FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST CLASS IV - HUBBARD ADVANCED AUDITOR (HAA) CASE SUPERVISOR COURSE - PART 13/14 ************************************************** This is the Class IV Case Supervisor Course (HAA) Course Pack as issued and delivered in the 1975 - 1976 time frame. The contents will be posted separately as part 0 and repeated in part 1 but will not be included in the remaining parts to keep the size down. NOTE: With the following exceptions, all documents are reproduced exactly as issued. All italicized or bold characters and underlines have been omitted from this reproduction. Only minor spelling errors have been corrected. If you have questions about the content of an individual issue please refer to the Tech or OEC Volumes (which were posted previously) for clarification. ************************************************** STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews, the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association - Unit 21 ************************************************** ===================== 078. HCOB 19 Mar 1971 C/S Series 30 - C/Sing Auditor C/Ses HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1971 Remimeo C/S Checksheet All Auditors C/S Series 30 Hats C/Sing AUDITOR - C/Ses When auditors do their own C/Sing, the org C/S has the additional duty of making certain their C/See are correct as well as their sessions. Therefore the org C/S (Which post is now even more vital) has the duty of 1. Seeing that all auditor flubs are handled in a cramming action on the flubbed action. 2. Seeing that all auditor-as-a-C/S errors are handled in a cramming action on the C/S Series. Normally a C/S handles his post on the Fantastic New HGC line HCO B 5 Mar 71 C/S Series 25 on a fast flow basis. But he is looking for (a) "Dog cases" - pcs not running well (b) Auditor errors (c) Auditor Program errors (d) Auditor C/S errors. Those that are F/Ning VGIs at Examiner he lets go through fast verifying the exam report and the next C/S. The moment he sees a contrary exam report (F/N with natter or BIs, high TA or low TA with any statement or no statement) he has to decide (a) Dog Case? (b) Auditor Error? (c) Program Error? (d) Auditor C/S Error? In any of the above the org C/S takes over and handles what he finds. He must also require a cramming action on any (b) auditor error (c) program error or (d) auditor C/S error. The org C/S then does it right himself. In any event it is the Org C/S who is fully responsible for all the cases. HCOB 19 Mar 71 - 2 - That the Org C/S finds a program or C/S wrong does not then cause the auditor-as-a-C/S to cease to C/S. Quite the contrary. Even if every program or C/S he writes is wrong and has to be rewritten he still takes all the actions of the auditor-as-a-C/S. DOG CASES Category (a) is the case who just isn't running well. The wrong answer to a dog case is to go on auditing and wasting hours hopefully. The RIGHT answer is to STUDY the case carefully. The Folder Error Summary, the Folder session summary, the sessions, all have to be studied. The standard C/S action of going back to when the pc was running well and coming forward for the error is very much in use. Such a case is the result of a FLUB always. Example: High TA case on Power run on and on with TA in the sky. A careful FES and study of folders revealed that 2 years before, Power had been completed! Every current action was a brutal overrun! Yet the same C/S and ten separate auditors failed to see it! Indicating it and 2 wc on the earlier Power handled the O/R. Example: Case RD not running well at all, TA going high. A careful study of the folder session summary at length discovered that the pc had not F/Ned on 2 way comm Int-Ext. 2wc on this point discovered a total mess of command clearing on the Int RD. This opened the door. Pc thereafter ran beautifully. Example: Pc a total nattery mess every session. Careful study found a tiny remark on the white form about going to a psychiatrist. 2wc on it and the antagonism toward auditing and the withhold of having once gone crazy vanished. Case ran well. Careful study is the clue. The Auditor as a C/S may not put in the time needed to really sort the case out. A current FES of recent auditing can also be ordered. This often reveals a lot of odd ball goofs which when handled make the case run well. The Org C/S is supposed to be the old master on solving these dog cases by careful study. Heavy laurels to the auditor-as-a-C/S who spots the knot that is tangling the case up. AUDITOR ERRORS The errors of auditors can be so various one only looks to see if the actions of the auditor are standard when the Org C/S has to intervene. HCOB 19 Mar 71 -3- Then the outnesses show up. Example: Pc's TA shooting up at session end. Examine the previous C/S. Calls for L1B. Examine session. Auditor is found to be ITSAING ARC Breaks, no ARCU CDEI, no earlier similar. Action ordered, pick up the BD ARC Brk and do ARCU CDEI and carry it E/S to F/N. Action ordered. Auditor to Cramming to do Pattern of Bank, why earlier? and how to fly ruds. Always find and handle auditor goofs by cramming. You'll never have an HGC unless you do. PROGRAM ERRORS When an auditor-as-a-C/S program is poor, the Org C/S redoes it, sends the Auditor to Cramming on the relevant parts of the C/S Series or to tech materials. C/S ERRORS When an auditor-as-a-C/S is found to have written a bad C/S that got by but didn't work or when the next C/S is wrong, the Org C/S sends the auditor-as-a-C/S to Cramming to do the relevant part of the C/S Series or the tech that applies. CRAMMING An org that has no sharp, hot Cramming Section in the Qual Div - well God help it. That org's tech will always be shakey if not outright criminal. Students need a Cramming or they never really learn not to goof. Where there's no insistence they do not learn. HGC Auditors need a Cramming. They go stale. New HCO Bs aren't understood unless energetically checked out. The C/S in the Tech Div is at total risk where he is not backed up by Cramming. The new HCO B 5 Mar 71 C/S Series 25, the new line, demands a Cramming as no auditor is likely to learn to C/S. You can't risk fast flow with no cramming to fall back on. And an org's tech will never improve unless it has a Cramming for HGC auditors and course students. HCOB 19 Mar 71 - 4 - Qual has to have a library of HCOBs and course packs and books to really stay on the ball. Then its Cramming is hot, on the point, specializing mainly in finding what the auditor has neglected or misunderstood and getting it done. Cramming and use of it is the key to a fully satisfied field and an expanding org. ______________ The big plus points of the new HGC line are huge increases in delivery volume, very cocky never-blow auditors who get wins, an enthusiastic field, and last but not least, newly trained and competent C/Ses who guard tech by knowing a correct C/S! ______________ The new line increases speed. At the same time it requires greater technical safeguards. The new HGC line wont work unless you have a competent Qual Cramming and Org C/S who knows his business and detects and pitchforks all flubs in auditing and C/Sing into the fast hands of a hot no-nonsense Cramming Officer. The new line of HCO B 5 Mar 71 is a great success. It greatly increases delivery quality as well as volume if this HCO B is stressed in putting the new line into action. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:mes Copyright ($) 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 079. HCOB 2 Oct 1971 C/S Series 63 - C/Sing for New Auditors HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER 1971 Remimeo C/S Series 63 C/SING FOR NEW AUDITORS OR VETERANS There Is a considerable difference between C/Sing for interns and new auditors and C/Sing for veterans. This shows up mainly in C/Sing prepared lists. For an intern or new auditor or one Who is not very experienced or expert the rule is that a C/S gives as little thinking to do as possible in the Session. It is enough for such an auditor to do the actions. It is too much to also ask him to use judgment or work something out while auditing. A veteran on the other hand knows the tools so well that he can also figure out what to do. Example: C/S for non-veteran: 1. Assess GF Method 5 and return to C/S. C/S for a veteran: 1. Assess GF Method 5 and Handle. It is quite a trick to assess a whole list, then take the biggest reads and handle. It is quite beyond an auditor who is still worrying about his TRs or how you run a meter. In an effort to speed up lines or escape work, a C/S can err badly in this. It becomes mysterious why Word Correction List ceases to work, why F/Ns are few at the examiner. Giving an inexperienced auditor the responsibility for assessing a list and also handling it is in fact asking him to audit and to a faint degree C/S in the chair. It is quite beyond a green auditor. Given that he knows his Tech, most of a C/S's troubles come from (a) Asking green auditors to follow C/Ses for which they have not studied the HCO Bs or on which they have not been crammed. (b) C/Sing for green auditors to decide something in session or combine actions such an assessing and handling without a new C/S in between. HCOB 2.10.71 -2- (c) Not sending the auditor (green or veteran) to Cramming for every goof (d) Having no cramming. It takes a while to make an auditor. The C/S is responsible for all actions in the session. He has only himself to blame if he is asking someone to C/S for him in the chair. It is easier to plan out and write up the needed GF actions (or any other list) from the Method 5 reads than it is to correct a messed up handling. It does not save any time at all but more than likely makes new problems for the C/S. It is very easy to have even a green auditor assess some prepared list. One can even now say "Take the list just assessed and do 2wc on each item I have marked. Carry each E/S to an F/N before leaving it." The C/S simply put a dash ahead of each item that read in the assessment. The C/S can also number the items in different order than the list (because of better programming or bigger reads) and have each one handled to F/N. An L3B can be ordered "Method 5" and then the C/S can get it back and precisely order what's to be done with its reads. And in what sequence. This is true of any prepared list. The only small hitch is that a C/S has to be there and available so as not to stall the session. Even so, in the long run it is faster because less mistakes are made. Assess - send to C/S - handle. Instead of "Assess and Handle". This even applies to a C/S 53 or C/S 54 or White Form or GF 40X. Any prepared list. Perhaps this will greatly improve your F/N VGI ratio. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH: mes Copyright ($) 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 080. HCOB 3 Nov 1971 C/S Series 66 - Auditor's Worksheets HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE . Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 3 NOVEMBER 1971 (RE-ISSUED 6 NOVEMBER 1972 AS AUDITOR ADMIN SERIES 15) C/S Series 66 AUDITOR'S WORKSHEETS A very fast; way for a C/S to do himself in is to fail to insist on GOOD LEGIBLE HANDWRITING. When a C/S has auditors who can t write well and rapidly, he gets misunderstood words when he tries to read the worksheets. One temporary solution is to make the auditor block print the word in red above each hard to read word. Some auditors go to an extreme of block printing the whole W/S The more permanent solution is to have Auditors in Cramming practice writing WELL and CLEARLY no matter how slowly and then maintaining the same clarity, speed it up. The auditor after many such practice sessions winds up writing clearly and fast. This can be increased until an auditor can write clearly as fast as people talk. The occasional headaches a C/S might get are not from the restim of the case he's studying but are from the words On W/Ses he can t make out. If a C/S does not insist on both block print clarification and auditor writing practice, he will wind up not reading worksheets and may even get foggy about certain cases. A remedy is to go back to the first folders not understood and and get the words clarified and then keep this C/S Series HCO B in. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER PS: In the 19th Century secretaries wrote beautiful copper plate longhand faster than a man could talk. So don't say it can't be done. LRH:nt:kjm Copyright ($) 1971, 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ====================== 081. BTB 12 Dec 1971R C/S Series 70 - How to Write Up a Cramming Order BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 12 DECEMBER 1971R ISSUE XIV REISSUED 9 JULY 1974 AS BTB Remimeo REVISED 26 NOV 1974 Cramming Offs CANCELS C/Ses BTB OF 12 DECEMBER 1971 ISSUE XIV SAME TITLE Cramming Series No. 8R C/S Series 70 HOW TO WRITE UP A CRAMMING ORDER There is a certain technology on how to write up a Cramming Order. 1. Isolate and state briefly the exact outnesses (in the PC folder or staff member area). 2. Order those HCOBs or PLs crammed. The Cramming Officer also looks in a slightly wider circle around the data flunked and locates which basic is involved, (i.e. Auditor's Code, TRs, metering, handling a session, handling the PC as a Being, or student basics and staff basics) and gets that crammed too. The Cramming Officer is not bound to accept any Cramming Order if his own investigation proves that something else entirely needs correction. It is part of the Cramming Officer's responsibility to prevent Wrong Target correction. According to Qual Senior Datum, the Cramming Officer must not take orders but must do his own investigation and handling. It will be found that there is usually a valid corrective action to be made. He does not just waive the cycle if the original order is incorrect. He finds out what is really wrong and corrects that. Written & Revised by CS-5 Ensign Judy Ziff Commodore's Staff Aides Approved by the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY ($) BDCS:BofI:JZ:mh Copyright ($) 1971, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization U.S. ===================== 082. HCOB 15 June 1972 C/S Series 80 - Dog PCs HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JUNE 1972 Remimeo Cramming IMPORTANT C/S Series 80 "DOG PCs" AN AUDITOR WHO CANNOT AUDIT, WHOSE TRs ARE OUT, WHOSE METERING IS BAD AND WHO NEVER KEEPS THE CODE ALWAYS SAYS HIS PCs ARE DOGS. When you find an auditor on this route the remedy is: 1. Show him this HCO B and explain to him that an auditor is not likely to get any real results when he is so out of ARC with pcs. 2. P/L 3 May 72, 2 lists L & N by an auditor. 3. Get off his overts and omissions on pcs and pull his w/hs. 4. Check out his meter position so that he can see needle paper and pc all in the same look without eye shift and drill him to do so. 5. Educate his left thumb so that he corrects a TA on BDs and catches the F/N and doesn't leave the needle stuck to the right of the dial while the pc F/Ns and corrects only after the F/N has been O/R. 6. Make him do an Electronic attest and get his TRs up to where the pc has a chance to be in session, 7. WC M4 him on his materials so he isn't swimming in misunderstoods. 8. Tell him there are no dog pcs now and get busy and help them out. WHOLE HGC An entire HGC can go bad this way. Shortly after- wards It will disintegrate and you will have few or no auditors left. Some auditor who is covering up his overts, false bonuses or false stats begins it and it becomes "fashion- able" to call various pcs dogs. Then other auditors, finding this an easy way to Justify not trying hard, follow suit. HCOB 15.6.72 - 2 - Next thing you have no HGC. C/S ERROR A C/S can err by being too critical of auditors. Or worse he can err by agreeing about what dogs the pcs are. If he does HE HAS NOT REALIZED THAT HIS C/S EFFORTS ARE BEING WASTED BY THE AUDITOR'S OVERTS, FALSE REPORTS, METERING, CODE AND TR FLUBS. The way to handle this in the C/S is: 1. 3 May 72 P/L. 2. M4 on the C/S Series. 3. Require he listen to and okay ok to audit tapes. 4. Get him to come down on critical auditors with the above cramming action. Suddenly this C/S will begin to get wins. CASES Every "dog pc" investigated traced to incompetent programming, C/Sing, out TRs, bad metering, Code breaks and bad lists. By forcing an auditor to cool off his opinions and properly handle the pc, each one of these "dog pcs" has begun to fly. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:ne Copyright ($) 1972 by L, Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 083. HCOB 16 June 1972R C/S Series 81R - Auditors Rights Modified HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1972R Remimeo REVISED 27 FEBRUARY 1975 C/S Series 81R (Revisions in script on pg 2 to make D of P and D of TS stats very clear) AUDITORS RIGHTS MODIFIED it occasionally (rarely) happens that an HGC's line stops and programs do not get finished and pcs go unaudited or sent to Ethics or Cramming instead of getting their programs completed. It also happens that a D of P becomes incapable of getting Auditors to audit per the schedule he writes. 12 1/2 hour intensives drop out. Auditing fails back to the bit and piece game. The C/S finds all his work in programming wasted as the programs stale date or just get abandoned, Hours fall. Lines tangle. Tech Services cannot get assignments done. THE MAJOR WHY OF THIS AND MANY SUCH CONFUSIONS CAN BE TRACED TO AN ABSUE OF "AUDITORS RIGHTS" IN PICKING AND CHOOSING PCS ON THE GROUNDS OF "FEELING THEY CANNOT HELP THE PC". This "right" is also abused by Auditors seeking pcs who F/N easily at the Examiner. See HCOB 15 June 72 C/S Series 80, "Dog Pcs". The refusal to audit is in fact an admission, in most cases, of a feared inability to audit. Therefore, an Auditor may only refuse to audit a pc if a direct personal relationship exists such as husband and wife or some friend's wife or familial relationship. An Auditor advising others about this or that "dog case" or seeking to exclude pcs from auditing by abusing his "right to choose pcs" is SUBJECT TO COMM EV AND SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES UNTIL RETREADED. For the real why of it is his inability to handle TRs, meter, use the Code or apply Tech. Nearly every "Dog Pc" has out lists or incomplete chains or is not being run on what needs to be handled. In other words they are simply problems in repair which modern tech handles easily. The drug case who is audited on grades but has had no drug rundown is an example of misprogramming. HCOB 16.6.72R - 2- Rev. 22.2.75 The C/S can get many loses and the whole HGC go into a bedlam where you have Auditors refusing to audit. Their reasons given are false. The real reasons involve fast F/Ns and bonuses or out TRs, metering, Code Breaks and Tech. The D of P has a right, and so does Tech Services, to assign pcs to such and such Auditors in the sequence listed without a lot of pick and choose by the Auditors. A C/S has a right to get his programs completed. 12 1/2 hour intensive plans blow up where Auditors choose their own pcs. STATS The stats of C/Ses and Auditors may only be HOURS AUDITED with FES and admin hours separately noted. The D of P's stat may only be fully completed cases. When the stats are this way the C/S can get his programs done without worry. The D of P can get cases completed. The D of Tech Services has only completed cases and course completions for a star. HONESTY Sanity is truth. Truth is sanity. The road to truth is begun with honesty. There was the story of the "man who sold his soul for a mess of pottage" (soup). We could parallel this with the Auditor who sold his case gain for a mess of false stats. An honest clean job and an honest clean line are the milestones of the road to truth. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:sb:nt Copyright ($) 1972, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you The Publications Organization U.S. ===================== 084. BTB 20 Jan 1973 C/S Series 86RD - The Red Tag Line B0ARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN Remimeo C/S 20 JANUARY 1973 RB D of P REVISED 18 SEPT 74 PC Examiner CANCELS Qual Sec HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JANUARY 1973 RA Tech Services SAME TITLE C/S Series 86RB THE RED TAG LINE Corrections in Italics ) There is a precise line for handling Red Tags which must be put in and maintained. A Red Tag is a large red card placed on the outside front cover of a PC folder which indicates that a REPAIR SESSION must be done within 24 hours, or if a full FES is required, within 72 hours. A Red Tag is Placed on the front of a folder by the C/S, Senior C/S or Qual Sec for one or more of the following reasons: A. No FN VGIs at Exams after a session, word clearing, product or post purpose clearing or Why Finding or 5 May PL. B. Roller-coaster bad exam report within a few hours of a session. C. PC ill within a few days of any major case action, or word clearing, product or post purpose clearing or Why Finding or 5 May 72 PL. D. C/S notes out tech in a session, even though it FNed at Exams, which could cause the PC trouble. (E.G. Out List or chain left unflat.) E. Flunked Declare of any major action or Grade accompanied by a BER. The Red Tag Line is handled in the following manner: 1. Auditor completes the session. 2. Auditor takes PC to Examiner. PC RED TAGS, AS PER A - E ABOVE. 3. EXAMINER PAPER CLIPS A RED TAG TO THE EXAM FORM, LOGS THE EXAM IN THE ROUTINE EXAMS LOG BOOK IN RED AND ALSO IN THE SPECIAL RED TAG EXAMS BOOK AND BODY ROUTES (OR GETS IT BODY ROUTED BY QUAL PAGE) INTO THE HANDS OF THE D OF P FOR IMMEDIATE HANDLING. BTB 20.1.75RB - 2 - Revised 18.9.74 This also alerts the D of P to the situation and gives him time to schedule an immediate session. 4. The D of P places the Red Tagged Exam form into a special Red Tagged basket in Tech Services for collection by the Auditor. Only Red Tag exam forms may go in this basket. 5a. The Auditor may take the PC back into session at this point and do a repair with the appropriate correction list, except in the case of a flunked Declare, which must return to the C/S, or a second Red Tag after an Auditor has attempted a correction. 5b. PC returns to exams. If PC still no FN VGIs, continue on this line as follows: 6. The Auditor collects the Exam from the Red Tag basket, writes up the session and places the folder, with the exam form and red tag clipped to the front of the folder, into the hands of the Folder Page. 7. The Folder Page immediately delivers the folder to the C/S, alerting him that this is a Red Tag folder. 8. The C/S inspects the folder and TAKES THE RED TAG OFF THE EXAM REPORT AND CLIPS IT TO THE FRONT OF THE PC FOLDER. 9. C/S writes up the repair C/S, Cramming Order and logs the Red Tag in his Red Tag log book. 10. C/S calls the Folder Page to Collect the folder and deliver to the D of P for immediate handling and assignment. 11. The Folder page places the Red Tag folder in a special rack on which ONLY Red Tag folders are placed. Red Tag folders must not be mixed up with general folders. Only a Red Tag folder may be placed on top of a Red Tag folder. 12. Tech Services HGC Admin places a Red Tag alongside the name of the PC on the scheduling board. This red tag comes off when the PC is un-red tagged. 13. Tech Services HGC Admin alerts the D of P that the Red Tag folder is back from the C/S and ready for assignment. 14. D of P immediately assigns the Auditor to take the PC back into session. BTB 20.1.73RB - 4 - Rev. 18.9.74 15. Auditor does the repair and takes the PC to Exams. PC now has FN VGIs. Examiner gets the form to Tech Services routine PC exams basket for Auditor collection. 16. Auditor collects the exam and writes up the session. Places the folder in the "C/S" rack. 17. Folder Page takes the folder to the C/S as part of routine traffic for the day. 18. C/S ensures that the session Out Tech has been corrected to FN VGIs. If not fully corrected or more goofs noted, C/S handles as per 8 and 9 above. 19. When the C/S is fully satisfied the Out Tech is handled THE C/S REMOVES THE RED TAG FROM THE FRONT OF THE FOLDER AND STRIKES THE NAME OFF HIS RED TAG LOG BOOK. There are several daily actions which must be done in association with the above lines to keep the Red Tag lines in: a. The C/S sends a daily attested report to PC Exams listing all Red Tag and Un-Red Tag PCs. This must be in the hands of PC Exams by 9 am of the following morning. PC Exams checks the list off against his Red Tag book and strikes off all those confirmed as handled. If the C/S list of Red Tags and Un-Red Tags does not tally with his own list the PC Examiner must report the matter, with exact specifics, to the Qual Sec., for investigation and handling. b. PC Examiner sends a daily list at the end of each day of all Red Tags to the Cramming Officer and C/S. For the C/S this provides a confirmatory line against his own marked Red Tags for the day. For the Cramming Officer this provides data on who should be sent for cramming. If those persons do not report for Cramming within 24 hours the Cramming Off must report to the Dir Correction or Qual Sec for investigation and handling. The Qual Sec or Senior C/S may independently inspect and Red Tag any any PC Folder, for due cause per A - E on page 1. In this case, the Qual sec or senior C/S will write up the Cramming Orders On the Auditor. BTB 20.1.73RB - 4 - Rev. 18.9.74 The rule on a Red Tag is: WHOEVER PUTS IT ON THE FRONT OF THE FOLDER TAKES IT OFF. (C/S or Qual Sec.) A D of P is well advised to have an Auditor on standby who is not assigned regular PCs, to handle Red Tag repair sessions when the Auditor cannot complete the action, through Retread or Retrain required. The Auditor penalty for failure to immediately take a PC back into session and handle a Red Tag is now the loss of DOUBLE the hours lost on the original session which resulted in a Red Tag. The Auditor pay penalty is cancelled. The HAS is responsible for getting this line in and drilled and the Qual Sec is responsible for maintaining it. A wall chart should be made up showing the C/S Series 25 and Reg Tag lines, with the Red Tag lines marked in red, in order to effectively drill and Chinese School Dept 12 personnel, Tech Services and Qual and really get the line in. Ens. Judy Ziff CS-5 Reissued as BTB by Flag Mission 1234 I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 2nd: Molly Harlow Authorized by AVU for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY ($) BDCS:SW:AL:MH:JZ:mh:rs Copyright ($) 1973, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization, U. S. ===================== 085. BTB 20 Jan 1973RA ATTACHMENT: RED TAG REPORT BTB 20.1.73RA ATTACHMENT To: PC Examiner Date __________ From: C/S Time __________ RED TAG REPORT The following PCs were red-tagged within the last 24 hours: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ The following PCs were un-red tagged within the last 24 hours: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ I attest the above report is true and correct and that the session Out Tech has been fully repaired to F/N VGIs. Signed: ________________________ Case Supervisor ===================== 086. HCOB 15 Oct 1973 C/S Series 87 - Nulling & F/Ning Prepared Lists HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER 1975 C/S Series 87 NULLING AND F/Ning PREPARED LISTS A prepared list is one which is issued in an HCOB and is used to correct cases. There are many of these. Notable amongst them is C/S 53 and its corrections. It is customary for the auditor to be required to F/N such a list. This means on calling it that the whole list item by item is to F/N. Now and then you get the extreme oddity of a list selected to exactly remedy the case not reading but not F/Ning. Of course this might happen if the list did not apply to the case (such as an OT prepared list being used on a Grade IV, heaven forbid). In the case of lists to correct listing, and in particular the C/S 53 series, it is nearly impossible for this situation to occur. A C/S will very often see that the auditor has assessed the list on the pc, has gotten no reads, and the list did not F/N. A "reasonable" C/S (heaven forbid) lets this go by. Yet he has before him first class evidence that the auditor 1. Has out-TRs in general, 2. Has no impingement whatever with TR-1, 3. Is placing his meter in the wrong position in the auditing session so that he cannot see it, the pc and his worksheet, 4. That the auditor's eyesight is bad. One or more of these conditions certainly exist. To do nothing about it is to ask for catastrophe after catastrophe with pcs and to have one's confidence in one's own C/Sing deteriorate badly. An amazing number of auditors cannot make a prepared list read for one of the above reasons. Putting in suppress, invalidation or misunderstood words on the list will either get a read or the list will F/N. HCOB 15.10.73 - 2 - The moral of this is that prepared lists that do not read F/N. When prepared lists that do not read do not F/N or when the auditor cannot get a prepared list to F/N, serious auditing errors are present which will defeat a C/S. in the interest of obtaining results and being merciful on pcs, the wise C/S never lets this situation go by without finding what it is all about. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:rhc:nt Copyright ($) 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization, U. S. ===================== 087. HCOB 6 Dec 1973 C/S Series 90 - The Primary Failure HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1973 Remimeo C S Series 90 THE PRIMARY FAILURE References: HCOB 28 Feb 1971, C/S Series 24, Metering Reading Items, and HCOB 15 Oct 1973, C/S Series 87, Nulling and F/Ning Prepared Lists. A C/S who cannot get a result on his pcs will find the most usual biggest improvement by getting the offending Auditors' ASSESSING handled. We used to say that "the Auditor's TRs were out" as the most fundamental reason for no results. This is not specific enough. THE MOST COMMON REASON FOR FAILED SESSIONS IS THE INABILITY OF THE AUDITOR TO GET READS ON LISTS. Time after time I have checked this back as the real reason. It became evident when one could take almost any "null" (no read)list in a pc's folder, give it and the pc to an Auditor who COULD assess and get nice reads on it with consequent gain. Example: Pc has a high TA. C/S orders a C/S 53RF. List is null. Pc goes on having a high TA. C/S gets inventive, case crashes. Another C/S and another Auditor takes the same pc and the same list, gets good reads, handles. Case flies again. What was wrong was: (a) The Auditor's TR 1 was terrible. (b) The Auditor couldn't meter. REMEDY One takes the above two reference HCOBs and gets their points fully checked on the flunking Auditor. The C/S gets the Auditor's TR 1 corrected. In doing the latter one may find a why for the out TR 1 like a notion one must be soft spoken to stay In ARC or the Auditor is imitating some other Auditor whose TR 1 is faulty. HCOB 6.12.73 - 2 - QUAL CRAMMING It can happen that these actions are reported done In Qual and the Auditor still flubs. In this case the C/S has to straighten out Qual Cramming by doing the above reference HCOBs on the Cramming Officer and getting the Cramming Officer's TR 1 ideas unscrewed and straight. REQUIREMENTS It takes correct metering and IMPINGEMENT to make a list read. If the Auditor does not have these, then drug lists, Dianetic lists, correction lists will all go for nothing. As the prepared list is the C/Ses main tool for discovery and correction an Auditor failure to get a list to respond or note it then defeats the C/S completely. SUMMARY THE ERROR OF AN AUDITOR BEING UNABLE TO GET A LIST TO READ ON A METER IS A PRIMARY CAUSE OF C/S FAILURE. To win, correct it! L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:nt Copyright ($) 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 088. BPL 5 Apr 1972R PTS Type A Handling B0ARD POLICY LETTER 5 APRIL 1972R ISSUE I REVISED & REISSUED 20 JULY 1975 AS BPL Remimeo (Revision in Script) HGC Sec Hat CANCELS Dir I&R Hat HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1972 E/O Hat ISSUE I SAME TITLE PTS TYPE A HANDLING DEFINITION Per HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964. a PTS (meaning a Potential Trouble Source) type A is a person intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice PTS persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely de- voted to proving the antagonistic element wrong." A SOURCE OF TROUBLE Such persons with antagonistic family members are a source of trouble to Scientology ($) because their family members are not active. In fact from direct experience with inquiry after Inquiry into Scientology, it has been found that those who have created the conditions which brought about the Inquiry in the first place and those who testified before same have been the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers brothers, sisters, or grandparents of some Scientologist. Their testimony has been full of such statements as, "My son completely changed after he went into Scientology - he no longer was respectful to me." "My daughter gave up a wonderful career as a hairdresser to go into Scientology." "My sister got these funny staring eyes the way all Scientologists have." Their testimony was illogical and their descriptions of what occurred were untrue, but the point of the matter is that such persons DID cause Scientology, Scientology Orgs and fellow Scientologists a great deal of trouble and difficulty. Many Scientologists in their misunderstanding and misapplication of Scientology create the conditions that bring about the antagonism in the first place. A few illustrations of how this is done are as follows: Scientologist to mother: "I now know where you are on the Tone Scale - 1.1. Boy are you sneaky!" (Evaluation and invalidation.) BPL 5.4.72R I - 2 - Rev. 20.7.75 Father to Scientologist: "Now I don't want you to borrow the car again without my permission. I have told you time and time...." Scientologist to father.. "OKAY! FINE! OKAY! GOOD! THANK YOU! I GOT THAT! (Not an acknow- ledgement but an effort to shut up the father.) Scientologist to older brother: "You murdered me in a past life, you dirty dog!" (Evaluation and invalidation.) Mother to Scientologist: "Whatever are you doing?" Scientologist to mother: "I'm trying to confront your dreadful bank." (Invalidation.) There are so many ways to misuse tech and to invalidate and evaluate for others in a destructive fashion to bring about bypassed charge, ARC Breaks and upset that they can not all be possibly listed. The idea is NOT to do so. Why create trouble for yourself and for your fellow Scientologists as nothing will have been gained but ill-will? THE WHY Per HCO Policy Letter of March 7, 1965, it is a CRIME to be or become a PTS without reporting it or taking action, or to receive processing while PTS. Further as per HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964, a PTS may not be trained. This means that a person who is PTS may not receive processing or training while PTS and it also means that they had better do something to handle their condition. As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was re- quired to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely dis- connected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists. Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time, we have had more PTS trouble than before. Therefore, what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle. Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics, find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. The WHY could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn't stand the thought of being a lawyer! Or perhaps the WHY is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the WHY could be that the mother has just read an entheta newspaper article. BPL 5.4.72R - 3 . Rev. 20.7.75 In any case the WHY should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle. See the Data Series PLs (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why. The person who is PTS should be declared as such by Ethics and should not receive Scientology training or processing until the situation has been handled. (The exception to this is a full PTS Rundown done in the HGC.) The handling could be as simple as writing to one' s father and saying, "I do not complain that you are a janitor, please do not complain that I am a Scientologist. The important thing is that I am your son and that I love and respect you. I know you love me, but please learn to respect me as an adult individual who knows what he wants in life." Or it could be as follows, "I am writing to you, Daddy, because Mother keeps sending me these dreadful news- paper clippings and they are upsetting to me because I know they are not true. You do not do this and so it is easier for me to write to you. Again there are as many ways of handling as there are Why's found. Each case is individual, Remember, too, there is always the possibility of a NO situation. And If the person thinks he's PTS and isn't, he can get sick. Or if he insists he isn't and is, he can also get upset. So find if there IS a situation first. It is the purpose of Ethics to ensure that the sit- uation is handled. CS-G for L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER Revised & Reissued as BPL by Flag Mission 1234 2nd Molly Gilliam Approved by the Commodore's Staff Aides and the Board of Issues for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY BDCS:LRH:CS:BI:MSH:MG:mg Copyright ($) 1972, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization, U.S. =====================