Stories about stupid KRs - redux

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
I'm pretty sure deep down the MAA was glad. He got rid of the work, did not have to check all the bs accusations and best of all - some other poor shmuck did it for him and took the blame.


Deleting or destroying data was seen as an act of radical sabotage back in my day. Being assigned to lower conditions would be the very mildest of possible outcomes. Getting kicked out of the church or assigned to the RPF would not be out of the question, depending on the importance of said data.

Data was holy and never ever ever to be destroyed. Example:
We had digitized transcripts of 20 year old confessionals that have been originally recorded on 8mm tapes. Some dead souls must have been assigned to listen to all these tapes, then manually type all of the dialogue into our CRM. Just one more illustration how the church always find ways to waste the work-time of its staff and SO.
It would make you think that the knowledge of parishioners transgressions were really, really important. Who would ask for access? Who would request old data?
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
It would make you think that the knowledge of parishioners transgressions were really, really important. Who would ask for access? Who would request old data?
Sometimes, that would be your truly.
In the mid 2000s it wasn't even "asking for access" as most of this data was already linked to the profile of said person within the CRM. Me and Star were in charge of that in our continent. So, if I was running some serious investigation: say "Guy X is accused of embezzling funds / molesting female staff / leaking information to critics and it is substantiated beyond mere fizzy KRs", then I would of course go and look up his old stuff myself. I might have also looked up old stuff for his wife or other important people linked to his post etc.
Guys in my team had access to that when they ran their own investigations.

While it did not happen very frequently, a lot of different parts of scn would at times ask me for data. Julian or other people at ethics posts, but also CMO PAC people, sometimes RTC. Even though they were not our biggest fans, sometimes stinking Billy or other OSA goons would cave in and admit they need something from us. Sometimes requests came from weird places like Delphi or CCHR.

But I do not want to give the impression that it was super frequent or a daily affair and that we gave access to everyone left right and center. But I do want to say that when the requests did finally come, they came from various places for various reasons and not all of these people even had to explain their reasons to me.
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
Sometimes, that would be your truly.
In the mid 2000s it wasn't even "asking for access" as most of this data was already linked to the profile of said person within the CRM. Me and Star were in charge of that in our continent. So, if I was running some serious investigation: say "Guy X is accused of embezzling funds / molesting female staff / leaking information to critics and it is substantiated beyond mere fizzy KRs", then I would of course go and look up his old stuff myself. I might have also looked up old stuff for his wife or other important people linked to his post etc.
Guys in my team had access to that when they ran their own investigations.

While it did not happen very frequently, a lot of different parts of scn would at times ask me for data. Julian or other people at ethics posts, but also CMO PAC people, sometimes RTC. Even though they were not our biggest fans, sometimes stinking Billy or other OSA goons would cave in and admit they need something from us. Sometimes requests came from weird places like Delphi or CCHR.

But I do not want to give the impression that it was super frequent or a daily affair and that we gave access to everyone left right and center. But I do want to say that when the requests did finally come, they came from various places for various reasons and not all of these people even had to explain their reasons to me.
Wow!! Now I have a ton of questions. I guess my first, and I hope that you don't mind me being very, very curious.

How would it be that anyone at Delphi would have direct access to this data?

Would any of this machinery be working in tandem with a C/S, MAA, etc. as a PT thing, with someone being investigated while receiving a sec check, FPRD, this data then being reviewed and resulting in different questions being asked, differing areas being covered?

If one was told by someone in HCO, as a public, that they were being investigated, what could be the scope of that? How far could that possibly extend, or how far did you see that go?

Sorry, but I am interested in this, for personal reasons and curiosity for others as well.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Wow!! Now I have a ton of questions. I guess my first, and I hope that you don't mind me being very, very curious.

How would it be that anyone at Delphi would have direct access to this data? <snip>
I do not remember all the details of that Delphi request, the fact that I remember it at all is precisely because it was very unusual and rare. Delphi was not one of those places that usually asked for anything or got the approvals. Our reaction to it was: "What, now Delphi wants info? Delphi?! Of all places? Seriously?!"

I *think* they planned to give some post to some guy there, but had some doubts and requested some of his ethics records or something to that extent. But I do want to stress my memory is fuzzy on the finer details, so I may be wrong. But what I'm absolutely sure is that we did receive a request from Delphi, that it had the approvals and that it felt unusual for all of us.

<snip>Would any of this machinery be working in tandem with a C/S, MAA, etc. as a PT thing, with someone being investigated while receiving a sec check, FPRD, this data then being reviewed and resulting in different questions being asked, differing areas being covered?
It would really depend on the specific case. In general, a C/S would not likely be a part of our process. Unless of course if Inv was tasked to investigate some person or org in detail and then that particular C/S would prove a key source of information/witness/suspect/etc.

But no, in most cases there would be no reason for a C/S to come up and request old ethics information from continental Inv. No more likely than it would be for a C/S to contact OSA and ask for information about local SPs.

Local MAAs or EOs? Sure, that was more likely. Of course the chief public MAA AOLA would be far more likely to request, and get approval than some local EO in the sticks. But in almost every such instance, we would ask: "Ok, so why do you need this exactly? Are you having problems that you cannot handle yourself? Do you want us to look into this? (aka: "Are you an incompetent EO? Do you want to get in trouble and have us look into your area?").

This was really a big reason why people didn't just come up to us and ask for help unless they felt its really big and that they would rather take a smaller hit now, rather than suffer a catastrophic failure later on. In general everyone was eager to prove that they can handle their own job perfectly well and they don't need us coming over to look over their shoulders.


If one was told by someone in HCO, as a public, that they were being investigated, what could be the scope of that? How far could that possibly extend, or how far did you see that go?
If it was our direct investigation, then most people did not hear that they were being investigated before our investigation was completed.
Sometimes not even then, that would often be bizarre.
Just imagine walking up to someone and saying: "Hey Joe, do you know that we were investigating you for embezzlement of CoS funds? The registrar said that you all of a sudden have a lot more funds on your account, he gave us your bank statements and they felt fishy. Also your wife and son wrote several KRs on you that sounded pretty credible. Plus we know about the affair you are having with that 20 year old lass and you are now taking her to fancy restaurants. We had a guy in upstat civvies follow you around just to check that. But yeah... our final conclusion is that we found no solid evidence this time, but we will keep an eye on you for the next 5 years cause you look pretty sketchy to us."

But if the matter was serious, we would spend a lot of time and effort to check things thoroughly and not allow ourselves to be noticed. I mena in one extreme case, we brought a girl from another continent to place her in a specific org just so that nobody would realize she is with ethics and that she would be able to offer us insight into the case.

I mean not all of our investigations were that serious. CoS being what it is, we got our share of utterly ridiculous cases. Investigating the charge of "Mr X sabotages the org by speaking Spanish with a stupid accent" - yeah that one ended up at Inv too. Because CoS.:faceslap:

But we were dealing mostly with staff and SO. Public rarely did something that would be big enough that local EOs couldn't handle it. And very high-profile public were not to be touched, these would be dealt with by the specialized people in Celebrity Center or by OSA etc.

In general external threats were OSA turf, as were things that were deemed to be very off-PR (think anything to do with Hollywood or anything to do with stuff like the Int base abuses or high profile lawsuits etc). Of course, we would step on each other's toes, because often the boundary was murky and our responsibilities did overlap. Looking at it now, I think that was by design. They wanted to have us separated.



Last thing: What I am telling you is how things looked in the 2000s. From what I heard, this looked pretty different in the 80s and before the digital age,
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
I do not remember all the details of that Delphi request, the fact that I remember it at all is precisely because it was very unusual and rare. Delphi was not one of those places that usually asked for anything or got the approvals. Our reaction to it was: "What, now Delphi wants info? Delphi?! Of all places? Seriously?!"

I *think* they planned to give some post to some guy there, but had some doubts and requested some of his ethics records or something to that extent. But I do want to stress my memory is fuzzy on the finer details, so I may be wrong. But what I'm absolutely sure is that we did receive a request from Delphi, that it had the approvals and that it felt unusual for all of us.



It would really depend on the specific case. In general, a C/S would not likely be a part of our process. Unless of course if Inv was tasked to investigate some person or org in detail and then that particular C/S would prove a key source of information/witness/suspect/etc.

But no, in most cases there would be no reason for a C/S to come up and request old ethics information from continental Inv. No more likely than it would be for a C/S to contact OSA and ask for information about local SPs.

Local MAAs or EOs? Sure, that was more likely. Of course the chief public MAA AOLA would be far more likely to request, and get approval than some local EO in the sticks. But in almost every such instance, we would ask: "Ok, so why do you need this exactly? Are you having problems that you cannot handle yourself? Do you want us to look into this? (aka: "Are you an incompetent EO? Do you want to get in trouble and have us look into your area?").

This was really a big reason why people didn't just come up to us and ask for help unless they felt its really big and that they would rather take a smaller hit now, rather than suffer a catastrophic failure later on. In general everyone was eager to prove that they can handle their own job perfectly well and they don't need us coming over to look over their shoulders.




If it was our direct investigation, then most people did not hear that they were being investigated before our investigation was completed.
Sometimes not even then, that would often be bizarre.
Just imagine walking up to someone and saying: "Hey Joe, do you know that we were investigating you for embezzlement of CoS funds? The registrar said that you all of a sudden have a lot more funds on your account, he gave us your bank statements and they felt fishy. Also your wife and son wrote several KRs on you that sounded pretty credible. Plus we know about the affair you are having with that 20 year old lass and you are now taking her to fancy restaurants. We had a guy in upstat civvies follow you around just to check that. But yeah... our final conclusion is that we found no solid evidence this time, but we will keep an eye on you for the next 5 years cause you look pretty sketchy to us."

But if the matter was serious, we would spend a lot of time and effort to check things thoroughly and not allow ourselves to be noticed. I mena in one extreme case, we brought a girl from another continent to place her in a specific org just so that nobody would realize she is with ethics and that she would be able to offer us insight into the case.

I mean not all of our investigations were that serious. CoS being what it is, we got our share of utterly ridiculous cases. Investigating the charge of "Mr X sabotages the org by speaking Spanish with a stupid accent" - yeah that one ended up at Inv too. Because CoS.:faceslap:

But we were dealing mostly with staff and SO. Public rarely did something that would be big enough that local EOs couldn't handle it. And very high-profile public were not to be touched, these would be dealt with by the specialized people in Celebrity Center or by OSA etc.

In general external threats were OSA turf, as were things that were deemed to be very off-PR (think anything to do with Hollywood or anything to do with stuff like the Int base abuses or high profile lawsuits etc). Of course, we would step on each other's toes, because often the boundary was murky and our responsibilities did overlap. Looking at it now, I think that was by design. They wanted to have us separated.



Last thing: What I am telling you is how things looked in the 2000s. From what I heard, this looked pretty different in the 80s and before the digital age,
I've got some friends that are gay and trying to get invited onto the OT levels. Do they stand a snowballs chance in hell? They have been paying and receiving auditing, paying for and doing training, over and over again for many years. All the lists one could find have been run on one friend. I want them out, but when I talk to them they try to recover me!!!
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
I've got some friends that are gay and trying to get invited onto the OT levels. Do they stand a snowballs chance in hell? They have been paying and receiving auditing, paying for and doing training, over and over again for many years. All the lists one could find have been run on one friend. I want them out, but when I talk to them they try to recover me!!!
Not going to happen in C of $ under David "I hate gays and lesbians" Miscavige. His standard policy is "gay conversion therapy" using False Purpose Rundown during "OT Preparations" (OT Preps) and then kicking the mentally and spiritually harmed failures to the C of $ curb.

If these friends love Scientology (the subject) and hate the Co$ (the organization), then they will be better off with the Independents, who do not try to punish people with harmful "auditing" (what we call "reverse processing") for their sexual proclivities.
 

Chuck J.

Election Fraud Has Consequences
If that was followed, we would all have had much less workload back in the day.

Honestly, the tongue-in-cheek mindset at Inv was that "everyone is under investigation, we just didn't get around to starting some of them". Oh and certainly every piece of minuite data about any scn member (living, dead and in between) has to be gathered, written down, filed and kept for all eternity.
I saw a documentary about the East German STASI. They did exactly that. Maintain meticulous files on everyone they could. And like $cientology they encouraged family members to rat each other out. Children to report their parents, etc.

That database STILL exists!
You can probably take a tour of the former STASI HQ in Germany and see all that paper, in all those file cabinets, lol. Reports on people dead for 70 years!

When I saw this TV show I wondered at the insanity of all that long-term record keeping.... some of it on dead people. $cientology and the STASI have a lot in common.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
When I saw this TV show I wondered at the insanity of all that long-term record keeping.... some of it on dead people. $cientology and the STASI have a lot in common.
For Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence purposes, there's a reason for that. If you find a spy, you check to see who his connections are, who might have recruited or mentored him, and who THEY were connected to. A person might be dead, but during his life he might have recruited or mentored people, so you need to check on people who were closely connected to him.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
I've got some friends that are gay and trying to get invited onto the OT levels. Do they stand a snowballs chance in hell? They have been paying and receiving auditing, paying for and doing training, over and over again for many years. All the lists one could find have been run on one friend. I want them out, but when I talk to them they try to recover me!!!
Well, that really depends. It is not like every person going on OT is investigated. I am not talking about a sec-check, I'm talking real investigation as in "we-look-into-what-you-do-in-everyday-life-when-you-think-we-are-not-watching"

So if they are closeted gays AND they don't blab about it during sessions AND nobody really considers them important enough to investigate, then they may very well "fall through the cracks" and get on the OT levels.

Heck, some of the AOLA auditors I knew would gladly look the other way, adopt a "I won't ask if you won't tell" altitude just to yank their own stats up.

For Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence purposes, there's a reason for that. If you find a spy, you check to see who his connections are, who might have recruited or mentored him, and who THEY were connected to. A person might be dead, but during his life he might have recruited or mentored people, so you need to check on people who were closely connected to him.
That and in the CoS case we also have "decision paralysis". As in:
- "Hey Joe we have these useless records on these sobs that died childless in the 70s. Can't we just get rid of them?"
- "And who is gonna give that order and risk his neck if anyone ever comes looking for any of them? Not me. No decision - no risk".

For all its talk of high tone scale and proactive dealing with problems, CoS really punishes people who show initiative and creativity. Which is actually why I liked Inv, because it was one of the places where this problem was least pronounced.
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
Well, that really depends. It is not like every person going on OT is investigated. I am not talking about a sec-check, I'm talking real investigation as in "we-look-into-what-you-do-in-everyday-life-when-you-think-we-are-not-watching"

So if they are closeted gays AND they don't blab about it during sessions AND nobody really considers them important enough to investigate, then they may very well "fall through the cracks" and get on the OT levels.

Heck, some of the AOLA auditors I knew would gladly look the other way, adopt a "I won't ask if you won't tell" altitude just to yank their own stats up.


That and in the CoS case we also have "decision paralysis". As in:
- "Hey Joe we have these useless records on these sobs that died childless in the 70s. Can't we just get rid of them?"
- "And who is gonna give that order and risk his neck if anyone ever comes looking for any of them? Not me. No decision - no risk".

For all its talk of high tone scale and proactive dealing with problems, CoS really punishes people who show initiative and creativity. Which is actually why I liked Inv, because it was one of the places where this problem was least pronounced.
These guys are not closeted. They have been living together for over thirty years, and this has been known to all. One of the couple was the original scamatologist, the other came around to it in the mid 2000's, and in fact joined staff for a contract period and completed. So it is very well known, and admirably they have been up front about it all, that I am aware of. My issue is that I see them being taken advantage of, in this regard. It seems almost a bit like "well, if you are or were gay, and you want to do the bridge, then we will make you pay" sort of thing. All is fair on what happens. My intent is to get them out. I did have discussions way back when with the one fellow, and he did have an attitude that if the other one couldn't get onto the OT levels, then they would quit. Ten years later, here we are, they are still trying, and not succeeding. Any suggestions?

And thanks for the help!!!
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
These guys are not closeted. They have been living together for over thirty years, and this has been known to all.<snip>
Then it won't work. Unless something weird happened and the Co$ did a 180 since the last time I was there.

Then again, maybe the church shrank so much and they are so desperate for money that they will look away even if they are openly gay? Though I do not think the church is that desperate yet.

My intent is to get them out. I did have discussions way back when with the one fellow, and he did have an attitude that if the other one couldn't get onto the OT levels, then they would quit. Ten years later, here we are, they are still trying, and not succeeding. Any suggestions?
From what you mentioned, it seems the CoS is doing its little song and dance feeding them false hopes of OT somewhere later down the road, but will never deliver. Of course they will also never openly say that they will never deliver.

I've seen this sort of myself back in the day. Auditors (maybe I'm biased, but the most disgusting liars were always auditors - far worse than even regs or us ethics guys) would lie to preclears and give them false hope, even when said auditors knew these people are in reality banned from ever going further up the bridge.
The cases I knew about were mostly people who had something to do with psychology or were on psychiatric drugs. But I imagine the same might be done to openly gay people.

Aaron mentions one such instance with regards to one of my old haunts - AOLA:



As for suggestions... hmm... I don't know. If the auditors have been lying to them for over 10 years and these two guys haven't realized that they are banned for life from going further up the bridge, then there might be little that can be done. Perhaps if they have an open mind about critics, maybe you can point them to this very video Aaron made about Terino? Maybe if they see that there are others who are duped in this way, they will realize the same is being done to them?
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
Then it won't work. Unless something weird happened and the Co$ did a 180 since the last time I was there.

Then again, maybe the church shrank so much and they are so desperate for money that they will look away even if they are openly gay? Though I do not think the church is that desperate yet.



From what you mentioned, it seems the CoS is doing its little song and dance feeding them false hopes of OT somewhere later down the road, but will never deliver. Of course they will also never openly say that they will never deliver.

I've seen this sort of myself back in the day. Auditors (maybe I'm biased, but the most disgusting liars were always auditors - far worse than even regs or us ethics guys) would lie to preclears and give them false hope, even when said auditors knew these people are in reality banned from ever going further up the bridge.
The cases I knew about were mostly people who had something to do with psychology or were on psychiatric drugs. But I imagine the same might be done to openly gay people.

Aaron mentions one such instance with regards to one of my old haunts - AOLA:



As for suggestions... hmm... I don't know. If the auditors have been lying to them for over 10 years and these two guys haven't realized that they are banned for life from going further up the bridge, then there might be little that can be done. Perhaps if they have an open mind about critics, maybe you can point them to this very video Aaron made about Terino? Maybe if they see that there are others who are duped in this way, they will realize the same is being done to them?
Wow. Just wow. Let me chew on this.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
I've been trying to remember some more.

- There was a TTSB many pages long, huge thing with LRH quotes all over the place. One of our guys was on it, he read that thing 3 times and finally came to me and said: "Kara, can you read this and tell me what exactly is this sad fuck complaining about?". I read it and also couldn't figure out what was the point of the whole exercise. I seen KRs before that were beating around the bush for a page or two before they finally got to the: "I think Jenny is using scented products" or other some such thing. But this wasn't it. It never got to a "and this is what is wrong" part.
I think we had something 4 different people read it before we decided it was useless. This was before the "trashed status" era, so we just decommitted it.

- A dude had a KR written on him because he supposedly was 2d flowing someone at a certain event. One of our guys immediately went: "Bullshit! I know him, he wasn't even at that event!" Fair enough, when we checked his ethics folder we saw that he already got some ethics handling precisely because he failed to show up at that event. I'm sure we flagged that as a "malicious reporter" and trashed it.

- There was a KR written on a person because that person complained out loud about having to fill out and send KRs. Yes, someone complained in a KR about the fact that someone else was complaining about KRs. :screwy:
The joke we made was: "We should totally mark it as upheld. People send too much KRs, we need to start punishing them for it"
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
I've been trying to remember some more.

- There was a TTSB many pages long, huge thing with LRH quotes all over the place. One of our guys was on it, he read that thing 3 times and finally came to me and said: "Kara, can you read this and tell me what exactly is this sad fuck complaining about?". I read it and also couldn't figure out what was the point of the whole exercise. I seen KRs before that were beating around the bush for a page or two before they finally got to the: "I think Jenny is using scented products" or other some such thing. But this wasn't it. It never got to a "and this is what is wrong" part.
I think we had something 4 different people read it before we decided it was useless. This was before the "trashed status" era, so we just decommitted it.

- A dude had a KR written on him because he supposedly was 2d flowing someone at a certain event. One of our guys immediately went: "Bullshit! I know him, he wasn't even at that event!" Fair enough, when we checked his ethics folder we saw that he already got some ethics handling precisely because he failed to show up at that event. I'm sure we flagged that as a "malicious reporter" and trashed it.

- There was a KR written on a person because that person complained out loud about having to fill out and send KRs. Yes, someone complained in a KR about the fact that someone else was complaining about KRs. :screwy:
The joke we made was: "We should totally mark it as upheld. People send too much KRs, we need to start punishing them for it"
It used to be that "Ethics Reports" were supposed to be more specific, before everybody got into doing vague "Knowledge reports".

For example

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 MAY 1965
Remimeo
Staff Member Hats
Executive Hats

STAFF MEMBER REPORTS

Staff Members must personally make certain reports in writing.


Failure to make these reports involves the executive or staff member not making a report in any offence committed by a junior under him, or, in case of job endangerment, by a senior over him.
These reports are made to the Ethics Section of the Department of Inspection and Reports.

The report form is simple. One uses a clip board with a packet of his division’s colour flash paper on it. This includes a piece of pencil carbon paper. This is the same clip board and carbon one uses for his routine orders. It is a despatch form addressed simply to the Ethics Section.

It is dated. It has under the address and in the centre of the page the person or portion of the org’s name. It then states what kind of a report it is (see below).

The original goes to Ethics by drawing an arrow pointing to “Ethics” and the carbon goes to the person or portion of the org being reported on by channels (B routing). The following are the reports required:

1. Damage Report. Any damage to anything noted with the name of the person in charge of it or in charge of cleaning it.

2. Misuse Report. The misuse or abuse of any equipment, materiel or quarters, mean-ing using it wrongly or for a purpose not intended.

3. Waste Report. The waste of org materiel.

4. Idle Report. The idleness of equipment or personnel which should be in action.

5. Alter-ls Report. The alteration of design, policy, technology or errors being made in construction.

6. Loss or Theft Report. The disappearance of anything that should be there giving anything known about its disappearance such as when it was seen last.

7. A Found Report. Anything found, sending the article with the despatch or saying where it is.

8. Non-Compliance Report. Non-Compliance with legal orders.

9. Dev-T Report. Stating whether Off-Line, Off-Policy or Off-Origin and from whom to whom and subject.

10. Error Report. Any error made.

11. Misdemeanor Report. Any misdemeanor noted.

12. A Crime Report. Any crime noted or suspected but if suspicion only it must be so stated.

13. A High Crime Report. Any high crime noted or suspected but if only suspected must be so stated.

14. A No-Report Report. Any failure to receive a report or an illegible report or folder.

15. A False Report Report. Any report received that turned out to be false.

16. A False Attestation Report. Any false attestation noted, but in this case the docu-ment is attached to the report.

17. An Annoyance Report. Anything about which one is annoyed, giving the person or portion of an org or org one is annoyed with, but the Department of Inspection and Reports and a senior org are exempt and may not be reported on.

18. A JOB Endangerment Report. Reporting any order received from a superior that endangered one’s job by demanding one alter or depart from known policy, the orders of a person senior to one’s immediate superior altered or countermanded by one’s immediate su-perior, or advice from one’s immediate superior not to comply with orders or policy.

19. Technical Alter-ls Report. Any ordered alteration of technology not given in an HCOB, book or LRH tape.

20. Technical Non-Compliance Report. Any failure to apply the correct technical pro-cedure.

21. Knowledge Report. On noting some investigation is in progress and having data on it of value to Ethics. These reports are simply written and sent. One does not expect an executive to front up to personnel who err. One does expect an executive to make a report routinely on the matter, no matter what the executive also does.

(more at the link)
Note the last bit. Knowledge Reports were not originally intended as the only kind of report written, but it was easier to write a KR than to actually look up policy and note a specific policy violation.

I suspect DM might have encouraged the "losing" of this bit of LRH tech, as much of what he did, and much of what he hit people over, would not have passed a rigorous examination to see what specific LRH policy authorized it, or what specific policy violation a person was being hit over.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
It used to be that "Ethics Reports" were supposed to be more specific, before everybody got into doing vague "Knowledge reports".
I know, right?

That was one of the top reasons why cases got decommited. "Not enought information, report not precise enough to support the original claims".

I suspect DM might have encouraged the "losing" of this bit of LRH tech, as much of what he did, and much of what he hit people over, would not have passed a rigorous examination to see what specific LRH policy authorized it, or what specific policy violation a person was being hit over.
That is possible, but I do not think that's the only reason.

1. There's still the "how fat is the folder?" issue. If people send a ton of KRs, even unsubstantiated ones against an individual, this will at some point trigger a full scale inv case. "Ether that guy is really up to no good... or that whole fucking org is going crazy. Either way - there's an ethics cycle waiting to be discovered!"

2. Related, but probably more important. There is a lot of info available on each person. Especially now in the digital era all of this is interconnected. One of the most important skills my guys had was to spot correlations while looking at this seemingly irrelevant report.
Numerous time we had a report that was worthless, but it made us go through the file of person X, then someone spotted something there and recalled "a similar earlier time" when something like that appeared in a different folder of a person from the same org.

Suddenly the pieces fell into place and we had a good idea of who might be falsifying stats with whose help and how they might be doing that.

One thing the church DOES know how to do, is combine facts into a bigger picture using the info they have. With enough manpower they could conquer the world.


... good thing we never had enough skilled manpower. :D


If you want to strike a hard blow at the cult, do something that would force OSA or inv to waste a lot of man-hours on some wild goose chase. They have the money, they have the information and the skills. They do not have the men to do it all.
 
Last edited:

onceuponatime

Well-known member
The whole scientology system of reports is flawed. Investigation means just looking through the ethics folder and seeing what reports have been written. At least as far as an org or eo/MAA is concerned. There's no actual investigation to determine if the reports are valid or not. As long as the report is somewhat believable it's accepted as true, the default is to believe whatever has been written.. And generally speaking if a senior terminal wrote the report it's accepted as the word of God. The scientology ethics and reports system is just a way to maintain control over so/staff/public. There's no real concern with getting ethics in or ensuring justice is fairly applied. It's just a control mechanism.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Investigation means just looking through the ethics folder and seeing what reports have been written
I wish that was true. This would have saved us a heck of a lot of time and effort. I mean that is generally true on the local EO level.

On the continental level, there often was some actual investigation done. Especially when money, sex, falsified states or bad PR was potentially involved.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
On the continental level, there often was some actual investigation done. Especially when money, sex, falsified states or bad PR was potentially involved.
Back in the 1980's or earlier, if there was a "bad PR" possibility, or money being embezzled/diverted, it was a GO/OSA investigation.

Possible harm to individuals = HCO, don't really care that much
Possible harm to Scientology stats = OSA, they care
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Back in the 1980's or earlier, if there was a "bad PR" possibility, or money being embezzled/diverted, it was a GO/OSA investigation.

Possible harm to individuals = HCO, don't really care that much
Possible harm to Scientology stats = OSA, they care
Very bad PR or celebrities, that was OSA for us as well. I assume very heavy out-2D stuff (rape, child sex abuse etc) was also OSA. I think I asked Mike about this, but It was one of those that did not get a response. But I'm quite sure it was.

Financial bs, falsifying stats, workplace accidents, usual out-2D (quid pro quo, ED molesting female staff, guy renting room to young staff members in exchange for sex etc) various flops and outpoints in the "business as usual" - we ended up with that. So stats was us. We had old FINPO reports for example, I am not sure OSA had. I don't think they did.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Very bad PR or celebrities, that was OSA for us as well. I assume very heavy out-2D stuff (rape, child sex abuse etc) was also OSA. I think I asked Mike about this, but It was one of those that did not get a response. But I'm quite sure it was.
In my old org, we had a staff member rape the 9 year old daughter of another staff member, OSA got involved, he was quietly kicked out, no police involvement
 
Top