Home

punishment 2

By Bernie Wimbush

We read in the paper of some old veteran being attacked in his or her own home and robbed of a few cents by a bunch of teenagers, and it’s so easy to call for a good flogging, bring back the cane and that today’s youth are all bad. Wasn’t it Socrates who made the derogatory comments about ‘today’s’ youth a couple of thousand years ago? And so nothing has changed.

In the early history of Australia we were a convict colony. Good old mother England didn’t know what to do with all the naughty girls and boys (and adults) so sent them to Australia. Studies were done of these poor wretches and it was discovered that no amount of floggings, solitary confinements or hard labour made one iota of difference. What was discovered was that if a convict was taught a trade from which he could earn a living he or she didn’t offend again.

Reminds me of a process whereby the handling of a continuous overt was to find the problem the being was trying to solve and fix that.

When we are trying to survive we are going to run into situations we don’t know how to solve and sometimes we get it wrong. Isn’t the definition of an overt related to non-optimum solutions across the dynamics — and isn’t this subject about mistakes rather than bad people?

In British law there was a principle of “The rule of Thumb.” This allowed a husband to beat his wife providing the stick was no thicker than his thumb (I really can’t see that working with my wife) — and this was not deemed to be an overt back then. Can’t see that this basic principle is going to improve a situation any. Perhaps if there had been more emphasis on communication?

I have heard much about how in the current world of Scientology you walk a fine line of being good, or being bad. Particularly if you are a staff member or Sea Org member.  You do your best to do what is right, to get out your products, to do what is wanted, but for whatever reason, things don’t go well and you are in trouble. And then it seems that there are endless levels of punishment for someone who not complied, or done something determined to be wrong. Public are put under a Non-Enturbulation order. Staff have been exported across the world (separated from family and friends), never to be posted as an executive, never to be on technical lines (ie train as an auditor), never to be permitted onto the OT levels, placed in “the Hole” for years at the Int base, and/or declared a Suppressive Person and excommunicated.

In auditing we find an overt and handle it. That is the end of it. The PC will forget about it in a few days if not immediately, will he not? And once it is gone — why does it still have significance to any other person?

I have heard of PCs being sent to Ethics for correction after an overt has been handled in session. Why would you do that if the overt has already been handled and as-is’ed? And even if there was a physical universe handling to follow up on the overt found  — why would then also be accompanied with lower conditions, justice actions and other limitations or restrictions placed on the person?

And then you have the principle of the Service Facsimile – and if you tell someone they are wrong they will justify their actions and insist on their rightness, and then do it again.

Isn’t the truth that crime and overts result from illogical ideas in the mind, held in place by mental charge? And isn’t auditing what fixes that?

As LRH states — “who would punish when he could salvage?”

 

45 thoughts on “Why punish?

  1. I was talking to a work colleague today and we ended up discussing how one of my jobs 12 years ago now, was working in the Dishroom at Gold. My friend asked if the posting was an assigned punishment, and on reflection, I realized that was exactly what is was. I had been busted from post in RTC and had been told there were two options — either work as a Groundsman, or in the Galley. Both posts were considered by RTC (ie. Miscavige), as the lowest of the low jobs on the Int base. I said that I wanted to go to Grounds as a Gardener, so they posted me in the Dishroom to wash dishes for hundreds of Int base staff. I worked there for almost a year and washed more pots and cooking trays than can be possibly imagined.

    It is strange looking back at that time period of my life — and even weirder trying to explain it to someone else, who has an extensive military background, and yet could not understand how someone who had been demoted from an organization with the Church, would be treated in such a way — particularly if Scientology has a technology to help man.

    Lucky for me, my first job this life was working in a Garden Nursery, and my second was working in a restaurant chain, as a kitchen hand, and then as a cook. Both gardening and working in commercial kitchens, are activities I enjoy. So the planned punishment was not gruesome for me, but a chance to take a breath and work on a post where I could create good products and regain some self esteem.

  2. “I have heard of PCs being sent to Ethics for correction after an overt has been handled in session. Why would you do that if the overt has already been handled and as-is’ed? And even if there was a physical universe handling to follow up on the overt found – why would then also be accompanied with lower conditions, justice actions and other limitations or restrictions placed on the person?”

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    That all depends on the situation, providing you are not in disagreement with LRH’s insistence in the safeguarding confidential materials and the penalties implied should you fail to do so, just for instance. Surely you are not suggesting a Solo NOTer should ONLY have his O/Ws pulled in review for leaving his materials insecure for others to access? Most certainly lower conditions, comm-evs and what not apply. PC stealing stuff from the org? O/Ws ONLY won’t do … more responsibility than that needs to be taken.

    In my field, if a tradesman takes certain risks that could have resulted in severe damage and liabilities, I won’t settle for any O/W write-up. A point can exist where a line has been crossed. If I found his actions so irresponsible and reckless that it could have severely endangered the lives of others, I would not allow that individual back on his post again. A drunk forklift driver dumping a ton of lumber on a truck driver? In this instance the “limitation” would in terms of a prison sentence, merely an O/W session won’t do. Doing O/Ws and/or MEST handlings are not always the complete extent of the responsibility that needs to be taken, other factors such as justice actions, etc. often play a part in it too. I realize this paragraph has nothing to do with PCs, but I wanted to make a point in case on a wider scope.

    Is there any point of disagreement with HCOPL 7 Mar 65 III “Offenses And Penalties”?

    I have also been assigned by an EO lower conditions as a public for all sorts of nonsense the result of circumstances beyond my control esp. in respect to previously cancelled references I was not aware of. Of course little more needed to be done than pointing out the exact reference which would have sufficed, but because some staff lost a stat it was deemed I needed to get a bit of a beating for that one too. Arbitrariness here.

    All I’m saying is it’s all “Circumstance Specific”. Lower Conditions, Justice Actions, Restrictions are all part of the picture depending on the scenario.

  3. Hi Bernie !!!

    It is a very well known datum in SCN that if ethics is out, Tech won’t go in. If a PC get off an overt/w/h in session which reveal to the C/S, that there is a PT unhandled ethics sit going on, it would be very foolish, indeed, not to send that PC to Ethics as Tech, won’t just go in. It all depends on the circumstances. Your ref is HCOB 13 Oct 82 , “Ethics And The C/S”. It is a matter of C/S judgement to ensure the PC’s progress. Also listen to “The State Of Man” lectures. The first step of taking responsability for one’s
    O/Ws is confessing them, but that’s not necesarily the only step, just the 1st. Ethics has nothing to do with punishment. Being sent to Ethics is not a punishment in itself. Doing lower conditions, if one really got into one, is not a burden but a blessing, as you would be cutting your own throat if you fail to handle it.

    It is one thing to get one’s W/Hs off in a regular session as part of Rudiments, and it is an entirely different thing to do so as part of a Confessional. In a regular session, the C/S MUST ensure the PC’s ethics is IN in PT, otherwise, Tech won’t go in. That could means sending the PC to Ethics for correction. The Confessional is an Ethics action in itself, as you are handling the underlaying reasons for non-optimum behavior. You are handling the compulsions to go out-ethics.

    So basically, it is a matter of judgement. Read the above HCOB in the C/S Series in the Tech Volumes. That’s your basic ref on this matter.

  4. I have my own view of this and it’s more in line with Bernie.

    This bulletin Ethics & The C/S appoints the C/S as Keeper Of The Peace in the group and urges him to “take the ethics actions necessary for the benefit of discipline in the group” as his first and foremost action. Yet this conflicts with his number one priority which is the pc over and above the interests of any other Dynamic.

    If pc’s ever got wind of this, they would realize the auditors have now joined hands with the rest of humanity in punishing withholds and not letting people get them off. And in fact, that is exactly what is happening in the Church. People are staying away in droves.

    I have run Sec Checks/Confessional on 25 or 30 people in my time – most of them staff. Not even once did I find a significant overt that was majorly destructive on the 3rd Dynamic. Not turning up on post, stealing a book or a few dollars, a dislike/3p situation. Trivia. Yet nearly all of these people were labelled “out-ethics” by executives and peers.

    They would seize on any little out-2d or non-optimum situation in this person’s life and declare with the conviction and passion that only an untrained Scientology exec can muster, that this person should not get auditing and must be handled on Justice lines.

    But the truth was, their ruds went in, they read on the questions, they found things more easily, they went uptone, wrote great success stories, etc etc etc. They had all the indicators that said yes, tech was going in on these people.

    Auditing is the way out of man’s travails and people must be audited. That’s their only way out. Nobody ever went Clear in Ethics, yet people use this ethics thing to deny auditing to people who are benefiting from it.

    This is not to say that people shouldn’t handle their own affairs and people should always be held accountable for shoddy or dangerous practices. But it’s another thing entirely to turn a man’s brightest hope for his future into an arm of the secret police – as the Church of Scientology has done.

    A better reference on this is C/S Series 6 What The C/S Is Doing. It says “The C/S is for the pc” and “No other reasons for C/Sing exist.”
    This is a more relevant issue than some HCOB issued after Ron was offlines being lied to by various people about what was going on in the Church.

    Apart from sending people to Ethics to check on their PTS PU handlings, I only ever sent one pc to Ethics. The reason wasn’t any overt she committed. She was resisting auditing, kicking walls and throwing temper tantrums. Couldn’t be audited. Sent her to Ethics and she came back a few nights later a changed pc and proceeded on up the Bridge. This had nothing to do with keeping the peace in the group.

    The moral of the story is that police should do their job and so should the C/S. Pc’s should only get ethics handlings if in fact tech is not going in by actual session reports. Not because of the severity of some overt, real or imagined.

  5. Hi Steve. You got it all wrong ,my friend. ”Ethics And The C/S” still applies. sending a PC to Ethics just for PTS checks or follow-ups is just to play VERY LAZY as a C/S and C/Sing one’s own case, I am afraid. ONLY a C/S with lots of unhandled M/W/Hs himself will fail to apply ”Ethics And The C/S”. Don’t confuse our readers with this faulty interpretation.

    And there are tons of LRH refs on the matter BEFORE LRH went into reclusion. IF one is interested enough to look for them.

    I am quoting several portions of the HCOB 13 Ot 82 ”Ethics And The C/S” . They speak for themselves ( underlines are mine) :

    ” There is (or can appear to be) a conflict of targets between a C/S and an Ethics
    Officer. An Ethics Officer is trying to get in discipline and a C/S is trying to improve
    a case. But it is true that an out-ethics pc does not make case gain

    In normal operating practice, the way I handle ethics in relationship to C/Sing is
    to:
    1.
    Take the ethics actions necessary for the benefit of discipline in the group,
    and when this has been done,
    2.
    Salvage the being independently of the organizational requirements.

    So I would say that a C/S must not forbid ethics actions but that he follows steps
    1 and 2 above, in that sequence. For it is very certain that tech won’t go in unless
    ethics is in.

    HCO BOARD OF REVIEW
    As the pendulum can swing too far in either direction (too much or too little
    ethics), there is a third port of call in this scene. That is the HCO Board of Review
    action.
    The HCO Board of Review exists in Department 21. In an org, the board is
    convened by any LRH Comm or KOT who appoints a chairman and two other
    members.
    Its function is to look into injustices or technically incorrect findings and cancel
    any miscarriage of justice or incorrect handlings. (Ref: HCO PL 23 Feb. 78, BOARD
    OF REVIEW)
    A properly established HCO Board of Review is obviously necessary as a point
    of recourse to keep some sanity in between the ethics actions and the C/Sing

    The basic datum upon which all of these references are founded is just this:
    TECH WILL NOT GO IN WHEN ETHICS IS OUT.

    As a note, with misuse of this datum it can also go to total ethics, no tech! In one
    org, many years ago, the C/Ses and auditors handily got rid of all the evidence of their
    out-tech and their inactivity and put themselves on a long loaf by simply sending
    every pc that came on the lines over to the Ethics Officer. The pcs, unhandled, then
    moved out of the org and no cases were finished at all.
    So there can be abuses both ways in case handling and ethics. Ethics can be
    overused or it can be not used at all when needed. A C/S has simply got to know his
    stuff and steer a sane path on the subject.
    It is the correct ethics and the correct tech action used in the correct amounts,
    that result in winning pcs ”

  6. I rest my case. this huge HE&R on the subject of Ethics in the field is beginning to tire me , really. Just get over it, whoever persons this applies to, and move on please. Get audited on the subject by a competent auditor who won’t share mutual out-ruds with you on the Church. get your overts and W/Hs off and TRUTH will dawn on you. It is ALWAYS one’s doing that caused the ”damage” NO MATTER what was done to us. Listen and word clear The State Of Man ” congress lectures specially tape ”Zones Of Control”.

  7. Thetaclear — yes you are right that this subject of ethics is both a confused and BPCed one.

    To me it is clear that there are two factors at play:

    1. The subject of ethics, as a subject is very, very misunderstood, and confused with the group subject called justice. Having worked in the Sea Org, I have seen how poorly it is understood and applied. People have it boiled down to condition assignments, but that is really not what it is about at all.

    2. And then we have misapplication of ethics, resulting in out-rudiments and bypassed charge. And with this untackled and dealt with, case gain becomes impossible.

    Ethics was development, as a subject as both a personal tool, and as a group tool. It is something we are going to have to take up, in coming years, to clean it up, get the false data and misunderstoods handled, and the bypassed charge handled.

    Heck, I have personal reality on the HE&R, natter and antago that can be generated as a result of bypassed charge relating to injustices and out-tech. But some sessions by a qualified auditor, overseen by a qualified C/S, and a restudy of the materials, and one pulls out of it easily and just gets on with life and application of ethics.

    I use ethics personally, and across my dynamics every day. In fact, just recently we ejected an anti-social personality from a group I professionally work for (non of them Scientologists) to the result that the rest of us could get on with business without constant undermining and attack.

    I agree with you on all you say — but realize that the very point you are pushing is the same one that COB preaches and enforces and uses to continue the incorrect and wrong target ethics that exists in the C of S today. COB uses the “for whom the bell tolls….” datum and the point of every individual being 100% responsible for the condition they find themselves in, to push in anchor points, assign wrong conditions and force people down scale.

    Interesting predicament…… We gotta get the truth understood and applied, while at the same time, peeling off the way the subject has been used to abuse people and protect those it should have been used to find and eject from the group.

    • Thank you Lana. I very much agree with you. You sure know how to put a point across and have this incredible finesse while doing so.

      I never meant it like COB. I want to clarify it a little bit further. I really care for the wellfare of others. I really do. And sometimes I can be a little rough (I got to develop this finesse of yours) putting a point across. To use the FACT, cause it IS a fact, that a being is “wholly responsible for his own condition” to push people’s anchor points in, is not only wrong, it is disgusting and suppressive in the extreme. It is neither, Ethics or Justice. It is injustice.

      Now, that being said, if one really wants to recover control of ANY area of life, one ONLY have to

      1. Find, with the help of an Auditor , our own overts and withholds comitted against that area and the terminals that represent it. They are burried and not-issed most of the time, that’s why they can bite one back and cause reactive reactions. But they are there.

      2. Get all of them off, you know, clean the needle. Use standard procedure and confessional Tech.

      The PC will have a realization that it was HIM that precipitated the condition in the first place w/out anybody’s help. He did it himself. That’s invariably true in ALL cases. That doesn’t means that what was done to one was either correct or justified, it NEVER is. But you will find, oddly so, that no matter what was done to us, it was always our own actions that really mattered in solving our dilemas and troubles.

      I know it is a though bullet to bite, but anybody will find that he/she had overts and withholds in the first place (burried and forgotten) before he/she was hurt by the area. I am not trying to blame anybody nor justify the Church suppressive actions. I am only trying to get people to CAUSE and see them happy and winning with no att whatsoever in the past.

      Remember that the EP of grade II ( “relief from the sufferings and hostilities of life” ) is achieved by confronting our own actions.

      I am no saint. I have enough overts and whithholds myself to give some to hundreds of scientologists and STILL have my big share. I am the winner. Can’t be beaten on that, sorry folks. Probably will find the “doors of heaven” closed for me too. So I know a thing or two about O/Ws, have a FIRM reality on the subject. And EACH AND EVERY time I was hurt by anyone or any area of life, I found out that I had totally done it myself and recovered my control over the area and terminals again, my self-esteem and my basic goodness. Each and everytime w/out even taking into consideration F1 (others to oneself). I have a solid reality on this, I not only read about it.

      The basic ref on this are the “State Of Man” congress lectures. Specially tape tittled “Zones Of Control”.

      I want to see people winning with their att on their Bridge, not on past upsets or on DM. He is not worth it. Not worth it having him on your mind, thoughts and past. But only by assuming reponsability for each and every overt and withhold agaist him and other persona non-grata, will anyone be able to “disconect” from it all.

      I hope I have make myself clear enough. By the way Lana , I got very happy about this :

      “Ethics was development, as a subject as both a personal tool, and as a group tool. It is something we are going to have to take up, in coming years, to clean it up, get the false data and misunderstoods handled, and the bypassed charge handled.”

      Please, follow up on this. I am in, for any help you might need. You have my e-mail.

      Thanks dear, you are awesome.

      I now leave the post with a quote from LRH from tape lecture 3 Jan 1960 “Zones Of Control And Responsability Of Governments” :

      “You know some zone of life – right this minute – you know some zone of life that apparently has the power to injure you. Let’s just think about it for a minute. Do you know of such zone ? ”

      ” well, all right. The exact mechanic is that you committed overt acts against the terminals representing that zone you don’t know about ; you’ve burried them. All you see is the menace. But the overt acts are there. On a reciprocal, the area can now something harmful to you. And horribly enough, it becomes more harmful the less responsability you take for it ” LRH

      • By the way, I am working on an article, relating to the subject of Ethics and Justice, what LRH really said about it and what he didn’t , and about the perversions the Church have created on both subjects. It is meant to possibly “blow” false data on the subject and knock off wrong indications. I decided than instead of criticizing the field for its BPC on the subject and the resulting ridge, that I might actually DO something about it and stop complaining.

        So, due to time limitations and language limitations (I am mostly a spanish speaker) I’ll have it ready for submittal in about two weeks. And I promise to try to do my best to make it worth your while.

      • Exactly the viewpoint called for if we’ll ever get fully organized out here putting Scientology back on track.

  8. And just what does it mean “to put ethics in”? It seems to me that the Corp view is to assign a lower condition (which often times is wrong) and doe not solve the problem. The pre-OT who leaves his materials insecure obviously doesn’t get the point. Telling him he is wrong plays into the right/wrong of the ser fac and is useless. Unless one gets to te bottom of the problem and correct that, nothing is going to change.
    To me , ‘getting ethics in’ is getting on the road to survival. It is not about being good or bad,(see axiom 30) it is about survival. It is doing what works in achieving survival,, not necessarily toeing authorities line. How do we handle masturbation? Assign treason and 150 laps around the tree? No, lets take the charge off it until the PC couldn’t care less and get on with the auditing. Now suppose it was a murder? If one ends session in horror and takes the PC to ethics, the cause of the activity will never be discovered or handled.
    and I have had one of those. Turned out that as a twelve year old, the unloaded gun with the safety on, went off and killed a friend. It might have been careless, an accident, but not murder. Sending the PC to ethics would not have handled the problem. I had already done that.
    I often wonder if some people do not understand the power of the technology.
    True there are SPs and PTS sits and conditions (which if correctly assigned and the formula followed improve life).
    Use the right tech and all will resolve, but I cannot see how punishment will change anything.

    • Hi, Bernie !
      It seems to me, judging by your two posts, that you are interpreting the assignment and handling of lower conditions as being punishment which, obviously, it is not. The action of assigning lower conditions is not, in itself, a punishment action ,it is a Justice action attempting to help the individual to get is ethics in. That is its true purpose IF done by sane individuals who knows the tools of Ethics. But the subject has become very twisted in Orgs and people reactively confuse lower conditions with punishment. They are not even in the same classification of things. In fact, they are completely opposite.

      Conditions exist in life. There no such a thing as a “no condition”. And getting into lower conditions is a fact that happens to people very often indeed. Just being “human” is a kind of lower condition in itself , wouldn’t you agree ?

      So, the formulas for lower conditions are there to help us ascend again and keep our dynamics in comm for our own benefit. That’s the simplicity of it.

      May be it would be a good suggestion you get a copy of ITSE book and read it in a new unit of time and possibly get someone to do some FDS on it in case you’ve, inadvertenly, picked up any suppressive false data from the Church. Take care.

    • “The pre-OT who leaves his materials insecure obviously doesn’t get the point. Telling him he is wrong plays into the right/wrong of the ser fac and is useless. Unless one gets to te bottom of the problem and correct that, nothing is going to change.”

      Real ethics and justice as LRH intended is often a completely different story than what the CO$ actually does, and some folks cannot distinguish the tech from the arbitraries often brought about by such abuses.

      Nonetheless, per the section quoted above, this strikes me as viewing this issue only as far as that PC or pre-OT is concerned, omitting any consideration as to the case damage that could be caused to other lower level cases. In other words, that pre-OT is not the only one involved that situation. If one doesn’t want to be subject to ethics and justice procedures, then don’t join any groups that have rules, but if you do break them, deterrents, ethics, justice and penalties apply, otherwise one can’t hold the line or achieve on purposes, goals and objectives. Most certainly one should get to the bottom of any given situation, but that does not imply ethics gradients and consequences in terms of penalties to deter anyone from offending ought to be dismissed.

      Kinda like like omitting the injuries sustained to the truck driver in the example in my previous post above, you can’t ignore/remove them from the equation of the situation.

      A 100 mph speeding driver through school zone? You don’t think he should have a looming threat of jail-time over his head to deter him? Justice has it’s place where applicable. The group has a responsibility to safeguard others from injury.

    • “If one ends session in horror and takes the PC to ethics, the cause of the activity will never be discovered or handled.
      And I have had one of those.

      Turned out that as a twelve year old, the unloaded gun with the safety on, went off and killed a friend. It might have been careless, an accident, but not murder. Sending the PC to ethics would not have handled the problem. I had already done that.”

      ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

      Again, viewed from the perspective of the PC only, when other factors and persons also have bearing on this situation that cannot be be ignored.

      If he killed someone, the authorities need to be informed, even if it happened 30 years ago. That’s the first order of business, not his case, as he had committed a crime by merely failing to report.

      THAT’S THE REAL PROBLEM.

      It’s all covered by HCOPL 7 Mar 65 III “Offenses And Penalties”?

      How does a 12-year old get a hold of a loaded gun? You don’t think this needs to be of concern to the authorities? Isn’t there possibly yet at least another person involved who failed to properly secure arms who is also accountable? How about the family that seeks closure? How about the possibly unregistered illegally smuggled-in gun that may have been involved in another crime where ballistics evidence might nail another murderer? One is most certainly accountable to society if a murder has occurred.

      I realize I’m likely going to cheese you off by stating this, but I see way too many blind spots on the 3rd. dynamic, and in fact the very thing being opposed/resisted is exactly what needs to get handled. If both you and the Ethic Officer were in a ‘Q and A’ on a murder, I suspect neither of you were dealing with a full deck.

      • Further, this is all completely “Off-Line”. (Should I have mis-read your post and the crime was in fact reported to the authorities.)

        Anyone who had committed a murder is under the grip of DSA/OSA. Are there still outstanding legal issues, does the individual pose a threat to church members, potential PR flaps servicing him, etc.? They will also order a sec check to make sure no stone has been left unturned.

        Next, if all went well, it’s minimally RPEC and other ethics investigations/actions as well as HCO clearances before he’s even eligible for auditing. Both HCO as well as DSA will be keeping tabs on the folders for some time to come on a session to session basis. It’s up to the C/S to instruct you what to audit and sends the PC to HCO/Qual as other issues come up. Just follow the lines. Green on White has a purpose.

  9. I agree with you in about everything you said Formost , except one small point : you don’t turn someone who is seeking to rehabilitate himself/herself to the authorities. Otherwise , there is no point in being a Church, don’t you think ?

    Involving HCO, OSA, etc, that’s perfectly ok and , in fact , expected for the protection of the group and to really get to the bottom to the sit. But the whole idea besides protecting the group first is to rehabilitate. I don’t see how the ”authorities” are going to rehabilitate anybody. Throwing somebody in jail and locking the door hasn’t rehabilitated anybody as far as I know. Do you know of anybody who did ?

    There are ways to deal with any sit with the correct Ethics tools and to take full responsability for scene (with every dynamic involved) w/out playing the cop. We are ministers , not police officers. We are a Church, not a police enforcement agency.

    • Greetz Theta …

      It’s an issue using the lines LRH put into place, all already covered by policy per my post above. DSA/HCO will set up a program to handle whatever legal/ethics ruds to get one back on services. Not all legal sits disbar you from getting auditing. Again circumstantial. If your PC is driving around without a valid license/insurance placing him into potential liability, it may be as simple as having the EO get him to handle that or take a bike or bus. You would not continue to audit a PC who is currently involved with these type of ongoing life out-ruds. It may only take 5 minutes of the EO’s time, quick cycle, then back into session.

      If that PC has or is molesting children he has been entrusted for babysitting, then DSA will set up a program for you to handle the legal sit and/or turn yourself in as applicable and any required actions to get back on the bridge. By law, in many jurisdictions, they may be required to call the police. In one instance I was aware of, DSA called the police to have a molester arrested. I’d do the same. And yet there are other circumstances that may require different handlings. Again, “Circumstance Specific”. he may have to do a prison term to end the legal cycle first before he’s eligible for ethics handlings and auditing.

      • Formost, I am extremately clear that ethics has to be in before any Tech handlings are done or cotinued. That’s what all my posts have been ALL about, in fact. That was my ONLY point , in fact.

        Now, just show me one, just one LRH issue where he specifically said that one should send a PC to the authorities for any crime divulged in session under the priest-penitent privilege agreement between an auditor an a
        PC ? Cuase I want to see such ref. I really wants to see it. We are a Church and no Church’s minister is obliged by law to divulge the confessions of his/her parishioners. There have been dozens of court cases about it, the majority of which have been lost by the state.

        If a person truly wants to rehabilitate himself and is accepting any help towards it, we have a moral and religious obligation to rehabilitate and not break the priest-penitent privilege. No confessions divulged in the sacred confidence and trust of the auditor-PC relationship should be ever given to the authorities. To fail to do that, by itself, would wipe out all religious meaning and the religion itself.

        I can’t believe, that you think that serving prision sentence has anything to do with Ethics or Justice. The sit should ALWAYS be handled BY the Church, IN the Church with the Church’s Ethics-Justice system and procedures.

        Realize, please, I am talking about persons who are seeking rehabilitation and have confessed their crimes in a confidential session. How many scientologists (hundreds of them !!! ) have confessed crimes from which they could be incarcerated ? That clearly violated the law of some
        country ? And you are to tell me that it is up to OSA or HCO to decide whether or not to send a PC to the authorities ? What the fuck is Scientology a Church for ?
        To avoid fucking paying taxes ? Is that it ?
        To hell with calling the police shit !!!
        SHOW ME AND LRH REF.

        • That thing about the Church always trying to protect its ass, always trying to avoid PR flaps , I have never agreed with that. We are in the bussiness of helping. A very good friend of mine, HIV positive, wasn’t allowed in Flag because of some fucking RTC issue,Not LRH’s, to avoid some imagined future “consequence” and potential PR flap. A person who was always winning in session and in his studies. Was in a special treatment and was not exhibiting ANY symtoms of ANY illness whatsoever. Totally healthy. I have never, ever, seen a person with so much desire, so much impulse towards going up the Bridge. W/out no Reg pushing him or any Org terminal, but just his own impuse. He worked hard and paid, with a lot of sacrifice, the Flag begining package (3 intensives) for Flag Only RDs.

          He paid the plane tickets and arrived at Flag. Before that he had had an interview with a Class IX at his Org and had confessed, with a lot of courage, his medical sit. The PC folders had been sent to Flag before he took the plane with such inf in them. When he arrived at Flag, all excited, he wasn’t even permitted to get into the Flag building itself. He was seen outside by a veteran Flag Reg, can’t remenber her name and don’t give a fuck who she was, and was told by this magnificent Reg, that Flag could’t service him because of his condition. I WAS there. No specific LRH ref was quoted as there was none. Just a staff only issue from RTC, becuase of some legal issue they had in the past. The Reg just said she was sorry and that “may be” The LA Org could take him in . I never saw anybody so devastated. It brings tears to my eyes even now while writting this. A person with no signs of any sickness, with an excellent record of auditing and study. He had this dream to be able to as-iss his condition at Flag and on his OT levels and his chance at salvation just vanished under 3 mins.

          He blew for years in a deep apathy. No ARCX handling session were ever offered. No help at all was given. It took me YEARS to get him on service lines again. Took a lot of work, a lot of R + W, but I succeeded. With no fucking help from Flag or even the Org.

          So OSA and HCO can all go to hell as far as I am concerned, with their 2 cents “let’s protect our ass first” handlings. If you like OSA and HCO so much you can join them again at anytime. Be my guess.

          Me, I don’t want a Church which primary actions are to protect its ass and is ONLY a Church to avoid paying taxes. I would give my life for the sake of others and I would die first and go to prision before divulging confessions trusted in me in the priest-penitent priviledge that protect all parishioners. I am a true minister and a true religious man. I have FAITH in my fellow beings all of them, social and antisocial and FAITH in that rehabilitation is possible for ANYBODY, no matter what he/she have done, as a religious and purely spiritual activity w/out involving no crazy police or government shit. I never wanted to protect my own ass, I have more honor than that. I never feared no SPs, real or not. I can handle people. They are just people, you know. But the Church have taken care to instill in us, all this fear and back off from Sources of Trouble (PTSes, SPs,.etc) cause we are “so weak little thetans” that must be protected from evil. We have no mind of our own, according to them, and must follow carefully laid out instructions to keep us safe. A dwindling spiral of confront has been implanted in all of us, a culture of fear. Well, to hell with all this nonsense and marcab PR. We are the FREE people. This planet is OURS.

          Times must change and a new breed of scientologists must arise from
          the ashes and rise high like The Phoenix . This time is NOW.

          • That Phoenix is rising.

            We will get the LRH back into Scientology, and shoulder to shoulder, get the bodies hauled out from the mangled wreckage of this Corporate organization that no longer resembles the philosophy or tenets of Scientology.

            You can’t kill truth.

        • “Now, just show me one, just one LRH issue where he specifically said that one should send a PC to the authorities for any crime divulged in session under the priest-penitent privilege agreement between an auditor an a PC?”

          Divulging any crime the PC mentioned in session to the authorities and clearing him for SCN services … are apples and oranges. DSA will request you handle matters like murder with them. I knew of a few characters who were not allowed back into the org previously involved in manslaughter, and were told to get a lawyer to assist them in clearing the slate. As I mentioned in my previous post, DSA called the police to have a staff member arrested for child molestation.

          “I can’t believe, that you think that serving prison sentence has anything to do with Ethics or Justice.”

          I can’t believe anyone would continue auditing a PC who has committed murder that is not known to the legal authorities such as the police. A prison sentence has nothing to do with Ethics or Justice, but handling such a situation with the authorities is if you want service from the church.

          “And you are to tell me that it is up to OSA or HCO to decide whether or not to send a PC to the authorities?”

          They do, and make such determinations if you want service at the church. Servicing a murderer sought by authorities in a No-No, potential PR flap. I don’t have 4 hours to dig up the references, they are not handy to me.

          • Of course the refs are not handy to you, Formost, they just don’t
            exist !!! How convinient of you not having time to enlighten us !!!

            And just who the hell cares about getting cleared with the Church for services ? Do you ?

            Certainly, nobody in the field couldn’t care less about it. Getting
            OSA-HCO cleared ; ah ! , I didn’t know you had such good humor.

            I think you should really consider applying for being an OSA operative, since you are so in love with them. Oh, I forgot, they would’t want you back. Some position in the FBI or CIA perhaps ? Thought police perhaps ?

            OSA and HCO can go kiss my ass !!!

            • “And just who the hell cares about getting cleared with the Church for services? Do you?”

              I responded to a post by Bernie based on an experience he had with a PC while at the church and pointed out the correct lines which should have been taken that would have adequately dealt with the situation. You responded to my post taking it off on another tangent and topic non-sequeteur to my original post.

        • “To hell with calling the police shit !!!”

          I stress again the point of “Circumstance Specific”.

          You were drinking and driving and ran over a pedestrian killing him in a hit and run. You should not be asking to turn himself in? I realize out here in the Indies you can do whatever you want, so in that respect I have no point to make. But from the CO$ perspective, whether now or in the long ago past, servicing a murderer hiding from the law is dicey business, and DSA (now or then) would reject servicing him until that legal situation had been properly resolved with the authorities. No church C/S would continue auditing a PC with such a ethics situation.

          And again, I state it’s “Circumstance Specific”. I have been saying that all along. I can not address a generality.

          • Such suppressive acts include: Any felony (such as murder, arson, etc.) against person or property.

            Where proven beyond reasonable doubt that funds and business have been diverted from an org to its detriment, a declare order on those responsible is mandatory, and possible criminal prosecution may be undertaken.

            Nothing in this policy letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violation of the laws of the land or intentional legal wrongs. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties prescribed by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.

            (HCOPL 23 Dec 65RB “Suppressive Acts, Suppression Of Scientology And Scientologists”)

          • And I thought that it was Bernie who had the False data !!! I was wrong.

            Formost, Religion has NOTHING to do with trying to protect our ass like the Church does. But, just as you put it when refering to the Indie field , there is no point in discussing this with you any further. We, in the Indie, have honor and respect for Human and Religious Rights. We are not AFRAID. We are the FREE PEOPLE.

            You know, I have what it is call in my country : “street”. Have lots of it and have this incredible ability to “spot” sources of trouble and put them in place. Those going around different blogs stiring up trouble, pushing people’s anchor points in, still supporting the suppressive Church silently, still conected to it either physically, mentally or spiritual ; disagreeing with the most logical, human viewpoint put forth that just anybody really educated in the field of Religion would be able to easily support. Lost souls taken over by Suppressive influences, unable to detach from them. I feel really sorry for them, but I have to do my job nonetheless I WILL continue to do so.

            • I responded to a post by Bernie based on an experience he had with a PC while at the church and pointed out the correct lines which should have been taken that would have adequately dealt with the situation. You responded to my post taking it off on another tangent and topic non-sequeteur to my original post.

  10. There are so many god points made. Ethics is a tol, but so often it is used as punishment. The PC who ‘committed murder’ was not charged at the time because it was an accident and because of the age. It was his view I was dealing with. Once all the charge had been handled, any ethics handle would have be an over run.
    And what could authorities done anyway? No government on earth has a method of handling criminals effectively, do they?
    Use of conditions as punishment, while not OK is still rife within the church. Don’t tel me that and SP order with the rider “never to be allowed back” is anything but punishment.

    • Hey Bernie.

      “The PC who ‘committed murder’ was not charged at the time because it was an accident and because of the age.”

      If the PC was involved in a accident causing someone’s death, and he believes he has committed murder, it most certainly would be of interest to DSA/HCO. If no legal issues with the authorities exist, and nothing that could percuss back on the organization such as PR flack, then DSA will be OK on it providing they have all the information to make that determination. Same with HCO … they only want to be sure no ethics aspect exists since a death was involved, and if none, then audit away …

      It’s always possible while being audited, more data crops up in respect to that situation that may require another review by the EO such as “Knew the brakes were faulty and tires had no tread left” the PC “forgot” about. The PC may become aware he had a much larger hand in it which may call for another proper (RPEC) condition assignment. All circumstantial. Some PCs are a not-is/alter-is nightmare, and make a number of such trips to and fro HCO … lol, oftentimes prime sec check fodder.

      By your post I can see you’ve seen/been subject to much squirrely Ethics/Justice. Unfortunate because the tech works so well, incl. Ethics and Justice. One of the biggest wins I have had in Scientology was RPEC.

  11. I guess my point is “What did LRH say?” I left in 1982 so I might not be aware of some later HCOB. But in my training and experience there is no LRH issue that includes ethics handling as part of the auditing of overts. Can anyone enlighten me?

      • thetaclear,
        Bernie’s point in the Opening Piece is well taken – the source of the “solution” (overts, epurps, ser facs) is the target of auditing. Handle that, and you’ve done what is a lasting handling on any oddball aberrated “answer” to some problem. You’ve also handled the source of some goofus ethics problem. With that done, you’ve obviated any need for a 3D intervention with justice actions.

        Bernie, as an accomplished Class VIII Case Cracker familiar with the routine miracles of well done auditing, is making an excellent point – applying the Tech, the actual source of any aberration can be handled, and that is what is what. Ethics, as a tool to accomplish that has its place, as does justice. But, the point is that when auditing is actually done well, and the honest results gotten, that’s what it’s all about.

        • I very much agree with you , Jim. I called on you as he asked for someone to enlighten him at the end of his last post , and I was not sure what LRH refs to refer him to , besides the standard “Ethics And The C/S” , where LRH expect the C/S to use his own judment when deciding upon ethics matters on the PC.

          I also believe, as LRH have clearly pointed out several times, that aberration (including non-survival impulses , of course) is handled by auditing. But Ethics keeps the person on the channel long enough for Tech to go in and do its job.

          I didn’t know , if you knew of others additional refs to give it to him.

          Greetings and take care.

          ARC
          TC

              • Formost could’t provide an LRH ref when asked by me, regarding LRH ever mentioning sending a PC to the authorities through OSA, HCO or whoever Org terminals , for crimes divulged in a priest-penitent privileged session. He said he didn’t have 4 hrs to dig up refs (how convinient). Well I dug up this one under 20 mins. It is PURE LRH unaltered by no compilation-bullshit unit. This following quote is from :

                1. HOCPL 18 Sept 1961R, rivised 16 March 1989 , “HCO WW Security Form 7B” an HCO Confessional list for new employed staff.

                2. HCOPL 7 April 61 RC, revised 15 Nov 89 , Confessional Form 1RA, “Johannesburg Confessional List”.

                They are BOTH on the “Hubbard Security Checker” course pack from before the GAT 1 (Golden Age Of The Tyran) . This quote is what the auditor is supposed to said to the PC, just before starting the Confessional. Here it is in full :

                “I am not auditing you. We are about to begin an HCO Confessional. We are not moralists. We are able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot guarantee you that matters revealed in this list will be held forever secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any answer you make here will be given to the police or the state. No Scientologist will ever bear witness against you in court by reason of answers to this Confessional. This Confessional is exclusively for Scientology purposes. The only ways you can fail this Confessional are to refuse to take the test, to fail to answer its questions truthfully or if you are here knowingly to injure Scientology. The only penalty attached to failure of this Confessional is our refusal to employ you or issue a certificate, and this wiD only happen if we find that you are trying knowingly to injure Scientology. You can pass this test by (1) agreeing to take it, (2) answering
                each question truthfully and (3) by not being a member of a subversive group seeking to injure Scientology ” LRH

                So there you have LRH’s view on the matter.

                • Thank you Theta clear. Please don’t keep jabbing at Formost. Make this a safe place for people to communicate. There are many different realities and views that people have on ethics and justice and there is a lot of BPC that people have. Let people talk and express their views please.

  12. Thanks to Jim for sending me the HCOB. Strange that the writer promoted the idea that punishment follows an overt when LRH specifically says on the Class 8 course that you can commit an overt without getting retribution.
    The other references could not have been written by LRH as he had passed away by then. Probably written by a Class 4 auditor.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s