder. (For example, the husband’s pc folder would contain the original worksheets of his sessions, plus a photocopy of the worksheets of the wife’s sessions.) Route the two folders to the C/S.

END PHENOMENA

By continuing the counseling a point should be reached where the TA has flattened out on both partners, and both are F/Ning, VGIs and in ARC with each other. That is the EP.

The aim of Scientology Marriage Counseling is to assist marital partners in restoring affinity, reality and communication with each other.

Many, many marriages at the brink of divorce have been successfully salvaged with the help of this processing. There is, however, no guarantee that a couple wishing to get a divorce will decide to remain married, and no minister or any org staff member should make any such promise or claim to anyone.

If the counseling is completed standardly, the couple will have been unburdened of the overts and withholds affecting their relationship and will be in good communication with each other and better able to make rational decisions concerning their marriage.

It may take several counseling sessions to reach the EP. A marriage that is in trouble is not something that is put together again in one night, because the number of overts and withholds usually takes a little longer to detail.

When the EP has been reached, both partners are C/Sed to declare to completion of Scientology Marriage Counseling in Qual8

TIPS

TRs
Excellent auditor TRs9 are a must in delivering Scientology Marriage Counseling. The auditor should have a flawless command of TRs 0-4 and be an expert at Upper Indoc TRs10. Considerable upset can sometimes occur in a Scientology Marriage Counseling session, and the auditor must be able to handle it and control both partners smoothly and with high ARC.

Auditor’s Code

The Auditor’s Code must be strictly observed by the minister at all times during Scientology Marriage Counseling. It is particularly important that the auditor not give any impression, by his words, tone of voice, mannerisms or by any other means, that he favors or sympathizes with one partner or the other, either in or out of session. (Ref: HCO PL 14 Oct. 68RA, THE AUDITOR’S CODE; HCOB 23 May 71 X, Basic Auditing Series 9, COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES; and HCOB 26 Apr. 71 I, TRs AND COGNITIONS)

OTs

Scientology Marriage Counseling procedure is not changed when it is being done on an OT. The procedure is the same regardless of the case level of the pc or pre-OT.
Only in doing repair of Scientology Marriage Counseling on an OT III or above is there any difference in procedure. In such a case an LCRE11 would be done following the technical rules for use of correction lists on OTs.

C/Sing

Scientology Marriage Counseling is C/Sed as one would any metered assist processing, according to the HCOBs of the C/S Series.

As the pcs may be very green, the C/S should be alert for any indicators that one or both of them do not understand what is expected and get this remedied if spotted. The C/S should also ensure that an auditor is thoroughly checked out and drilled before allowing him to do this processing. With the added randomity of two people to handle in each session and the misemotion that can sometimes come to the surface in this processing, it requires excellent auditor TRs, metering and command of the procedure.

REPAIR

Ordinarily upsets or bogs in Scientology Marriage Counseling stem from missed withholds and are handled by simply continuing the process. However, if a session is utterly bogged or if a pc is refusing to go on at all, an LCRE should be assessed and handled.

If an LCRE must be used, it should be done in a session without the pc’s spouse present; however, if overts or withholds on the spouse are gotten off in a pc’s repair session they must also be revealed by the pc to his spouse in a later session when the spouse is present. This is done by simply having the pc, in the next session, tell the spouse each of the overts or withholds that were gotten off in the repair session.

If the auditor delivering the counseling is not qualified to use the LCRE, the pc is turned over to another auditor for the repair session.

If one or both of the pes refuse to come in for a Scientology Marriage Counseling session after counseling has begun, arrangements should be made to get them in immediately for repair as above.

CAUTIONS

Simplicity

Scientology Marriage Counseling procedure is quite simple. Guard against any tendency to complicate the procedure with additional commands or steps.

One point of complexity that has been added to this action by some is in the area of setting up the pc for the action. Scientology Marriage Counseling is done as an assist for a present time difficulty. It is not a major grade or rundown requiring extensive setups before it can be done. Even rudiments are ordinarily unnecessary—if the pc is there for Scientology Marriage Counseling on his own determinism, he’ll be found to be in-session12 already; rudiments would act as a distraction in such a case and could tend to throw the pc out of session. (Ref: Tape 5911C09, “Demo of an Assist”) Unless it is known that a pc has a situation which must be handled before an assist is begun (such as a read on out-Int or out-lists) the counseling is simply begun and carried through to completion much as one would do any assist action.

Where extensive setups have erroneously been entered into, it has commonly been found that the pc’s attention is primarily on his marital situation, and that is exactly what ends up being addressed in the “setup” auditing. This can even include overts and withholds on the pc’s spouse coming to light without the benefit of the spouse being present.

If a rud needs to be flown on one or both of the partners, it should be done in session with both partners present, unless the partner needing the rud is OT III or above and the other partner is not.

Session Misemotion and Overuse of Repair

It is not uncommon for one or both of the marriage partners being counseled to show a great deal of misemotion in a Scientology Marriage Counseling session. Crying, yelling, etc., are not unusual. The auditor should not instantly think he needs to do an LCRE or other repair action when misemotion occurs. The three oldest rules in processing apply: (a) GET THE PC THROUGH IT; (b) WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF; (c) THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH. Only when continuing with the process of “What have you done to (spouse)?” “What have you withheld from (spouse)?” has not smoothed the session out should an LCRE be resorted to. (Ref: HCO PL 27 May 65, PROCESSING)

Auditing Both PCs

Ideally, both partners should be audited in the same counseling session or on the same day. Though it may not always be possible to do this, experience has shown it is definitely preferable to audit both partners in one day rather than auditing one on one day and one the next.

If you end off a counseling session by auditing spouse A, begin the next session by auditing spouse B. Example: On Monday the husband is given an hour of processing, then the wife is given 45 minutes, then the husband is given an hour and finally the wife is given an hour and a half. Tuesday the session is begun by auditing the husband, and so on.

Participation

It is very important that both partners actually take part in Scientology Marriage Counseling on their own determinism. If one of the partners is hesitant to enter into counseling, a Chaplain or FSM can and should enlighten him or her to bring about an understanding of how the counseling could help. However, if one or both of the partners is not in agreement with doing the processing or is will succeed; in fact, Scientology Marriage Counseling may not be sold or delivered in such circumstances. A person who did not sign up for this counseling on his or her own determinism is a troublesome source per HCO PL 27 Oct. 64R, POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE,13 and is to be handled per that policy.

It may happen that partway through Scientology Marriage Counseling one or both of the partners originate that they have decided to get a divorce. Even if they seem to be satisfied with their decision, the counseling must be continued until the full EP is reached: TA flattened out on both partners, both F/Ning and VGIs and in ARC with each other.

TRAINING

When a couple has completed Scientology Marriage Counseling, they must be sold and delivered training to hat them on basic Scientology and tools they can use to build a strong and lasting relationship. The How to Improve Your Marriage Course is a Scientology Life Improvement Course designed specifically for this purpose and is part of a standard marriage handling program. Following the How to Improve Your Marriage Course, the couple should also do the Success Through Communication Course.

____

When applied standardly, Scientology Marriage Counseling is a tremendously effective tool that can be used to open the way to a happy and satisfying marriage for couples who want to repair and improve their relationship.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Compilation assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations
Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations

HCOB 19.12.88R Attachment 1

SCIENTOLOGY MARRIAGE COUNSELING
DEFINITIONS SHEET

The following definitions are for use in clearing these terms as part of Scientology Marriage Counseling.

Moral Code: An agreed-upon code of conduct. Whenever people get together and operate as groups, they make agreements on codes of conduct regarding what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral—in other words, what will be contributive to survival and what will be destructive of survival. This is a moral code—a series of agreements to which a person has subscribed to guarantee the survival of a group. It doesn’t matter what the size of the group is—whether it is a group of two people forming a marriage or a whole nation being formed—they enter into certain agreements.

Overt Act: A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt act. An overt act violates what was agreed upon.

Withhold: An unspoken, unannounced transgression against a moral code by which a person is bound. A withhold is, then, an overt act that a person committed that he or she is not talking about. Any withhold comes after an overt act.

Hubbard, L. R. (1980, 23 July). Scientology Marriage Counseling. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XIII, pp. 364-71). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

  1. 31 Dec. 59R Rev. 21.8.87 BLOW-OFFS ↩
  2. Tape: 6001C02 “Marriage” ↩
  3. HCOB 10 July 64 OVERTS-ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING ↩
  4. Scientology promotes this film on their web site: http://marriageproblems.org/Scientology-film.htm ↩
  5. Definition: Tone 40. ↩
  6. F/N, cog and VGIs: Floating needle on the E-Meter, “cognition” or “new realization” and “very good indicators,” such as pc smiling. See Definition: End phenomena. ↩
  7. R-factor means “reality factor.” It is a way of saying something authoritatively about the way things are. ↩
  8. Qual: Qualifications Division in an org. ↩
  9. Definition: Training Routines. ↩
  10. Definition: Upper Indoctrination. ↩
  11. See HCOB: Confessional Repair List — LCRE. ↩
  12. Definition: In session ↩
  13. HCO PL 27 Oct. 64R, POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: False Purpose Rundown Executive Posting Qualifications Form

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1988R1
REVISED 19 JUNE 1989

Remimeo
False Purpose RD Auditors and C/Ses
Tech/Qual
HCO

False Purpose Rundown Series 10 -L

FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN EXECUTIVE POSTING QUALIFICATIONS FORM

Refs:
HCOB 5 June 84 FPRD Series 1 FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
HCOB 9 June 84R Rev. 3.5.85  FPRD Series 5R AUDITING THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
HCOB 11 June 84 FPRD Series 7 C/Sing THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
HCOB 1 Mar. 77 III FORMULATING CONFESSIONAL QUESTIONS
HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II CONFESSIONAL FORMS
HCO PL 28 Mar. 84 II Exec Series 40 EXECUTIVE POSTING QUALIFICATIONS

This form is used on any person being proposed for executive posting in a Scientology organization, per HCO PL 28 Mar. 84 II, Exec Series 40, EXECUTIVE POSTING QUALIFICATIONS.

It is not mandatory that a person be audited on any other False Purpose Rundown form prior to receiving this one.

This list may have questions added to it by the C/S where needed. For example, the C/S may add questions to Section I pertaining specifically to the person’s post and duties. (Refs: HCOB 1 Mar. 77 III, FORMULATING CONFESSIONAL QUESTIONS, and HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II, CONFESSIONAL FORMS)

The form may only be delivered by a trained and qualified Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor. All False Purpose Rundown HCOBs apply in delivering this form, i.e., the pc must be standardly set up to receive the action, etc.

USE OF OTHER FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN FORMS

While the C/S may, at his discretion, require that a person receive another False Purpose Rundown form or forms in order to fulfill executive posting qualifications, this is the only form which is specifically required for this purpose. The pc can be given other forms as part of a full False Purpose Rundown pc program. (Refs: HCOB 11 June 84, FPRD Series 7, C/Sing THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN, and HCO PL 28 Mar. 84 II, Exec Series 40, EXECUTIVE POSTING QUALIFICATIONS)

AUDITOR INSTRUCTIONS

The auditor does the whole form on the pc, starting with the Section I questions and proceeding on through to the end of the Section II questions. Every question is cleared and checked on the meter.

Reading questions on this list are handled with False Purpose Rundown procedure.

Questions in Section I of this form ask for overts, which are handled with Steps A through G of the False Purpose Rundown procedure.

Questions in Section II ask directly for evil purposes, destructive intentions and false considerations, and are handled using Steps C through G of False Purpose Rundown procedure.

SECTION I QUESTIONS:

1. HAVE YOU HAD A BACK-OFF ON HANDLING SOME AREA OF YOUR POST?
(Find which area he has a back-off on handling, get when it started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then check for and handle any other such prior overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #1.)

2. HAVE YOU HAD A BACK-OFF ON HANDLING SOME JUNIOR?
(Find which junior he has a back-off on handling, get when it started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then check for and handle any other such prior overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #2.)

3. HAS THERE BEEN SOME SITUATION YOU SHOULD HAVE HANDLED, BUT INSTEAD WERE “REASONABLE” ABOUT?
(Find what the situation was, get when it started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then check for and handle any other such prior overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #3.)

4. IS THERE SOME DEPARTMENT OR AREA YOU HAVE TENDED TO NEGLECT OR NOT-IS?
(Find the department or area, get when the neglect or not-is started and then pull the prior overt. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then check for and handle any other such prior overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #4.)

5. HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT ON A SENIOR?

6. HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT ON ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER?

7. HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT ON A PUBLIC SCIENTOLOGIST?

8. HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT ON A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION?

9. IS THERE SOME OVERT ACT YOU’VE HAD TO RESTRAIN YOURSELF FROM COMMITTING?

10. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY WITHHELD IN AUDITING OR SEC CHECKING?

11. DO YOU HAVE A SECRET OVERT?

12. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING YOU COULD GET INTO SERIOUS TROUBLE FOR?

13. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING YOU THINK MIGHT GET YOU REMOVED FROM YOUR POST OR ORG, IF IT WERE KNOWN?

14. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING TO MAKE YOUR GROUP OR ORGANIZATION LOSE?

15. AS A STAFF MEMBER, HAVE YOU EVER COMPROMISED YOUR INTEGRITY?

16. HAVE YOU QUICKIED OR DONE A BRUSH-OFF JOB OF SOMETHING?

17. HAVE YOU EVER JUST PRETENDED TO DO A POST?

18. HAVE YOU BEEN IDLE, LOAFED OR GOOFED OFF ON POST?

19. HAVE YOU EVER ACCEPTED PAY OR OTHER SUPPORT AS A STAFF MEMBER WHEN YOU WERE PRODUCING NO OR FEW EXCHANGEABLE PRODUCTS?

20. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH OR CONDONED A CRIMINAL POSTING?

21. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO PUT ETHICS IN ON A JUNIOR?

22. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO UPHOLD OR SET AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS?

23. HAVE YOU ENCOURAGED ANOTHER TO BE OUT-ETHICS?

24. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING OUT-ETHICS?

25. HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY MISAPPLIED ETHICS OR JUSTICE?

26. HAVE YOU EVER WANTED TO LEAVE STAFF?
(Find out when this was and check for an overt committed against the group prior to wanting to leave. Handle that overt per Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure. Then check for and handle any other such prior overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #26.)

27. HAVE YOU KNOWINGLY GONE BY MISUNDERSTOODS?

28. HAVE YOU EVER SUGGESTED OR ORDERED AN LRH HCOB OR HCO PL NOT BE FOLLOWED?

29. HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN OUT DATA WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO HCO BULLETINS OR POLICY LETTERS?

30. HAVE YOU KNOWINGLY VIOLATED LRH POLICY?

31. HAVE YOU ALTERED LRH TECH?

32. HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY NONCOMPLIED WITH A LEGAL ORDER?

33. HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO MAKE A SENIOR OR MANAGEMENT WRONG?

34. HAVE YOU BACKFLASHED OR BEEN DISCOURTEOUS TO A SENIOR?

35. HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY CRASHED YOUR STATS IN ORDER TO MAKE SOMEBODY WRONG?

36. HAVE YOU INDULGED IN CASE ON POST?

37. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY CARRIED OUT AN ILLEGAL OR DESTRUCTIVE ORDER?

38. HAVE YOU ISSUED AN ILLEGAL OR DESTRUCTIVE ORDER?

39. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO WRITE A KNOWLEDGE REPORT WHEN YOU KNEW OF AN OUT-ETHICS SITUATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED?

40. HAVE YOU EVER FORBIDDEN OR PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM WRITING OR RELAYING A KNOWLEDGE REPORT?

41. HAVE YOU EVER MADE A PRACTICE OF FOLLOWING YOUR OWN OR OTHERS’ “SUCCESSFUL ACTIONS” RATHER THAN LEARNING AND APPLYING LRH POLICY EXACTLY?

42. HAVE YOU FAILED TO KEEP ABREAST OF OR IGNORED STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR YOUR AREA?

43. HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING THAT CUT ACROSS STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR YOUR AREA?

44. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED OR CUT ACROSS CURRENT AND AUTHORIZED TACTICAL PLANNING OR PROGRAMS FOR YOUR AREA?

45. HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED TO DIVERT ORG BUSINESS ELSEWHERE?

46. HAVE YOU EVER PUT OTHER-DYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A STAFF MEMBER OR EXEC?

47. HAVE YOU EVER USED ORG LINES, MATERIALS OR CONNECTIONS FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS?

48. HAVE YOU EVER PERVERTED THE INTENT OF A BONUS OR COMMISSION SYSTEM?

49. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO SEE THAT A PAID-FOR SERVICE WAS DELIVERED?

50. HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITY?

51. HAVE YOU EVER USED YOUR POSITION TO OBTAIN UNUSUAL FAVORS?

52. HAVE YOU EVER ENGAGED IN ANY SORT OF OUT-2D ACTIVITIES WITH PUBLIC STUDENTS OR PCs?

53. HAVE YOU EVER PERSISTED IN ANY 2D RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO THE ORGANIZATION?

54. HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING ON THE 2D YOU HOPE WON’T BE FOUND OUT?

55. HAVE YOU USED DRUGS OR ALCOHOL TO EXCESS?

56. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO BECOME ADDICTED TO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL?

57. AFTER RECEIVING TRAINING OR PROCESSING HAVE YOU REVERTED TO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL?

58. HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED TO SHIFT THE BLAME TO ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER OR EXEC FOR SOME OVERT YOU HAD COMMITTED?
(Once the act of attempting to shift the blame has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, pull the actual overt the pc was attempting to shift the blame for and handle it with Steps A to G. Then recheck the original question, #58.)

59. HAVE YOU USED FALSE STATEMENTS OR “PR” TO COVER UP AN OVERT?
(Once the act of covering up the overt with false statements or “PR” has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, pull the actual overt the pc was covering up and handle it with Steps A to G. Then recheck the original question, #59.)

60. HAVE YOU EVER FALSE REPORTED ABOUT SOMETHING?

61. HAVE YOU EVER FALSIFIED A STATISTIC?

62. HAVE YOU EVER STOLEN ANYTHING FROM A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION?

63. HAVE YOU EVER DAMAGED ORG PROPERTY?

64. HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED TO DISCOURAGE ORG PCs OR STUDENTS FROM ADVANCING TO A HIGHER ORG?

65. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING THAT CUT THE DISSEMINATION LINES OF A SCIENTOLOGY ORG?

66. HAVE YOU ENCOURAGED, CONDONED OR IGNORED NONSTANDARD TECHNICAL DELIVERY?

67. HAVE YOU ENCOURAGED, CONDONED OR IGNORED LOW TECHNICAL QUALITY?

68. HAVE YOU ORIGINATED OR FORWARDED BLACK PR ABOUT STAFF MEMBERS OR SENIORS?
(Once the overt act of originating or spreading black PR has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, get the prior overt the pc committed and handle with Steps A to G. Then check for and handle any other such overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #68.)

69. HAVE YOU ORIGINATED OR FORWARDED BLACK PR ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS OR MANAGEMENT?
(Once the overt act of originating or spreading black PR has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, get the prior overt the pc committed and handle with Steps A to G. Then check for and handle any other such overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #69.)

70. HAVE YOU EVER ADVISED ANYONE AGAINST JOINING STAFF OF A SCIENTOLOGY ORG OR THE SEA ORG?

71. HAVE YOU MAINTAINED A CONNECTION TO A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON OR GROUP?

72. HAVE YOU EVER MADE FUN OF OR JOKED ABOUT YOUR OWN POST OR DUTIES?
(Once the overt act of joking or degrading has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, get the prior overt the pc committed and handle with Steps A to G. Then check for and handle any other such overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #72.)

73. HAVE YOU EVER MADE FUN OF OR JOKED ABOUT OTHER STAFF OR EXECS?
(Once the overt act of joking or degrading has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, get the prior overt the pc committed and handle with Steps A to G. Then check for and handle any other such overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #73.)

74. HAVE YOU EVER MADE FUN OF OR JOKED ABOUT LRH TECH OR POLICY?
(Once the overt act of joking or degrading has been handled to EP with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure, get the prior overt the pc committed and handle with Steps A to G. Then check for and handle any other such overt. When these have been handled, recheck the original question, #74.)

75. HAVE YOU EVER PREVENTED A FELLOW STAFF MEMBER FROM WEARING HIS HAT?

76. HAVE YOU EVER PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM LEARNING HIS POST?

77. HAVE YOU EVER CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO AN ORG MUTINY?

78. HAVE YOU EVER WITHHELD THAT YOU WERE CONNECTED TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING HOSTILE TO YOU?

79. HAVE YOU EVER WITHHELD THAT YOU WERE CONNECTED TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING THAT DIDN’T AGREE WITH DIANETICS OR SCIENTOLOGY?

80. HAVE YOU EVER WITHHELD THAT YOU WERE ROLLER- COASTERING OR HAVING OTHER MANIFESTATIONS OF PTSness?

81. HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT ON LRH?

82. HAVE YOU HAD A WITHHOLD FROM LRH?

83. IS THERE SOME OTHER OVERT YOU HAVE COMMITTED THAT WOULD BE AWFUL TO HAVE TO GET OFF?

84. HAVE YOU CONTINUED TO COMMIT SOME OVERT OR TYPE OF OVERT ALREADY GOTTEN OFF?

SECTION II QUESTIONS:

85. DO YOU WANT A POST FOR SOME DESTRUCTIVE PURPOSE?

86. DO YOU WANT A POST TO DOMINATE OTHERS?

87. DO YOU SECRETLY WANT TO STOP THE ORGANIZATION?

88. ARE YOU AFRAID THE ORGANIZATION MIGHT GET TOO BIG?

89. DO YOU HAVE A DESTRUCTIVE INTENTION CONCERNING THE FUTURE OF SCIENTOLOGY?

90. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO MAKE A GROUP FAIL?

91. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO MAKE SCIENTOLOGY FAIL?

92. HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN INTENTION TO FAIL?

93. HAVE YOU HAD SOME PURPOSE WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORG OR SCIENTOLOGY?

94. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO TAKE SOMEONE’S MONEY FOR A SERVICE WITHOUT DELIVERING IT?

95. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A PURPOSE TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING?

96. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO GET AWAY WITH DOING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE?

97. DO YOU WANT A POST ONLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN?

98. DO YOU HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE FOR BEING ON STAFF?

99. DO YOU INTEND TO HARM SCIENTOLOGY DISSEMINATION?

100. HAVE YOU HAD A FEELING OF WANTING TO GET EVEN FOR SOMETHING?

101. HAVE YOU EVER WANTED TO HARM ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER?

102. DO YOU HAVE A SECRET DESIRE TO SEE SOMEONE FAIL?

END RUDS:

(Session withholds are handled with usual withhold rudiment procedure. Undisclosed overts missed in doing the questions on the list are handled with Steps A to G of False Purpose RD procedure.)

1. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD A HALF-TRUTH?

2. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD AN UNTRUTH?

3. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ONLY TO IMPRESS ME?

4. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TRIED TO DAMAGE SOMEONE?

5. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU DELIBERATELY TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE E-METER?

6. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU SUCCESSFULLY WITHHELD SOMETHING?

7. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU COVERED UP FOR SOMEONE ELSE?

8. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYONE SAID YOU HAD A WITHHOLD WHEN YOU DIDN’T HAVE ONE?

9. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN ASSERTED?

10. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN SUPPRESSED?

11. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN INVALIDATED?

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations

Hubbard, L. R. (1988, 4 May). Executive Posting Qualifications Form. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 327-36.). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

by Leave a Comment

Confessionals—Types Of TRs

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST 19871

Remimeo
Class II Auditors and above
All Sec Checkers
All C/Ses
Tech/Qual

CONFESSIONALS – TYPES OF TRs

Refs:
HCOB 8 Nov. 84 SECURITY CHECKER BEINGNESS
HCOB 22 Apr. 80R  Rev. 26.7.86  ASSESSMENT DRILLS

In Confessionals there are two tones, two types of TRs.

The first type is used in asking the Sec Check question. These are regular prepared list TRs (Assessment TRs).

The second TRs are those with which you take up the pc’s answers. If these TRs are rough, the pc feels he’s being accused. They should therefore be less abrupt and choppy and should be warmer than the Assessment TRs.

An auditor should fully shift gears from “the inquisitor” to “the confessor” once the pc has found an answer to the question (an overt or withhold). One uses the warmer TRs in getting the when, all, how was it justified, etc.

This is not difficult to do. But it must be well drilled by all Confessional auditors.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Compilation assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations

Hubbard, L. R. (1987, 13 August). Confessionals—Types Of TRs. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XIII, p. 122). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

  1. Document studied on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course. ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: First Dynamic Form

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 NOVEMBER 19851

Remimeo
FPRD Auditors and C/Ses
Tech/Qual
MAAs/Ethics Offs

False Purpose Rundown Series 10-K

FIRST DYNAMIC FORM

Refs:
HCOB 5 June 84 FPRD Series 1 FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
HCOB 9 June 84R FPRD Series 5R Rev. 3.5.85 AUDITING THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
HCOB 11 June 84 FPRD Series 7 C/Sing THE FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
HCOB 1 Mar. 77 III FORMULATING CONFESSIONAL QUESTIONS
HCOB 1 Mar. 77 II CONFESSIONAL FORMS

This form is for use in auditing the False Purpose Rundown on the subject of the first dynamic. It is used after the pc has been audited on the False Purpose RD Basic Form (HCOB 14 June 84, False Purpose Rundown Series 10-A).

On a case being programed for False Purpose RD forms covering several dynamics, one would usually do this one before doing second dynamic, third dynamic, and so on.

This list may have questions added to it by the C/S, but questions are not deleted from it in any case.

It may only be audited by a fully trained and qualified Hubbard False Purpose Rundown Auditor.

AUDITOR INSTRUCTIONS

The auditor does the whole form on the pc, starting with the Section I questions and proceeding on through to the end of the Section II questions. Every question is cleared and checked on the meter.

Reading questions on this list are handled with False Purpose Rundown procedure. Questions in Section I of this form ask for overts, which are handled with Steps A through G of the False Purpose Rundown procedure.

Questions in Section II ask directly for evil purposes and destructive intentions, and are handled using Steps C through G of False Purpose Rundown procedure.

Each question should be well grooved in with the pc, so that it is clear how the question might apply to his own particular case or circumstances.

SECTION I QUESTIONS:

1. HAVE YOU EVER HARMED YOURSELF?

2. HAVE YOU EVER DELIBERATELY MADE SOMEONE THINK BADLY OF YOU?

3. HAVE YOU EVER DENIED YOURSELF AN OPPORTUNITY?

4. HAVE YOU EVER MADE SOMEONE PUNISH YOU?

5. HAVE YOU EVER NOT LET YOURSELF HAVE SOMETHING?

6. HAVE YOU EVER MADE YOURSELF ILL?

7. HAVE YOU EVER DEBASED OR DEGRADED YOURSELF?

8. HAVE YOU EVER PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING?

9. HAVE YOU EVER RESTRAINED YOURSELF FROM CREATING?

10. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY CONSUMED A HARMFUL DRUG OR OTHER HARMFUL SUBSTANCE?

11. HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED TO DO YOURSELF IN?

12. HAVE YOU EVER NOT LET YOURSELF UNDERSTAND SOMETHING?

13. HAVE YOU EVER MISUSED AN ABILITY?

14. HAVE YOU EVER PUNISHED YOURSELF?

15. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO EXERCISE AN ABILITY YOU HAD?

16. HAVE YOU EVER WITHHELD SOMETHING FROM YOURSELF?

17. HAVE YOU EVER PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM BEING SOMETHING?

18. HAVE YOU EVER INVALIDATED YOURSELF?

19. HAVE YOU EVER SUPPRESSED AN INTEREST IN DOING SOMETHING?

20. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH A TARGET YOU’D SET FOR YOURSELF?

21. HAVE YOU EVER Q-AND-Aed WITH SOMETHING YOU’D SET OUT TO DO?

22. HAVE YOU EVER DONE SOMETHING WHICH WOULD PREVENT CASE GAIN?

23. HAVE YOU EVER REWARDED YOURSELF WHEN YOU WERE UNPRODUCTIVE?

24. HAVE YOU EVER PENALIZED YOURSELF WHEN YOU WERE PRODUCTIVE?

25. HAVE YOU EVER COMPROMISED WITH YOUR OWN REALITY?

26. IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT YOURSELF THAT YOU REGRET?

27. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY LIED TO AN AUDITOR?

28. HAVE YOU EVER ATTESTED TO A LEVEL OR GRADE IN DIANETICS OR SCIENTOLOGY THAT YOU KNEW YOU HAD NOT ATTAINED?

29. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU DID THAT YOU JUST CAN’T FORGIVE YOURSELF FOR?

SECTION II QUESTIONS:

30. HAVE YOU WANTED TO DIE?

31. HAVE YOU EVER WANTED TO CEASE TO EXIST?

32. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED DOING YOURSELF IN AS A SOLUTION TO SOMETHING?

33. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO HARM YOURSELF?

34. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO MAKE YOUR OWN EXISTENCE MISERABLE?

35. HAVE YOU EVER WANTED TO SUFFER?

36. HAVE YOU EVER INTENDED TO GET YOURSELF PUNISHED?

37. HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN EVIL PURPOSE TOWARD YOURSELF?

38. HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN INTENTION THAT WAS DESTRUCTIVE TO YOUR PERSONAL SURVIVAL?

39. HAVE YOU EVER NOT WANTED TO BE YOURSELF?

END RUDS:

(Session withholds are handled with usual withhold rudiment procedure. Undisclosed overts missed in doing the Sec Checking questions on the list are handled with Steps A-G of False Purpose RD procedure.)

1. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD A HALF-TRUTH?

2. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD AN UNTRUTH?

3. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ONLY TO IMPRESS ME?

4. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TRIED TO DAMAGE SOMEONE?

5. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU DELIBERATELY TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE E-METER?

6. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU SUCCESSFULLY WITHHELD SOMETHING?

7. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU COVERED UP FOR SOMEONE ELSE?

8. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYONE SAID YOU HAD A WITHHOLD WHEN YOU DIDN’T HAVE ONE?

9. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN ASSERTED?

10. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN SUPPRESSED?

11. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS ANYTHING BEEN INVALIDATED?

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1985, 21 November). First Dynamic Form. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 90-3.). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes