post 41: mike wdraw request on judy wiegand

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 41: mike wdraw request on judy wiegand
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:51:45 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

AO MAA -April Buchanan
Mike McClaughry

Re: Judy Weigand’s KR

Dear April,

I request that this KR be withdrawn because it contains data that is inaccurate.

These two statements are inaccurate and alter the sequence of events. “Michael McClaury called me a couple of months ago to ask advice saying his wife, Virginia, thought that having to have sec checks each 6 months, if you were doing well on Solo Nots was out tech. He gave me some references that she had researched and she thought these proved her point.”

The problem with those two statements is that it implies that Virginia invented that idea and then looked for some references to back her idea up.

The following is the correct data and sequence of events:

1. My telephone call was to Dick Weigand, not Judy.

2. Judy said Dick was asleep so she asked me to tell her what it was about.

3. In answer to Judy’s question, I told her that Virginia was in the courseroom and came across C/S Series 73 RB, which contained the following data:

“b) Pre-OTs in the area between the beginning of New OT VI (Solo NOTs Auditing Course) and the completion of New OT VII (Solo NOTs) may not receive any other auditing, with the exception of those services allowed in the No-Interference Area (between the start of New OT I and the completion of OT III) for pre-OTs who are stalled or moving slowly.”

"Pre-OTs progressing well in the No-Interference Area should not be interferred with by Sec-Checking or anything else. However, when a pre-OT is stalled or moving slowly, any of the actions listed below, as appropriate, can be ordered by a qualified C/S (Ref: HCOB 27 Mar. 84, C/S Series 119, STALLED DIANETIC CLEAR: SOLVED): .........”

And, I told Judy that LRH clarified the above concept in HCOB 8 MARCH 1982R CONFESSIONALS AND THE NON-INTERFERENCE ZONE, “A pre-OT who is running well and making case gain should not be interrupted.”

4. In a nutshell, I told Judy the various actions Virginia had been taking to get the above references applied, after she read them.

5. My question for Dick was “what do we do if non-application of the above HCOBs goes all the way to the top of the org board?”

6. Judy suggested that Virginia should write up any outness and continue to write it up. I found that answer satisfactory and never pursued it with Dick.

7. The telephone call ended with Judy asking me to keep her informed about the progress of the cycle.

8. Sometime after the call, I decided I did not want to involve the Wiegands in this cycle. I called Dick to tell him but he wasn’t home at the time.

9. Sometime after the call, the Weigands decided they did not want to be involved in this cycle.

10. When I received Judy’s KR I called her and we talked. I told her I did not want to involve her and Dick in this cycle. She told me she and Dick did not want to be involved in this cycle.

11. The agreement is that the Weigand’s are not involved with, and have nothing to do with this cycle. For this reason, and due to the inaccuracies corrected above, I request that Judy withdraw her KR on me.


Mike McClaughry