thorny roses

By Lana M.

Let’s be blunt — it is no bed of roses in the field OR in the Church these days.

In the field, there is a growing network of standard delivery terminals and groups operating outside of Corporate Scientology, and across several continents  — but there are more than a few thorns (ie. squirrels) in the field that draw blood and cause pain to unwitting preclears and pre-OTs.

And then there is what passes off as auditing in Corporate Scientology, which routinely starts with robotic TRs, poor comm cycle, bad metering, altered processes and a constant cycling of Scientologists on Bridge actions, over and over.

Milestone Two has made it clear from the onset that we ONLY support standard application of LRH technology. There is no happiness or enlightenment to be achieved by mixing rundowns, altering processes, attesting people to levels they have not honestly achieved, or evaluating for people (in person, over the internet, or with broad executive C/Sing).

We are putting the LRH back into Scientology, and support any auditor or delivery terminal that has the same purpose.

In January of 1959, LRH issued an article in the Ability magazine of Dianetics and Scientology called “A Campaign for ethical auditing”, and we are reissuing an excerpt here as it as applicable now, as it was then.

Yes, very few auditors are perfect — but if they are training, auditing and with a tension line from a C/S and with Qual, constantly building on their skills to become the best auditor they can be, then they can be trusted.

If they are unethical, working to personally profit, without caring about results, and undermining the workability of the tech, then Milestone Two will advise you to steer well clear of them. See a previous article entitled Fruit Cakes, nut jobs and squirrels.

“Succumbing to the general low tone of the society, there are persons about who:

1. Do not care to have the actual skill necessary to get results.

2. Do not scruple in their promises to pcs; and

3. Work against the best interests of the Central Organization and other auditors.” …

“An ethical auditor does the following:

1. He helps the good repute of Scientology.

2. He keeps dissemination up with a healthy part of his income.

3. He gets results when he processes somebody.

4. He charges standard fees, no cut-rate.

5. He stands in well with his fellow auditors.

6. He makes no wild promises to pcs he can’t back up.

7. He never tells a pc the pc is now Clear.

8. He uses standard processes.

9. He keeps his own case improving toward Clearer or higher levels.

An unethical auditor is earmarked by the following:

1. He lives on the good repute of Scientology but downgrades it.

2. He profits by the dissemination of others or the Central Organization and pockets what he should as “profit”.

3. He processing people without caring about results, only profit.

4. He cut-rates his processing or grossly overcharges.

5. He is despised by other auditors.

6. He makes any promise he has to to get a pc to buy processing.

7. He tells pcs they are Clear no matter what they think.

8. He uses any process that happens to occur to him and avoids standard, proven processes.

9. He shuns personal auditing on himself.”  LRH, Issue 88M ca. late January 1959, Ability Magazine, “A Campaign for Ethical Auditing”.

Milestone Two is asked regularly for referrals to auditors and delivery groups — and we gladly pass on details to those we know and trust.  If you are an ethical auditor, C/S, supervisor or Cramming Officer, and would like referrals, make sure we know your location and contact details.

If you are an unethical auditor — don’t bother.  A most recent enquiry from a pre-OT about a squirrel auditor got a Milestone Two response of  “We wouldn’t even trust him for an enema “.

That about sums it up.

And to set the record straight — though Corporate Scientology labels anyone delivering Scientology outside their monopoly “squirrel”, to be technically correct, this is actually a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The C of S has long since departed from LRH’s Scientology and now practice DM’s brand instead.

Yes, Corporate Scientology is now squirrel — and the correct technical term for Milestone Two is a “splinter group” that is working to keep LRH’s standard Scientology there, for us and future generations.

And we are always enthusiastic to have more ethical auditors, supervisors, cramming officers and C/Ses join the team. Drop us a line so we can add yours to the growing list.





84 thoughts on “Campaign for ethical auditing

  1. Here, here! Very well said. Paul and I have often lamented the lack of a Qual out in the field to ensure standard delivery. And “standard” in our view means the way LRH laid it all out for us. Thanks for all you’re doing.

    • Thanks Ashes Born. Isn’t it weird how Corp Scn uses the word “standard” and “ksw” while enforcing projects, policy and tech that are not actually LRH, but altered or twisted versions? It is what makes this scene such a mind-fuck (excuse the language!)

      Milestone already has a stronger, better trained (and interned) Qual than Corp Scientology. And our Qual terminals are forming a united corps, so they can provide service broadly. This gives Milestone Two the capability to crack cases, resolve technical messes, train auditors who really know their stuff, and of course correct technical delivery terminals with standard cramming tools.

      By working together with Scientologists, with a united purpose, anything can be achieved. 🙂

  2. No need to apologize for the language. It’s a good description. Plus I grew up in a Navy town. 🙂

    True Scientologists know the tech works. It doesn’t need to be expanded upon, toyed with, or changed for the sake of changing (like those “new and improved” products companies always advertise as a way to make more money). We just need to keep our KSW hats firmly on our heads and not accept alter-is nor let other practices lead us off the path to total freedom.

  3. Now, that’s very apropos! A good quote for sure. To it, lets add to the list of unethical auditors (and C/Ses):

    Audits, C/Ses or trains above their level;

    Audits or C/Ses a level without having done the course in a proper and standard, in-tech (WIAC) course room;

    Pretending Grades or Levels not achieved.

    Probably more, but those are glaring in many in the field.

    • Chris:

      I might agree in theory, except that in this day and age, a WIAC academy is a rare thing. And I believe that ethical Scientologists could study together without a normal “courseroom” (but using full study tech) and still fully grasp the materials.

      HOWEVER, that said, as a “with LRH” auditor, before I broadly audited a group of process on which I had been trained (in any setting) I would be inclined to try and find a standard auditor of that level and get them to view and pass me on a tape of me auditing such processes. In other words, in so far as possible, I would attempt some sort of interning evolution. As I understand it, even in orgs, you don’t allow an auditor to audit willy-nilly in an HGC without him or her having done an internship.

      In fact, might I suggest this as a methodology used in our field? Since we have no Qual out here, we can only rely on the expertise of others in recommending and passing judgment on the tech quality of the auditors we use. Perhaps some day we will have a Field Qualification Authority. But until then, we would instead have an agreed upon system where qualified auditor A qual passes auditor B on their tech for a given level. AND ISSUES A CERT TO THAT EFFECT. Thus, when you go to an auditor G, you can see on the wall (and insist on viewing) their certificate, signed by auditor F, whose tech was passed on by auditor E, and so on. And thus we can follow down a chain of responsibility for the quality of auditing, at least to some extent. It is a chain of trust.

      Where student auditor B disputes the judgment of auditor A, auditors C and D can be called in to impartially judge the matter and issue cramming orders to auditor A and B as needed.

      This system could fail in this way (assuming that all the auditors starting such a system are standard): An auditor may at some point be involved in personal wrong-doing or something else which causes his current tech to deviate badly from when he was originally passed by his “parent auditor”. In this case, a “registry” could be set up, where the “parent auditor” effectively says, “I now do not believe Joe is auditing standardly”. In fact there could be a second part of that registry, where auditor Andy says, “I just passed Joe on level Y”. So you get the positive and negative in the registry.

      Could Milestone Two host such a registry (with the disclaimer that MS2 as an entity is not involved in and does not “bless” any of the recommendations made in the registry)? Or perhaps someone else could step forward and put up a website where such a registry could be built?

      Anyway, sorry so verbose, but as I was writing I was thinking out loud about the whole concept. Coherent contrary arguments are welcome (as long as the moderator will allow it).

    • Chris: “To it, lets add to the list of unethical auditors (and C/Ses)”

      Yes, good catch.

      But one must also realize the attack factor against M-2 goes up when such lines are drawn in the sand. But then, protecting the unsuspecting from shyster-central is the more honourable and survival thing to do. LRH was not afraid of it, and I agree, M-2 as well as anyone else is best served following in those footsteps.

      When we are in fear of PR consequences from others who do not practice standard tech, the out-KSW door is already a crack open.

  4. So nice this subject was brought up into the open. This is a fear many scientologists coming out of Corporate Church share : to stumble across squirrel delivery terminals in the Field. Excellent that a Qual unit is being set up too. This gives people a lot of confidence , makes them feels safer. I would strongly suggest that ALL auditors and C/Ses in the Field were certified by a certification body in the Field. APIS has some of this but I don’t know what their certification process encompass. It should be make known for the benefit of all. And I would only refer auditors and C/Ses so certified by whatever body be set up for that.

    Certification would act as the ethics gradient needed to ensure that Tech is IN. Those who refuse to go through the cert. process would be so publicly notified to others. I just don’t see any other way around this. I am not refering here to ANY punitive approach, but rather the opposite. A simple process designed to be done not necesarily at any specific location but over internet lines perhaps with the posibility of sending out videos (approved by the PC , of course) for Qual terminals to watch and cramm as needed. The approach would be with the idea to REALLY help the Tech terminal under examination so that his products approach 100% results for the benefit of BOTH , him and his PC/auditor. NOT and
    “RTC approach” but the one that always should have been used by the Church in the first place.

    I am VERY positive that if this point of certification were taken up , resolved and communicated about, the delivery stats in the Field would soar to levels hitherto seen.

    Excellent job MS2 !!!
    Keep informing others of all this. Keep the comm flowing out on this subjects so important. Presenting what is needed and wanted , informing others about it, you know, Non-E expanded . On this last point , might I suggest a survey done, a BIG one , on the Field about what is needed and wanted. This tool will do wonders for you in fowarding your honorable purpose.

    • By the way , to support Lana’s viewpoint, here is the def of

      Squirrel : “A squirrel is doing something entirely different. He doesn’t understand any of the principles so he makes a bunch of them to fulfill his ignorance and voice them off on a pc and gets no place” (LRH) SH Specific 72 6111C08

      Squirrelling : “It is not really different processes. It is careless, incomplete, messed up auditing procedure” HCOB 15 Jan 70.

      So we in the Field (with the exception of a few squirrels around) ARE dealing with Standard Tech. WE are the “Keepers of the Tech”. As Lana well said it, we are a “splinter group” and a VERY valid and needed one, I may add. But you know what LRH said :

      “The criminal accuses others of things which he himself is doing ” LRH
      HCOB 15 Sept 81 “The Criminal Mind”

    • Certification has been approached and in effect for some years now, through APIS as a result of the staff (and former staff) there:
      But as Lana has mentioned in other posts, there’s always a lot of push-back on this type of program as people think you’ve closed terminals with the CoS.
      Which is crap.
      People don’t want to be certified or avail themselves of a Qual or Ethics in the “free” zone because they don’t want their gross out-tech to be found out or their W/Hs and overts discovered or that they have out-ethics on the tech, Scientology, or LRH. Or, if they haven’t been cleaned up, perhaps some out-list or wrong indication. But then, one has to look at why those would stick to one in the first place, n’est-ce pas?

      • Good point Chris. There is another angle to this, and that is setting up Qual lines so that an auditor can train and audit under a C/S and cramming team. We have the check sheets and the materials but when it comes to auditing, it is having that tension line to Qual that makes all the difference.

        MS2 has been working to establish such lines and so far all is going well. High speed scanners are used to get session worksheets from one location to another, and instructs and crams are done thoroughly and honestly.

        There is agreement on purpose and on standard, which makes it all work well.

        • This is all very well and all , but I didn’t know all this about this C/S-Qual-Cramm line. Why isn’t it being promoted and advertized ? Ever heard about Non-E expanded ? I’ve talked about this subject time after time.

          I mean, I’ve been at this blog for quite sometime and do a daily search on the web about this subject trying to figure out where to go and where to send people to , where I can be 100% sure that Standard Tech is being applied. Never did I stumbled across any specific details about Cramm-Qual lines being set up and I have mentioned this several times in this blog with no acknowledgements whatsoever. However when a “big name” pops up , there are acknowledgements all over the place. What it
          is ? Am I being too much a PN in the ass ? Have I been too blunt and direct on my posts ?

          May be I am not a “Big name” out there and I am just a scientologist in the middle of nowhere and there is a pre-requisite of being a class VI or VIII to be informed about it and to be taken into account. Forgive my anger, everyone, but I feel real upset today. I feel something is not quite right and I don’t like it. I think I will pass and have guys play whatever game you want to. I have better things to do. This will be my last post here by the way. It was nice to participate and to try to contribute all I could. I always offered my help and I meant it everytime. Thank you, I’ll start my own game.

          It is a great blog , I think , but it is not for me. I have too many disagreements and don’t want to spoil the game for anybody . It was good while it lasted. Should anyone needs anything, I can be reached at
          thetaclear68@yahoo.com. It has been a pleasure.


          • Dear TC,
            We have not broadly promoted the pilot underway and are starting to do so now.
            Like you, we work to string together lines and terminals and get communication going.
            I get from your comment that you don’t feel acknowledged — or that you feel you have been left out or ignored in someway. You had made more comments on this blog than anyone to date — and my apologies if you feel that there has not been a sufficient return flow of communication to you. We really appreciate your comments, input and contribution.
            Drop me an email, at lana@hushmail.com and we can sort out the ARCX and get on with the bigger game here.
            Your enthusiasm and contributions would be sorely missed.
            Sincerely, Lana

          • Get a session. Flown ruds. Heck, maybe an L1C. Surely that’s putting your words into real action.

            This is what your on about isn’t it? Doing something effective. Well, DO that, then I’m sure you will have a different view of things.

          • ThetaClear: This is as it should be. You pilot first, and normally in secret, as Ron did. This way it is very difficult to sabotage the pilot, which is a wonderful target for SPs. Once the pilot is done (under whatever conditions are considered “done” for that pilot), only THEN do you promote (or apply non-existence).

            I, too, have spoken about this topic and did not realize anything was in the works. Nobody told me either. But I don’t mind not knowing it was being piloted. It would be above my pay grade anyway. I’m just happy that someone (hopefully qualified) stepped forward to accept the burden.

            Respectfully, I would echo Lana and Jim’s advice. Clearly, there is BPC in your universe about this. So use the Ron’s Tech to handle that BPC resolved as LRH intended it. Once resolved, you might then consider adding your voice to those promoting the service.

            More generally to anyone else I would say that we in this Field have to put aside our cases (or get them handled) and consider what is the greatest good fo the greatest number of dynamics when it comes to efforts made by others in the field to sincerely push forward. You may or may not have disagreements on minor points here and there. But you should be focused primarily on the PURPOSE and PRODUCTS of activities in the Field. Promote or assist those which satisfy “greatest good”, and avoid those which do not. Your reference (should the simple logic above be insufficient to convince you) is the Doubt Formula.

            • Thanks for the advice , Paul. I need no convincing , I am no dilettant , theetie-weetie kind of guy. I know my stuff and I know it quite well. Certainly, I am at No Doubt whatsoever regarding helping the Field and about MS2. Anyone who thinks otherwise has either failed to read all my posts on this blog or has grossly mis-read my intentions. And I am not about to convince anyone otherwise neither.

              I’ll be available for anyone who really wants to listen. I never deal in opinions, I leave that to others. When I talk, I only do in the direction of trying to get a product. I am VERY product oriented. I am not much of a talker. I only speak when I have something of value to say and something based purely on LRH Tech , a thing I know QUITE well. I deal in no opinions , but only in facts and things properly analyzed and evaluated. I let the common chat and interchange of opinions to others. I am a VERY rare bird for these times, you can say.

              Just as a little anecdote here for Jim ; about 25 years ago I was being run on an ARCX kind of session (probably L1C or other prepared list). The cycle got VERY bogged. The auditor was finally able to sort it all out when he made the right indication that I was upset about being run on ARCXs because that is for the birds. I felt more and more “massive” as I felt I was being handled as a “victim”. When he switched to F-2 (me to others) , the session flew beautifully.

              I might get very upset, I am highly emotional (not mis-emotional) . But just as easy, I get back to my normal state , w/out even touching a can. You know why ? Because I apply the def of responsability to any sit to the letter. I am no victim, never was. But I can certainly choose based on impartial observations , whether or not, my courses of actions are resulting in products or not. And I don’t feel I am getting ANY by posting. And because I like to feel effective about my dealings in life, I would rather change whatever course of action that I feel is not being fruitful. That’s my choice and my decision to what I am very much entittled.

              Hopes this clarifies for anybody.


              • For the record , I VERY much validate what MS2 is doing and all the attempts to unite all scientologists in the world. Their work is very commendable. And I will send people in as long as I can verify the standardness of whatever delivery group I intend to send my “selectees” to.

  5. “A most recent enquiry from a pre-OT about a squirrel auditor got a Milestone Two response of “We wouldn’t even trust him for an enema “.”

    Good show! Keep that up! 🙂

    “And to set the record straight — though Corporate Scientology labels anyone delivering Scientology outside their monopoly “squirrel”, to be technically correct, this is actually a case of the pot calling the kettle black.”

    That’s their position in respect to copyrights they own. Even LRH never suggested there were standard Scientology groups outside the long arm of CO$ that are not considered squirrel groups, in fact he gave marching orders to have them shut down, no exceptions to the rule. That being said, there is no definition of “squirrel” which states you can only apply Scientology under their licensing system. Every tech tech dictionary definition of “squirrel” states something to the extend of altering the tech.

    But I’m also sure LRH never foresaw that the CO$ would fall into suppressive hands per se, and thus the game has changed.

    • “Even LRH never suggested there were standard Scientology groups outside the long arm of CO$ that are not considered squirrel groups, in fact he gave marching orders to have them shut down, no exceptions to the rule.”

      At that time, Formost, there were NO CO$ , only Scientology. There was no need then for “splinter groups” , as LRH was in charge as SOURCE. So I can’t imagine what possible purpose a splinter group would have back then. Certainly , not aligned with the general strategy of planetary clearing.

    • “But I’m also sure LRH never foresaw that the CO$ would fall into suppressive hands per se, and thus the game has changed.”

      Actually Foremost he foresaw this possibility in the PL Politics Freedom From as well as mentioning it in several earlier lectures.

      Plus in many of the GO Directives that I’ve personally read. Not to mention the Policies Infiltration and Counter-Epionage.

      Then there is the tech known as Roll Back etc, etc.

      Though I don’t have the actual reference in front of me but somewhere he says many people squirrel because they are convinced either through lack of study usually meaning they never studied that level or misunderstoods that they think that Ron never developed a technique or procedure to handle whatever difficulty they are confronted with and so feel compelled to develop something new to handle it.

  6. Here’s a question that could really have never occured in the Orgs:

    1) how will Milestone 2 treat people who are mixing practices, altering practices? In the church Ron had a definite plan to crush these.

    Being that you promise standard LRH, he sought to crush, by any means, those who did not tow supporting the “Central Organization.”

    2) Will Milestone 2, the presumed new Central Org, seek to undermine, destroy or slander those who disagree with the Central Org?

    These are reasonable questions when history implies a host of divisive possibilities.

    The new Central Org may not create a GO or OSA, but how will Milestone 2 avoid the strong habit of harming, in some way, those who strongly dissent.

    The disdain by Ron for those who alter his church’s practices is ubiquitous throughout his writings, not just in Fair Gaming.

    How will you assure the public that you are different from the attack machine LRH instigated?

    The concern is certainly warranted if going by the letter of the law is followed.

    The word “squirels” and the implication of naming people with this title of disdain I’m sure does not rest well with many.

    Will your organization be different than the one Ron created? If not, could you truly say it is 100% standard?

    How will you stamp out “incorrect technology?”

    Will KRs go to a Central Committee?

    How will you demand blows against the enemy? And who is the enemy? Enemies exist in church writings: standardly.

    These are questions asked reasonably, with no other motive than engagement for interests sake. And I am sure other’s are asking the same questions.

    • Personally I see the only way that MS2 is handling those who mix practices or squirrel is by not endorsing them.

      Maybe they should reserve judgment on their ability or lack thereof and not compare them to an enema.

      Actually according to the policy you seem to be attacking as “attack policy”. Ron says just don’t recommend them.

      Look at it from a practical sense would you expect Coke to sponsor Pepsi or Harley Davidson promoting Hondas?

      Now I’ve studied what you call “attack policies” and the only time Ron recommends attacking any one is when they attack first.

      Take for example the RED entitled Project Squirrel.

      Certainly you must have gathered by now that Scientology is not a turn the other cheek philosophy.

      In my opinion it wouldn’t still be here if it was.

      That said.

      Just like tech one can misapply policy as well and this is what has occurred in many cases since there is really no such thing as “fair gaming” anyone.

      Sure there was a label “Fair Game” at one time which meant that the person was not entitled to ethic’s protection any longer but no actual practice of fair game that wasn’t conceived by some overzealous HCO, Sea Org or former GO member.

      Funny how many of those that say there was such a thing are in many cases the same people who “fair gamed” others and then blamed Ron for their own actions.

      In other words people who could *not* take *responsibility* for their own actions.

  7. Without ethics there there can be no group, it would just fall apart because that is the nature of the bank. The bank will destroy everything. It’s all a simple matter of KRC. Everyone is free to do as they wish and form whatever group of their own, but Scientology is very well defined, and exists only by LRH’s immense effort to keep it steady and on course and pure.

    But we’re not here to have a fun time as if that’s all that mattered. Many of us have a long track record of disappointment and worse on this road, and so our friends are utterly priceless beyond measure; we want to do our best for them because we don’t want to lose them again. It’s hard to imagine any other group anywhere with a higher ARC than the Scientologists.

    For those folk who fear ethics and justice there are LRH’s beautiful repairs and remedies. And perhaps they might be gently reminded that without ethics they would have no bread on their table, or even a table.

    Presently, the CoS bears the name Scientology, but only by fraudulent means, and its members are charlatans. They have the same tools as us (or did once) but don’t apply them, instead, they’re into off-beat practices like MEST- worship. Maybe they’ll evolve into a flea, or something.

    We on the other hand, have nothing to fear, but everything to look forward to.

      • Not exactly, Brian. I can only speak for myself, but we have the benefit of hindsight now, in this new unit of time. LRH spoke at length about roboticism and such similar things which are certainly heeded by me, though I observed that even years ago, in LRH’s time, many of my fellow staff did not. They sought to use ethics to shut me up.

        I doubt very much that any Scientologist will claim Scientology is a perfect system, and that mistakes will never be made again. Scientology is not about making slaves, which is enough proof that the current CoS, and certainly elements of it in the past, were exactly that.

        Nevertheless, Scientology is a very powerful practice, and like electricity or gas, has to be handled correctly, otherwise people will get hurt, yet the benefits are definitely worth persevering with. For instance,you wouldn’t hand over the keys of a car to someone who couldn’t drive. You’d also want a reasonable standard of proficiency to be attained before you’d grant a licence, and you’d want a broadly-accepted consensus on what standards ought to be kept. Further, the standards should be relatively easy to attain, at least for beginners, so as not to put them off. Let them enjoy motoring.

        LRH’s genius provided gradient approaches to all aspects of Scientology. I observed often on staff that individuals occupied positions of authority over others for which they were not qualified, or even suited. In trying to establish Scientology, LRH drove organisations hard, and unfortunately many stumbled and many were hurt. I won’t say LRH never made a mistake, but then, I didn’t consider him to be God, and he’d probably slap me if I did.

        MS2 is making a brave start. Scientology is like a sharp knife, it has to be used with care. LRH provided a vast array of instruction and advice for its use, not all of which is relevant today. For example, no-one in MS2 is proposing to resurrect the SO.

        • This is a very good, fair-minded response, Richard. Thank you. I felt also, that, Brian had asked some very well grounded questions which deserve some consideration.

          I tried something similar here, a few months ago, by asking “what Scientology, might look like, in say, 100 years time?”

          I also asked (hypothetically), “what” one might carry forward, as the indispensable tools, in the ramparts of the vast body, making up LRH’s writings.

          I also presupposed that there might be several intrinsic, functioning groups, (splinter groups), that may continue to function along the purpose lines, as either “absolutists”,(EVERY single thing written by LRH, as gospel, “purists”, (who remain, as here with MS2, dedicated to the pure application and preservation of the original purposes, as covered by Lana in her OP,the Dror Academy, in Israel, being probably the best physical “replacement” org, currently established at this time. And a third possible grouping, who may consist of thoe elements, mentioned in my third paragraph above.

          Judging by the responses at the time, there clearly was/is a lot of charge, (understandably), surrounding the preservation, of the tech. I found myself attacked, for just “asking a question”.

          Perhaps, though, in an age of advancing high expectations, speed, and convenience, the questions of just “what”, to preserve, and what to discard, may yet need addressing?

          For now though, I applaud Lana and the MS2 team, for doing a really splendid job of “keeping the show on the road.” 🙂

          • Thank you, Racing.

            Yes, I too, applaud Lana and the MS2 team.

            2057 is a long time to wait for the copyrights to expire. Some of us are salvaging what we can of LRH’s work so that present and future generations may have access to all of it and take from it what they may, using their own judgement. While Miscavige is in charge, the CoS cannot be trusted with this task, despite their titanium plates and intimidating buildings. The bottom line is that Scientology works, and this most important of facts is bound to distress some people.

            I agree it’s infuriating to hear critical exes appoint themselves as experts, and imagine themselves knowing what is going through someone else’s mind. Not only is it patronising, it is condescending. In fact, this is the very aspect Scientology addresses: Knowing how to know. Those of us who have cogged on Scientology want to use it. Labelling, categorizing, dismissing, condemning, bullying are horrid traits in the organization, but unfortunately it’s a much wider problem in society. Scientology goes further than any previous practice to remedy these traits, and simply identifying them in others is not enough.

            I think it can be generally acknowledged that many staff and public were sent through their auditing and training on unsuitable gradients, with wrong TIPs, programs, C/Ses, and (I can attest) with falsified Auditor and Ethics reports on their backs they didn’t even know about. It’s no wonder ARCU dropped out and ARCX’s came in. At times, it must have seemed bleak to LRH, try as he could to make it as fair and understandable at every level as possible. Unbelievably, he had to write a whole policy urging not to use policy to stop.

            Hence, I wholly support MS2 in upholding the virtues of KSW.

            So to me, the best things to carry forward are the things we know, like word-clearing tech, or the Conditions formulas, Data Series, simple principles from our SSI and II of hatting and dev-t, or basic Dianetics – to see the surprise on someone’s face when uncovering a long-forgotten somatic is incredible. Personally, I find it staggering how if you let them talk, most people quickly come to a lock or secondary they want to tell you about. Even simpler, explaining to your apprentice the cycle of action and letting him have a win on it, or gently coaxing someone through a contact assist, or up the tone scale, or “Look around the room and tell me something you can have, waste, etc.” If they’re curious, they don’t want a lecture, just something they can grasp. Our actions speak louder than words.

            This way gradually, individuals and groups can form up and progress doing what we’re good at, and saints preserve us, doing what we enjoy doing. I don’t think this is a naïve strategy, but a realistic one.

            Speaking for myself, of course.

            Richard Kaminski

            • Superb answer, Richard and also great ARCU, which enabled me to arrive at some sort of realistic perspective going forward.
              So thank you for that.

              You also helped me to blow some built-up charge, by indicating that (unsuspected) element, who, though well intentioned, act like CO$ members, with the most unhelpful, bigoted of attitudes.

              Thank you too, for being a good example, of what I was always confident, that full appreciation of the training and auditing can deliver.

              — Calvin. 🙂

  8. It’s an imperative need that a group of people who can understand Scientology and have a high ethics level get involved more and more into the field creating a bigger group which can be trusted.

    People have lost their confidence in the group. The Scientology church makes sure that is the rule. Scientologists stay there and try to make an understanding of it all to no avail. Hopeless after many years they give up and leave, leaving behind them the not so bright.

    The Tech tech is not just on its own. There is no Qual without the rest of the divisions and departments. There are good auditors in the field. People pay attention to and give confidence to schemes that won. The Org Board is such a proven scheme.

    Will we take into account and start utilising and utilising people to do some more good? That’s the challenge.

  9. Ron wrote in the HCOPL 10 Dec 69 ‘Superior Service Image” ” A militant Org attitude to keep the field straight is silly” We are the field and there is no central org. Right now, it is buyer beware. There are a number of us who want and demand Standard Tech. Then there are others…well as Ron wrote, there are those who seek out bad help.

    • I agree.

      If we get too militant we’ll run into similar problems that the Organization is having.

      That is ending up with our own splinter groups.

      Reading over some of the comments I see that there are some that don’t look at the historical context in which Ron took certain actions.

      Back then there were certain interests who were trying to seize control of the subject and use it for nefarious purposes other than the betterment of others. Others who were trying to discredit the subject by sending PCs into the organization who were stoned on LSD hoping that they’d go into a psychotic break of some kind while in auditing mixing it up with those you were merely using the subject for fun and profit.

      Sure some of the issues issued at the time to get ethics in and get the subject applied for the purposes of betterment and case gain now seem distasteful but Ron was dealing with quite a lot of aberration back then.

      The current Organization is a perfect example of what happens when those entrusted with the Church of Scientology allow someone to alter as in squirrel the tech and not use ethics to handle them.

      However what I’ve written here only applies to the *Organization*.

      The field like franchise is different. You don’t handle them with ethics. You use PR Tech. Using ethics is actually mixing tech according to the policy Franchise and Ethics.

      Thus those of us who chose to apply Standard Tech have better PR because we can get better results than those who get into squirrelly actions like Skype “auditing” or telling people they have made a certain grade when they haven’t or quickie the tech etc.

  10. RV and Ingrid,
    Your points, and the applicable materials (Superior Service Image e.g.) are well taken.

    Envisioning a field practice that expands, one can then see the need along with that, for more organization. As that increases, so does the differing model – from “field practice” to “li’l org”. As that expands, so does the necessity of the hard won KRC of how to handle a larger group Dynamic – including the tightened lines, and justice/recourse/offenses/penalties for a now larger group.

    Rightness being the correct estimation of effort in the attainment of the longevity of survivingness at a level of quality that can be obtained.

    • You speak sooth Jimbo,

      At some point we’re are going to have to organize. Meaning establishing lines, terminals and responsibilities according to a seven or nine Division Org board either by replacing or reforming the Church.

      Currently we are bypassing what CST was established to do which was to say when the line was crossed that the Church was no longer “coterminal” to the religion or philosophy.

      In my opinion and let me state that this is only *my opinion* and that even though Ron was very prescient he didn’t anticipate that the Sea Org would be corrupted like the GO and therefore didn’t make provisions in his estate planning for this eventuality.

      Or maybe he did and thought we’d eventually figure it out how to handle it ourselves.

      Either way.

      The fact is is that the field has become the standard bearers for Standard Tech and the Church is currently nothing but a Government Approved Squirrel Group.

      • From other comments he made off-handedly, I rather suspect that Ron expected the *best* from us– that we would, early on, defy and overthrow guys like DM. This is what should have happened. Instead, we delivered the worst. We allowed this disaster to occur and went along with it.

        I believe this is what’s quietly occurring in the Church today. A lot of people probably see the evil taking place, but they have a personal or business stake in going along with it. Rather than taking a stand and seeing their businesses or their 2Ds torn apart, they simply go along. But they are not considering the broader context, the rest of the dynamics. Their inaction actually acts as implicit support. So while not precisely “drinking the Kool-Aid”, they are helping to pour it. Their references are KSW, Personal Integrity and the Code of Honor.

        • SJ,

          People are generally timid, don’t want to rock the boat, go along to get along, etc.

          Very few “tigers” per KSW.

          I think a lot of it is their own lack of certainty in combination with a fear of the unknown and various other reasons that are as individual as the individuals involved.

          A different why for different folks like RED 176 on a broader basis.


          • This is the Tiger’s Lare and undoubtedly the best growing community of dedicated Scientologists who have both the glare and also the courage to take this situation and turn it around.
            Thank you all for being here with us – both those commenting and the many who are reading.

    • At some point ( as soon as possible) we need a central organization as Ron envisioned it. I love all his ethics, tech and admin-the only time I saw it not work was when it was misapplied or abused.
      I completely see Scientology as the solution to this planet and it won’t happen without a large central organization. Period. We just have to get better at the 3D.

      • Ingrid,

        It seems our biggest obstacle to getting the tech standardly applied is the “Church of Scientology”.

        Seems the organization in my opinion has closed terminals with our former enemies which is why some of us suspect that the US Govt. has seized control of the Church as Ron suspected they would according to the PL Politics Freedom From.

        Right now from what I see. Establishing an organization would involve a lot of legal wrangling since they control the trade marks and service marks under RTC and the copyrights under CST.

        Some have gotten around this by delivering Scientology and calling it something else which is the other side of the coin of what the Church is doing which is as we know is doing something else and calling it “Scientology”.

        • R,
          Well, I didn’t “get around” the RTC guys, I just went straight ahead and started to use Scientology, as a Scientologist, using L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology, that’s LRH, and of course Dianetics too, by L. Ron Hubbard etc.

          Scientology is NOT co-terminal with any Church of Scientology, not RTC, not CST, not CSI or any other.

          I am a Scientologist, auditing and training, even cramming, others and have been doing this for some years now, publicly and announcing such, broadly.

          That fact, and NO action taken, invokes “laches”. RTC has lost the marks. Nothing to do about it. Any attempt is feeble and won’t fly.

          IF an attempt is made, then we’ve got a case of “unclean hands” there Dave. And, thanks to a lot of good people over these past few years, plenty of laundry to air, should you take a shot.

          Another thing, MS2 is legally set up, and practicing and has been for over a year now. All the right stuff.

          DM is shooting blanks. LRH predicted that too.

          • Jim: “That fact, and NO action taken, invokes “laches”. RTC has lost the marks. Nothing to do about it. Any attempt is feeble and won’t fly.

            IF an attempt is made, then we’ve got a case of “unclean hands” there Dave.”
            Exactly! I doubt they’ll take any risks in any type of legal action to chance having any court of law state they don’t have a case. Could a press and PR disaster.

            • Jim & FM,

              I’m not worried so much about the futile legal actions the Church takes these days as much as their religious (seriously folks we had Warren McShame defending it as such in Texas) belief that they can harass anyone they consider a “squirrel” (I think mentioned something about pot, kettle, black) by sending hired goons and volunteer goons comically calling themselves “Squirrel Busters” (really should be called Buster’s Squirrels or more accurately Slappy’s Squirrels) that I’m worried about. Interrupting my session with cameras on their heads looking like the aliens from outer space they truly are 😉

              • RV,
                I wouldn’t worry about Squirrel Busters showing up at your door, on your street, in the woods, under the car, in your cereal.

                But, let’s say they do. You’ve got a bunch of different tacks to take. Turn the motion around into something positive is one. Say “hey” every time you meet one, and be willing to be there comfortably, despite any bullbait or gibbering foolishness coming your way. Rather than resonate at a low Tone, take the view that the Tone of the auditor necessary to handle a case like that is much higher, lighter, than others (Chart of Human Eval). Or, just carry on, flourish, prosper and don’t feed the trolls and they lose the juice to carry on.

                These are some options. There’s also going into a games condition with them. That has its own factors, tanglefooties and havingness.

                The bullbait that has gone on in the past years, for those of us who simply want to practice Scientology as written and spoken by LRH, and do our best across our Dynamics, is just that; bullbait.

                Persistence on a given course, and the tenacity to live fully wins – and in this game of Scientology that actually does mean one where everybody can.

                I know you know this.

                On the other side of the coin, there are some very effective options that an ethical, rational and tiger-ey being can take to deal with that sort of nonsense. Big sticks so to speak. And a righteous willingness to use them.

  11. While I agree with the theory of ‘stamping out squirrel tech’ I have long believed in practical application. In fact it was the practical application of the subject that drew me to it.
    When I introduce a newcomer to the subject I become acutely aware of how vast this subject really is. My test for knowledge of the subject is ‘does it work when you apply it?” If it doesn’t, then something is wrong and needs correcting. This subject is intensely practical and I know it works.
    So how are we going to “Stamp out squirrel tech”? ‘We’ll use ethics’ I hear from somewhere. Well what does that mean? We can no longer use threats of withdrawing the tech, it is too available via internet and other sources.
    There must be dozens of offshoots and alter-is of the tech out there in the wide world. If we simply disconnect from them, we have lost our basic and most powerful tool in handling them, communication, have we not?
    This is like getting someone off drugs. The most basic point seems to me that until the person ‘sees’ that drug use is against his best interests, nothing will work and noting will happen.
    Telling someone they are wrong is a waste of time. It hits into the ser fac, doesn’t it? If someone is using say NLP they will get some wins even if it is in their own reality. (The placebo effect is very powerful.) If you can get the person to see that there is a better way, then you have a chance of bringing them on line.
    So the first step is probably “Flourishing and Prospering” and that requires knowing the tech and being able to make it work. Then others may ask “How?”
    After all didn’t Ron suggest that a good auditor should drive a ‘Gold Plated Cadillac’?
    Correcting the field is a mammoth task. Learning LRH tech and moving on up the bridge is also pretty huge, but if you don’t know the tech, how can you correct the field? And it is up to each of us, it is after all Ron’s gift to us – it is our tech now.

  12. OP: “A most recent enquiry from a pre-OT about a squirrel auditor got a Milestone Two response of ‘We wouldn’t even trust him for an enema’ “.

    I was raised Catholic, and we used to go to gatherings celebrated in other Christian non Catholic churches. In our house we also use to gather with people belonging to different Christian denominations. My mother used to tell me “They are all Christians”. A contrasting experience occurred in my adult life. An acquaintance told me her mother got very angry with her because, according to her mother, she has been in devil worshiping places. It turned out her mother, who belonged to a Reformed Christian denomination, got to know that she sometimes went to Catholic churches.

    The following is my suggestion, based on my mother example, for an ethical coexistence of the current (and future) brands of spiritual clearing technologies.
    It is based on honest, free and ethical competition. It is similar to what is standard in the “wog” free countries.

    The auditor should be honest regarding what he/she is delivering.
    Whatever service he/she is delivering should be labeled as the clearing tech brand it is. E.g. standard LRH, his/her own version, CBR, etc. (An auditor may deliver more than one brand of the same service).
    The pc/pre-ot should have the option to freely choose the brand he/she prefers.

    When reporting about an auditor, do not mix clearing tech brand with customer (in)satisfaction.
    Report with no mis-emotion what brands he/she is delivering. Separately do a honest report about the auditor’s customers % satisfaction vs % dissatisfaction. And, separately recommend the brand(s) which you think are the best. Do not black PR other brands. Only in extreme cases, like the Co$’s brand, dead-agent that brand.

    • Observer,
      This whole branding analogy sounds reasonable on its face. The differing types of service, properly “branded”, and the free market open to choice of “Pepsi” or “Coke”.

      We could enter in the good ol’ “caveat emptor” as well.

      One niggling thought is what it is we are actually doing with and in Scientology. Along with that thought, is this one: is Scientology as a subject actually what it purports to be?

      Does the Technology, the foundation of the Axioms, the disciplines of Model Session, the Auditing Cycle, the TRs, the gradient scale of Processes/ the Bridge including a full and honest study and application of these materials, lead to a real result of a recovery of one’s actual self, and an awareness of true nature, the Static, and the source of their own lives/Dynamics?

      If this is the case, and one is aware of it, then there is a bit of a mood change compared to everyday marketing considerations/”branding” et al.

      Instead of “hawking wares” in the market, we’re talking a whole NEW type of thing. Aren’t we?

      For example: if one really, personally, grasped the Four Noble Truths of Buddha, and extrapolated techniques that would help another being to cognition of these truths, which can lead to an entirely different awareness of existence factually, it seems to me that the “marketing” of this has a nobility to it as well. It isn’t just hustling “real” Levi’s at a flea market. It’s something else. So Edward Bernays type stuff isn’t fully apropos.

      Yes, it is a “market”, this earth and the beings here in whatever state of existence they are. Yes, a key point of the road to truth is the self-determined decision to start on it. There is a “PR” aspect to it, and a “marketing” tech that is workable is a useful tool. But, in the overall scheme of things, these things seem a bit tawdry, and just a li’l too…well, look at DM’s version of marketing spiritual awareness – radio voice enlightenment. Infomercial awareness. Yucky. (These are my opinions, mind you.)

      When it comes to Scientology, actual Scientology, the LRH formulated, developed, refined, Standard – and considering what it is we are attempting to do with it, for beings here, I think the “branding” analogy is strained.

      The sincerity of a person who puts the effort there to study, to train and gain the skills that are required of one practicing actual, LRH’s Scientology, and the gains that can and are made with that material, and what this stuff actually, really is, in my view necessitates a different approach.

      That approach can be summarized in the original policy Keeping Scientology Working.

      • Hey Jim, really amazing summary. Thanks again must really go to you for the monumental work you must have been doing doing “in the trenches!”

        I have missed blog time lately, due entirely to massive work over commitments, something unlikely to change anytime soon! 🙂

        Your points, of course, are totally within the ambit of KSW and yes, how else can one really keep the show on the road?

        Well, as I am a creative artist, by original profession (still am too), It may interest you, to know, that Lana in fact approached me, during the “name” search, for this very blog.

        I presented her with the concept “REAL SCIENTOLOGY”, with a rapidly hashed out logo., which was ditched, in favor of MS2.

        Not for a moment, to minimise the so-called TM “infringement” liabilities, for using such a bold branding, but possibly, (up line), post the inevitable collapse of the CO$, one may again perhaps revisit this “REAL” drawcard from it’s PR inuendos?

        Thanks, “cobber”, and btw, South Africa, are on route to AUS, to play some serious rugby, in the international “conference”. Keep a look out for “The Sharks”, will you, from my home town, Durban.

        — Calvin. 🙂

        • Calvin,
          My opinion, it’s really pretty darn hard to kill of a 3D. In other words, I don’t envision a “collapse” of the CofS. It can maintain, even if moribund, for ages and likely will seeing as the essence of it, the original ethic, rationale and ideal of the actual Goal Maker, was so purely – pure.

          Eventually, those who take it upon themselves to do something with this material, “in” or “out” of the CofS, and are honest, ethical, and practice it well, can and will find the opportunity to sort out those that ain’t so sure just what’s going on.

          DM is a blip on the track. A garden variety SP. Many have learned the lesson well thanks to this putz.

          And we carry on…

          P.S. Yes, I’ll keep an eye on the footie, and with Chris to “guide” me on the game, I’ll of course be rootin’ for the Aussies!!!!

          • No worries, mate! I’ve got dinkum Oz blood running through my veins, in any case. My horse racing family, started out via my great, great grandfather who lived in Freemantle, Western Australia, in 1830. The whole family generations were jockeys, except for me, (a little to big!). I turned the racing passion to racing motorcycles, which was more to my adrenalin junkie tastes!

    • RemoteViewed, July 13, 2014 at 1:13 pm: This is the best comment which addressed my comment.

      Observer 1776: “The auditor should be honest regarding what he/she is delivering. Whatever service he/she is delivering should be labeled as the clearing tech brand which it is. E.g. standard LRH, his/her own version, CBR, etc.”
      This suggestion does not mean that an auditor states that he/she delivers standard LRH and then he/she delivers something out of KSW. On the contrary, it means that if somebody states he/she delivers standard LRH, he/she should deliver it according to KSW; otherwise call it something else.

      The last paragraph of my comment was meant to protect everybody, including MS2, from black PR done by another spiritual clearing tech group or practitioner.

      The aim of my comment was (and is) to maximize the chances of this planet having widespread workable spiritual clearing techs in the future 300, 1000, 10000, etc. years. (In that respect, as far as know, the Co$ is the only group doing something to preserve tech from a global man-made – the current Doomsday Clock is 5 minutes to midnight – or natural disaster – although, a Yellowstone explosion, which is overdue, will also effect New Mexico -).
      Nowadays, it’s very important that people, hopefully MS2 included, practice good Scn showing the difference with the Co$, because the Co$ has caused bad PR to the tech itself.

      The Creed of Scn: “We … believe … That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.” … https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/not-my-double-standard/
      This includes other flavors of spiritual clearing tech. But, also, gives MS2 the right to endorse its own flavor without attacking others (except in extreme cases like the Co$).

  13. A lot of great discussion going on! Very encouraging! This point of creating a “Field Qual” has been a subject of interest to many of us for years! At our great “Class 8 Reunion Event”, we discussed options such as “weekend tech brush-ups”, where cramming & retreads can be done, however, doesn’t one have to move such a public up to INTEREST? So even here in LA, that has been an ongoing issue! As I was an integral part of the 80s Indie movement here in LA, (which was pulled up WITHOUT benefit of the internet!), I can tell you that it is doable.. but in recent years, finding others to help remains illusive! Suggestions?? Ian Waxler

    • Hi Ian,

      Yes that Class VIII reunion was great.

      The weekend tech brush up is a good idea. Doing metering and TRs always instills confidence.

      We used to have them when we resurrected the moribund ASHO Auditors Association in the early ’90’s . Also we were going to get a list of auditors and their training levels so we could get co-auditing going as well.

      Kinda like a dating service 😉

      Problem is there are probably a lot of auditors who are auditing under the radar and are afraid of interference by OSA whose primary purpose seems to be to prevent auditing.

      You could say that their relentless attacks against Marty by so called “Squirrel” busters has caused a chilling effect regarding open field delivery.

      What we need are people who know how to counter these attacks.

      Maybe there are some former GO out there who still have a grudge with the current Junta who is holding the Org hostage that might be interested in stepping up to plate on this one?

      • Ha! You make me smile 🙂

        That body of tech, which you are so familiar with, is of course valid, and has its place in the scheme of things.

        Some guys are really, really good at it too. And with an ethic, the rationale of the group, and the ideal cleanly there, those fellas are truly something to behold.

        I imagine as things carry on, others will take up the game again, and as Tom M says “once more, into the breach”. Sky, boots. Put on.

      • Well,(I am “forever the optimist”!), BUT, I think this “TECH BULLETIN BOARD” might serve as a “comm center” for doing something to connect up! .

        ANOTHER “CLASS VIII REUNION” was put into the ‘pending basket’, but has not yet firmed up enuf to plan it.. Would be great to pull off one MUCH LARGER! In the meantime, for all within driving distance of Los Angeles, an AUDITOR’S DAY EVENT IS PLANNED FOR MID- SEPT.This is a “NOT to be missed event” so pls PM me or check various FB groups for invites, etc..

      • The Church is “fighting Martians”, and I doubt they have the resources to come after all of us. And the more of us there are, the more difficult their job will be. Not to mention the fact that the Church probably loses more cases in court these days than they win.

        If you listen to Ron’s Journal 67, Ron referred to the most evil guys on the planet as “cur dogs”, and explained that you didn’t stop the fire engine on the way to the fire simply to handle them. Marty, for example, is currently his own worst enemy. The once apparently fabricated claims by the Church about him have suddenly become true. Every time he puts out a blog post these days, he makes the Church right. Their best strategy would be to simply let him keep talking and settle his lawsuit with them out of court.

        And I’m inclined to believe that our best strategy is simply to track the Church’s activities with regard to us and gather intel. And if an attack occurs, start pulling out hole cards, lowest value first and then higher value cards as needed. Hold on to our trump cards as long as possible. I don’t believe the Church’s position is anywhere near as strong as many in the Field believe. They have a lot of money, but they don’t have a lot of intelligence or common sense. Worst, perhaps, we do have a few people out here who know how to use “Guardian’s Office/OSA tech” on *them*.

        • I agree SJ,

          Branch 5 intel used to mean knowing which way cat’s’ll jump before they got played by what Dave proudly calls his “friends”.


          Anyway you are so right the Church is deeply involved in fighting the martians. If its moved up any scale at all it is from Type II to Type III.

          ‘Nuff said.

    • Thanks for popping in Ian. My opinion is that a large degree of people’s inaction relates to two factors:

      1. Invalidation. We have written articles on this very point several times and you would be familiar with LRH’s reference entitled the same from the Class VIII Course. One such article is: https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/invalidation-of-auditors/. The Golden Age of Tech specializes in invalidation — as do the various TRs and Metering lines that were forced in by RTC, that are overseen by untrained robotic individuals.

      2. Fear. Most Scientologists are aware of the Corp Scn’s tactic in earlier years of legally attacking those that tried to set up decent delivery centers – outside of the Corp Scn monopoly. Being unsure of what the ramifications would be, many have preferred to lay low and not “make waves” so to speak — or to stay small and therefore be of little consequence or importance to the C of S.

      But interestingly enough, we can be a vast, strong and vibrant network today in ways that could not be done in the 80s. The internet and its lines give us resources that LRH would have loved (and no I am not talking about auditing over Skype). I am talking about coordination and sharing of information and networking, etc.

      Do me a favor — register under the Technical Delivery Network tab on the Home page, and show your interest, and encourage other Class VIIIs to do the same.

  14. While, I can say well said, I have met enough Wolves in sheeps clothing in the Independent field to be quite reserved about
    endorsing any auditors without scrutinizing their worksheets. Some of them have Golden PR and have full time promoters asserting them
    to be the best auditors there is when it is far from the truth. A study of these auditor’s cases reveal an entirely different story.
    Starting with False clams of training (like Class VIII when they haven’t even done Class 0), or purposefully overrunning pcs to increase the amount of money they need to pay
    , missing witholds by agreeing with the pc’s natter and refusing to act to repair cases that are so violently nattery because they are viewed as “weapons” against those
    who may wish to expose the auditor. or running NOTS mid OT III (or even on lower level cases)

    My complaints, crams and ethics reports even to IFA/APIS have only been met with an effort to shut me up, resulting in my Kha-Khan status award by them being cancelled
    without even a hearing with the false claim that “only LRH can award Kha-Khan” while their founder currently parades himself as a Kha-Khan awarded by a FOLO executive.
    with some PR Man hired by them advertising that one of his main aim is to “run me out of the FREEZONE” and to invite a general
    boycott of my services.

    Not long ago, I was served with a vexatious lawsuits entirely initiated within the Independent Field by the pc of one of the FREEZONE star Auditors,
    the lawsuit had the full endorsement of the auditor, his ethics officer and his support group. I had written plenty about the Gross out-tech and unethical activities
    of that auditor and his viewing himself above correction. (I have handled over 20 of his mangled cases, each doing poorly after his auditing, one being paralyzed, others dying). His Snr C/S recently wrote that he viewed the auditor as a God, capable of auditing the Almighty himself.

    That same pc organized last year for Jim Lynch, Church shill well known for harassing people on the Church Enemy List to threaten me and make harassing phone calls, to
    seek to disrupt my sessions and even to tail me in a car and take secret pictures of me when I was in Clearwater.
    My complaints to the auditor and his ethics officer, associates and support group were met with being told I was insane and being served with a vexatious lawsuit
    to “shut me up”. In a masterpiece of hypocrisy the lawyer firm hired for the lawsuit is well known for its links
    with the Church of Scientology and its actions against those they call squirrels.

    So, there are plenty of wolves in Sheep’s clothing around. As long as they are perceived as sheep’s rather than the wolves they are, squirrels will prosper and whistleblowers
    ostracized and lied about.

    Pierre Ethier

    Flag Trained Class XII
    Flag TOP Auditor and Auditor of the year every year: 1981-1992

    P.S. Every point I mentioned is fully documented with proofs. It is not opinion but facts, though I expected these inconvenient truths to be rejected by those with a low confront of evil.

  15. Pingback: Technical Delivery Network | Milestone Two

  16. Pingback: Building our network | Milestone Two

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s