Suppressive Person Defense League

You are here: Home / Archives for HSSC

HSSC

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: Security Checker Beingness

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 NOVEMBER 1984R1
REVISED 18 JUNE 1989

Remimeo
All Sec Checkers
Auditors
C/Ses
MAAs/Ethics Offs
Academy Supers
Intern Supers
HSSC Course
Academy Level II
Tech/Qual
HCO

SECURITY CHECKER BEINGNESS

Refs:
HCOB 10 Apr. 80    AUDITOR BEINGNESS
HCOB 4 Apr. 65 ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
HCOB 26 May 60 SECURITY CHECKS
HCOB 24 Aug. 64 SESSION MUST-NOTS
HCOB 26 Apr. 71 I TRs AND COGNITIONS
HCOB 10 May 62 PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING
HCOB 12 Feb. 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
HCOB 28 Nov. 78    AUDITORS WHO MISS WITHHOLDS, PENALTY
Tape: 6201C16 “Nature of Withholds”
Tape: 6202C14 “Directing Attention”
Book: E-Meter Essentials, Chapter H, “Confessionals”

Just as a professional auditor must fully assume the BEINGNESS of a professional auditor in order to be a success, so must a Security Checker understand and fully assume the BEINGNESS of a Sec Checker. There is such a beingness, and it is distinctly itself.

A Sec Check session can be technically correct but for one key ingredient: the Sec Checker’s beingness. In other words, the correct questions were asked, the metering was faultless, the Auditor’s Code was observed to the letter and the pc was in-session. Yet the Sec Checker missed. He was being an auditor or an observer, when he should have been a SECURITY CHECKER.

BEINGNESS

A Sec Checker is a detective. He is there to FIND OUT.

Any theetie-weetie attitude or a coy “You don’t have any withholds do you?” approach are straight routes to failure as a Sec Checker.

The good Sec Checker is marked by his thoroughness, his willingness to pry, his swinish suspicion. He’s a believer in the meter and little else when he is on the trail of a pc’s withhold.

This does not, however, mean that a Sec Checker should be misemotional or accusative. It means that he sees what he sees. He knows that when his meter tells him something is there, something is there—and he knows when he’s gotten it all. He knows well what sort of misdirection a preclear can volunteer in an effort to hang on to a withhold. He understands what is going on and smoothly and unconcernedly goes right ahead and gets the job done with ARC. And so his pcs win. Remember that a Sec Check, even when being done for justice or investigatory purposes, is for the pc.

The beingness of a Sec Checker is that of a detective.

ATTITUDE

Live communication with the pc (that is to say, flawless TRs) is essential. A wrong or challenging auditor attitude can throw the scene off as there is a destroyed comm cycle. Instead of bringing up the pc’s confront and willingness to dig and get off his transgressions, an accusative attitude on the part of the Sec Checker backs the pc into the reactive bank. The law from Dianetics: The Original Thesis applies: Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank.

Sometimes the pc needs an R-factor, such as a helpful “I am trying to complete this Sec Check so you can get on with your next level, so let’s buckle down and get it all cleaned up.”

SEQUENCE

One should first be well trained in the technical skills of Sec Checking. His TRs must be faultless; he has to be a metering ace and have his admin and procedure down cold. He must have certainty of his tools and his ability to use them. Just as it is a waste of time for an auditor to attempt a full sort-out of his auditor beingness before he has mastered TRs and the other technical basics of auditing, it is fruitless for a Sec Checker to attempt this step before he knows his Sec Checking tech inside and out.

Having duplicated and gained an understanding of Sec Checking basics and mastered its mechanics, the Sec Checker can then fully assume the proper beingness. The evidence of his having done so will appear in the Sec Checks he does: They will roll along successfully, with the pc well controlled and rapidly shedding the burden of his transgressions.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 8 November). Security Checker Beingness. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 611-12). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

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

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: “Murder Routine”

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JUNE 19841; 2
Issue II

Remimeo
Auditors
C/Ses
Cramming Officers
MAAs/Ethics Offs
Tech/Qual
False Purpose RD Auditors
Class XII Auditors
Sec Checkers

“MURDER ROUTINE”

Some years ago I developed a simple technique, that has proven very useful to Sec Checkers, known as “murder routine.” This name came about when an auditor, having some difficulty with a pc insisting he’d never done anything bad in his whole life was directed to ask if the pc had murdered someone, robbed a bank, and other such exaggerated Sec Check questions. Upon being asked such questions, the overt the pc was sitting on became much more confrontable to him, by comparison, and off it came. This became known as the “murder routine.” It is also known as “magnifying the overt” or “worse than” technique.

Where you have a validly reading Confessional question, but the pc is not coming up with a specific overt for one reason or another, you can very often hit pay dirt by giving the pc some samples of noncomparable magnitude. You just give him a horrible comparison, in the face of which the actual overt looks mighty small—and off it comes.

For example, the pc is getting a fall on “overts on cats” but saying, “Well, I . . . really nothing there that I can see, and …” The auditor, having tried unsuccessfully to get a specific overt with good TR 4, can move right in with the “murder routine”: “Well, have you deliberately run down any cats with a car? Strangled any cats just for the fun of it? Lopped some cat’s ears off with the garden shears?” The pc says, “Oh no, nothing, nothing like that! I kicked the neighbor’s cat, that’s all . . . ,” and you’re away: “Well, thank you. Now, when was that?” and so on.

Blood running all over the place, you see, in the picture you’re painting, and the pc surrenders. It begins to look like a much more confrontable thing he’s done, by comparable magnitude.

If this tech isn’t already part of your repertoire as an auditor, drill it well and put it to good use.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 6 June). “Murder Routine”. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XII p. 565). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Rock Slams, More About

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JUNE 19841
Issue I

Remimeo
Auditors
C/Ses
HCO
Tech/Qual
MAAs/Ethics Offs
New Class IX (ACS) Auditors
False Purpose RD
C/S Course

ROCK SLAMS,  MORE ABOUT

Refs:
HCOB       3 Sept. 78         DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM
HCOB       10 Aug. 76R    R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN
Rev. 5.9.78
HCOB 1 Nov. 74RA    ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS
Rev. 5.9.78

It is true that an R/S indicates an underlying evil intention. And if one occurs it is vital that it be noted clearly. But an R/S is only an indicator.

R/Ses found in folders sometimes can’t be made to repeat due to additional overburden or new withholds or something of the sort. A rock slam is a definite indicator but it is not THE indicator. There are various reasons for this—the auditor might be looking somewhere else, the meter may be discharged and the R/Ses missed or, on the other hand, a bad connection in the line or the pc wearing rings can also turn on a false R/S.

The point is that in detecting an evil purpose one would not rely totally on whether or not an R/S did or did not turn on. It is just an indicator. It’s not proof. A person’s conduct and his actions are a proof. Thus, behavior and production records are a more reliable indicator.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 6 June). Rock Slams, More About. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, p. 564.) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: The “Lost Tech” of Handling Overts and Evil Purposes

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JUNE 1984R1; 2
Issue IV
REVISED 12 JANUARY 1990

(Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title)

Remimeo
Auditors
C/Ses
MAAs/Ethics Offs
Cramming Officers
HCO
Tech
Qual
HSSC Checksheet
False Purpose RD Auditors and C/Ses

False Purpose Rundown Series 2R

THE “LOST TECH” OF HANDLING OVERTS AND EVIL PURPOSES

Refs:

HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 KSW Series 1 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO PL 17 June 70RB    KSW Series 5R Rev. 25.10.83 TECHNICAL DEGRADES
HCOB 28 Feb. 84 C/S Series 118 PRETENDED PTS
HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S
HCOB 9 Feb. 79R KSW Series 23R Rev. 23.8.84 HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH CHECKLIST
HCOB 15 Feb. 79 KSW Series 24 VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES
HCO PL 17 Jan. 79 A NEW TYPE OF CRIME

In a recent review of several cases, I’ve unearthed some vital tech in the fields of pulling overts and handling evil purposes that had been “lost” (buried) by certain SPs who’ve long since departed. This tech has now been put fully back into use and—with the addition of totally new breakthroughs on the handling of evil purposes—is more powerful than ever.

HISTORY

In early days I developed Security Checking to a high skill, whereby the meter was used to get the exact time, place, form and event nailed down on every overt.

In later years, in rundowns such as Expanded Dianetics, Sec Checking was covertly knocked out of use through verbal tech. This got to the point where some cases, not having been unburdened of later overts and withholds with Sec Checking, were sent off down the track in search of early overts and evil purposes well beyond the confront and reality of the preclear. Attempts were sometimes made to use high-powered L&N questions on such pes to locate evil purposes and intentions to run. Burdened with unpulled overts, the pcs had a hard time answering such questions.

A few unscrupulous persons who themselves were strenuously avoiding being sec checked put this “tech” out in issues. It of course threw a wrench into the works and was one of the main tricks they pulled in an effort to undermine the workability of Expanded Dianetics.

Sec Checking tech was, some years later, put back into use with a vengeance and many pcs got excellent gains from it. But not all of the tech was restored: The tech of handling evil purposes had been omitted!

What happened was that a “pendulum swing” effect had occurred. At one extreme, only straight pulling of overts and withholds close to present time was stressed. And at the other extreme, scant attention was paid to skilled Sec Checking of the pc’s current or recent withholds and, instead, auditors were guiding pcs in a search for whole track incidents and evil purposes exclusively.

SUCCESS

The fact is that any auditing aimed at handling the basic factors that can stall a case cannot succeed up to its full potential unless it includes BOTH:

A. THOROUGH, VIGOROUS PULLING OF THE PC’S OVERTS, AND

B. TRACING THE OVERT BACK TO E/S OVERTS ON THAT CHAIN AND BACK TO THE UNDERLYING EVIL PURPOSE AND CARRYING IT THROUGH TO A FULL BLOW.

I have since restored the tech of Sec Checking to full use and it is working very well in the hands of skilled auditors.

But now we have the brand-new, startlingly direct and powerful tech of the False Purpose Rundown! Based on discoveries made in upper level research this new rundown has produced spectacular results, including the undoing of psychs’ suppressive actions of long, long ago. But for an auditor to be able to use this new tech he must first be a skilled Sec Checker.

This does not mean that the technology of Sec Checking cannot be used, nor is this HCO PL intended to prevent people from being sec checked as part of HCO investigatory or justice actions. Sec Checking is a vital tool in its own right.

ETHICS

If in the future any person is found to be omitting or refusing to deliver the False Purpose RD or related RDs when needed, or doing something else and calling it “False Purpose RD,” he may be called before a Committee of Evidence on a charge of:

ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE OR ADVISING OR ENCOURAGING OR CONDONING THE ABANDONMENT OR REDUCTION OF USE OF THE FULL TECHNOLOGY OF LOCATING AND HANDLING OVERTS, EVIL PURPOSES, DESTRUCTIVE INTENTIONS AND NONSURVIVAL CONSIDERATIONS.

This offense is classified as a high crime, and if proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a Committee of Evidence, the offender may be declared suppressive and expelled from the Church.

SUMMARY

In this technology lies the key to sanity, certainty, reach and ability. Only the truly suppressive would wish to see it neglected or abandoned.
With this tech in your good hands and well applied, their wish will fade away as they do.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 5 June). The “Lost Tech” of Handling Overts and Evil Purposes. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, (1991 ed., Subject Volume 3: 711-13.) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Pretended PTS

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 19841; 2

(Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title.)

Remimeo
Execs
MAA/EO Hat
HCO
Tech/Qual C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
Missionaires

C/S Series 118

PRETENDED PTS

(This data is also issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)

Refs:

HCOB 19 June 70 II C/S Series 8 CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

HCOB 3 May 80 PC INDICATORS

HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S

HCO PL 11 May 65 ETHICS OFFICER HAT

HCOB 9 May 77 II PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT

HCOB 28 Nov. 70 C/S Series 22  PSYCHOSIS

HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE

HUBBARD CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.

It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.

These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.

APPARENT SEQUENCE

Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:

a. They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.

b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.

c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.

d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).

In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.

What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.

We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which i such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.

This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.

HANDLING

In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.

Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S)

If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with Sec Checking by a competent Sec Checker. And such Sec Checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.

Instead of only Sec Checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose regarding the org?”

Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.

CAUTION

If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a Sec Check into his program.

ETHICS

None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended-PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.

SUMMARY

Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.

We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 28 February). Pretended PTS. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 547-549). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes