post 54: comm re: the KR that started it all-Barbara Nelson

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 54: comm re: the KR that started it all-Barbara Nelson
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:26:16 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

------Maa April
------Barbara Nelson
Virginia McClaughry

I request that Barbara withdraw the K/R that she wrote on me and 4 other people, and that she dead agents the misleading and false statements made in this report, on all 5 people listed, as well as informing the 7 terminals cced that this is a false report, and that it is being withdrawn.

RE: para 2 of KR

Point 1

Barbara states that “she almost blew last night but due to the correct estimation on the part of about 10 staff and persisting until handled, she agreed to stay if her folders were reviewed by RTC and her cycle was run by Richard Reiss”. Barbara leaves out of the report that in a D of P interview she gave me, she R factored me that as per the D/Snr C/S, “NOONE on the base or anywhere is going to agree with me about the LRH references I found to be out”, and that if I persisted on querying this, my Eligibility would be pulled” I told her in this interview that I was aware of that, but that this was LRH, and that per KSW, I was holding a position on getting my question answered on why the LRH references (HCOB Confessionals and the NON-Interference zone, and HCOB C/S Series 73RB), were not being followed regarding a Pre-OT who is moving well should not be interrupted or interfered with, and that as per LRH, I said that it would be out-tech to so interfere. Barbara again said that my Eligibility would be revoked if I did not comply with the 6 month check line. I said then there is no reason for me to be here, I will have to take it up lines, and I told her that I would be leaving the next day. Barbara presents a very misleading picture by the above mentioned statement in her KR, despite the fact that she was terminal who told me that I was not going to get this handled by anyone at FLAG.

Point 2

Barbara states that it was due to the efforts of 10 staff that I stayed, when in fact it was due to only two terminals, my auditor Cristina Tidu, who dead agented Barbara’s false accusations of me in front of Barbara, and Cosima, particularly regarding Barbara’s statement to the other staff members that I was “blowing mid sec check on a reading question”, which Cristina knew was false. Cristina then removed Cosima and Barbara from the room, and we had a sane comm cycle. Then Richard Reiss called, and asked me to wait for him, and that he understood my point regarding OT eligibility, and that he would help me with this. THAT is why I stayed, because what he was saying was vastly different then would Barbara had “r-factored” me on.Barbara False reported the actual situation that night.

Point 3

Barbara states that “she believes that sec checking is an arbitrary and out-tech. Her reference she is using is C/s Series 73RB” This is a complete false report, and paints a very alarming picture of me. It can be verified, in my folder, in interview with Qual terminal Nancy Martin, and in my writeup to RTC on this matter, that what I have actually stated, many times now, is that per HCOB Confessionals and Non-intereference Zone, and C/s Series 73RB, LRH states in 3 different places that A pre-ot that is moving well and making case gain, should not be interrupted, and that these 2 references were not being applied at the very least to me, who has been moving well and making case gain for some time now. (which Barbara also tried to say I wasn’t doing well in the D of P interview-which was totally untrue-see Solo Folder where upon arriving for 6 month check, my C/s states that I am moving very well). I have never, at any time, in any way shape or form, stated that there should be no-sec checking, or that all sec checking is bad, arbitrary or out-tech. This is a False statement by Barbara. Again, these are LRH references, it is not my viewpoint, it’s LRH’s, and I am 100% for LRH.

Para 3

Barbara states again that it is “my viewpoint” that I am “holding onto” that “sec checking mid SOLo Nots is gross out-tech and an arbitrary”, is what Greg and Debra are agreeing with. This is false and misleading because again, it is not “my” viewpoint, it is LRH’s, and see above para 2 point 3 of this withdrawal request what was the actual data on this subject. Greg and Debra are very in KSW scientologists, and agree with LRH and his tech and policies 100%, and that is the simplicity.

Para 4

(I was not present for this conversation-see Greg, Debra and Bill on this part)

Para 5

Barbara states basically that Andrea had told her about me and my friend Vivian. The data stated here on Vivian is alter-ised. Vivian simply read the references, and any further data on what Vivian’s viewpoint is should come from Vivian, not in the form of off-source communications from Barbara or Andrea. As far as Vivian petitioning RTC, that is completely False, Vivian CSWed the Captain Fso to start Part 2 SNCC, after a meeting the Captain held for the locals, where per Vivian the Captain stated that she would do anything to help them get back onto OT 7. Vivian is a long-time scientologist, is also 100% LRH,, and the picture Barbara paints of her is false and misleading.

In closing, this report has caused a lot of noise, incorrect targetting of the five mentioned individuals, and this needs to be withdrawn, and actions taken to correct all the False reports and misleading information contained in it.


Virginia McClaughry
Solo Nots Auditor