A Freezone Bible Supporter



Here is a complete Level 0 Academy pack from the 1970s

being posted in 11 parts.  Contents below following the

FZ Bible mission statement.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





**************************************************



FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT



Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology

Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.



The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of

Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the

copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.



They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be

stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 

Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.



We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according

to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.



But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,

the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 

testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  



We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion

as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures

without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.



We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do

not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope

that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose

to aid us for that reason.



Thank You,



The FZ Bible Association



**************************************************





******** LEVEL ZERO ACADEMY COURSE PACK ********



Level 0 Academy Course Packs (2) circa 1974 and 1976,

Almost identical [Ed Note: differences noted like this]



Dark blue soft cardboard cover 

8 1/2 by 14 inch 4 hole punched & held together by 

double retainer clips. As issued by Pubs US.



This is complete including book excerpts but does not include

the complete book "Self Analysis" which is also part of the

level (it was posted to the internet last year).



This does not include transcripts of the level 0 tapes, but

we are working on those and will post them eventually.



Note that in the 1970s, HCOBs not written by Ron were converted

to BTBs (Board Technical Bulletins), resulting in the freequent

"reissued as BTB" designation.



Note that bulletins have a "distribution" near the top stating

where they are to be used.  A common distribution is "remimeo"

which means that the orgs may run copies on their mimeo machines.

Another, older, designation is "CenOcon" which means "Central

Orgs Continental".  Others such as "D of T" (director of training)

refer to posts in the Scientology organization.





********



CONTENTS:



part 1



01. BPL   26 JAN 72R  SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 0 STANDARD ACADEMY CHECKSHEET

02. HCOPL  7 FEB 65 reiss. 15 JUN 70 Keeping Scientology Working

03. HCOPL 17 JUN 70 Technical Degrades

04. HCOB  11 JUN 64 New Student Data

05. HCOB  25 JUN 71R rev. 25 NOV 74 Barriers To Study

06. HCOPL 31 MAY 68 Auditors

07. BPL   17 MAY 71RA r.13 NOV 72 r.10 JUN 74 Study Points and Conditions

08. HCOPL 27 MAY 65 Processing



part 2



09. HCOPL 15 DEC 65 Student's Guide To Acceptable Behavior

10. HCOPL 14 FEB 65 Safeguarding Technology

11. HCOB  27 SEP 66 The Anti-Social Personality

12. HCOPL 22 NOV 67 Rev. 18 JUL 70 Out Tech

13. HCOPL  8 JUN 70 Student Auditing

14. BPL   25 JUN 70RA Expanded Lower Grades

15. HCOB  25 SEP 71RA rev 4 APR 74 Tone Scale In Full

16. BTB   20 JUL 74 Basic Auditing Drills

17. HCOPL 14 OCT 68R rev 1 JAN 76 The Auditor's Code



part 3



18. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 25 JUL 74 Admin 14R The Worksheets

19. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 27 AUG 74 Admin 13R The Auditor Report Form

20. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 28 JUL 74 Admin 12R The Summary Report Form

21. BTB   20 JUN 70 reiss 21 JUL 74 Summary Report

22. BTB    6 NOV 72RA rev 20 NOV 74 Admin 11RA The Exam Report

23. HCOPL  8 MAR 71 Examiner's Form

24. BTB    5 NOV 72R rev 9 SEP 74 Admin 7R The Folder Summary

25. BTB   24 APR 69R rev 8 SEP 74 Preclear Assessment Sheet

26. HCOPL 23 APR 68 Parent or Guardian Assent Forms

27. HCOB  16 AUG 71 Training Drills Modernized



part 4



28. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA

29. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA Addition 

30. HCOB  15 FEB 72 False TA Addition 2

31. HCOB  18 FEB 72 False TA Addition 3

32. HCOB  29 FEB 72R rev 23 NOV 73 False TA Checklist

33. HCOB  23 NOV 73 Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA

34. HCOB  21 OCT 68 Floating Needle

35. HCOB  11 FEB 66 Free Needles, How To Get Them On a PC

36. HCOB  21 SEP 66 ARC Break Needle

37. HCOB  20 FEB 70 Floating Needles and End Phenomena

38. HCOB   8 OCT 70 C/S Ser 20 Persistent F/N

39. HCOB  21 MAR 74 End Phenomena

40. HCOB  14 MAR 71R r. 25 JUL 73 F/N Everything

41. HCOB  14 OCT 68 Meter Position

42. BTB   14 JAN 63 Rings Causing "Rock Slams"

43. HCOB  18 MAR 74 E-Meter Sensitivity Errors

44. BTB   16 JUN 71R r. 22 JUL 74 Advanced E-Meter Drills

45. HCOB  11 MAY 69 Meter Trim Check

46. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 11 Metering

47. HCOB  10 DEC 65 E-Meter Drill Coaching



part 5



48. HCOB   7 APR 64 Q And A

49. HCOB   3 AUG 65 Auditing Goofs Blowdown Interruption

50. HCOB   5 FEB 66 Letting The PC Itsa

51. HCOB   7 MAY 69 The Five GAEs

52. HCOB  17 MAY 69 TRs and Dirty Needles

53. BTB    4 JUL 69 r. 6 JUL 74 Auditing of OT 3 Preclears

54. BTB   17 JUL 69 r. 28 JUN 74 Flagrant Auditing Errors

55. HCOB  29 JUL 64 Good Indicators At Lower Levels

56. BTB   26 APR 69 r. 7 JUL 64 Bad Indicators

57. HCOPL  4 APR 72 rev. 7 APR 72 Ethics And Study Tech

58. HCOB  14 NOV 65 Clearing Commands

59. BTB    2 MAY 72R r. 10 JUN 74 Clearing Commands

60. BTB   18 NOV 68R r. 9 JUN 74 Model Session

61. HCOB  12 AUG 69 Flying Ruds

62. HCOB  23 AUG 71 (24 May 70 rev) Auditors Rights

63. HCOB   6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing



part 6



64. HCOB  30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle

65. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 2R The Two Parts Of Auditing

66. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 3 Three Important Comm Lines

67. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 4R Comm Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle

68. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 5R The Comm Cycles In Auditing



part 7



69. HCOB  12 JAN 59 Tone of Voice - Acknowledgement

70. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 6 Auditor Failure To Understand

71. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 7 Premature Acknowledgements

72. HCOPL  1 JUL 65 Comm Cycle Additives

73. HCOB  29 SEP 65 Cyclical and Non-Cyclical Processes

74. HCOB  17 MAR 74 TWC, Using Wrong Questions

75. BOOK  Dianetics 55 Chapter 12 The 6 Basic Processes



part 8



76. HCOB  16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference



part 9



77. HCOB  20 OCT 59 An Experimental Process

78. HCOB  16 FEB 59 HGC Processes for those trained in Engram Running

79. HCOB   8 APR 58 A Pair Of Processes

80. HCOB   9 MAR 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, Step Two

81. HCOB  20 APR 60 Processes

82. HCOB  27 SEP 68 ARC Straight Wire

83. BTB    9 OCT 71RA r. 28 JUN 74 ARC Straightwire Drills

84. BTB   15 NOV 76 ARC Straightwire Quads

85. BOOK  Creation of Human Ability R2-31

86. PAB    8 JUL 55 PAB 56 Axiom 51 and Comm Processing



part 10



87. PAB   18 JUN 55 PAB 54 Reality Level of Preclear

88. HCOB  17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions

89. HCOB   4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process

90. HCOB   2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command

91. HCOB  25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit

92. HCOB  21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes

93. BOOK   Creation of Human Ability R2-60

94. HCOB  13 OCT 59 D.E.I. Expanded Scale

95. HCOB   7 MAY 59 New Process Theory

96. BOOK   Scn 8-8008 6 Levels of Processing Issue 5

97. HCOB  11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes

98. HCOB  26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded



part 11



99. BTB    9 OCT 71RA r. 29 JUL 74 Level 0 Drills

100. BTB  15 NOV 76 Grade Zero Processes - Quads



********



48. HCOB   7 APR 64 Q And A





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1964



CenOCon





ALL LEVELS



Q AND A





A great number of auditors Q and A.



This is because they have not understood what it is.



Nearly all their auditing failures stem not from using

wrong processes but from Q and A.



Accordingly I have looked the matter over and re-defined Q and A.



The origin of the term comes from "changing when the pc

changes". The basic answer to a question is, obviously, a

question if one follows the duplication of the Comm formula

completely. See Philadelphia Congress 1953 tapes where this

was covered very fully. A later definition was "Questioning

the pc's Answer". Another effort to overcome it and explain

Q & A was the Anti-Q and A drill. But none of these reached

home.



The new definition is this:



Q AND A IS A FAILURE TO COMPLETE A CYCLE OF ACTION ON A PRECLEAR.



A CYCLE OF ACTION IS REDEFINED AS START—CONTINUE—COMPLETE.



Thus an auditing comm cycle is a cycle of action. It starts

with the auditor asking a question the preclear can

understand, getting the preclear to answer it and

acknowledging that answer.



A process cycle is selecting a process to be run on the

preclear, running the Tone Arm action into it (if

necessary) and running the Tone Arm action out of it.



A programme cycle is selecting an action to be performed,

performing that action and completing it.



Thus you can see that an auditor who interrupts or changes

an auditing comm cycle before it is complete is "Q and

A-ing". This could be done by violating or preventing or

not doing any part of the auditing cycle, i.e., ask the pc

a question, get an answer to a different idea, ask the

different idea, thus abandoning the original question.



An auditor who starts a process, just gets it going, gets a

new idea because of pc cognition, takes up the cognition

and abandons the original process is Q and A-ing.



A programme such as "Prepcheck this pc's family" is begun,

and for any reason left incomplete to go chasing some new

idea to Prepcheck, is a Q and A.



Unfinished cycles of action are all that louse up cases.



Since Time is a continuum, a failure to carry out a cycle

of action (a continuum) hangs the pc up at that exact point.



If you don't believe it, prepcheck "Incomplete actions" on

a pc! What Incomplete action has been suppressed? etc,

cleaning the meter for real on every button. And you'd have

a clear—or a pc that would behave that way on a meter.



Understand this and you'll be about ninety times as

effective as an auditor.



"Don't Q and A!" means "Don't leave cycles of action

incomplete on a pc." The gains you hope to achieve on a pc

are lost when you Q and A.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:dr.rd.cden 

Copyright c 1964

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



49. HCOB   3 AUG 65 Auditing Goofs Blowdown Interruption





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 3 AUGUST 1965



Remimeo

All Students

All Staff





AUDITING GOOFS



BLOWDOWN INTERRUPTION





It is a serious goof for the auditor to speak or move

during a blowdown of the Tone Arm.



When a Tone Arm has to be moved rapidly down, the needle

appears to float to some but it is just falling.



To see if a needle is floating the TA must have stopped

moving down.



A Blowdown is a period of relief and cognition to a pc

while it is occurring and for a moment after it stops.



Therefore it is a serious goof for an auditor to speak or

move during the blowdown or for a moment afterwards.



This was noted years ago and is given in early materials on goals.



AN AUDITOR MUST NOT SPEAK OR MOVE DURING A BLOWDOWN.



When the auditor has to move the TA from right to left to

keep the needle on the dial and the movement is .I

divisions or more then a blowdown is occurring. The needle

of course is falling to the right.



That is a period of charge blowing off the bank. It is

accompanied by realizations for the pc. Sometimes the pc

does not voice them aloud. They nevertheless happen.



If the auditor speaks or moves beyond adjusting the TA

quietly with his thumb the pc may suppress the cognitions

and stop the blowdown.



To see if a needle floats the TA must be halted for the

moment between 2 and 3 on a calibrated meter. A floating

needle cannot be observed during a blowdown.



For an auditor to sit up suddenly and look surprised or

pleased, or for an auditor to say the next command or

"That's It" during a blowdown, can jolly well wreck a pc's

case. So it's a real goof to do so.



To get auditing results one must audit with a good comm

cycle, accept the pc's answers, handle the pc's

originations, be unobtrusive with his auditing actions, not

hold the pc up while he writes, not develop tricks like

waiting for the pc to look at him before giving the next

command, not prematurely ack and so start compulsive Itsa,

and be very quiet during and just after a blowdown.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:ml.cden 

Copyright c 1965

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



50. HCOB   5 FEB 66 Letting The PC Itsa





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1966

Issue II



Remimeo

Franchise

LEVEL 0





"LETTING THE PC ITSA"



THE PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR





The most painful thing I ever hope to see is an auditor

"letting a pc Itsa".



I have seen auditors let a pc talk and talk and talk and

talk and run down and talk and run down and talk again

until one wondered where if anywhere that auditor had been

trained.



In the first place such an auditor could not know the

meaning of the word ITSA.



The word means "It is a ........"



Now how an auditor letting a pc talk believes he is getting

a pc to spot what IT is is quite beyond me.



This pc has been talking all his life. He isn't well.

Analysts had people talk for five years and they seldom got

well.



So how is it supposed to happen today that a pc, let talk

enough, will get well.



It won't.



The auditor does not know the very basics of auditing

skills. That's all. These are the TRs.



An auditor who can't do his TRs can't audit. Period.



Instead he says he is "letting the pc Itsa".



If by this he means he is letting the pc drive all over the

road and in both ditches, then this isn't auditing.



In auditing an auditor guides. He gives the pc something to

answer. When the pc answers the pc has said "IT IS A

....." and that's Itsa.



If the pc answers and the auditor acknowledges too soon the

pc tends to go into an anxiety—he has been chopped. So he

talks more than he wanted.



If the pc answers and the auditor does not acknowledge,

then the pc talks on and on, hoping for an acknowledgement

that doesn't come, "runs dry", tries again, etc.



So premature or late-or-never acks result in the same

thing—the pc running on and on and on.



And they call it "letting the pc Itsa". Bah! If a pc talks

too much in session he either is getting cut off too fast

by the auditor or hasn't got an auditor at all. It isn't

"Itsa". It's lousy TRs. (The one single exception is the pc who 

had years in analysis but even he begins to get better with 

proper TRs used on him.)



The proper cure is to drill the auditor until the auditor realizes:



1. The auditor asks the questions.



2. The pc says what is the answer, "It's a ......."



3. The auditor acks when the pc has said it to the pc's

satisfaction and 4. The auditor acks when the pc has

finished saying "It's a ......."



And that's Itsa.



Scientology auditing is a precision skill, not a gag blop

goo slup guck blah.



1. The auditor wants to know ........



2. The pc says it is ........



1.2.1.2.1.2. etc.





TECH SAVVY



Now an auditor who doesn't know his technology about the

mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask.

So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the

pc will say something that makes the pc feel better.



A sure sign that an auditor doesn't know an engram from a

cow about processes is seeing a pc "Itsa" on and on and on.



In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being

is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it.



We aren't psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street

witch doctors. We do know The data about beings and life is

there in Scientology to be learned.



It isn't "our idea" of how things are, or "our opinion of" ....



Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like

geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren't similar because

Euclid said so. They're similar because they are. If you

don't believe it, look at them.



There isn't a single datum in Scientology that can't be

proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans.



Now if we get a person fresh out of the study of "the

mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah" he's going to have

trouble. His pcs are going to "Itsa" their heads off and

never get well or better or anything. Because that person

doesn't know Scientology but thinks it's all imprecise opinion.



The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the

mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn't know

that, one's pcs "Itsa" by the hour for one doesn't know

what he is handling that he is calling "a pc".



By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or

her pcs DON'T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing

question and happily now and then originate.



So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have

trained one at last, is DO HIS PCS ANSWER UP OR DO THEY

TALK ON AND ON.



If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped

and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there

like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the

following to that "auditor":



1. Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.



2. Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.



3. Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and

Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and

blown.



4. A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until

the "auditor" could DO THEM IN CLAY.



5. A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms

of Dianetics and Scientology.



6. TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears.



7. TRs 5 to 9.



8. Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.



9. A hard long study of the Meter.



10. The ARC triangle and other scales.



11. The Processes of Level 0.



12. Some wins.



And I'd have an auditor. I'd have one that could make a

Grade Zero Release every time.



And it's lack of the above that causes an "auditor" to say

"I let the pc Itsa" with the pc talking on and on and on.



Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite

subject of Philosophy into a precision tool.



And pcs get well and go Release when it is applied.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH: ml.rd

Copyright c 1966

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[Ed Note: The 1974 pack contains the above HCOB

"Reissued 23 MAY 71 verbatim as Basic Auditing Series 8"

with slightly different distribution and initials

but no difference in text.]



********



51. HCOB   7 MAY 69 The Five GAEs





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1969

Issue IV



Dianetic Course



(HCO BULLETIN 21 SEPT 1965 EDITED

FOR USE ON THE DIANETIC COURSE)





THE FIVE GAEs



The five Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs) are:



1. Can't handle and read an E-Meter.



2. Doesn't know and can't apply Technical data.



3. Can't get and keep a pc in session.



4. Can't complete an auditing cycle.



5. Can't complete a repetitive auditing cycle.





These are the only errors one looks for in straightening up

the auditing of an Auditor.



If you look for other reasons, this is itself a gross goof.

There are no others.





LRH:cs.rd L. RON HUBBARD

Copyright c 1969 Founder

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



52. HCOB  17 MAY 69 TRs and Dirty Needles





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MAY 1969



Remimeo

Dn Checksheets





TRS AND DIRTY NEEDLES



When a student's pc develops a dirty needle (dn) it is

caused by one of three things.



1. The student's TRs are bad.



2. The student is breaking the Auditor's Code.



3. The pc has withholds (w/hs) he does not wish known.



The remedy for TRs is to have the student do them in clay,

showing the lines and actions of each TR. And to do more

TRs with a fellow student.



The remedy for Code Breaks is to have the student define

and do Invalidation and Evaluation in clay. And to list

examples of possible upsets caused by each line of the Code.



The remedy for the pc with withholds is to send to a

Scientology Review Auditor as Scientology can handle

outnesses which occur in Dianetic sessions.



It is a safe rule in any event when a "dirty needle" occurs

to send the preclear to a Scientology Review Auditor.



It is also a safe rule to assume that the student whose pcs

get dirty needles is deficient on TRs and the Auditor's Code.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:an.rd 

copyright c 1969 Founder

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



53. BTB    4 JUL 69 r. 6 JUL 74 Auditing of OT 3 Preclears





B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N



4 JULY 1969

REISSUED 6 JULY 1974 AS BTB



Remimeo

Tech Sec 

Qual Sec 

Dianetics Course

Auditors



AUDITING OF OT III PRECLEARS



PRECLEARS WHO HAVE STUDIED OR RUN THE OT III MATERIALS MAY

ONLY BE AUDITED BY AUDITORS WHO ARE OT III OR ABOVE.



This applies to Dianetics and Scientology auditing.



You can wreck a non- OT III Dianetic Auditor by assigning

him or her to a PC who has run the OT III materials. SO

DON'T DO IT.



Any auditor who is not OT III who is assigned to a PC who

has studied or audited OT III must refuse to audit that PC.



This rule is invariable. Don't violate it.



ONLY AUDITORS WHO ARE OT III OR ABOVE MAY AUDIT PRECLEARS WHO

HAVE STUDIED OR RUN THE OT III MATERIALS.



Revised by

Training & Services Aide



Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD

FOUNDER



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:LRH:RS:rs 

Copyright c 1971, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



[Ed. Note: The 1974 pack has the above BTB but at the top it

includes an additional heading as follows: "CANCELS HCO BULLETIN 

OF 4 JULY 1969 SAME TITLE".  Also, the signature is different

as follows:



Lt. Comdr. Brian Livingston



Reissued as BTB

by Flag Mission 1234

IC: CPO Andrea Lewis

2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:SW:AL:MH:BL:mh 

Copyright c 1969, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



********



54. BTB   17 JUL 69 r. 28 JUN 74 Flagrant Auditing Errors





B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N



17 JULY 1969 R

ISSUE II

REVISED & REISSUED 28 JUNE 1974 AS BTB

(REVISION IN ITALICS)



Remimeo 

DN Course

Class VIII 

Academies 

All Auditors 



CANCELS

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1969

ISSUE II

SAME TITLE





FLAGRANT AUDITING ERRORS



The following auditing errors were discovered by asking the

PC what was done in their sessions after the sessions had

mysteriously failed without any reason apparent in the

Auditor Report sheets. Each one of these is a flagrant

departure from standard auditing and is adequate to stop

all PC gain for the session and to leave the PC stuck down

the track and heavily keyed in.



These are just given as samples of outnesses to show what

you will find by asking the PC and to show what can cause a

Dianetic session to have a poor result. These instances and

others actually occurred in sessions and the sessions

failed. There was no mention of them in the report form,

Summary or Worksheets and only asking the PC brought them

to light." L.R.H



1. Auditor not remembering one or more of the commands.



2. Auditor delaying the PC while thinking of the next command.



3. Auditor failure to give the next command.



4. Giving wrong or altered commands.



5. Incorrect procedure.



6. Invalidating the PC's cognitions.



7. Not recognizing that the PC has gone through the

incident and just waiting or saying "OK continue" when the

PC had said that was all.



8. Auditor during session looking up something he (the

Auditor) didn't understand that the PC said.



9. Auditing PC in circumstances where the PC is expecting

he may be disturbed at some time later in the session.



10. Auditor walking out of auditing room leaving PC folder

in room with PC.



11. Continuing to audit on a chain that the PC insists is

erased usually because Auditor missed the F/N.



12. Not acknowledging PC originations.



13. Telling PC to close eyes when PC already has eyes closed.



14. Keeping PC waiting after PC has carried out command.



15. Telling PC to wipe her hands on her dress during

session (Auditor attempt to change TA position by session

additive ) .



16. Auditor running out of ink and having to borrow a pen

from the PC during session.



17. Forcing PC to continue looking for earlier incidents

when the PC can't find any.



18. Auditor talking too quietly for PC to hear (out TR 1).



19. Auditor ignoring PC originations (out TR 4).



20. Continuing to ‘audit' when Auditor doesn't know what

should be done next.



21. Auditor staring at meter for long time looking for F/N

(can turn off a real F/N and bring on an ARC break needle) .



22 . Auditing with a contemptuous, synthetic, too sweet ,

motherly, or any attitude that is a departure from a

pleasant business-like attitude.



23. Auditor talking to PC about Auditor's own case in session.



24. Auditor discussing other PCs with current PC in session.



25. Bullbaiting PC when doing C/S 1.



26. Auditor and/or PC smoking or chewing during session.



27. Auditor doing or saying anything during session other

than assessment and exact R3R procedure.



28. Auditor talking to PC after session about something the

PC ran during the session.



29. Auditing with a discharged meter.



30. Auditing with legs up on table or some other improper posture.



31. Auditor commenting on the PC's cognitions.



32. Auditor continuing to grind on the same incident when

there's an earlier one.



33. Auditor keeping voluminous admin during which the PC

has to wait.



These are just a few examples. There is an infinity of

wrongnesses possible. Every session additive is a departure

from TR 0 - 4 and a violation of the Auditor's Code and a

gross goof.



"The Auditor did not do these things maliciously. He was

unaware of these AS goofs and that the session didn't come

off seemed to him to be a complete mystery, the failed

sessions were also a mystery to the Case Supervisor who

also thought Tech had failed until he had others ask the PC

what happened in that session.



"Needless to say, the auditors who goofed as above were

extensively audited and retrained using TRs 101, 102, 103

and 104." L.R.H



Revised by

Training & Services Aide



Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD

FOUNDER



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:LRH:RS:rs 

Copyright c 1971, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



[Ed Note: The italics indicating the revision are only used

on the two occurances of LRH in the text, identifying the

two LRH quotes.  The 1974 pack has a different signature on

this BTB as follows:



Lt. Comdr. Brian Livingston



Reissued as BTB

by Flag Mission 1234

IC: CPO Andrea Lewis

2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:SW:AL:MH:BL:mh 

Copyright c 1969, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



********



55. HCOB  29 JUL 64 Good Indicators At Lower Levels





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1964



Remimeo

Franchise

Sthil





SCIENTOLOGY I to IV



GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS





The following list of good indicators was compiled from my

lecture tapes by John Galusha. An additional three are

added at the end.



Lower Level Good Indicators.



1. Pc cheerful or getting more cheerful.



2. Pc cogniting.



3. Fundamental rightnesses of pcs asserting themselves.



4. Pc giving things to auditor briefly and accurately.



5. Pc finding things rapidly.



6. Meter reading properly.



7. What's being done giving proper meter response.



8. What's being found giving proper meter response.



9. Pc running rapidly and flattening by TA or cognitions.



10. Pc giving auditor information easily.



11. Needle cleanly swinging about.



12. Pc running easily and if pc encounters somatics they

are discharging.



13. Tone Arm goes down when pc hits a cognition.



14. Further TA blowdown as pc continues to talk about something.



15. Expected meter behaviour and nothing unexpected in

meter behaviour.



16. Pc gets warm and stays warm in auditing or gets hot and

unheats while in auditing.



17. Pc has occasional somatics of brief duration.



18. Tone Arm operating in the range 2.25 to 3.5.



19. Good TA action on spotting things.



20. Meter reading well on what pc and auditor think is wrong.



21. Pc not much troubled with PTPs and they are easily

handled when they occur.



22. Pc stays certain of the auditing solution.



23. Pc happy and satisfied with auditor regardless of what

auditor is doing.



24. Pc not protesting auditor's actions.



25. Pc looking better by reason of auditing.



26. Pc feeling more energetic.



27. Pc without pains, aches or illnesses developing during

auditing. Does not mean pc shouldn't have somatics. Means

pc shouldn't get sick.



28. Pc wanting more auditing.



29. Pc confident and getting more confident.



30. Pc's Itsa free but only covers subject.



31. Auditor easily seeing how it was or is on pc's case by

reason of pc's explanations.



32. Pc's ability to Itsa and confront improving.



33. Pc's bank getting straightened out.



34. Pc comfortable in the auditing environment.



35. Pc appearing for auditing on his own volition.



36. Pc on time for session and willing and ready to be

audited but without anxiety about it.



37. Pc's trouble in life progressively lessening.



38. Pc's attention becoming freer and more under pc's control.



39. Pc getting more interested in data and technology of

Scientology.



40. Pc's havingness in life and livingness improving.



41. Pc's environment becoming more easily handled.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:nb.rd 

Copyright c 1964

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



56. BTB   26 APR 69 r. 7 JUL 64 Bad Indicators





B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N



26 APRIL 1969

REISSUED 7 JULY 1974 AS BTB



Remimeo

DN Course

Auditors



CANCELS

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1969

SAME TITLE



BAD INDICATORS



1. PC not wanting to be audited.



2. PC protesting auditing.



3. PC looking worse after auditing.



4. PC not able to locate incidents easily.



5. PC "not having time for auditing".



6. PC less certain.



7. PC not doing well in life.



8. Somatics not blowing or erasing.



9. PC in Ethics trouble after auditing.



10. PC protesting Auditor actions.



11. PC wandering all over track.



12. PC misemotional at session end.



13. PC demanding unusual solutions.



14. Skin tone dull.



15. Eyes dull.



16. PC trying to self audit in or out of session.



17. PC continuing to complain of old somatics after they

have been run.



18. PC dependence on medical treatment not lessening.



19. PC using, or continuing to use, other treatments.



20. PC lethargic.



21. PC not becoming more cheerful.



22. PC wanting special auditing.



23. No TA action on running incidents.



24. PC not cogniting.



25. PC dispersed.



26. PC trying to explain condition to Auditor or others.



27. PC bored with auditing.



28. PC not available for sessions.



29. PC tired.



30. PC attention on Auditor.



31. PC not wanting to run the process or incident



32. PC overwhelmed.



33. PC taking drugs or excessive alcohol.



34. PC not sure that auditing works for him.



35. PC continuing former praetices.



36. PC not handling environment more easily.



37. PC sick between sessions.



38. PC not going on to next grade or level.



Revised by

Training & Services Aide



Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD

FOUNDER



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:LRH:RS:rs 

Copyright c 1971, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



[Ed Note: The 1974 version has a different signature as follows:



CS-5



Reissued as BTB

by Flag Mission 1234

IC: CPO Andrea Lewis

2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:SW:AL:MH:BL:mh 

Copyright c 1969, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 





********



57. HCOPL  4 APR 72 rev. 7 APR 72 Ethics And Study Tech



[Ed. Note: The 1976 pack has the following HCOPL including

all the 7 APR 72 revisions but it does not say that it is

revised or indicate what the revisions were.  The 1974 pack

has the following with the addition of "Revised 7 APR 72

(Cancels the original unrevised issue) revisions in this

type style".  In that version the revisions are shown in

italics and they are extensive.  We have marked these

by enclosing them in < >.]





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 APRIL 1972

Issue III



Remimeo

Student Hat

Staff Hats 





IMPORTANT



ETHICS AND STUDY TECH





<The basic WHY of the majority of cases of post

non-performance of a staff member and OUT TECH in an org

stems from Misunderstood words.>



The primary point that has to be gotten in is Study Tech.



<This is also our bridge to society.>



Yet Study Tech is the Tech that includes misunderstood word tech.



Thus if Study Tech is not in, people on staffs see nothing

wrong with hearing or reading orders containing words they

do not understand and have no urge to look them up. Further

they often feel they do know words that they in fact do not

know.



When this situation exists it is next to impossible to get

Study Tech and Word Clearing Tech in. For, the orders

seeking to get in Study Tech may contain words the person

does not understand. Thus he doesn't really comply with the

orders and Study Tech does not get in.



Thus the ability to hear or read and understand continues

to be missing.



Therefore these Ethics actions become part of Standard Ethics.



1. A PERSON MAY BE SUMMONED TO A COURT OF ETHICS OR

EXECUTIVE COURT OF ETHICS IF IT BE FOUND THAT HE HAS GONE PAST A

WORD HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHEN RECEIVING, <HEARING> OR

READING AN ORDER, HCO B, POLICY LETTER OR TAPE <WHICH RESULTED

IN A FAILURE TO DO DUTIES OF HIS POST WITHOUT HIS AT ONCE MAKING

AN EFFECTIVE EFFORT TO CLEAR THE WORDS ON HIMSELF, WHETHER HE

KNEW HE WAS MISSING THEM OR NOT AS THE SOURCE OF HIS INACTION

OR DAMAGING ACTIONS.>



The charge is NEGLECTING TO CLARIFY WORDS NOT UNDERSTOOD.





2. A STAFF MEMBER WHO DOES NOT USE STUDY TECH OR GET IT KNOWN

WHILE STUDYING OR INSTRUCTING MAY BE SUMMONED TO A COURT OF

ETHICS OR AN EXECUTIVE COURT OF ETHICS.



The charge is FAILURE TO EMPLOY STUDY TECH.





3. A STUDENT ALTER-ISING OR MISADVISING OTHERS ON THE USE OF

STUDY TECH MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF ETHICS.



The charge is ADVOCATING A MISUSE OR NEGLECT OF PROPER STUDY

TECH.





4. AN AUDITOR FAILING TO CLEAR EACH AND EVERY WORD OF EVERY

COMMAND OR LIST USED MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF

ETHICS.



The charge is OUT TECH.





< 

5. ANY PUBLIC DIVISION PERSON, STAFF MEMBER OR SCIENTOLOGIST

FOUND USING TERMS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR DATA ON RAW PUBLIC IN

PUBLIC LECTURES OR PROMOTION OR IN PR BEYOND THE PUBLIC ABILITY

TO GRASP WITHOUT STRESSING STUDY TECH OR AT ONCE TAKING

EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO CLARIFY OR RELEASING MATERIALS BROADLY

TO A WRONG PUBLIC MAY BE SUMMONED TO A COURT OF ETHICS IF ANY

FLAP OR UPSET RESULTS.



The charge is FAILURE TO APPLY STUDY TECH IN DISSEMINATION.

>





SUPPRESSIVE



Furthermore, <as Study Tech is our primary bridge to Society

and the basic prevention of out Tech and out Admin,> if any

offence as above found guilty in a Court of Ethics is

REPEATED <and the person has had two such Courts on this

offence> the person may be summoned before a Committee of

Evidence on a charge of COMMITTING AN ACT OR OMISSION

UNDERTAKEN TO KNOWINGLY SUPPRESS, REDUCE OR IMPEDE

SCIENTOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGISTS and if found guilty beyond

reasonable doubt may be declared a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON and

expelled with full penalties.





AXIOM 28



Failures to teach, or use Study Tech or alterations of

Study Tech are actually offences against AXIOM 28 <as it is

applied internally in an org on Admin and Tech and from the

org to society.>



Study Tech including its technology of word cleaning is in

fact the technology of Axiom 28.



The Axiom <(amended)> follows:



AXIOM 28. COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF

IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A

DISTANCE TO RECEIPT-POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO

BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION <AND UNDERSTANDING>

OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE-POINT.



The formula of Communication is Cause, Distance, Effect,

<with Intention,> Attention and Duplication <WITH UNDERSTANDING>.



The component parts of Communication are Consideration,

Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance,

Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, <Understanding>, the

Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or

Somethingness. A non-communication consists of Barriers.

Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls

and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A

communication by definition, does not need to be two-way.

When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated,

with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the

former source-point now becoming a receipt point.



L. RON HUBBARD

Founder



LRH:jk 

Copyright c 1972 

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[Ed. Note: the initials line on the version in the 1974

pack is LRH:mes.nt.bh]



********



58. HCOB  14 NOV 65 Clearing Commands





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 14 NOVEMBER 1965



Remimeo

Students



CLEARING COMMANDS



Always have a dictionary in the auditing room with you.

When running a process newly or whenever the preclear is

confused about the meaning of the commands, clear the

commands with the preclear, using the dictionary, if necessary.



It could take a long time to clear the command. The worse

off the pc, the longer it takes.



Example:



Auditor is going to run 0-0 on the pc. Auditor reads the

commands one at a time to the pc and asks the pc "What does

this command mean to you?" From the pc's answer the auditor

realizes that the pc has a confusion on the words "willing"

and "talk". He tells the pc to look them up in a

dictionary. The pc now understands "talk", but still seems

slightly puzzled about "willing". Now the auditor could

tell the pc to use the word "willing" in a few sentences.

When the pc understands it, the auditor again gets the pc

to tell him what the whole command means to him.



If necessary, the auditor could get the pc to define each

word of the command to be used.



UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE AUDITOR TO EVALUATE FOR THE PC

AND TELL HIM WHAT THE WORD OR COMMAND MEANS.



The worst fault is the pc using a new set of words in place

of the actual word and answering the alter-ised word, not

the word itself, (see HCOB 10 March 1965, "Words,

Misunderstood Goofs").



L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:ml.cden 

Copyright c 1965

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



59. BTB   2 MAY 72R r. 10 JUN 74 Clearing Commands





B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N



2 MAY 1972 R

REVISED & REISSUED 10 JUNE 1974 AS BTB



Remimeo

All auditors



CANCELS

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1972

SAME TITLE





CLEARING COMMANDS



(Amends HCO B 14 Nov 65 "Clearing Commands" and

HCO B 9 Nov 68 "Clearing Commands All Levels")



Ref: HCO PL 4 April 1972, Revised 7 April 72 "Ethics and

Study Tech".





The rules of clearing commands are:



1. Always have a good dictionary in the auditing room. Have

a copy of the Scientology Dictionary and any other

materials necessary to define Scientology terms.



If the PC's native language is not English, have a dual

dictionary for that language and English. A simple grammar

book may also be required. For a foreign language case one

should also have a dictionary of the foreign language itself.



Eg. English "apple" - looks in English/French, finds

"pomme" - looks in French dictionary to define "pomme". So

for the foreign language case 2 dictionaries are needed -

(1) English - to foreign language, (2) foreign language itself.



2. Clear the commands (or questions or list items) by first

clearing in turn each word in backwards sequence of the

words in the command. (Eg. if command is "Do fish swim?"

clear "swim" then "fish" then "do"). This prevents the PC

starting to run the process by himself while you are still

clearing the words.



3. What a word reads when clearing an assessment or listing

question does not mean that the question has read.

Misunderstood words read on the meter.



4. F/Ns obtained on clearing the,words does not mean the

process has been run.



5. Next, clear the command itself. Auditor asks the PCs

"What does this command mean to you?" LRH. If it is evident

from the PC's answer that he has misunderstood a word as it

is used in the context of the commands.



a. reclear the obvious word (or words) with the dictionary.



b. have him use each word in a sentence until he has it.

(Clear all definitions of a misunderstood word.)



c. reclear the command.



d. If necessary, repeat steps 2 & 3 to make sure he

understands the command.



e. "Under no circumstances is the auditor to evaluate for

the PC and tell him what the word or command means." LRH



6. You clear the first command (or bracket) that you are

going to run, then run it. Then clear the second command

(or bracket) and run it etc. Don't clear more than one

command (or bracket) at a time.



7. When,clearing the command, watch the meter and note any

read on the command (per HCO B 28 Feb ‘71 C/S Series 24

"Metering Reading Items")



8. Have the PC on the cans throughout the clearing of the

words and commands - except when the PC is doing demos as

needed. The Auditor holds the dictionary ,for the PC.



9. As it is difficult to clear all the words of a

correction list on a PC over heavy by-passed charge, it is

standard to clear the words of an L1C and Ruds - very early

in auditing and to clear an L4BRA before commencing listing

processes or an L3RF before running R3R. When the need for

those correction lists arises one does not then need to

clear all the words as it has already been done, thus such

corrective lists can be used when needed without delay.



"ARC breaks and lists should be word cleared before a PC

gets into them and should be tagged in a folder, on, a

yellow sheet as cleared." LRH



It is also standard to clear the words of the Word Clearing

correction list early in auditing and before other

correction lists are cleared. This way, if the PC bogs on

subsequent word clearing, you have your Word Clearing

Correction list ready to use.



10. However, if, for example, your PC is sitting in the

middle of an ARC Break (or other heavy charge) and the

words of the L1C (or other correction list) have not been

cleared yet, you go ahead and assess the list to handle the

charge. "Don't clear first. Just verify by asking

afterwards if he had any misunderstoods on the

list...(otherwise it's auditing after an ARC Break)." LRH



All the words of the L1C (or other correction list) would

then be cleared thoroughly at the first opportunity - per

your C/S's instruction.



11. Do not re-clear all the words of assessment lists each

time the list is used on the same PC.



Do it once, fully and properly the first time and note

clearly in the folder, on a yellow sheet for future

reference, which of the standard assessment lists have been

cleared.



12. These rules apply to all processes, listing questions

and assessments.



13. The words of the platens of Advanced Course materials

are not so cleared.



Any violation of full and correct clearing of commands or

assessment questions, whether done in a formal session or

not, is an ethics offence per HCO PL 4 April 1972 (revised

7 April 72) "Ethics and Study Tech" section 4, which states:



"ANY AUDITOR FAILING TO CLEAR EACH AND EVERY WORD OF EVERY

COMMAND OR LIST USED MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF ETHICS.



The charge is OUT-TECH." LRH



Training & Services Aide



Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD

FOUNDER



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:LRH:RS:rs 

Copyright c 1971, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



[Ed Note: The 1974 pack has the following signature line:



Training & Services Aide



Reissued as BTB

by Flag Mission 1234

IC: CPO Andrea Lewis

2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:SW:AL:MH:BL:mh 

Copyright c 1972, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 





********



60. BTB   18 NOV 68R r. 9 JUN 74 Model Session





B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N



18 November 1968R

REVISED & REISSUED 9 JUNE 1974 AS BTB



Remimeo 

All Auditors



CANCELS

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 NOVEMBER 1968

SAME TITLE





MODEL SESSION



(Note: If a Dianetic - Level II Auditor is not trained in

flying Rudiments, he would have to get a Level III (or

above) Auditor to fly the PC's Ruds before starting the

Major action of the session.)



The first thing the Auditor does is to make sure the room

and session are set up. This means, in other words, that

the room is as comfortable as possible and free from

interruptions and distractions, that the Auditor's meter is

set up and that the auditor's report form and work sheets

are ready, that any correction lists, forms, or references

that might be needed are at hand.



The PC is seated in the chair further from the door and is

asked to pick up the cans (from now until the session ends

the PC stays on the cans).



The Auditor says: "This is the session". (Tone 40).



If the needle is floating and the PC has VGIs, the Auditor

goes directly into the major action of the session. If not,

the Auditor must fly a Rud.



The first Rudiment question is:



"Do you have an ARC Break?"



"If there is an ARC Break you get it, use ARCU and CDEINR,

indicate, then if no F/N you follow it earlier, get ARCU

CDEINR, indicate, if no F/N you get an earlier one on and

on, always with ARCU CDINR until you get an F/N." LRH



The second Rudiment question is:



"Do you have a Present Time Problem?"



"If you get a PTP you follow it earlier earlier earlier

until you get an F/N. " LRH The third Rudiment question is:



"Has a Withold been missed?"



"If you get a withold you find out WHO missed it and what

he/she did to make the PC think he/she knew - or nearly

found out, then another and another using suppress." If

protest you put in False. You will find these W/Hs also

go earlier like any other chain but they don't have to." LRH



On any Rud "If it didn't read you check suppress.

If it read but is in any way protested you clean False" LRH





FALSE



"Has anyone said you had a . . . . . when you didn't have

one?" is the answer to protested Ruds.



If he can't get a Rud to fly, the Dianetic - Class III

Auditor ends session and sends the PC folder to the C/S .

Class III Auditors and above may do a Green Form.



When the PC has F/N, VGI's you can go into the major action

of the session.



The Auditor says: "Now we are going to handle . . . . "



The Auditor clears the commands per BTB 2 May 1972

"Clearing Commands" .



After completing C/S Instructions to EP, or when EP occurs

on the major action, the Dianetic auditor allows the PC to

finish what he was saying, gives the R-factor that he will

be ending the session, and then gives the PC a "That ‘s it

." ( Tone 40 ) .



For Auditors Class 0 and above, when the Auditor is ready

to end session, he gives the R-factor that he will be

ending the session.



Then he asks:



"Is there anything you would care to say or ask before I

end this session?" PC answers.



Auditor acks and notes down the answer.



If the PC asks a question, acknowledge and say:



"I will note that down for the C/S"



Then the Auditor gives a "That's it." (Tone 40). The data

that the C/S will get from this patter will help the C/S in

paralleling the mind.



Revised by

Training & Services Aide



Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD

FOUNDER



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:LRH:RS:rs 

Copyright c 1971, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



[Ed Note: The 1974 version has a different signature as follows:



CS-5



Reissued as BTB

by Flag Mission 1234

IC: CPO Andrea Lewis

2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:SW:MH:AL:PQ:mh 

Copyright c 1968, 1974 

by L. Ron Hubbard 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 





********



61. HCOB  12 AUG 69 Flying Ruds





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 15 AUGUST 1969



Remimeo

Class VIII Chksht

Case Supervisors

Class VIIIs





FLYING RUDS



To clarify how to fly ruds:



If a rud reads, you get the data and then ask for earlier

until you get an F/N.



If a rud doesn't read, put in Suppress and recheck. If it

gets any comment, natter or protest or bewilderment, put in

False and clean it.



To fly all ruds you ask for an ARC Brk, if no read, put in

Suppress. If it reads take it, do ARCU CDEI Earlier ARCU

CDEI Earlier until you get an F/N. Then do the same with PTP.



Then with MW/Hs.



If in starting a rud does not read or F/N even if Suppress

is put in go to the next rud until you get one that does

read. Follow it earlier to F/N.



Then F/N the 2 that didn't read.



INCORRECT



To get a rud reading with or without Suppress and then fail

to follow it earlier and to continue to call it and take

only reads is incorrect.



CORRECT



If a rud reads you always follow it earlier until it F/Ns.



You do NOT continue to test it with a meter and do NOT

leave it just because it fails to read again.



If a rud reads you clean it with earlier, earlier, earlier to F/N.



If a rud reads and the read is false you clean false.



There are TWO actions possible in flying ruds.



1. The rud is not out. If it didn't read you check

suppress. If it read but is in any way protested you clean

false.



2. The rud is out. You get the data, you follow it earlier

earlier until it F/Ns. You do not continue to check it for

reads.



GREEN FORM



This applies also to handling ruds on the Green Form.





ARC BREAK



If there is an ARC Break you get it, use ARCU and CDEI,

indicate, then if no F/N you follow it earlier, get ARCU

CDEI, indicate, if no F/N you get an earlier one on and on,

always with ARCU CDEI until you get an F/N.



PTP



If you get a PTP you follow it earlier earlier earlier

until you get an F/N.



MISSED WITHHOLD



If you get a withhold you find out WHO missed it, then

another and another using Suppress. If protest you put in

false. You will find these W/Hs also go earlier like any

other chain but they don't have to.



MIXING METHODS



If you get a rud read and the pc gives you one you don't

then check the read again. You get more until you get an F/N.



To get a rud answered and then check suppress and its read

is mixing 1 and 2 above.



FALSE



"Has anyone said you had a ......when you didn't have one?"

is the answer to protested ruds.



--------------



Any VIII should be able to fly any rud at will. The above

clarifies HCOB and Tape data on this subject.



L. RON HUBBARD

Founder



LRH: ldm.ei.rd

Copyright c 1969

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





********



62. BTB   11 APR 74 ARC Break Handling





B O A R D T E C H N I C A L B U L L E T I N



11 APRIL 1974



Remimeo 

Tech Checksheets

as applicable





ARC BREAK HANDLING



(Data from LRH C/S of 13 Feb 1972)



Here is some additional expertise on the ARC Break Rudiment

from an LRH C/S: 



"Auditor assesses ARC Brk incorrectly:



A sF /



R x x



C F x



U x x



(The Auditor) "is doing it by elimination, doing it twice

because of a possible instant read fault.



"You assess it once, ask the pc if it's right, if he says

no, rehandle. If yes, give it to him."



CDEINR follows the same rule.



"Assessing by elimination is done on double two item reads.



But a hot auditor does it on best largest instant read."



The auditor that knows his business does not miss the read

the pc will also brighten up, even if ever so slightly, on

the very first assessment. PROVIDED THE RIGHT ITEM HAS BEEN

GOTTEN.



Sometimes the pc will originate, "Yes I guess it was R, but

to me it really is more a break in communication," (for

example). The wise auditor then says "Thank you" and

indicate the "C."



Any goofing auditor should go to Cramming.



Reissued as BTB

by Flag Mission 1234

IC: CPO Andrea Lewis

2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU



for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS

of the

CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY



BDCS:SW:MH:AL:ama 





********



62. HCOB  23 AUG 71 (24 May 70 rev) Auditors Rights





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST 1971

(HCO B 24 May 1970 Revised)



     C/S Series 1



Remimeo

All Auditors

Acad Level IV 

Class VIIIs

HGCs

Class VIII Checksheet 

Class VI Checksheet

Class III Checksheet

C/S Course Checksheet

HSST 

Internes





AUDITOR'S RIGHTS





(Revised to update and delete the O/R List

and add Auditing Over Out Ruds.

All changes are in this type style. )





AUDITOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR C/Ses



An auditor who receives a Case Supervisor direction (C/S)

of what to audit on a pc is NOT discharged of his

responsibility as an auditor.



THE AUDITOR HAS A SERIES OF RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE PART OF

EVERY C/S HE GETS TO AUDIT.





ACCEPTING THE PC



No auditor is required to accept a specific pc just because

the pc is assigned to him.



If an auditor does not believe he can help that particular

pc or if he dislikes auditing that particular pc the

auditor has a right to refuse to audit that pc. The auditor

must state why.



The Case Supervisor, Director of Processing or Director of

Review, nor any of their seniors, may not discipline the

auditor for refusing to audit a particular pc.



An auditor who refuses to audit his quota of hours or

sessions is of course subject to action.



Thus refusing to audit a particular pc, so long as one is

not refusing to audit other pcs, is not actionable.



"I do not wish to audit this pc because______. I am willing

to audit other pcs," is the legal auditor statement in the

matter.



Some pcs get a bad name with some auditors, some don't

appreciate the auditing, some conflict with a particular

auditor's own personality. There are such instances. It

does not mean certain pcs cannot be helped by others.



It is also true that an auditor who dislikes a pc may not

do a good job so the rule also has a practical side to it.



One auditor disliked young men and did a bad job on them.

Another disliked old ladies and chopped them up in session.

One pc had messed up several Scientologists and couldn't

find anyone to audit him at all.



We are not auditing people to make amends to the world.



Thus an auditor has a right to reject or accept the pcs he

is given.





ACCEPTING A C/S



When the auditor gets a C/S to do on a case and if he

thinks it is not the correct thing to do he has the right

to reject the C/S for that pc and require another one he

can agree to.



The auditor does not have the right to start doing a C/S

and change it during the session except as noted below.



The auditor may NOT C/S in the auditing chair while

auditing the pc. If he has NO Case Supervisor at all the

auditor still audits from a C/S. He writes the C/S before

session and adheres to it in session. To do something else

and not follow the C/S is called ‘‘C/Sing in the chair''

and is very poor form as it leads to Q and A.





STALE DATED C/S



A C/S that is a week or two old or a Repair (Progress) Pgm

that is a month or two old is dynamite.



This is called a "Stale Dated Pgm'' or a ‘‘Stale Dated C/S"

meaning it is too old to be valid.



It should have been done sooner. The pc of last week when

the C/S was written may have been well and happily employed

but a week later may have headaches and reprimand from the

boss.



It is dangerous to accept a Repair (Progress) Pgm if it is old.



The auditor who sees his C/S is old and sees the pc has Bad

Indicators is justified in demanding a fresh C/S giving his

reasons why.



A program written in January may be completely out of date

in June. Who knows what may have happened in between.



Use fresh C/Ses and fresh Pgms.



Stale Dates only occur in poorly run backlogged Divisions

anyway. The real remedy is reorganize and hire more and

better auditors.





ENDING THE SESSION



When the C/S he has is proving unworkable during the

session, the auditor has a right to end the session and

send the folder to the C/S.



Ending the session is totally up to the auditor.



If the auditor just doesn't complete an action that was

producing TA and could be completed it is of course a

flunk. Such a case is just not running a basic engram the

one more time through that would bring the TA down and give

a proper end phenomena. This and similar actions would be

an auditor error.



The judgement here is whether or not the auditor's action

is justified in ending the session.



Even though he may have made an error, the auditor cannot

be blamed for the ending off of the session as that is

totally up to him. He can be given a flunk for the error

AUDITING OVER OUT RUDS



Auditing a pc on something else whose ruds are out is a

MAJOR AUDITING ERROR.



Even if the C/S omits "Fly a rud" or "Fly ruds" this does

not justify the auditor auditing the pc over out ruds.



The auditor can do one of two things: He can Fly all ruds

or he can return the folder and request ruds be flown.



The DIANETIC AUDITOR is not excused from auditing over out

ruds and in an HGC must be specially cautioned not to do so

but return the folder for a new C/S. Better still he should

learn to Fly ruds.





INABILITY TO FLY RUDS



If an auditor cannot get a rud to F/N, cannot get any rud

to F/N, he is justified in starting a Green Form.



The auditor solution to no F/N on ruds is to do a GF

whether the C/S said to or not.



This is an expected action.



It is understood the auditor would use Suppress and False

in trying to Fly ruds.





SESSIONS FAR APART



When a pc has not had a session for some time, or when a pc

gets sessions days apart, RUDS MUST BE FLOWN. Otherwise the

pc will get audited over out ruds. This can develop mental

mass.



Optimum session scheduling is a series of sessions or a

whole program done in a block of sessions close together.

This prevents the world from throwing the pc's ruds out

between sessions.



Giving sessions far apart barely keeps up with life. The

auditing time is absorbed in patching life up.



Rapid gain gets above life's annoyances and keeps the pc there.





UNREADING ITEMS



When an item the auditor has been told to run doesn't read

on the meter, even when the auditor puts in Suppress and

Invalidate on it, the auditor MUST NOT do anything with the

item no matter what the C/S said.



It is expected he will see if it reads and use Suppress and

Invalidate on it. And if it still doesn't read he will be

expected NOT to run it.





LISTS



When an auditor whose C/S told him to list "Who or

what______" or any list question finds that the list

question does not read, the auditor MUST NOT list it.



When doing a list ordered by the C/S it is assumed that the

auditor will test it for read before listing and that he

will NOT list an unreading question. (A read is an actual

fall, not a tick or a stop.)





LIST TROUBLE



When an auditor has trouble doing a list and getting an

item it is expected he will use a Prepared List like L4B to

locate the trouble and handle it.



As it is very hard on a pc to mess up a list it is expected

the auditor will handle the situation then and there with

no further C/S directions.





HIGH TA



When the auditor sees the TA is high at session start yet

the C/S says to "Fly a rud" or run a chain, the AUDITOR

MUST NOT TRY TO FLY A RUD and he must not start on a chain.



Trying to bring a TA down with ARC Brks or ruds is very

hard on a pc as ARC Breaks aren't the reason TAs go up.



Seeing a high TA at start the Dianetic auditor or Scn

auditor up to Class II does not start the session but sends

the folder back to the C/S and for a higher class auditor

to do.



Seeing a high TA at start the Scientology auditor (Class

III or above) (a) checks for exteriorization in a recent

session and if so the session is ended and the C/S is asked

for an "Interiorization Rundown"; (b) if the pc has had an

Interiorization Rundown the auditor asks the C/S for

permission to do a "C/S Series 53" or a Hi-Lo TA assessment

or whatever the C/S indicates. The Int RD may have been

(usually is) overrun and needs rehab or correction and it

is usual to check it—it is included in a "C/S 53" and a

Hi-Lo TA.



These actions are expected of the auditor even when not

stated in the C/S.





GOING ON HOPING



When a case is running badly session to session the LAST

thing you do is go on hoping, either in auditing or C/Sing.



"Let's try _____", "Then this", "Then this", is not going

to solve the case.



YOU GET DATA. You can get data by a White Form (Pc

Assessment Form). You can get data from a GF fully assessed

(Method 5). You can get data by 2-way comm on various

subjects. You can have the D of P interview and get

answers. You can even ask his mother.



You look for case errors. You study the folder back to

where the pc ran well and then come forward and you'll find

the error every time.



DO NOT JUST GO ON SESSION AFTER FAILED SESSION HOPING. That's pure

idiocy.



You get data! from prepared lists, from life, from the pc,

from the folder.



FIND THE BUG!



Ah, good Lord, he is a Pinkerton Agent sworn to secrecy! He

does yoga exercises after every session. He was tried for

murder when he was 16 and nobody has run the engram of it.



Various auditors ran the same engram chain four times



An auditor ran Int RD twice.



After Power she had her baby and nobody ran the delivery.



He doesn't like to talk but is a "Grade Zero"!



A dozen dozen reasons can exist



An auditor does NOT let a C/S C/S hopefully. He refuses the

C/Ses until a Folder Error Summary is done and the bug found.





THINGS DONE TWICE



By carelessness the same rundowns can be called for twice

and done twice or even more.



A Folder Summary inside the front cover must exist and must

be kept up.



Over it there must be a program on which the case is being

audited. But just because it's covered, never neglect

entering a session and what was run on the Folder Summary (FS).



If Hold it Still is ordered, see if it was run before.



Don't let major Rundowns be done twice.



DIANETIC ITEMS must NEVER be run twice. Dianetic lists must

not be scattered through a folder. Bring them together and

keep them together and being brought forward.





COPY



Don't copy Dianetic lists or worksheets from notes or items

from lists.



Keep all admin neat and in the original form.



Copying makes errors possible.





RUDS GOING OUT



When the ruds go out during the session the auditor

recognizes the following: Pc Critical = W/H from auditor



Pc Antagonistic = BPC in session



No TA = Problem



Tired = Failed Purpose or no sleep



Sad = ARC Break



Soaring TA = Overrun or Protest



Dope Off = By-passed F/N or not enough sleep



No Interest = Out Ruds or no interest in the first place.



An auditor who isn't sure what it is but runs into trouble

with the pc (except on lists which he handles at once

always) is smart to end off the session quickly, write down

the full observation and get it to the C/S.



The auditor who is an old hand and knows what he is looking

at as per above scale (and the C/S the C/S would give)

handles it promptly.



Pc Critical = W/H = pull the W/H.



Pc Antagonistic = BPC = assess proper list (such as Ll C)

and handle.



No TA (or case gain) = Problem = locate the problem.



Tired = no sleep or Failed Purpose = check which it is and handle.



Sad = ARC Brk = locate and handle, Itsa earlier Itsa.



Soaring TA = O/R or Protest = find which and handle. Such

an O/R is usually by rehab.



Dope Off = lack of sleep or BP F/N = check on sleep, or rehab F/N.



No Interest = no interest in first place or Out Ruds =

check for interest or put in ruds.



List goes wrong = BPC = handle or do L4B or any L4 at once.



Ruds won't fly = some other error = assess GF and handle.



The auditor has no business trying to do the C/S given when

it collides with and isn't designed to handle any of the above.



If the previous session disclosed such an error and this

session C/S was designed to handle and doesn't, the auditor

should end off and the next C/S should be "2-way comm for

data".





CASE NOT HANDLED



When the auditor or the Examiner collides with a pc who is

asserting his case has not been handled, there should not

be a new set of actions based on little data but the

auditor should end off and the C/S should order a "way comm

on what hasn't been handled".



The auditor should not at once take this up as part of any

other C/S.



In other words an auditor doesn't change the C/S to a 2-way

comm on something not called for by C/S.





MAJOR ACTIONS



An auditor should never begin a major action on a case that

is not "set up" for it.



As this can occur during a session it is vital to

understand the rule and follow it.



Otherwise a case can be bogged right down and will be hard

to salvage as now a new action to repair has been added to

an unrepaired action. Now, if the auditor starts a major

action on a case not "set up" we get 2 things to repair

where we only had I as the major action won't work either.



Repair = patching up past auditing or recent life errors.

This is done by prepared lists or completing the chain or

correcting lists or even 2-way comm or prepchecks on

auditors, sessions, etc.



Rudiments = setting the case up for the session action.

This includes ARC Brks, PTPs, W/Hs, GF or O/R listing or

any prepared list (such as L1C, etc).



Set up = getting an F/N showing and VGIs before starting

any major action. It means just that—an F/N and VGIs before

starting any major action. Such may require a repair action

and rudiments as well.



Major Action = any, but any action designed to change a case

or general considerations or handle continual illness or

improve ability. This means a Process or even a series of

processes like 3 flows. It doesn't mean a grade. It is any

process the case hasn't had.



Grade = a series of processes culminating in an exact

ability attained, examined and attested to by the pc.



Program = any series of actions designed by a C/S to bring

about definite results in a pc.



A program usually includes several sessions.



The vast bulk of auditing errors come about because C/Ses

and auditors seek to use a Major Action to repair a case.



It is a responsibility of an auditor to reject a C/S which

seeks to use one or more major actions to repair a case

that isn't running well.



The auditor must understand this completely. He can be made

to accept a wrong C/S for the pc and even more importantly

can in his own session make the error and mess up the case.



Example: Pc has not been running well (no real TA or had a

grumpy Exam report).



Auditor sees C/S has ordered a major action, not a repair

by prepared lists, ruds, etc. The auditor must reject the

C/S as he will be made to fail in session by it.



Example: Auditor gets a C/S, "(1) Fly a rud; (2) Assess

LX3; (3) Run 3-way recall, 3-way secondaries, 3-way

engrams on all / / X items". The auditor can't get a rud to

fly. Does the LX3. In other words he flunks by failing to

SET UP the case. It could also go this way.



Auditor can't get a rud to fly, does a GF, gets no F/N. He

MUST NOT begin a major action but MUST end off right there.



It is fatal to begin any new process on the case designed

to change the case if the case is not F/N VGIs.



The pc who starts processing for the first time and is

surely not F/N VGIs must be set up by repair actions!

Simple rudiments, life ruds, O/R list on life, even

assessing prepared lists on life, these are repair actions.

The pc will sooner or later begin to fly. Now at session

start you put in a rud, get F/N VGIs and CAN start major

actions.



So the auditor has a responsibility not to be led up a

garden path by a C/S which orders a major action on a pc

who isn't repaired or by not being able in session to get

an F/N VGIs by repair.



The only exceptions are a touch assist or life ruds or the

Dianetic assist all on a temporarily sick pc. But that's

repair isn't it?





PROGRAM VIOLATIONS



When an auditor receives a C/S and sees that it violates

the pc's program he should reject it.



The pc, let us say, is supposed to finish his Dianetic

Triples but is suddenly being given a Group Engram

Intensive. That violates the program and also the grade.



If the pc is running badly, a repair should be ordered. If

not, the program should be completed.



Example: An effort is being made to get the pc to go

backtrack. This is a program containing several major

actions which probably consists of several sessions. Before

this program is complete and before the pc has gone

backtrack, the C/S orders "(1) Fly a rud, (2) 3 S & Ds".

The auditor should recognize in 3 S & Ds a major action

being run into the middle of a program and reject it. The

correct action is of course the next backtrack process.





GRADE VIOLATIONS



A pc who is on a grade and hasn't attained it yet must not

be given major actions not part of that grade.



Example: Pc is on Grade 1. C/S orders a list having to do

with drinking. It is not a process on that grade. It could

be done after Grade I is attained and before Grade II is begun.



The C/S is incorrect and should not be accepted.





ABILITY ATTAINED



Now and then before the full major action is complete or

before all the grade processes are run, the pc will attain

the ability of the grade or the end phenomena of the action.



This is particularly true of valence shifters or

Interiorization Rundowns and can happen in grades.



The auditor should recognize it and, with the F/N VGIs

always present at such moments, end off.



I know of one case who had a huge cog about Interiorization

on Flow I Engrams and was pushed by both C/S and auditor to

do Flows 2 and 3 who bogged so badly that it took a long

while—weeks—to straighten the case out.



The ability itself gets invalidated by pushing on.



On the other hand this should never be taken as an excuse.

"I think he cogged to himself so we ended off." It must be

a real "What do you know!" sort of out-loud cog with a big

F/N and VVGIs and directly on the subject to end off a

major action or a program or a grade before its actions are

all audited.





REVIEWING REVIEWS



An auditor who gets a C/S or an order to repair a case that

is running well should reject doing the action.



I have seen a case ordered to repair who had Ext Full

Perception Doing Great. The repair bogged the case. The

case then got running well again but a second C/S ordered a

new repair which of course bogged it. Then major actions

were done. The case was again repaired and rehabbed and

became ok. Three times the auditor should have said NO.





FALSE REPORTS



The vilest trick that can be played on a pc is for an

auditor to falsify an auditing report.



It may be thought to be "good Public Relations" (good PR)

for the auditor with the C/S.



Actually it buries an error and puts the pc at risk.



INTEGRITY is a hallmark of Dianetics and Scientology.



Just because psychiatrists were dishonest is no reason for

auditors to be.



The results are there to be gotten.



False reports like false attests recoil and badly on both

the auditor and pc.





OVERTS ON PCS



When an auditor finds himself being nattery or critical of

his pcs he should get his withholds on pcs pulled and

overts on them off.



An auditor who goes sad is auditing pcs over his own ARC Break.



An auditor worried about his pc is working over a Problem.



Getting one's ruds in on pcs or C/Ses or the org can bring

new zest to life.





AUDITORS DON'T HAVE CASES



In the chair no auditor has a case.



If breath shows on a mirror held to his face he can audit.



Faint afterwards if you must but see that the pc gets to

the Examiner with his F/N.



Then get yourself handled.





"WHAT HE DID WRONG"



An auditor has a right to know what he did wrong in the

session that went wrong.



Most often a sour session occurs only when the rules and

data in this HCO B have been violated.



But an auditor's TRs can go out or his listing and nulling

is in error.



After a session that went wrong somebody else (not the

auditor) should ask the pc what the auditor did. This

sometimes spots a false auditing report. But it also

sometimes is a false report by the pc.



In any event, the auditor has a right to know. Then he can

either correct his auditing or his know-how or he can

advise the C/S the pc's report is untrue and better repair

can be done on the pc.



Savage action against an auditor is almost never called

for. He was trying to help. Some people are hard to help.



Not only does an auditor have the right to be told what was

wrong but he must be given the exact HCO B, date and title,

that he violated.



Never take a verbal or written correction that is not in an

HCO B or tape.



Don't be party to a "hidden data line" that doesn't exist.



"You ruined the pc!" is not a valid statement. "You

violated HCO B page____" is the charge.



No auditor may be disciplined for asking, "May I please

have the tape or HCO B that was violated so I can read it

or go to Cramming."



If it isn't on a tape, a book or an HCOB, IT IS NOT TRUE

and no auditor has to accept any criticism that is not

based on the actual source data.



"If it isn't written it isn't true" is the best defense

and the best way to improve your tech.



These are the rights of the auditor with relation to a C/S.

They are all technical rights based on sound principles.



An auditor should know them and use them.



If an auditor stands on these rights and gets beaten down

he should put all the facts before his nearest OTL or SO

ship as something would be very wrong somewhere.



Auditing is a happy business when it is done right.



L. RON HUBBARD

Founder



LRH:nt jh 

Copyright c 1970, 1971 

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[OTL means Operation-Transport Liaison which was a Sea

Organization office that managed orgs or an area and was a

forerunner of the Flag Operations Liaison Office (FOLO).]



********





