From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 50: marina answers my comm that was for COB
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:02:12 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
___ I think I am going to actually get help on this cycle.... not quite how it turned out.
I was very happy to hear from you, thank you for writing me back so quickly.
I was surprised to hear of your surprise! I really thought that you were kept fully informed of everything that has occurred with this cycle. I guess not.
It is hard to know what parts you were not informed of, so I will give you a brief synopsis since the time that I came to see you. Starting when I left your office:
1. session with Art Webb-ended-went to go see you, stopped by Art, taken back in to do hatting cycle. Did hatting cycle, was not shown any LRH HCOB or HCOPL that disagreed or contradicted with the three refs I have mentioned, Art tried to do FDSing on where I got this idea that I shouldnít be interfered with by sec-checking, I told him from the bulletin. Fdsing was ended, Art said he needed to go find more references.
2. I realised that I was not being listened to regarding these references-waited for Richard to come back.
3. Had accident-Richard came back, did assist. Went to qual to go over ALL references on the cycle, checked my understanding of them, discussed what was my query. Qual terminal Nancy Martin said Flag could not make this decision, that it was the licensing agreement with RTC. Qual cycle completed, I stated clearly my intent to continue querying until I was satisfied KSW was in (to be done while I was at home handling urgent cycles).I also stated query would need to be resolved before I came back, since Qual terminal said Flag cannot make this decision.I also made clear that I could not agree to further 6 month Elgibility Confessionals based on all the data studied as it would not be in-KSW.
4. Finished assist-went home.
5. queried Senior C/S informally as to whether or not these references were going to be applied-as my return was contingent on that, and it was understood there were no further LRH HCOBís or PLís to be found that altered or changed the 3 references mentioned.
6. Found out about Kr from Barbara Nelson-I never received a copy routed to me from Barbara. Got a copy from a friend. Kr was False, I corrected the misinformation aand requested it to be withdrawn. Found out 4 of my friends were written up as well. All 4 put in withdrawal requests as data on them was False.
7. 2 or 3 back and forth comm cycles with Senior C/S regarding me coming back, him tr3ing the same order, me tr3ing for him to answer if the references were going to be applied standardly. Senior C/S never answered the question.
8. Formal Orders Query of.
9. Comm from April, Maa saying that re: my withdrawal request that Barbara Nelson asked whether I had completed a study of the references. I answered that I had, and tr3ed the withdrawal of the now known to be false report, and requested Maa help in getting it corrected.
10. Orders Query of answer from Senior C/S, does not say yes, we will apply the references mentioned correctly, same order is still insisted upon.
11. Send copies of Orders Query of comms, and a comm to COB labelling it destructive order and request help in getting it corrected.
The above should also fill you in on the stated details of my leaving, and what my return was based on.
As far as I know, there are no Confidential HCOBís or HCOPLís that would change the 3 refs I mentioned, in fact I was told during Qual interview that I had all the data, and there was nothing else. As I have stated, I have no problem with the idea of coming in on a regular basis (such as 6 months), for a check as an auditor, or a check by Ethics, as long as that is what it is, a Check. I do have a problem with violating the references regarding Eligibility, and how to handle a Pre-OT in a non-interference zone.
I still want to resolve this prior to my return, as I had stated before leaving Flag. Since I had already received full hatting on all aspects of this cycle, it is not necessary for me to be there to get this resolved as it is a simple matter of the arbitraries being removed and the line corrected to align with the LRH Refs.
There is no point in my returning if this does not happen, as I was told that I will still be refused the materials if I do not sign saying I will be back in 6 months to do another Eligibility Confessional.
I would have loved to sit down with you and have you hat me, then have a two-way comm cycle on all the data,so that it could get corrected. In hindsight, that is what I should have done. However, I am now fully hatted on all applicable references, including LRH advices so it is now really a simple matter that I need RTCís help with. So I ask you,
1. Can you correct the fact that the Eligibility is being redone every 6 months? (since it is not per any LRH ref I have seen)
2. Can you correct the incorrect interference, and inspection before the fact, of intensive sec-checking in a non-interference zone? If you can, that would be great, if not, perhaps all this data should go ahead and be sent to COB.
I have really been given the run-around on this cycle in the past and I am determined to have no more of that and handle this as A-B as possible. I am leary of returning to Flag without being certain that the line is corrected to align with LRH.
My recommendation is that all the LRH refs be applied to this scene. A check can and should be done every 6 months, meter check in Ethics, any areas of out-ethics found it would then be logical to use Confessional tech, as well as ethics to handle, violations of Elig handlings as covered by the HCOPL. Check of tech, ie: cramming and Refresher Drills. D of P interviews as far as getting data on case progress or lack of. These actions align with all LRH Refs on the subject, and would not be interfering with a PRE-OT in a non-interference Zone, as well as not be inspection before the fact.
If we can get this resolved, I have a window of opportunity to come to Flag to get back on Solo. This would be from December 4th approx, to December 17th. It would need to be understood and agreed on I will be flying home on Decmber 17th, as I have family arriving the next day.
Also, 1. I have not heard back from April on whether the KR was finally withdrawn or not, and 2. I was told that Leslie was pulled in and handled on the Third Party thing, but I have not received any comm from Leslie that suggests a taking of responsibility for this cycle.Could you possibly check on that?
I really look forward to seeing you too, you have been a stable terminal in the few times I have had to ask you for help.
I look forward to your answers to my questions!
I was very happy to hear from you, thank you for writing me back so quickly.
I was surprised to hear of your surprise! I thought that you were kept informed of everything that has occurred with this cycle, but I guess not.
Your understanding of the details on my leaving of flag, etc., are pretty much accurate. Missing data is that my return was also contingent on getting my questions answered while I was gone.
On a personal note, I would have loved to sit down with you and have you hat me, then have a two way comm cycle on all the data, so that it could have been resolved and any correction needed, done. In hindsight, that is probably what I should have done.
However, now I am fully hatted on all applicable LRH references, including advices, on the subject. So, it is now really just a simple matter of getting my questions answered that I need RTCís help with. My questions are: 1. As I am not absent from my OT level, or from Flag AO lines when I am home auditing Solo Nots, can we apply the HCOPL Eligibility for OT levels, and not redo the OT Eligibility every 6 months? 2. Can we apply the HCOB C/S 73RB, and not do sec-checking on Pre-OTís who are not moving slowly or stalled? And also can we apply HCOB Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone and not interrupt with Confessionals a Pre-OT who is moving well and making case gain?
These are the points I need to ensure are applied as per LRH.
Again, thank you very much for your comm, and I look forward to your answers to my questions!
Please fax soon.