post 35: wendy ettricks kr cycle

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 35: wendy ettricks kr cycle
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:29:21 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>


Ethics Section SC 15 March 1999 -----------------
Virginia McClaughry
Solo Nots Auditor

False Report Report
-----------------------
Wendy Ettricks

cc: Wendy Ettricks
cc: Virginia’s Ethics File



Wendy wrote a “Things that shouldn’t be report” on me dated 20 February 1999.

This report contains false and altered data, specifically;

Paragraph one:

“ I know all about her cycle of refusing to do a standard 6 month check.” ---This is a misleading and inaccurate statment. My “cycle” is not “refusing to do a standard six month check.”My cycle is about getting applied correctly C/S Series 73RB, and Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone.

“......On the phone Virginia wanted to know why you would be doing a 6 month check at Flag if you know the references I was talking about.” -- Wendy told me she was going to Flag to do her 6 month check. I asked her “You read the 2 references, right? She said yes, I then asked her “What are you going to do about it?” Wendy’s statement of what I said is false.

“...I put her ethics in and told her not to encourage anyone to not get sec checks.” --I have NEVER encouraged anyone to “not get sec checks”. I wish to apply correctly C/S Series 73RB, and it is this reference that states when a Solo Nots Pre-OT may be sec-checked, and when they may not. I told Wendy this again on the phone.(which she does not mention in her report).Wendy is implying that my ethics were out in asking her about the references. This is False.

Paragraph two:

“Virginia has very often entered into case discussion w/me. I tell her to stop and she continues to do it. She is however doing it less then she used to.” ---I have told Wendy wins on Solo Nots, period. Wendy asks me “how is my auditing going” frequently. I answer her “good” and I share wins that are non-confidential. Wendy’s above statement is an opinion, which is also false.

Paragraph three:

“She natters about the Sea Org and Sea Org members-but it’s covert and not always pinpointable.” ---This is a generality, no specifics. It is also False.

Paragraph four:

“She has put her recent Flag disagreements on her father’s lines and her husband, and some friends of hers. Now her father is refusing to go to AOLA for a sec check which he’s been progammed for by Senior C/S Int’s office.” -----Wendy is my father’s FSM. My father, as well as myself, have repeatedly asked her to find out why the folder is programmed again for a sec-check, when my father just had a sec-check. It appears to be a duplicate program. This is an old cycle, began over a year ago when the folder came down from Senior C/S Int’s office. Wendy’s implication that it is because of my “putting recent disagreements on my father’s lines” that he has not gone to do his program at AO, is completely false (which is verifiable with my father). My father is confused by the program, and Wendy has failed to wear her FSM hat and help my father sort this out so that he can continue his auditing.

Paragraph five:

“she is quite nattery about many terminals at FSO” ------This is another generality, no specifics. It is also False.