Suppressive Person Defense League

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for HSSC

HSSC

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Sec Checking: Note

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 OCTOBER 19831

Remimeo
All Sec Checkers
All Auditors,
Level II and
Above
Confessional
Checksheets
Tech/Qual
HCO

SEC CHECKING: NOTE

An auditor doing a Sec Check can run into a phenomenon that goes like this: The pc says to the auditor, “I am in possession of a lot of secret data— therefore, I cannot get off my withholds.” And the auditor buys it and the case fails. Actually, this is in large measure a lie, used to cover actual overts against the group or its VIPs.

When you look at the definition of a real overt as something contrary to the mores of a group, you realize that the withhold one is looking for is a withhold of having committed an actual overt on the group by omit or commit. At best you see that the pc excuse does not wash.

If the auditor were to ask for “overts contrary to the mores of the group and withholds of having done them or omitted actions that by omission caused harm to the group or its people,” one gets around that excuse.

The GO people and many others pull this.

The auditor technically is NOT interested in confidences or overts against a group’s enemies or withholds thereof. He is looking for overts against the group as above and the withholding of having committed them by omit or commit.

If this were made plain to Sec Checkers, the swindle could no longer be pulled by such pcs and the cases would not fail.

A failed case will continue to be one as long as he is committing overts on the thing that is supposed to help him. But, with skilled auditing, this can be handled.

I hope this helps resolve some “failed cases.”

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1982, 8 March). Sec Checking: Note. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XII p. 450). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

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

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Still Needle And Confessionals

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL 19821

Remimeo

STILL NEEDLE AND CONFESSIONALS

Ref:
HCOB 11 Apr. 82 SEC CHECKING IMPLANTS

The still needle which does not react on ordinary things it should react on is an indicator of withholds.

This is covered in the recent HCOB of 11 Apr. 82, SEC CHECKING IMPLANTS, but there is more data.

The “withhold” can be partially gotten off and one can get a strange F/N. It is strange because, while it is an F/N, it is less than normal width and has a sort of spring on each end, as though the needle was hitting a spring or cushion. It is not a nice flowing F/N. And if you look close you can see it is sort of springing back. It is not flowing clean. The F/N also tends to stop too soon, does not carry over.

It indicates the subject of the withhold or area of life is still somewhat withheld.

When you clean the withholds up all the way on the subject or area being sec checked, you get a free flowing F/N.

As it is fatal to miss a withhold, realize it is also fatal to miss part of a withhold.

Although the person is always a party to the withhold, it is not necessarily true that he or she committed the overts being withheld. It still registers as a still needle. And still behaves when partly clean with that F/N.

However, the person, in all cases so found, is either the one who committed the overts personally or was withholding for somebody else. It won’t clean up just by seeking to shift the responsibility and get off the hook. It may even go “stiller.” The isness of it is the isness of it.

This tech is new. It resulted from research I did on Sec Checks with the Mark VI E-Meter. It may or may not apply to the Mark V, but the probability is that it does. The Mark VI, however, is dead-on with this subject.

See a chronically still needle in answer to your questions? It tends to indicate a withhold. See an F/N that does not flow and springs at the end? The subject you are sec checking is not fully clean.

Nice to know, eh?

Good hunting!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1982, 13 April). Still Needle and Confessionals. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XII, p. 402). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

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

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Sec Checking Implants

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 19821

Remimeo

SEC CHECKING IMPLANTS

(The end of auditors missing withholds while sec checking!)

An implant is an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reactive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his “knowing it.”

There are several methods of implanting.

IMPOSED SILENCE: The simplest and most common implant—and its light¬est but not least-deadly form—is the command to withhold. Implants could be said to be “methods of preventing knowledge or communication” and this can extend to the point of the person himself denying himself the data. The commonest “imposed silence” is probably the threatened child—an “if you tell, you will be punished.” Or simply ordering him not to tell. This tends to occlude his own memory and can be classified as an implant.

HYPNOTISM: This is without physical duress. Western hypnotism is effective on only about 22% of the people on whom it is attempted. It requires some coop¬eration from the subject and he often can tell you he has been hypnotized, even when he cannot tell you the content of the implant at once. It can be exposed and erased rather easily when found, often by simple recall of the content. Psychiatrists and psychologists use it and they are not very expert.

DRUGS: These are often used, by psychiatrists and psychologists, in connec¬tion with or independent of hypnotism to increase the percentage of effectiveness and to deepen the effect. Anyone who has been given psychiatric drugs—or street drugs—can be suspected of also having been implanted. For most of the drugs alone produce a trance state and environmental incidents can “go in” as an im¬plant. The intensity of a received engram is increased when the subject is on drugs. For example, an auto accident, on a drugged person, makes a heavier engram than if he were not on drugs. Any druggie who has also been in the hands of psychia¬trists or psychologists can also be suspected of having been implanted by them. Anyone psychiatrists or psychologists have given drugs to directly is a definite sus¬pect of having been implanted by them.

ELECTRIC SHOCK: Although they pretend it is the shock that is the “therapy” (their word for mayhem and murder), an electric shock was usually just a method of implanting the “patient.” The criminals usually accompany the shock with hypnotic suggestions to the unconscious person before, during and after shock. This is why persons who have been “electric-shocked” sometimes go out and commit crimes. It could be concluded they have been told to do so while being shocked. (There is no therapeutic reason for shocking anyone and there are no authentic cases on record of anyone having been cured of anything by shock.)

DRUGS AND SHOCK: It is stated by psychiatrists and psychologists that they have to drug patients before they shock them to prevent them from breaking their teeth and spines from the convulsions. This is a lie. The reason they shock patients (with electricity or insulin or other means) is, by their own texts, to produce a convulsion. (They do this because the Greeks did it, no other reason, and the Greeks did it because a convulsion is “evidence” the person has been visited by a god.) The real reason psychiatrists and psychologists give drugs before shock is to hide from the patient he has been shocked and to deepen the implant. One can find people who do not know they have been shocked—think they only have been drugged. Yet below that drugged state one can find, with careful search, one or a hundred vicious shocks and implants.

PAIN—DRUG—HYPNOSIS: Using administered pain, drugs and hypnotism, the psychiatrist, psychologist and other criminals, such as CIA or other government agents, seek to cause victims to become robots and commit crimes or act in an irrational way. “PDH” is the psychiatrists’ gift to the police state. PDH is not very effective but it is very damaging to the person.

BRAINWASHING: This is a wrong-use term to describe implanting by dep¬rivation and physical and mental duress. It is said to be based on the Pavlov dog experiments (but was not developed by Pavlov). The theory is that when a victim is subjected to enough punishment, he will forget his former allegiances and can be “reeducated” politically. Despite the usual advertising lies of psychiatry and psy¬chology (criminals seldom tell the truth), the workability of “brainwashing” is laughable. Dianetics can undo “brainwashing” rather rapidly when detected. To call the remedy for brainwashing “brainwashing” merely shows public ignorance of what “brainwashing” is.

NONEXISTENT IMPLANTS: Part of the criminal tricks of implanting is to give the person an “implant” that doesn’t happen. The motions are all gone through but the content is blank. It introverts the person and sometimes makes him pull implants up from his past where they may exist.

NEEDLE BEHAVIOR

When encountering an implant in a session, an auditor may be baffled by not getting any reads on it. BUT there IS a needle manifestation that no implant, no matter how buried, can escape.

New research on this subject has revealed that

IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IMPLANT THE NEEDLE CAN GO STILL.

This is because of the hidden and withhold character of the implant.

One runs into a track area where “nothing registers on the meter.” Things which should register do not. Example: The question “How old were you then?” would ordinarily get some sort of read. In the presence of an implant, it does not.

The needle simply goes very still and unreacting. It is different than the normal needle reaction of the same pc.

The pc, too, can begin to go vague and unresponsive, very introverted and not reacting. But with or without this pc reaction, the needle goes quite still.

An auditor sometimes has to work like mad to get the needle responding.

It is VERY easy at this point to miss a withhold!

The auditor, faced with an implant in the pc he does not suspect, can see this still needle and suppose there is nothing there and write “clean needle” on the worksheet. And this is a mistake. For one thing, if you cannot get an area of track (or list) to F/N, there is something wrong. (One can, of course, have a false read or a Suppress or an Assert or out session ruds to prevent an F/N.)

This still needle will not respond. If one puts in ruds, asks for false reads, asserts, one may continue to get that same still needle.
If so, it means an implant—any one of the above listed methods.

One should work with various questions now that concern the possibility of an implant.

One could even draw up a prepared list that would cover all angles of an implant.

Confronted with a still needle that should react but doesn’t, one begins with “Is this something you are not supposed to tell?” and continues on with various approaches (“Ever see a psychiatrist or psychologist?” “Did anyone give you drugs?” “Is there something here that you yourself don’t know?” etc.). Sooner or later, as the auditor guesses and fishes his way through this, the still needle will jar loose and, slightly at first, begin to respond as he gets off the obscure trail and onto the main road of it.

The art is to GET THAT NEEDLE ACTIVE AGAIN.

It will only get active when you find out what it is that is making it so unre¬sponsive. Something there has frozen the person’s wits and comm and he himself may know nothing of it.

Oddly enough, the person is not likely to blow up on you as he will when you are missing a withhold he knows about. He just gets more and more introverted.

The end phenomena, so far as the meter is concerned, occurs only when the needle is no longer so unresponsive. It is now reading with small falls, falls and even blowdowns and, when you have it all, F/Ns.

One must beware of mistaking out-ruds for an implant, but in no case, once you have a real still needle before you that won’t react, is it anything but one of the implants listed above.

If you understand this data I am giving you and use it cleverly, there goes the danger of missing withholds!

Pretty good, huh?

You’re welcome!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1982, 11 April). Sec Checking Implants. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol XII, pp. 399-401). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

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

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Confessionals — Ethics Reports Required

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 MARCH 19821; 2

(Also issued as an HCOB, same date.)

Remimeo
All Staff
Ethics Officers
Auditors
Case Supervisors

CONFESSIONALS-ETHICS REPORTS REQUIRED

Refs:
HCO PL 2 Apr. 65 FALSE REPORTS
HCO PL 1 May 65 STAFF MEMBER REPORTS
HCO PL 17 June 65 STAFF AUDITOR ADVICES
HCO PL 7 Mar. 65R III Rev. 24.10.75 OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
HCO PL 5 Mar. 68 JOB ENDANGERMENT CHITS
HCO PL 24 Feb. 69 JUSTICE

It has recently been noticed that there was an omission on the part of ministers doing Confessionals: They were not writing reports to Ethics on matters relating to the offenses of others that were revealed during a Confessional. Doing so is required per HCO PL 17 June 65, STAFF AUDITOR ADVICES and is implicit in HCO PL 2 Apr. 65, FALSE REPORTS and in HCO PL 1 May 65, STAFF MEMBER REPORTS.

Apparently this was due to a failure to differentiate between a pc “getting off” only other people’s withholds and a pc revealing knowledge of another’s overt or crime against Scientology, its organizations or Scientologists.

A person who only talks about others’ overts or withholds is often withholding an overt of his own or engaging in a black PR campaign.

But a person who has knowledge of another’s overts or crimes against Scientology should have made out an ethics report himself and having failed to do so, would have a withhold of knowing about another’s offense and not having reported it, even if it were only suspected.

There are various reasons why a person might withhold from reporting the offenses of another: similar overts or withholds of one’s own; fear of consequences or retaliation from the person being reported on; not having all the facts and so only suspecting the offense and not being certain enough, are among more common reasons.

None of these are valid because a staff member can only be disciplined for making a knowing false report or for a no-report. And if the matter is only suspected, the report should say so and it is the Ethics Officer’s hat to investigate and determine the facts.

Thus, when a minister discovers that a pc has knowledge of an overt or crime against Scientology or against the codes of the Church but has not reported the matter to Ethics, this should be handled as a withhold and must be the subject of an ethics report. This applies both to HCO Confessionals and to any other session.

OFFENSES AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY OR ITS CODES BY ANOTHER PERSON THAN THE PC, MUST BE REPORTED TO ETHICS FOR INVESTIGATION (EVEN IF ONLY SUSPECTED OR WHEN FULL FACTS ARE NOT KNOWN).

This is important because persons who get off their own overts have a higher responsibility level than those who don’t and these last, who don’t get off their overts, are sometimes only detectable and handleable by the reports of others.

The more serious the ethics offense, the more necessary and vital it is that such reports be made. Failure to make such a report can result in the pc (or staff member) being named as an accessory or at least being charged with condoning the offense.

There is another side to this. Some pcs, viciously, can begin a black PR campaign against another by “getting off the other’s withholds” which are false. Some people, unfortunately, can be very wily and spread all sorts of rumors or trouble in this way. Doing so is the very lifeblood of such criminal organizations as the FBI and Interpol.

So the minister reporting all overts reported by the pc serves a triple purpose:

A. It catches actual crimes by others which might otherwise remain undetected.

B. It gets rid of withholds from the pc which he knows he should have reported and

C. It gives evidence of a black PR campaign in progress against principal people of Scientology and executives.

The use that the Ethics Officer puts these reports to is very precise.

They are:

In the case of (A) he can at once investigate and sec check the others named and get ethics in.

In the case of (C) he can order a full rollback of the rumor or report and usually catch a real tiger operating in an org or area with black PR designed to paralyze the place.

So the reports are VERY valuable.

An honest executive would be very foolish to discourage these from being filed and even more foolish not to make sure they get fully followed up and investigated.

Doing this is a heavy blow to criminals and to the enemy who seek to stop Scientology.

For instance, finance crimes cannot occur without collaboration or someone noticing.

Black PR with its false reports is covering up real withholds and overts, which, remaining undetected, can cave the whole place in.

A person can be helped by Scientology only when he has clean hands with it. One cannot be helped by it when he has overts against it, its principal names or organizations.

So this policy assists greatly, not only in protecting execs but in saving people. It must NOT be looked on as a way to victimize anyone. It is an instrument of salvage.

And on an organizational strata, no org can prosper when its staff has overts. Recent investigation has shown that below EVERY outness in an org or down stat there lay heavy withholds and overts. The many should not be penalized by the criminal few.

By following these policies, ethics investigations will be speeded, statistics raised and a much cleaner, happier and more productive environment will be achieved. Only the guilty will ever protest such reports and that, too, is an indicator for urgent action.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1982, 10 March). Confessionals — Ethics Reports Required. The organization executive course. (1991 ed., Vol. 1, pp.645-7. Los Angeles: Bridge Publications.

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: LRH Communicator Confessional List

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 DECEMBER 19801

Remimeo
LC N/W2
Estab Flag
Cont LRH Comms
Tech/Qual
HCO

Confessional Form 12R

LRH COMMUNICATOR CONFESSIONAL LIST


Ref:
HCOB 30 Nov. 78 CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE

Anyone doing a Confessional must be on or have done a Confessional course or internship in the handling of Confessionals.

The procedure for doing a Confessional is contained in HCOB 30 Nov. 78, CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE.

When applying Confessional tech correctly, you are helping the individual to face up to his responsibilities in his group and the society and putting him back into communication with his fellow man, his family and the world at large.

AUDITOR:_____________________ PRECLEAR:_____________________

ORG:_____________________ DATE:__________________________

1. HAVE YOU JOINED THE LRH COMM NETWORK UNDER FALSE PRETENSE?? _________

2. DO YOU HAVE ANY INTENTION OF BLOWING FROM THE LRH COMM NETWORK? _________

3. HAVE YOU EVER NOT COMPLETED A PROGRAM YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

4. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO DEBUG A PROGRAM OR TARGET WHEN IT WAS STALLED? _________

5. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO USE AN LRH COMM CORRECTION FORM WHEN YOU KNEW IT WAS NECESSARY? _________

6. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO GET A FLUBBING STAFF MEMBER CORRECTED SO HE COULD COMPLY?         _________

7. HAVE YOU EVER JUST DONE EASY TARGETS ON A PROGRAM? _________

8. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO DO “RECEIPT AND DUPLICATION” ON A NEW PROGRAM OR ORDER? _________

9. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO SEE THAT STAFF MEMBERS DID “RECEIPT AND DUPLICATION” ON A NEW PROGRAM OR ORDER? _________

10. HAVE YOU COUNTED COMPLIANCES ON PROGRAMS OR ORDERS THAT YOU HAVE NOT CLAY DEMOED? _________

11. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO ENSURE THAT YOU OR A STAFF MEMBER COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD A PROGRAM OR ORDER? _________

12. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO ENSURE THAT ALL STAFF WHO SHOULD HAVE COPIES OF PROGRAMS ACTUALLY HAVE THEM? _________

13. WAS THERE SOME PROGRAM YOU DIDN’T LIKE, SO DIDN’T PUSH IT? _________

14. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO EXECUTE A PROGRAM OR TARGET YOU KNEW WAS VITAL TO ORG ESTABLISHMENT? _________

15. HAVE YOU EVER HOBBYHORSED A LESSER PRIORITY PROGRAM JUST TO GET YOUR STATS UP? _________

16. HAVE YOU CHANGED THE PROGRAM PRIORITIES? _________

17. HAVE YOU EVER JUST PUSHED A STAT INSTEAD OF GETTING IN A PROGRAM TO HANDLE THE AREA? _________

18. HAVE YOU EVER SENT A COMPLIANCE REPORT WITHOUT CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THE ORDER WAS FULLY DONE? _________

19. HAVE YOU EVER COME TO A CONCLUSION WITHOUT PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF THE AREA OR SCENE? _________

20. HAVE YOU REPORTED COMPLIANCE TO TARGETS AND PROGRAMS WHICH FAILED TO STAY IN, AS THEY WERE NOT FULL, HONEST DONES? _________

21. HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED AN ORDER OR TARGET AS DONE YET FAILED TO SEND A COMPLIANCE REPORT?         _________

22. HAVE YOU EVER FALSELY REPORTED JUST TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD? _________

23. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO IMMEDIATELY AND FULLY REPORT URGENT SITUATIONS IN YOUR ORG OR AREA?      _________

24. HAVE YOU EVER NOT REPORTED SOMETHING WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

25. HAVE YOU EVER SENT UP A REPORT SLANTED TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK BAD? _________

26. HAVE YOU EVER SENT UP A REPORT SLANTED TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK GOOD? _________

27. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO WRITE A REPORT ON SOMEBODY BECAUSE HE WAS YOUR FRIEND? _________

28. HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED ON SOMEONE JUST TO GET EVEN? _________

29. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO REPORT ON SOMEBODY BECAUSE YOU WERE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN? _________

30. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO REPORT CROSS ORDERS OR LOCAL ARBITRARIES? _________

31. HAVE YOU WITHHELD VITAL INFORMATION? _________

32. HAVE YOU EVER GONE AHEAD AND IMPLEMENTED AN ORDER YOU FELT WAS DESTRUCTIVE OR ILLEGAL? _________

33. HAVE YOU EVER ISSUED A DESTRUCTIVE ORDER? _________

34. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A VALID ORDER FROM YOUR SENIORS? _________

35. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO ANSWER A TELEX OR DESPATCH FROM YOUR SENIORS? _________

36. HAVE YOU EVER QUERIED A PROGRAM OR ORDER JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T WANT TO CONFRONT IT?          _________

37. HAVE YOU EVER SUSPECTED THAT A STAT WAS FALSE AND FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT IT? _________

38. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN THAT A STAT WAS FALSE AND FAILED TO HANDLE AND REPORT IT? _________

39. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN THE WHY FOR A-DOWN STAT AND FAILED TO ACT ON IT? _________

40. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED YOUR HATTING, TRAINING OR PROCESSING? _________

41. DO YOU HAVE ANY TECH UNCERTAINTIES OR CONFUSIONS? _________

42. DO YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS ON POST THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED UP? _________

43. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO COMPLETE A CRAMMING ORDER? _________

44. HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN OUT DATA WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO HCOBs OR HCO PLs? _________

45. HAVE YOU EVER TWISTED THE MEANING OF A POLICY LETTER? _________

46. HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO QUOTE HCOBs OR HCO PLs WITHOUT SHOWING THE ACTUAL ISSUE? _________

47. HAVE YOU EVER TOLD ANOTHER WHAT LRH MEANT IN AN HCOB OR HCO PL? _________

48. HAVE YOU EVER PREVENTED TECH OR POLICY FROM BEING KNOWN OR CORRECTLY USED? _________

49. HAVE YOU EVER ALLOWED LRH EDs, HCOBs OR HCO PLs  GO UNDISTRIBUTED TO EVERY STAFF MEMBER IN THE ORG REGULARLY AND ON TIME? _________

50. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN ABOUT AN OFF-POLICY SITUATION AND FAILED TO CORRECT IT? _________

51. HAVE YOU EVER CONTRIBUTED TO AN OFF-POLICY SITUATION? _________

52. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO ENFORCE LRH POLICY YOU KNEW WAS NEEDED? _________

53. HAVE YOU FAILED TO GET IN LRH HCOBs YOU KNEW WERE OUT? _________

54. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO CRAM OR RETREAD A TECH TEKMINAL WHEN YOU KNEW HIS TECH WAS OUT? _________

55. HAVE YOU EVER BACKED OFF FROM TECH AREAS BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T TECH TRAINED? _________

56. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO SEE THAT THE DUTIES OF A KOT WERE CARRIED OUT? _________

57. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO ENSURE COURSES AND INTERNSHIPS WERE BEING RUN STANDARDLY? _________

58. HAVE YOU EVER LET QUICKIE OR SQUIRREL PROCESSING GO UNHANDLED? _________

59. HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN INTO CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER NETWORK? _________

60. HAVE YOU EVER WORN ANOTHER HAT COVERTLY? _________

61. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO KEEP YOUR ADMIN UP-TO-DATE? _________

62.  HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO APPLY YOUR CORRECT POST CONDITION? _________

63. HAVE YOU FAILED TO KEEP UP-TO-DATE DAILY AND WEEKLY STAT GRAPHS? _________

64. HAVE YOU EVER GUESSED YOUR STAT RATHER THAN CALCULATE IT ACCURATELY? _________

65. HAVE YOU EVER DONE THE SAME TARGETS WEEK AFTER WEEK JUST TO GET A STAT? _________

66. HAVE YOU EVER FALSIFIED A STAT? _________

67. HAVE YOU FVER FAILED TO TAKE A PENALTY STAT FOR A REJECTED COMPLIANCE? _________

68. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO SEND A STAT CORRECTION UP LINES WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

69. HAVE YOU EVER KEPT YOUR STATS DOWN ON PURPOSE? _________

70. HAVE YOU EVER CAUSED THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF A SECTION, UNIT, DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION? _________

71. HAVE YOU ALLOWED OTHERS TO UNMOCK A WORKING INSTALLATION? _________

72. HAVE YOU ILLEGALLY TRANSFERRED PERSONNEL? _________

73. HAVE YOU EVER ALLOWED ANOTHER TO TRANSFER A STAFF MEMBER WITHOUT A PROPERLY APPROVED CSW? _________

74. HAVE YOU EVER USED ETHICS HARSHLY OR ILLEGALLY? _________

75. HAVE YOU EVER PERMITTED ANOTHER TO APPLY HARSH OR ILLEGAL ETHICS? _________

76. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO APPLY ETHICS AT ALL? _________

77. HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED TO AN OUT-ETHICS ACT OR SITUATION? _________

78. HAVE YOU EVER ASSIGNED A LOWER CONDITION TO AN UPSTAT STAFF MEMBER OR AREA? _________

79. HAVE YOU EVER BACKED OFF FROM ASSIGNING AN ETHICS CONDITION TO A STAFF MEMBER? _________

80. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN LATE OR ABSENT FROM POST WITHOUT YOUR SENIOR’S OKAY? _________

81. HAVE YOU EVER BRUSHED OFF AN INVESTIGATION AND NOT PULLED ALL THE STRINGS? _________

82. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO USE PERSONAL CONTACT WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

83. HAVE YOU EVER Q-AND-Aed WITH GETTING A TARGET OR PROGRAM DONE? _________

84. HAVE YOU EVER HAD BACKOFF FROM AN EXEC OR STAFF MEMBER? _________

85. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO CORRECT AN EXEC OR STAFF MEMBER WHOSE OMISSIONS OR COMMISSIONS ENDANGERED THE ORG, ITS STATS OR ITS STAFF? _________

86. HAVE YOU EVER NATTERED ABOUT A STAFF MEMBER OR EXEC? _________

87. HAVE YOU FAILED TO SEE THAT THE ORG WAS WELL ESTABLISHED? _________

88. HAVE YOU FAILED TO SEE THAT HCO WAS WELL ESTABLISHED? _________

89. HAVE YOU ALLOWED EXEC POSTS TO GO UNFILLED OR BE IMPROPERLY FILLED? _________

90. HAVE YOU FAILED TO SEE THAT HCO IS FUNCTIONING AND IS EFFECTIVE? _________

91. HAVE YOU ALLOWED STAFF BLOWS TO GO UNHANDLED? _________

92. HAVE YOU EVER JUST PUSHED QSH? _________

93. HAVE YOU EVER MISUSED YOUR AUTHORITY? _________

94. HAVE YOU EVER APPROVED PROMO THAT WAS OF POOR QUALITY OR OFF-POLICY? _________

95.  HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO CHECK THE QUALITY OF PROMO BEING PRINTED? _________

96. HAVE YOU EVER ALLOWED PROMO TO BE PRINTED WITHOUT ISSUE AUTHORITY? _________

97. HAVE YOU EVER MISUSED YOUR POSITION AS ISSUE AUTHORITY? _________

98. HAVE YOU EVER GRANTED ISSUE AUTHORITY IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME SPECIAL FAVOR? _________

99. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED YOUR ISSUE AUTHORITY HAT? _________

100. HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN SOMETHING ISSUE AUTHORITY WITHOUT REALLY STUDYING IT? _________

101. HAVE YOU FAILED TO SET UP A PROPER OFFICE FOR LRH? _________

102. HAVE YOU EVER ALLOWED LRH’S OFFICE TO BE DIMANTLED? _________

103. HAVE YOU EVER PERMITTED LRH’S OFFICE TO BE MISUSED? _________

104. HAVE YOU FAILED TO PUT STAFF OR PUBLIC IN COMM WITH RON? _________

105. HAVE YOU STALEDATED SO #1 LETTERS? _________

106. HAVE YOU STALEDATED OR DELAYED ANY LRH TRAFFIC? _________

107. HAVE YOU EVER SENT DEV-T TO LRH? _________

108. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO UPHOLD LRH’S IMAGE?          _________

109. HAVE YOU EVER THIRD-PARTIED OR BELITTLED LRH TO ORG STAFF OR PUBLIC? _________

110. HAVE YOU EVER SHOWN UP FOR POST SLOPPILY DRESSED OR BADLY GROOMED? _________

111. HAVE YOU EVER MISREPRESENTED LRH? _________

112. HAVE YOU EVER LIED ABOUT LRH OR HIS FAMILY? _________

113. HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANYTHING WHILE BEING AN LRH COMM WHICH YOU’D BE ASHAMED TO REPORT?        _________

114. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULDN’T WANT YOUR SENIORS TO KNOW ABOUT? _________

115. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULDN’T WANT LRH TO KNOW ABOUT? _________

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

117. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD AN UNTRUTH? _________

118. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? _________

119.  IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD ALL?

Give the pc the Proclamation of Forgiveness:

BY THE POWER INVESTED IN ME, ANY OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS YOU HAVE FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY TOLD ME ARE FORGIVEN BY SCIENTOLOGISTS.

On any adverse reaction to the Proclamation of Forgiveness, get the rest of the withhold or repair the withhold session. (Ref: HCO PL 10 Nov. 78RA I, PROCLAMATION: POWER TO FORGIVE ADDITION)

(Note: If this is being done as an HCO Confessional, the Proclamation of Forgiveness is omitted.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Assisted by Mission Issues Revision

Hubbard, L. R. (1980, 25 December). LRH Communicator Confessional List. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol XII, pp. 237-243). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

  1. Document studied on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course. ↩
  2. LC N/W: LRH Communicator Network. ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Flag Rep Confessional List

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 DECEMBER 19801

Remimeo
FFR
Cont FRs
Tech/Qual

Confessional Form 11R

FLAG REP CONFESSIONAL LIST

Ref:
HCOB 30 Nov. 78 CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE

Anyone doing a Confessional must be on or have done a Confessional course or internship.

The procedure for doing a Confessional is contained in HCOB 30 Nov. 78, CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE.

When applying Confessional tech correctly, you are helping the individual to face up to his responsibilities in his group and the society and putting him back into communication with his fellow man, his family and the world at large.

AUDITOR:_____________________ PRECLEAR:_____________________

ORG:_____________________ DATE:__________________________

1. HAVE YOU JOINED THE FLAG REP NETWORK UNDER FALSE PRETENSES? _________

2. DO YOU HAVE ANY INTENTION OF BLOWING FROM THE FR NETWORK? _________

3. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO COMPLETE A PROGRAM THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

4. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO DEBUG A PROGRAM OR TARGET WHEN IT WAS STALLED? _________

5. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO GET A FLUBBING STAFF MEMBER CORRECTED SO HE COULD COMPLY?  _________

6. HAVE YOU EVER DONE JUST THE EASY TARGETS ON A PROGRAM? _________

7. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO DO “RECEIPT AND DUPLICATION” ON A NEW PROGRAM? _________

8. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO SEE THAT STAFF MEMBERS DO “RECEIPT AND DUPLICATION” ON A NEW PROGRAM? _________

9. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO SEE THAT YOU OR A STAFF MEMBER COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD A PROGRAM? _________

10. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO ENSURE THAT ALL STAFF WHO SHOULD, HAVE COPIES OF THEIR PROGRAMS? _________

11. WAS THERE SOME PROGRAM YOU DIDN’T LIKE, SO YOU DIDN’T PUSH IT? _________

12. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO EXECUTE A PROGRAM OR TARGET THAT YOU KNEW WAS VITAL TO ORG EXPANSION? _________

13. HAVE YOU EVER PUSHED A TARGET OR PROGRAM WHICH WAS NOT COORDINATED WITH ACTIONS OTHER EXECS WERE PUSHING IN THE SAME AREA? _________

14. HAVE YOU EVER HOBBYHORSED A LESSER-PRIORITY PROGRAM JUST TO GET YOUR STATS UP? _________

15. HAVE YOU CHANGED PROGRAM PRIORITIES AS SET FROM FLAG? _________

16. HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED COMPLIANCE BASED ON A STAFF MEMBER’S ATTEST WITHOUT FULL PERSONAL INSPECTION? _________

17. HAVE YOU REPORTED COMPLIANCE TO TARGETS AND PROGRAMS WHICH FAILED TO STAY IN, AS THEY WERE NOT FULL, HONEST DONES? _________

18. HAVE YOU EVER SENT A COMPLIANCE REPORT WITHOUT CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THE ORDER WAS FULLY DONE? _________

19. HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED AN ORDER OR TARGET AS DONE YET FAILED TO SEND A COMPLIANCE REPORT?  _________

20. HAVE YOU EVER LISTENED TO OTHERS FOR DATA RATHER THAN LOOKED YOURSELF? _________

21. HAVE YOU EVER FALSELY REPORTED JUST TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD? _________

22. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO IMMEDIATELY AND FULLY REPORT URGENT SITUATIONS IN YOUR ORG OR AREA?  _________

23. HAVE YOU EVER NOT REPORTED SOMETHING WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

24. HAVE YOU EVER WITHHELD VITAL INFORMATION? _________

25. HAVE YOU EVER SENT UP A REPORT SLANTED TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK BAD? _________

26. HAVE YOU EVER SENT UP A REPORT SLANTED TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK GOOD? _________

27. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO REPORT ON SOMEBODY BECAUSE HE WAS YOUR FRIEND? _________

28. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO REPORT SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU WERE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN? _________

29. HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED ON A STAFF MEMBER JUST TO GET EVEN? _________

30. HAVE YOU EVER SENT UP A VAGUE OR GENERAL REPORT? _________

31. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO REPORT ON CROSS ORDERS OR LOCAL ARBITRARIES? _________

32. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO ANSWER A TELEX OR DESPATCH FROM FLAG OR ONE OF YOUR SENIORS? _________

33. HAVE YOU EVER GONE AHEAD AND EXECUTED AN ORDER YOU FELT WAS DESTRUCTIVE OR ILLEGAL? _________

34. HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN ILLEGAL ORDERS? _________

35. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO COMPLY WITH A VALID ORDER FROM FLAG OR FROM YOUR SENIORS?         _________

36. HAVE YOU EVER QUERIED A PROGRAM OR ORDER JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T WANT TO CONFRONT IT?          _________

37. HAVE YOU EVER SUSPECTED THAT A STAT WAS FALSE AND FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT IT? _________

38. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN A STAT WAS FALSE AND FAILED TO HANDLE AND REPORT IT? _________

39. HAVE YOU EVER JUST PUSHED A STAT? _________

40. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN THE WHY FOR A DOWN STAT AND FAILED TO ACT ON IT? _________

41. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO KEEP YOUR LOG SCRUPULOUSLY UP-TO-DATE? _________

42. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO APPLY YOUR CORRECT POST CONDITION? _________

43. HAVE YOU FAILED TO KEEP UP-TO-DATE DAILY AND WEEKLY STAT GRAPHS? _________

44. HAVE YOU EVER GUESSED YOUR STAT RATHER THAN CALCULATE IT ACCURATELY? _________

45. HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN A LOT OF SMALL REPORTS JUST TO GET A STATISTIC? _________

46. HAVE YOU EVER DONE THE SAME TARGETS WEEK AFTER WEEK JUST TO GET A STATISTIC? _________

47. HAVE YOU EVER FALSIFIED A STAT? _________

48. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO TAKE A PENALTY STAT FOR A REJECTED COMPLIANCE? _________

49. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO SEND A STAT CORRECTION UP LINES WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

50. HAVE YOU EVER KEPT YOUR STATS DOWN ON PURPOSE? _________

51. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED YOUR HATTING, TRAINING OR PROCESSING? _________

52. DO YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOODS ON POST THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED UP? _________

53. HAVE YOU NEGLECTED TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE BULLETINS ON HOW TO COUNT PAID COMPS? _________

54. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO COMPLETE A CRAMMING ORDER? _________

55. HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN OUT DATA WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO HCOBs OR HCO PLs? _________

56. HAVE YOU EVER PRETENDED TO QUOTE HCOBs OR HCO PLs WITHOUT SHOWING THE ACTUAL ISSUE? _________

57. HAVE YOU EVER TOLD ANOTHER WHAT LRH MEANS IN AN HCOB OR PL? _________

58. HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN INTO CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER NETWORK? _________

59. HAVE YOU WORN ANOTHER HAT COVERTLY? _________

60. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN LATE OR ABSENT FROM POST WITHOUT YOUR SENIOR’S OKAY? _________

61. HAVE YOU EVER ASKED STAFF MEMBERS FOR DATA RATHER THAN GOING TO THE ACTUAL RECORDS AND COLLECTING   AND VERIFIYING THE DATA PERSONALLY? _________

62. HAVE YOU EVER FAILED TO BRIEF STAFF OR EXECS ON FLAG PROGRAMS OR INTENTIONS? _________

63. HAVE YOU SPENT TOO MUCH TIME AT YOUR DESK INSTEAD OF BEING OUT IN THE ORG INSPECTING OR GETTING COMPLIANCE? _________

64. HAVE YOU EVER HOBBYHORSED ONLY CERTAIN AREAS OF AN ORG? _________

65. HAVE YOU EVER BRUSHED OFF AN INVESTIGATION AND NOT PULLED ALL THE STRINGS THOROUGHLY? _________

66. HAVE YOU EVER Q-AND-Aed WITH GETTING A TARGET DONE? _________

67. HAVE YOU EVER NEGLECTED TO USE PERSONAL CONTACT WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE? _________

68. HAVE YOU EVER BACKED OFF FROM AN EXEC OR STAFF MEMBER? _________

69. HAVE YOU EVER BACKED OFF FROM HANDLING A STAFF MEMBER OR EXEC WHO WAS NATTERING ABOUT FLAG, FOLO OR ANY SENIOR MANAGEMENT TERMINAL? _________

70. HAVE YOU EVER BACKED OFF FROM ASSIGNING AN ETHICS CONDITION TO A STAFF MEMBER OR AN EXEC? _________

71. HAVE YOU EVER NATTERED ABOUT A STAFF MEMBER OR EXEC? _________

72. HAVE YOU EVER THIRD-PARTIED OR BELITTLED YOUR SENIOR OR SENIOR MANAGEMENT TERMINALS TO ORG STAFF? _________

73. HAVE YOU EVER AGREED WITH ANOTHER’S FALSE REPORTS OR ENTHETA CONCERNING FLAG? _________

74. HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANYTHING TO HARM FLAG REPUTE? _________

75. HAVE YOU EVER SHOWN UP FOR POST SLOPPILY DRESSED OR BADLY GROOMED? _________

76. HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANYTHING WHILE A FLAG REP WHICH YOU’D BE ASHAMED TO REPORT? _________

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

78. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD AN UNTRUTH? _________

79. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? _________

80. IN THIS CONFESSIONAL, HAVE YOU TOLD ALL? _________

Give the pc the Proclamation of Forgiveness:

BY THE POWER INVESTED IN ME, ANY OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS YOU HAVE FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY TOLD ME ARE FORGIVEN BY SCIENTOLOGISTS.

On any adverse reaction to the Proclamation of Forgiveness, get the rest of the withhold or repair the withhold session. (Ref: HCOB 10 Nov. 78R-1, PROCLAMATION: POWER TO FORGIVE ADDITION)

Note: If this is being done as an HCO Confessional, the Proclamation of Forgiveness is omitted.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Assisted by Mission Issues Revision

Hubbard, L. R. (1980, 25 December). Flag Rep Confessional List. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol XII, pp. 244-8). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

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