post 51: more comm with april

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 51: more comm with april
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:16:18 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

I think this was in march or so 1999



Sc Maa April
---------------
Virginia McClaughry


April,

I hear from my husband that you had received the copies of reports I sent you, thats good to know they arrived. He also said that you wanted to talk to me about getting me back to finish the tailor-made sec check, and that you thought I didn’t know that I am in the middle of it.

I am aware of that, and based on 1. that it should never have been done in the first place, ie: what ethics actions was I under warranting a HCO ordered sec check? Per you and the C/S, it was Refusing to do the six month security check, which I already sent you the reports with data on that that is IN-tech for me to so refuse, per C/S Series 73RB, and HCO Confessionals and the NON-Interference Zone. I should never have started it, but I was operating on the data of that “the C/S would just like to ask me a few questions so I can get back to solo”, which was not accurate. I will say this again, sec-checking me when I was doing well is out-tech. 2. Per reports you were given copies of, there were Gross Auditing Errors occurring in those sessions, which I am not in a hurry to have a repeat of.

Now as far as the question I think that you asked Bill (or maybe it was his own origination), what would it take to get me back on the level? Firstly, it was not my idea to not be on the level, I asked for C/S Series 73RB, and Confessionals and the NON-Intereference Zone to be applied, and then I was taken off the level is the simplicity of it. Not to be allowed back unless I do the action that violates LRH. Secondly, today I reviewed all the references given on your list, re: sec-checking, etc, and had an interesting cognition. Per SHSBC Security Checking: Auditing Errors (19th page of the transcript) “ Gross Auditing error not to keep the withholds off a case while you’re running it. It’s one thing that can really stall it down to a walk. It can just go to a sudden thud, and so on. Withholds, then, make a good test of case advance....” Here ’s the cognition: “.....while you’re running it.” The “you” here is referring to the auditor running the case, and on Solo Nots, I AM THE AUDITOR. It is my hat to make sure that I observe when there are new withholds presenting due to a case advance, and to handle. This is exactly what I have been doing since I learned of this (was a different reference but same idea), back, I don’t know, about 4-5 years ago. And therefore, of course, I have been advancing along fine because I was applying this idea and watching for any slows or stalls. Also, if there was an FPRD type generated slow or stall, I would recognize it, and go to Flag, handle it A-B, then get back to solo. The word interference means “Interference by a person or group is their unwanted or unnecessary involvement in something.” Interrupt means “If someone or something interrupts a process or activity, they stop it for a period of time”. LRH has used both these words to state what he does NOT want done if a PRE-OT is moving well and making case gain. This is interesting because, since the PRE-OT is the auditor, for them to be moving well and making case gain, then per SHSBC, they must be pulling enough new withholds for the case to advance and make case gain! So, therefore another auditor going to sec-check to make sure the case is not stalled, is interference and interruption. Also, it gives a C/S a way to tell if the case is advancing truly or not, no new withholds visible and pulled by the SOLO Nots Auditor, equals no case advance per the SHSBC tape. This would mean the C/S should order 1 of the 5 auditing actions per C/S Series 73RB, and Confessionals and the Non-Interference Zone, because since no case advance, equals stalled. Also, this means that probably as part of the SNCC, the SOLO Nots Auditor needs more hatting on these same references that I have read, since it is their hat as THE auditor for the case, to prevent stalls and slows if possible, and if it requires Flag help, be able to recognize that. That way, if a C/S sees no new withholds coming up in a period of auditing, or by the same token, change of responsibility, he can order sec checking, and a cramming action, because the Solo Nots Auditor has missed the indicators, and missed the fact that the case is slowing or stalling. Also For the Solo Nots Auditor to have missed this, at the very least is a violation of Auditor’s rights, and Ruds going out in session. I think though that as it was for me, I didn’t know that this is what stalls a case, and as well, new withholds is what marks the ADVANCE of the case, and once I learned this, I began to make real gain. The question “how would we know” is now answered by LRH in this tape, now all that has to happen is to get the hatting done, and the C/S(s) to now know what to look for (or what is not there and should be there) to know if a case is “really doing well or not”

So, what would it take to “get me back on the level”

1. Recognize that I was wearing my hat correctly as the auditor, and as I was obviously making gain, and coming up with new withholds (see time period of Third Party scene with Bill-for example), thereby successfully advancing the case, there was no need to interfere or interrupt me with sec-checking, which is for cases that ARE moving slowly or stalled.

2. Recognize that this is my hat to audit my case, not Therese’s or any other auditors, it is mine, unless I need help as above.

3. Let me wear my hat and stop trying to interfere and try to wear it for me. It is unnecessary, and unwanted.

4. Apply LRH exactly on this subject, as per above.

5. I can handle whatever is going on with my case, as I have proven time and time again. I simply need to be granted the beingness, time, and safe space, and a C/S who will be a team with me to do so. Part of being able to handle whatever is going on with my case, is recognizing when it needs something I can’t do in solo, (which is laid out by LRH what I can and can’t do Solo), and making sure it gets handled, by going to Flag or whatever.

That is what it will take, and it is also what needs to happen to set the stage for me to be able to complete the level, as well.

I would like you at this point to make sure that my Home C/S is consulted on all things to to with me. He is the other half of my team, and as such to me is the most important terminal to know what is going on with me. Please make sure that he reads this comm as well.

I hope that clears some things up for you, and I am very happy to have found a solution to the problem “how would we know”, as I do understand the situation. I look forward to being able to apply LRH exactly on these matters, being allowed to wear my hat, and carrying on with Solo Nots.

Much Love,

Virginia