   
   CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 4/16

CLASS VIII COURSE PACK

CONTENTS:

Part 4

30. HCOB  26 DEC 64 SCIENTOLOGY ZERO ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)
31. HCOB   2 NOV 61 THE PRIOR CONFUSION
32. HCOB   5 APR 62 CCHs - AUDITING ATTITUDE
33. HCOB  12 APR 62 CCHs - PURPOSE
34. HCOB   1 DEC 65 CCHs
35. HCOB  30 JUL 62 A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE
36. HCOB   9 SEP 63 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
37. HCOB  31 MAR 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM
38. HCOB  19 NOV 65 LEVEL I PROBLEMS PROCESS
39. HCOB  26 MAY 60 SECURITY CHECKS
40. HCOB  16 NOV 61 SEC CHECKING
41. HCOB  23 NOV 61 METER READING
42. HCOB  13 DEC 61 VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS
43. HCOB   8 FEB 62 URGENT - MISSED WITHHOLDS
44. HCOB  12 FEB 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS
45. HCOB   3 MAY 62 ARC BREAKS - MISSED WITHHOLDS

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

CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 4/16

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

30. HCOB  26 DEC 64 SCIENTOLOGY ZERO ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964

(Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964,
&quot;Processes&quot;, and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964,
&quot;Listen Style Auditing&quot;)

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit

SCIENTOLOGY ZERO

ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)

An additional command increases the usefulness of this
routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows:

The auditor makes a list of things people generally can't
talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen,
governments and God. But it's a far longer list. The
auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of
session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to
time. It must never be published as a &quot;canned list&quot;.
Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should
not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions.

STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the
list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is
comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen
in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left
until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the
pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen.

The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is
all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of
selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of
the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the
auditor just chooses one and starts on it.

STEP 2. The auditor asks, &quot;If you could talk
to______(chosen subject), what would you talk about?&quot; Pc
answers one or more things at greater or shorter length.

STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been
answered, the auditor then says, &quot;All right, if you were
talking to______(chosen subject in 1 ) about that what
would you say, exactly?&quot;

The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the
subject chosen in l.

STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about
the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This
is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc
would say.

If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or
annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with
Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new
subject is chosen from the list for a working over with
Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor
again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc
is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc
really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a
new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is
continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject.

The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more
comfortable about talking to specific items and isn't
shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore,
when an ability is regained on specific items on the list
and the list items aren't producing big new changes in the
pc's communication ability.


LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT

It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to
do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have
been entered upon.

Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old
&quot;R-1-C&quot; can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group
basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the
idea of sessions.

Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is
always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing
supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is
not the receipt point of the pc's comm in many instances.

Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to
run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just
chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors
about, like a dynamic or a common social problem.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright  1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

31. HCOB   2 NOV 61 THE PRIOR CONFUSION


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1961

Franchise

THE PRIOR CONFUSION

A recent discovery I have made may well do away with the
need to directly run problems, particularly on people who
find them hard to confront.

The mechanism is this:

All problems are preceded by a Prior Confusion.

The handling consists of locating the problem, then
locating the Prior Confusion and then Sec Checking that
Prior Confusion.

The preclear tends to edge forward in time to the problem
continuously and to 'bounce' out of the Prior Confusion
once located. The remedy is to locate the O/Ws in the Prior
Confusion and keep the preclear out of the moment of the
Problem.

All somatics, circuits, problems and difficulties including
ARC breaks are all preceded by a Prior Confusion. Therefore
it is possible (but not always feasible at the moment) to
eradicate somatics by Sec Checking the Area of Confusion
which occurred just before the pc noticed the somatic for
the first time.

This is part of a Class II Auditor's skills.

A problem could be regarded as a mechanism by which to
locate hidden Areas of Confusion in a pc's life.

All Hidden Standards are the result of a Prior Confusion.

The mechanism is extremely valuable. All rudiments could be
run by finding the rudiment out, getting the difficulty
expressed, locating the Prior Confusion and then finding
the pc's O/Ws in that Area of Confusion.

A Problems Intensive based on this mechanism is under
design and I will release it for Class II use when I am
satisfied the form is complete.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:vbn.cden
Copyright  1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

32. HCOB   5 APR 62 CCHs - AUDITING ATTITUDE


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1962

Franchise

CCHs

AUDITING ATTITUDE

This is an important bulletin. If you understand it you
will get results on hitherto unmoving cases and faster
results (1 hour as effective as a former 25) with the CCHs.

Here is what happened to the CCHs and which will continue
to happen to them to damage their value:

The CCHs in their most workable form were finalized in
London by me in April 1957.

That was their high tide of workability for the next five
years. After that date, difficulties discovered in teaching
them to auditors added extraordinary solutions to the CCHs
(not by me) which cut them to about one twenty-fifth of
their original auditing value. Pcs thereafter had
increasing difficulty in doing them and the gain lessened.

How far were the CCHs removed from original CCH auditing?
Well, the other night on TV I gave a demonstration of the
proper original CCHs which produce the gains on pcs. And
more than twelve old-time auditors (the lowest graded ones
out of 36) thought they were watching a demonstration of
entirely foreign processes.

Although these auditors had been &quot;well trained&quot; on the CCHs
(but not by me) they did not see any similarity between how
they did them and how they saw me do them. Two or three
students and two instructors thought they were being done
wrong. Even the higher ranking students were startled. They
had never seen CCHs like this.

Yet, the pc was very happy, came way up tone, lost a bad
before-session somatic and within 48 hours had a complete
change in a chronic physical problem, all in 11/2 hours of
proper original CCHs.

The students and instructors &quot;knew they weren't watching
the correct CCHs&quot; because there was no antagonism to the
pc, because the Tone 40 was not shouted, because there was
no endurance marathon in progress. There was just quiet,
positive auditing with the pc in good, happy 2-way
communication with the auditor and the auditor letting the
pc win.

In the student auditing of the next two days, some shadow
of the demonstration's attitude was used and the cases
audited gained much faster than before. Yet at least two or
three still feel that this is far too easy to be the CCHs.

In five years, the CCHs, not closely supervised by me, but
altered in training, had become completely unrecognizable
(and almost resultless).

Why?

Because the CCHs were confused with Op Pro by Dup which was
for auditors. Because the CCHs became an arduous ritual,
not a way to audit the pc in front of you. The CCHs became
a method of auditing without communicating, of running off
strings of drills without being there. And the CCHs are so
good that even when done wrong or even viciously they
produced some slight gain. The CCHs shade from bright white
to dark grey in results, never to black.

Having been perverted in training to a system to make
auditors audit them, they became something that had nothing
to do with the pc.

What these students saw demonstrated (and which upset them
terribly) was this: The auditor sat down, chatted a bit
about the coming session with the pc, explained in general
what he was about to do. The session was started. The
auditor explained the CCH 1 drill in particular and then
began on it. The pc had a bit of embarrassment come off.
The auditor took the physical reaction as an origination by
the pc and queried it. The routine CCH 1 drill went on and
was shortly proved flat by three equal responses. The
auditor went to CCH 2. He explained the drill and started
it. This proved to be flat. The pc did the drill three
times without comm change. The auditor explained and went
to CCH 3. This also proved flat and after a three times
test, the auditor came off it, explained CCH 4, and went to
CCH 4. This proved unflat and was gradually flattened to
three equally timed correct responses by the pc on a motion
the pc could not at first do. About 50 minutes had elapsed
so the auditor gave a ten minute break.

After the break the auditor went back to CCH 1, found it
flat, went to CCH 2 and found the pc jumping the command
and, by putting short waits of different lengths before
giving commands, knocked out the automaticity. The auditor
went on to CCH 3, found it flat, and then to CCH 4 which
was found unflat and was accordingly flattened. The auditor
then discussed end ruds in a general way, got a summary of
gains and ended the session.

All commands and actions were Tone 40 (which is not
&quot;antagonism&quot; or &quot;challenge&quot;). But the pc was kept in
two-way comm between full cycles of the drill by the
auditor. Taking up each new physical change manifested as
though it were an origin by the pc and querying it and
getting the pc to give the pc's reaction to it, this
two-way comm was not Tone 40. Auditor and pc were serious
about the drills. There was no relaxation of precision. But
both auditor and pc were relaxed and happy about the whole
thing. And the pc wound up walking on air.

These were the CCHs properly done. With high gain results.

The viewers saw no watchdog snarling, no grim, grim
PURPOSE, no antagonistic suspicion, no pc going out of
session, no mauling, no drill-sergeant bawling and KNEW
these couldn't be the CCHs. There was good auditor-pc
relationship (better than in formal sessions) and good
two-way comm throughout, so the viewers KNEW these weren't
proper CCHs.

Well, I don't know what these gruelling blood baths are
they're calling &quot;the CCHs&quot;. I did them the way they were
done in April 1957 and got April 1957 fast results. And the
processes aren't even recognized !

So somewhere in each year from April 1957 to April 1962 and
somewhere in each place they're done, additives and
injunctions and &quot;now I'm supposed to's&quot; have grown up
around these precise but easy, pleasant processes that have
created an unworkable monster that is called &quot;the CCHs&quot; but
which definitely isn't.

Not seeing the weird perversions but seeing the slow graph
responses, the vast hours being burned up, I began to
abandon recommending the CCHs after 1959 as too long in
others' hands. I didn't realize how complicated and how
grim it had all become.

Well, the real CCHs done right, done the way they're
described here, are a fast gain route, easy on auditor and
pc, that goes all the way south.

Take a reread of the June and November bulletins of last
year (forget the 20 minute test, 3 times equally done are
enough to see a CCH is flat) and, not forgetting your Tone
40 and precision, laying aside the grim withdrawn militant
auditor attitude, try to do them as pleasantly as you find
them described in the above outlined session, and be amazed
at the progress the pc will make.

The CCHs easy on auditor and pc? Ah, they'd observed a lot
of CCHs and never any that were easy on auditor or pc.
Everybody came to know it was a bullying, smashing, arduous
mess, a fight in fact. The only trouble was, the gains
vanished when the ARC ran out.

Today, put any pc on the original CCHs done as above until
they're flat, then go to 3D Criss Cross and the pc will fly.

Surely you don't have to look and sound so hungry,
disinterested and mean when you audit the CCHs. You want to
clear this pc, not make him or her into a shaking wreck.
The CCHs are easily done (when they're done right).

They'll get lost again, too, unless you remember they can get lost.

I believe Upper Indoc should be canceled in Academies and
extra time put on just the CCHs as it is the Upper Indoc
attitude carried over that makes the CCHs grim.

SUMMARY

The PURPOSE of the CCHs is to bring the pc through
incidents and into present time. It is the reverse of
&quot;mental&quot; auditing in that it gets the pc's attention
exterior from the bank and on present time. By using
Communication, Control and Havingness this is done. If you
make present time a snarling hostility to the pc, he of
course does not want to come into present time and it takes
just that much longer to make the CCHs work.

You do the CCHs with the Auditor's Code firmly in mind.
Don't run a process that is not producing change. Run a
process as long as it produces change. Don't go out of
2-way comm with the pc.

Complete every cycle of the process. Don't interject 2-way
comm into the middle of a cycle, use it only after a cycle
is acknowledged and complete.

Don't end a process before it is flat. Don't continue a
process after it is flat.

Use Tone 40 Commands. Don't confuse antagonistic screaming
at the pc with Tone 40.

If you have to manhandle a pc, do so, but only to help him
get the process flat. If you have to manhandle the pc
you've already accumulated ARC breaks and given him loses
and driven him out of session.

Improve the ability of a pc by gradient scale, give the pc
lots of wins on CCH 3 and CCH 4 and amongst them flatten
off what he hasn't been able to do.

The CCH drills must be done precisely by the auditor. But
the criteria is whether the pc gets gains, not whether the
auditor is a perfect ritualist.

Exact Ritual is something in which you should take pride.
But it exists only to accomplish auditing. When it exists
for itself alone, watch out.

Audit the pc in front of you. Not some other pc or a
generalized object.

Use the CCHs to coax the pc out of the bank and into present time.

Take up the pc's physical changes as though they were
originations. Each time a new one occurs, take it up with
2-way comm as though the pc had spoken. If the same
&quot;origination&quot; happens again and again only take it up again
occasionally, not every time it happens.

Know what's going on. Keep the pc at it. Keep the pc
informed. Keep the pc winning.

Keep the pc exteriorizing from the past and coming into
present time.

Understand the CCHs and what you're doing. If it all
deteriorates to mere ritual you'll take 25 to 50 times the
time necessary to produce the same result as I would.

The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In
auditing you win in the CCHs only when the pc wins.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

33. HCOB  12 APR 62 CCHs - PURPOSE


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 APRIL 1962

Franchise

CCHs

PURPOSE

A long time ago-in 1949-while doing research in Dianetics,
I experienced considerable trouble in getting some pcs &quot;up
to present time&quot;.

As you know, a pc can get &quot;stuck in the past&quot;, and if you
can get a pc out of his engrams and reactive mind (his
perpetuated past) he becomes aware of the present. He or
she is unaware of the present to the degree that shock or
injury has caused an arrest in time.

After running an engram, we used to tell the pc to &quot;Come to
present time&quot; and the pc would, ordinarily, but sometimes no.

By telling the pc to examine the room, the return to
present time could be accomplished on many.

I observed that a common denominator of all aberration was
interiorization into the past and unawareness of the
present time environment.

Over the years, I developed what became the CCHs.

Control, In-Communication-With, and Havingness of Present
Time became feasible through certain drills of Control,
Communication and Havingness, using the present time
environment.

This is the purpose of the CCH drills-getting the pc out of
the past and into present time.

Any drill which did this would be a CCH drill, even &quot;Come
Up to Present Time!&quot; as a single command.

The pc is stuck not just in engrams but in past identities.
In fact the pc out of present time is being the past.

The pc can be made to see he is being the past and that
there is a present.

Thus when the pc &quot;has a somatic&quot; and you ask the pc what it
was, you get him or her to differentiate between self and
past by looking. A being who is something, cannot observe
it. A being who looks at something, ceases to be it. A pc
can even be a somatic! Hence the CCHs must be run with a
non-forbidding present time, with queries about somatics
and changes.

It's all as simple as that, basically. That's why they
work-they get the pc to Present Time.

But only if they are run right. Only if they invite the pc
to progress.

Run wrong, the CCHs can actually drive a pc out of present
time or park him or her in the session.

Do you see, now?

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.cden 
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

34. HCOB   1 DEC 65 CCHs


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students
St Hill Courses
All staff

CCHs

(Replaces HCO Bulletin of July 5th, 1963, &quot;CCHs Rewritten&quot;)

As per HCO Pol Ltr May 17th, 65, the CCHs are processes.
They are not drills. The following revised rundown on the
CCHs is to be used by all Auditors.

CONTROL-COMMUNICATION-HAVINGNESS PROCESSES

The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been
slightly amended. CCHs are run as follows:

CCH l to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3
to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH I to a
flat point, etc.

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

No: CCH 1.

NAME: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40.

AUDITING COMMANDS: GIVE ME THAT HAND.

Physical action of taking hand when not given and then
replacing it in the PC's lap. Making physical contact with
the PC's hand if PC resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle.

All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit
of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as
though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and
querying it by asking &quot;What's happening?&quot; This two-way comm
is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated in chairs without
arms. Auditor's knees on outside of both PC's knees.

PROCESS PURPOSE: To demonstrate to PC that control of PC's
body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting
PC to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then
passes over towards absolute control of his own body by PC.

Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes
may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the
THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid
comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to
bridge from the process. This is done between two commands,
holding the PC's hand after acknowledgement. PC's hand
should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every
command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on
intention from Auditor to PC with each command. To leave an
instant for PC to do it by own will before Auditor decides
to take hand or make contact with it. Auditor indicates
hand by nod of head.

Tone 40 Command = Intention without reservation. Change is
any physical, observed manifestation.


No: CCH 2.

NAME: TONE 40 8c

AUDITING COMMANDS: YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU.

YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU.

YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU.

TURN AROUND. THANK YOU.

Take up each new physical change manifested as though it
were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it
by asking &quot;What's happening?&quot; This two-way comm is not Tone 40.

Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone
40, full intention.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC ambulant, Auditor in
physical contact with PC as needed.

PROCESS PURPOSE: To demonstrate to PC that his body can be
controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient
him in his present time Environment. To increase his
ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness.

Absolute Auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No
flubs. Total present time. Auditor on PC's right side.
Auditor body acts as block to forward motion when PC turns.
Auditor gives command, gives PC a moment to obey, then
enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct
force to get command executed. Auditor does not block PC
from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH
l. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this
being after the THANK YOU and before the next command,
maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information
from the PC or to bridge from the process, this being the
acknowledgement &quot;THANK YOU&quot; after the command &quot;TURN AROUND&quot;.

CCH 1 and CCH 2 were developed by L. RON HUBBARD in
Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 19th ACC.


No: CCH 3.

NAME: HAND SPACE MIMICRY

AUDITING COMMANDS: Auditor raises 2 hands palms facing PC's
about an equal distance between the Auditor and PC and says
&quot;PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO
THEIR MOTION&quot;. He then makes a simple

motion with right hand then left. &quot;DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO
THEIR MOTION?&quot;

Acknowledge answer. Auditor allows PC to break solid comm
line. When this is flat, the Auditor does this same with a
half inch of space between his and the PC's palms. The
command being &quot;PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT 1/2 INCH AWAY,

FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION&quot;. &quot;DID YOU CONTRIBUTE

TO THEIR MOTION?&quot; Acknowledge. When this is flat, Auditor
does it with a wider space and so on until PC is able to
follow motions a yard away.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated, close together
facing each other, PC's knees between Auditor's knees.

PROCESS PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using
the reality scale (solid communication line). To get PC
into communication by control and duplication. To find Auditor.

Auditor should be gentle and accurate in his motions, all
motions being Tone 40, giving PC wins. To be free in 2-way
communication. Process is introduced and run as a formal
process.

If PC dopes off in this process Auditor may take PC's wrist
and help him execute the command one hand at a time. If PC
does not answer during anaten to question &quot;DID YOU
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?&quot; Auditor may wait for normal
comm lag of that PC, acknowledge and continue process.

TONE 40 Motion = Intention without Reservation. Two-Way
Communication = One Question-The Right One.

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C.,
1956 as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry.
Something was needed to supplant &quot;Look at me. Who am I?&quot;
and &quot;Find the auditor&quot; part of rudiments.


No: CCH 4.

NAME: BOOK MIMICRY

AUDITING COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS.

Auditor makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the
PC. PC makes motion, duplicating Auditor's
mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks PC if he is satisfied that
the PC duplicated the motion. If PC is and Auditor is also
fully satisfied, Auditor takes back the book and goes to
next command. If PC is not sure that he duplicated any
command, Auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the
book. If PC is sure he did and Auditor can see duplication
is pretty wrong, Auditor accepts PC's answer and continues
on a gradient scale of motion either with the left or right
hand till PC can do original command correctly. This
ensures no invalidation of the PC. Tone 40, only in
motions, verbal 2-way quite free.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated facing each other,
a comfortable distance apart.

PROCESS PURPOSE: To bring up PC's communication with
control and duplication (control and duplication =
communication).

Give PC wins. It is necessary for Auditor to duplicate his
own commands. Circular motions are more complex than
straight lines. Tolerance of plus or minus randomity is
apparent here and the Auditor should probably begin on the
PC with motions that begin in the same place each time and
are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very complex.
Introduced by the Auditor seeing that PC understands what
is to be done, as there is no verbal command, formal process.

HISTORY. Developed by LRH for the 16th ACC in Washington,
D.C., 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by LRH in
London, 1952.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :ep.rd
Copyright  1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

35. HCOB  30 JUL 62 A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1962

Franchise

A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE

Here is the pattern for a new Problems Intensive that can
be given by HGC or field auditors and which will get them
marvellous results on new or old pcs.

This arrangement makes prepchecking come into its own, for
if it is well done then the pc is fairly well set up for
having his goal found.

This intensive is amazingly easy to run providing that the
auditor does it pretty well muzzled and does not violate
repetitive prepchecking drill. Of course if the auditor's
meter reading is not perfect and if the auditor is not
cognizant of recent HCO Bulletins on the meter and if the
auditor misses as many as two reads in a session, this
whole result can wind up in a fiasco. If the pc doesn't
feel better on this one then the auditor just didn't read
the meter or miserably flubbed current drill. Of these two
the D of P had better suspect the meter readings if
anything goes wrong.

The first thing to do is complete the old case assessment
form. We do this in Model Session and check after each
small section of it as to whether we've missed a withhold
on the pc.

We then assess the self-determined change list (and don't
goof and put other determined changes on the pc's change
list, or we'll be assessing engrams).

We find the most important, most reacting change in the
pc's life by the largest read. This can also be done by
elimination.

We then locate the prior confusion to that change. In no
case will it be earlier than two weeks from the incident.
These confusions, so often missed by the auditor, take
place from two weeks to five minutes before the actual
decision to change.

Having located the time of the prior confusion, but not
done anything else about it, no lists of names or anything
like that, we then go one month earlier in date.

This gives us an exact date for our questions. Let us say
the self-determined change was June 1, 1955. The prior
confusion was May 20, 1955, and the arbitrary month earlier
was April 20, 1955. We get the pc to spot this arbitrary
date more or less to his own satisfaction.

We now form a question as follows: &quot;Since (date) is there
anything you have.......?&quot; The endings are in this order:
Suppressed, Suggested, Been careful of, Invalidated and
Failed to reveal.

The question with one end is completely cleaned by
Repetitive Prepchecking. One asks it off the meter until
the pc says there is no more. Then one checks it on the
meter and steers the pc with any read, and then continues
the question off the meter, etc, etc.

In turn we clean each one of the buttons above. This will
take many hours in most cases.

It is vital not to clean anything that's clean or to miss
cleaning a read that reacts. In other words, do a clean
meter job of it all the way at sensitivity 16.

When we have in turn cleaned each of the buttons above, we
do a new assessment of the change list and get us a new
time just as before and handle that just as before.

When the second area is clean we assess for a third.

Frequently, particularly if the needle gets dirty, we ask
for missed withholds. Indeed one can use all the Middle
Rudiments at least once each session.

With expert needle reading that intensive will give the pc
more gain per hour of auditing than anything else short of
Routine 3GA.

I wish you lots of success with it. Remember, the more
variables you introduce into such a system the less
confidence the pc will have in you.

Good hunting.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.rd 
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

36. HCOB   9 SEP 63 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER AD13

Central Orgs
Franchise

REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN

(Compiled from HCO Bulletins of July 2, 3 and 4, AD12)


Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the
presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go
gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you
fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads
faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the
rudiment's outness and there goes your session.

To get over these difficulties, I've developed Repetitive
Rudiments.

The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks
the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is
no further answer. At this point the auditor says, &quot;I will
check that on the meter.&quot; And asks the question again. If
it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the
answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again
says, &quot;I will check that on the meter&quot; and does so.

The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is
clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25,
1962, for Instant Read).

The cycle:

1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.

2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.

3. If meter reads use it to steer (&quot;that&quot; &quot;that&quot; each time
the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.

4. Stay with the Meter and do (2) and (3).

The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.

One does not &quot;bridge out&quot; or use &quot;two more commands&quot;. When
the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the
auditor says, &quot;The meter is clean&quot;.

The trick here is the definition of &quot;With Session&quot;. If the
pc is With Session the meter will read. If the pc is
partially against session the meter will read poorly, and
the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get
missed. But with the pc with session the meter will read
well for the auditor.

FAST CHECKING

A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of Steps (2)
and (3) of the cycle done over and over.

Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up
only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One
does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean
needle. But one still says &quot;The meter is clean&quot; and catches up 
the disagreement by getting the additional answers.

When the question is seen to be clean, the question is left.

In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, &quot;THAT STILL READS.&quot;
That's a flunk. Say, &quot;There's another read here. &quot;

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

We will still use the term &quot;Prepchecking&quot; and do all
Prepchecking by repetitive command.

STEP ONE

Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the
question repetitively until the preclear says that's all,
there are no more answers.

STEP TWO

The auditor then says, &quot;I will check that on the meter&quot; and
does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May
25,1962).

If it reads, the auditor says, &quot;That reads. What was it?&quot;
(and steers the pc's attention by calling each identical
read that then occurs). &quot;There .....That .....That .....&quot;
until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum.

STEP THREE

The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One
above. Then goes to Step Two, etc.

STEP FOUR

When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says,
&quot;The meter is clean.&quot; This is all there is to Repetitive
Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more
auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure
not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).

Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand
(really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it
(really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session.
Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as
bad TR4.

END WORDS

The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an
ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought
minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought
major) is actually null.

A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the

charge on those single words can be made known and the
question turned around to avoid the last word's charge.

Example: &quot;Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?&quot;

The word &quot;difficulties&quot;, said to the pc by itself gives an
Instant Read. Remedy: Test &quot;Difficulties&quot;. If it reads as
itself then change the question to: &quot;Concerning your
difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?&quot; This will
only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.

Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves
occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to
groove in the question to a &quot;thought major&quot;. With good TR1
the END WORDS read only when the question is asked.

IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists
strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word
for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it
end with another end word (question not to have words
changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test
it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question
(thought major) then, of course, it is not nul and should
be answered.

DOUBLE CLEANING

&quot;Cleaning&quot; a rudiment that has already registered nul gives
the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness
was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer
then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment
is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is
to leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a
nothingness.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.bp.cden 
Copyright  1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

37. HCOB  31 MAR 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1960

Fran Holders

THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

Everybody has present time problems at times. They come up
unexpectedly. They happen, between intensives. They pop up
between sessions. They, indeed, occur within sessions. And
the auditor who neglects to handle them when they arise
will get little auditing done.

It's the present time problem that sticks the graph, makes
it register no change. (It's ARC breaks that drop one.)

What is a &quot;PTP&quot;, as the auditors write it in their reports?

It is basically the inability to confront the dual terminal
nature of this universe.

It is an inability to span attention and denotes that the
pc who is having lots of PTPs has his attention very fixed
on something.

The definition of a problem is intention v. intention or
&quot;two or more opposing and conflicting views on the same
subject&quot;.

If the pc has problems with wife or husband, we can be sure
that they have divergent views on some basic thing in life.
Thus the auditor who has a pc who always has PTPs with one,
the same, person, had better run O/W (overt-withhold) on
that terminal in a specific form (George) and then
responsibility on the general form (a husband). Thus a PTP
is as good as an assessment. Find what terminals the pc has
PTPs about and handle that terminal as above.

Indeed this is more than a trick-it's a great time-saver.
One can waste hours on a pc who repeatedly comes up with a
PTP on the same person. But that person in the PTP is often
the current clue to the case. &quot;Grace the wife&quot; leads to &quot;a
wife&quot; leads to &quot;a woman&quot;.

Present time problems are not always concerned with the
world outside auditing.

Auditors can be a PTP to the pc, especially when the pc has
big withholds! PROCESSES ON PTPs

Present time problem processes are many. The earliest was
two-way comm. A later one was &quot;Invent a problem of
comparable magnitude to ........&quot; But this one of course is
a create type process and is therefore very limited.

Still another process was &quot;Tell me your problem.&quot; &quot;How does
it seem to you now?&quot; This almost runs the whole case.

A recent one that has workability is &quot;What problem could
you confront?&quot; This finds out for the pc that he can't
confront a problem at first without doing something about
it. That isn't confronting the problem. This is an amusing,
effective and educative process.

Problems tend to snap in on the pc. The mechanism here is
that he cannot confront them so, of course, they snap in
upon him. When he invents a few the first problem he had
visibly moves away from him. This last is now a
demonstration, not a process, because of the create factor.

The fastest current process is &quot;Tell me your problem.&quot;
&quot;What part of that problem have you been responsible for?&quot;
This is an alternate question process. You will find the
problem changes and changes. It runs the whole case.

A general process on problems, which is a very healthy
process, is &quot;What problem have you been (or might you have
been) responsible for?&quot;

The easiest process on problems to run, if slower, is &quot;Tell
me your problem.&quot; &quot;What part of that problem could you
confront?&quot;

CONFUSION AND THE STABLE DATUM

Problems are nasty case stickers because in a problem one
has an old solution causing new problems. This is the
principle of confusion and the stable datum. The confusion
(two or more opposed views or actions) stays in position
because it is hung on a single fixed point. If you want to
see a pc go into confusion ask him what solution he could
confront. (This is not a good process, it's a demonstration.)

A preclear is sometimes chary of motion in the bank. He
seizes upon fixed particles to avoid moving particles. A
very top scale process that does some fabulous things to a
pc also illustrates this: &quot;What motion have you been
responsible for?&quot; This truly sets a bank whizzing,
particularly black cases or stuck picture cases. Running
this, it is possible to discharge pc liability to problems.

THE DUAL UNIVERSE

The basic unit of this universe is two not one.

The less a pc can confront two things, the more he fixes on
one. This is the highly individual person, also the
self-auditing case.

This is probably the basic trap of a thetan. He is a single
unit that has not cared to confront dual units and is
therefore subject to the persistence of all dual things. As
he does not seem to care as much for two as he does for one
that which is not admired tends to persist and we have a
persisting dual universe.

Also, when he is with somebody else, he tends to confront
the other person but not to confront himself. &quot;What about
you could you confront?&quot; is a murderous process. It is all
right to run. It picks up the times when his attention was
off self and yet self was creating. This is the genus of a
reactive bank. It is probably what pain is.

However, a better and more spectacular process that
demonstrates this and gets to the heart of problems is
&quot;What two things can you confront?&quot; This increases ability
and reduces one's liability to problems. I suppose one
could go gradiently up in number and have at last a pc that
could tolerate any motion or number.

It is quantity not quality which makes a bank. Thus running
significances is of little worth. A thetan gets ideas of
too many and too few. He cannot have, at length, anything
that becomes too scarce-one of the old important rules of
havingness given in Scientology 8- 8008.

OUT OF SESSION

A pc is in session when (a) he is willing to talk to the
auditor and (b) he is interested in his own case.

The primary violation of part (a) is overts and
withholds-the pc is afraid to talk or talks to cover up.

The second violation (b) occurs when the pc's attention is
&quot;over there&quot; in present time, fixed on some concern that is
&quot;right now&quot; somewhere in the physical universe. Technically
a present time problem is a special problem that exists in
the physical universe now on which the pc has his attention
fixed. This violates the &quot;in session&quot; rule part (b). The
pc's attention is &quot;over there&quot; not on his case. If the
auditor overlooks or doesn't run the PTP then the pc is
never in session, grows agitated, ARC breaks, etc. And no
gains are made because the pc is not in session. Hence the
unchanged graph when the pc has a PTP that is overlooked or
not properly handled.

PTPs are easy to handle. If you, the auditor, become
impatient at having to &quot;waste time&quot; handling a PTP or if
the pc considers it a waste of time to handle it, a mistake
is being made.

So long as a PTP falls on a meter even slightly, it had
better be handled until it no longer falls when checked.

If the same type of PTP keeps coming up, use it as a case
assessment and run it out-out-out as given above, using O/W
and responsibility.

And if the pc always has problems, better note he also has
motionless pictures, is only-one and self-audits heavily
and get him used to motion and two particles as given in
processes above and he'll be a better case very soon indeed.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd
Copyright  1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

38. HCOB  19 NOV 65 LEVEL I PROBLEMS PROCESS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo
Students

LEVEL I

PROBLEMS PROCESS

This is an extremely fast process for use at Level I to
handle problems. The process commands are simply:

&quot;What is the problem?&quot;

&quot;What solutions have you had for that problem?&quot;

One gets the pc to give his problem then runs TA off
solutions. Then a new statement of the problem and more
questions about solutions.

These commands are run in very strict muzzled style-no
additives or diversions whatsoever.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml rd 
Copyright 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

39. HCOB  26 MAY 60 SECURITY CHECKS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 MAY 1960

Franchise Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assoc Secs

SECURITY CHECKS

The Organization Secretary in Washington is here at Saint
Hill for briefing on future US campaigns.

When I showed her how to do a security check and gave her a
demonstration, she made the following notes. They are of
considerable interest to all Central Orgs and HCOs as well
as auditors. Therefore, I give them to you in full.

Security Check

1. Stable data-you are not processing but looking for
needle or tone arm action that will not blow off. (Clear up
on investigation-further questioning and E-Meter
exploration. ) 2. Rising needle means nothing except you
aren't asking right questions.

3. You are looking for significant drops or tone arm
changes that will not clear up. It is something that person
is consciously withholding and as he continues to withhold
it on further questioning the needle or the tone arm action
will increase.

4. You start out by asking non-significant questions-50% of
questions are to be these, i.e., if you have 10 significant
(security) questions to ask you start out with 10
non-significant questions. If you have a needle pattern on
non-significant questions you note it and it doesn't count
on security questions.

5. On significant questions-any question that gets drop or
TA action-you don't go any further but explore on this
question. You may be getting action on past life or rather
unimportant this life acts-i.e., sniping a balloon from a
store as a small child. Clear this out. The needle may cool
off (less action) but still be reacting. If so, explore
further-see if you can clear it off. If on exploration the
action increases, the person is consciously sitting on
something he doesn't want you to know. If he's handing you
up something else to explain the needle action (i.e.,
trying to clear it up by handing you something else) the
action will increase because he's basically lying. If the
action increases you can tell him he's sitting on something
he won't tell and that he's a risk. He may break down and
let go of it at this time. If so-he still needs processing
on it and is a risk until he's responsible for it. Just
letting go of the withhold doesn't make him responsible for
it. He is not retained on staff while being processed to
clear it up. What you are looking for is that which won't
cool off. You can cool something off and go on to the next
security check question and then later come back to the
reacting question. It may have built up again. If so,
explore some more.

6. On a Security Check Sheet you only note those questions
that wouldn't clear. If something won't clear or cool off
the person is a security risk. If he does tell you and
clear it, if it's a heavy crime, note it.

7. E-Meter-use of in security check-check out meter before
connecting person to be checked. See former bulletin on
checking out E-Meter. Generally you set the sensitivity
straight up on American meter unless the needle is very
very sticky. English meter is more sensitive-so you set it
lower. Then set the TA-have the person squeeze the cans.



You want about a 1/3 dial drop so you can adjust the
sensitivity if the action is too much or too small on the
can squeeze. Put the person at ease. Don't act accusative.
You don't want to restimulate all the interrogation in the
bank. It'll just take that much longer to clear it off.

8. There may once in a while be a person who reads nicely
at their clear reading with no action and you're very
suspicious the guy isn't clear. This could be a complete
&quot;blab&quot; no responsibility case-a mockery of clear. You can
check this out as follows. Make a somewhat accusative
statement to the person that would be real to him-i.e.,
&quot;You never get your work done.&quot; The mockery of clear person
will wildly justify and blame. Check this person out on
help-2-way-on an employer, etc. They will be real nowhere
on help-i.e., can't conceive of helping an employer-can't
run 2-way help, etc. This person, no matter how secure he
may seem, is an employment risk because he can't help and
will only cause difficulties on a post. He'll be a
camouflaged hole.

9. Along with security check on staffs a help check should
be given. If the person is sticky on help (can conceive of
some help in some areas but has several areas of no help,
especially on 3rd dynamic), he needs processing before he
can be hired. If he's nowhere on help-can't run 2-way or
can't conceive of helping an employer or an organization,
he is not hirable until he's flat on help which will
probably take many hours. He's probably a CCH case.

10. Remember, as a security checker you are not merely an
observer, or an auditor, you are a detective.

I trust these notes will be of use.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dm.cden
Copyright  1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

40. HCOB  16 NOV 61 SEC CHECKING


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER 1961

Franchise

SEC CHECKING

Generalities Won't Do

The most efficient way to upset a pc is to leave a Sec
Check question unflat. This is remedied by occasionally
asking, &quot;Has any Sec Check question been missed on you?&quot;
and getting what was missed flattened.

The best way to &quot;miss&quot; a Sec Check question is to let the
pc indulge in generalities or &quot;I thought . . . .&quot;

A Sec Check question should be nulled at Sensitivity 16 as
a final check.

A withhold given as &quot;Oh, I got mad at them lots of times&quot;
should be pulled down to when and where and the first time
&quot;you got mad&quot; and finally, &quot;What did you do to them just
before that?&quot; Then you'll really get a nul.

The pc who withholds somebody else's withholds and gives
them as answers is a card.

But he isn't helped when the auditor lets him do it.

Situation: You ask the pc for a withhold about Joe. The pc
who says, &quot;I heard that Joe. .

.&quot; should be asked right there, &quot;What have you done to Joe?
You. Just you.&quot; And it turns out

he stole Joe's last blonde. But if the auditor had let this
pc go on and on about how the pc had heard how Joe was this
or that, the session would have gone on and on and the Tone
Arm up and up,

We have pcs who use &quot;withholds&quot; to spread all manner of
lies. We ask this pc, &quot;Have you ever done anything to the
Org?&quot; The pc says, &quot;Well, I'm withholding that I heard . .
.&quot; or the pc says, &quot;Well, I thought some bitter thoughts
about the Org.&quot; Or the pc says, &quot;I was critical of the Org
when . . .&quot; and we don't sail in and get WHAT THE PC DID,
we can comfortably stretch a 5 minute item to a session or two.

If the pc &quot;heard&quot; and the pc &quot;thought&quot; and the pc &quot;said&quot; in
answer to a Sec Check question, the pc's reactive bank is
really saying, &quot;I've got a crashing big withhold and if I
can keep on fooling around by giving critical thoughts,
rumours, and what others did, you'll never get it.&quot; And if
he gets away with it, the auditor has missed a withhold
question.

We only want to know what the pc did, when he did it, what
was the first time he did it and what he did just before
that, and we'll nail it every time.

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

The Irresponsible PC

If you want to get withholds off an &quot;irresponsible pc&quot; you
sometimes can't ask what the pc did or withheld and get a
meter reaction.

This problem has bugged us for some time. I finally got
very bright and realized that no matter whether the pc
thought it was a crime or not, he or she will answer up on
&quot;don't know&quot; versions as follows:

Situation: &quot;What have you done to your husband?&quot; Pc's
answer, &quot;Nothing bad.&quot; E-Meter reaction, nul. Now we know
this pc, through our noticing she is critical of her
husband, has overts on him. But she can take no
responsibility for her own acts.

But she can take responsibility for his not knowing. She is
making certain of that.

So we ask, &quot;What have you done that your husband doesn't
know about?&quot;

And it takes an hour for her to spill it all, the quantity
is so great. For the question releases the floodgates. The
Meter bangs around.

And with these withholds off, her responsibility comes up
and she can take responsibility on the items.

This applies to any zone or area or terminal of Sec Checking.

Situation: We are getting a lot of &quot;I thought&quot;, &quot;I heard&quot;,
&quot;They said&quot;, &quot;They did&quot; in answer to a question. We take
the terminal or terminals involved and put them in this blank.

&quot;What have you done that ----------- (doesn't) (don't) know about?&quot;

And we can get the major overts that lay under the blanket
of &quot;How bad everyone is but me&quot;.

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

This prevents you missing a Sec Check question. It's a bad
crime to do so. This will shorten the labour involved in
getting every question flat.

Every session of Sec Checking you should ask the pc in the
end rudiments, &quot;Have I missed a Sec Check question on you?&quot;
In addition to &quot;Are you withholding anything&quot; and &quot;half
truths etc&quot;.

And if your pc is very withholdy you can insert this &quot;Have
I missed a Sec Check question on you?&quot; every few questions
while doing a Sec Check.

Always clear up what was missed.

A pc can be very upset by reason of a missed Sec Check
question. Keep them going up, not down.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :esc.cden
Copyright  1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

41. HCOB  23 NOV 61 METER READING


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1961

Franchise

METER READING

A survey of auditing has brought up the datum that the
gross auditing error in failure to obtain results from
Security Checking and Problems Intensives lies wholly in
the inability to read an E-Meter.

You may some day get a huge reality on the fact that, in
supervising auditing, all failures are gross auditing
errors, not flukey case differences.

Auditors one is supervising often demand &quot;an extraordinary
solution&quot; because such and such a case isn't moving. The
unwise supervisor will actually furnish &quot;extraordinary
solution&quot; after &quot;extraordinary solution&quot; &quot;to handle this
different case&quot;. It may be John Jones who &quot;cannot think of
any changes in his life&quot; or it may be Mary Smith who &quot;just
doesn't respond to Security Checking&quot;. And the supervisor
burns the midnight oil and gives the auditor some new
involved solution. Then as often as not, the auditor comes
back the day after and says, &quot;That didn't work either.&quot; And
the supervisor goes a quarter around the bend and again
burns the midnight oil .... If this seems familiar to you
as a supervisor, know you should have asked, &quot;What didn't
work?&quot; Usually the auditor can't even recall the
solution-it was never used. Or it was applied in some
strange fashion.

For today, the reasons for failure all lie under the
heading &quot;Gross Auditing Error&quot;.

Such an error would be, the auditor never arrived for the
session, the E-Meter was broken throughout, the pc hadn't
eaten or slept for three days, the din from construction
next door made it impossible to give commands or hear
answers. The auditor didn't run any known process. That is
the order of magnitude of a &quot;GROSS AUDITING ERROR&quot;. It is
never, the pc was unhappy, the pc has difficulty
remembering, etc. In supervising auditing, always look for
the gross auditing error and never give out with an
extra-ordinary solution.

Well, taking my own advice, when I saw some tricky elements
in new clearing processes taking far too much time, I
didn't look for &quot;different&quot; pcs, I looked for the gross
auditing error.

And found it.

The auditors who were having trouble couldn't read an E-Meter.

Impossible as that may seem, it proved to be true. I put
Mary Sue on this at once and Herbie Parkhouse carried
through. The errors found in E-Meter reading where there
had been trouble, were so huge as to have been missed on
any casual inspection.

The errors went like this:

1. The auditor believed the E-Meter could not be read while
the needle was swinging around. The auditor was waiting
until it stopped every time before asking a question.

2. The auditor believed the needle had to be exactly at
&quot;set&quot; on the dial before it could be read.

3. The auditor did not know a rising needle could be read
by stopping the rise with a question or making the needle
twitch.

4. The auditor had not done the body reaction drills in
E-Meter Essentials and was reading only body reactions and
ignoring all others.

5. The auditor thought an E-Meter could not be read if it
showed breathing or heart beat.

6. The auditor always looked at the pc for a few seconds
after asking the question, then looked at the meter, and so
missed all but latent (non-significant) reads.

7. The auditor sat staring at the meter for twenty seconds
after the reading had registered.

8. The auditor thought E-Meters could be fooled so easily,
it was more reliable to make up his own mind about what the
pc's item or guilt was.

9. An auditor thought that if the needle rose on a rudiment
question, the rudiment was out.

These and many, many more panned out to be:

IF A SECURITY CHECK OR PROBLEMS INTENSIVE WAS PRODUCING NO

RESULTS, IT WAS BECAUSE THE AUDITOR COULD NOT READ AN E-METER.

That's the gross auditing error.

In this bulletin, I am not trying to give you any methods
to remedy this. I am just calling it widely to everyone's
attention.

The fact is big enough to merit study by itself.

And to get cases started by no other mechanism than
learning to really read an E-Meter or by teaching people to
read it.

This one point remedied could change the entire future of
Scientology, an organization or an auditor.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: esc.rd
Copyright  1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

42. HCOB  13 DEC 61 VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER 1961

Tech Depts
Franchise

VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS

You only vary a sec check question when by repeating it you
would create an impasse.

Example: &quot;Have you stolen anything?&quot;

&quot;Yes, an apple.&quot;

&quot;Good. Have you stolen anything?&quot;

&quot;No.&quot;

&quot;Good. (Look at meter.)

Have you stolen anything?&quot;

&quot;No. &quot; (Meter reacts. )

NOW vary the question.

And always end by making sure the original question &quot;Have
you stolen anything?&quot; is nul.

This all comes under the heading of getting one auditing
question answered before you ask a second.

If you create an impasse you will pile up missed withholds,
throw ruds out and really mess it up. Therefore, until you
do find out what the answer was on a sec check question,
you do NOT repeat the question-only variations (except to
test for nul after getting a withhold) until the meter nuls
on the first question.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: esc.rd
Copyright  1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

43. HCOB   8 FEB 62 URGENT - MISSED WITHHOLDS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1962

Franchise

URGENT

MISSED WITHHOLDS

The one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even
greater reality on is MISSED WITHHOLDS and the upsets they
cause.

EVERY upset with Central Orgs, Field Auditors, pcs, the
lot, is traceable to one or more MISSED WITHHOLDS.

Every ARC Breaky pc is ARC Breaky because of a Missed
Withhold. Every dissatisfied pc is dissatisfied because of
MISSED WITHHOLDS.

We've got to get a flaming reality on this.

WHAT IS A MISSED WITHHOLD?

A missed withhold is not just a withhold. Please burn that
into the stone walls. A Missed Withhold is a withhold that
existed, could have been picked up and was MISSED.

The mechanics of this are given in the Saint Hill Special
Briefing Course Lecture of 1 February 1962.

The fact of it is stated in the Congress Lectures of the
D.C. Congress of December 30-31, Jan. 1, 1962.

Since that Congress even more data has accumulated. That
data is large, voluminous and overwhelming.

The person with complaints has MISSED WITHHOLDS. The person
with entheta has MISSED WITHHOLDS. You don't need policies
and diplomacy to handle these people. Policy and diplomacy
will fail. You need expert auditing skill and a British
Mark IV meter and the person on the cans and that person's
MISSED WITHHOLDS.

A MISSED WITHHOLD is a withhold that existed, was tapped
and was not pulled. Hell hath no screams like a withhold
scorned.

A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would not be one where an
auditor pulls a pc's withholds. A MISSED WITHHOLD programme
would be where the auditor searched for and found when and
where withholds had been available but had been MISSED.

The withhold need not have been asked for. It merely need
have been available. And if it was not pulled, thereafter
you have a nattery, combative, ARC Breaky or entheta
inclined person.

THIS is the only dangerous point in auditing. This is the
only thing which makes an occasional error in the phrase,
&quot;Any auditing is better than no auditing.&quot; That line is
true with one exception. If a withhold were available but
was missed, thereafter you have a bashed-up case.

HOW TO AUDIT IT

In picking up Missed Withholds you don't ask for withholds,
you ask for missed withholds.

Sample question:

&quot;What withhold was missed on you?&quot;

The auditor then proceeds to find out what it was and who
missed it. And the Mark IV needle is cleaned of reaction at
Sensitivity 16 on every such question.

Gone is the excuse &quot;She doesn't register on the meter.&quot;
That's true of old meters, not the British Mark IV.

And if the pc considers it no overt, and can't conceive of
overts, you still have &quot;didn't know&quot;. Example: &quot;What didn't
an auditor know in an auditing session?&quot;

SAMPLE MISSED WITHHOLD SESSION

Ask pc if anyone has ever missed a withhold on him (her) in
an auditing session. Clean it. Get all reactions off the
needle at Sensitivity 16.

Then locate first auditing session pc had. Flatten &quot;What
didn't that auditor know?&quot; &quot;What didn't that auditor know
about you?&quot;

For good measure get the ruds in for that first session. In
auditing an auditor, also do the same thing for his or her
first pc.

Then pick up any stuck session. Treat it exactly the same
way. (If you scan the pc through all his auditing ever from
the cleaned first session to present time, the pc will
stick in a session somewhere. Treat that session the same
as the first session. You can scan again and again, finding
the stuck sessions and get the withholds off in that
session and the ruds in as above.)

Clean up all sessions you can find. And get what the
auditor didn't know, what the auditor didn't know about the
pc, and for good measure, get in the other ruds.

Cleaning up an old session will suddenly give you all the
latent gain in that session. It's worth having!

This can be extended to &quot;What didn't the org know about
you?&quot; for those who've had trouble with it.

And it can be extended to any life area where the pc has
had trouble.

SUMMARY

If you clean up as above withholds that have been missed on
any pc or person, you will have any case flying.

This then is not just emergency data for use on flubbed
intensives. It is vital technology that can do wonders for
cases.


ON ANY CASE THAT HAS BEEN AUDITED A PART OF AN INTENSIVE,
BEFORE GOING ON THE AUDITOR SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME LOCATING
WITHHOLDS HE OR SHE MIGHT HAVE MISSED ON THAT PC.

Any pc that is ending a week's auditing should be carefully
checked over for withholds that might have been missed.

Any pc that is ending his or her intensives should be most
carefully checked out for missed withholds. This makes
sudden auditing gains.

Any case not up to recognizing overts will respond to
&quot;didn't know about you&quot; when the case doesn't respond to
&quot;withhold&quot;.

Any student should be checked weekly for missed withholds.

Any person who is giving an auditor, the field, the
Organization, a course or Scientology any trouble should be
gotten hold of and checked for missed withholds.

It is provenly true on five continents that any other meter
reaches only occasionally below the level of consciousness
and the British Mark IV reaches deeply and well. It is
dangerous to audit without a meter because then you really
miss withholds. It is dangerous to audit without knowing
how to really use a meter because of missing withholds. It
is dangerous to audit with any other meter than a British
Mark IV. It is SAFE to audit if you can run a meter and if
you use a British Mark IV and if you pull all the withholds
and missed withholds.

EVERY blow-up you ever had with a pc was due ENTIRELY to
having missed a withhold whether you were using a meter or
not, whether you were asking for withholds or not.

Just try it out the next time a pc gets upset and you'll
see that I speak the usual sooth.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: sf.rd
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

44. HCOB  12 FEB 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 FEBRUARY 1962

sthil
CenOCon

HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS

I have finally reduced clearing withholds to a rote formula
which contains all the basic elements necessary to obtain a
high case gain without missing any withholds.

These steps now become THE way to clear a withhold or
missed withhold.

AUDITOR OBJECTIVE

The auditor's object is to get the pc to look so that the
pc can tell the auditor.

The auditor's objective is not to get the pc to tell the
auditor. If the pc is in session the pc will talk to the
auditor. If the pc is not in session, the pc won't tell the
auditor a withhold. I never have any trouble getting the pc
to tell me a withhold. I sometimes have trouble getting the
pc to find out about a withhold so the pc can tell it to
me. If the pc will not tell the auditor a withhold (and the
pc knows it) the remedy is rudiments. I always assume, and
correctly, that if the pc knows about it the pc will tell
me. My job is to get the pc to find out so the pc has
something to tell me. The chief auditor blunder in pulling
withholds stems from the auditor assuming the pc already
knows when the pc does not.

If used exactly, this system will let the pc find out and
let the pc get all the charge off of a withhold as well as
tell the auditor all about it.

Missing a withhold or not getting all of it is the sole
source of ARC break.

Get a reality on this now. All trouble you have or have
ever had or will ever have with ARC breaky pcs stems only
and wholly from having restimulated a withhold and yet
having failed to pull it. The pc never forgives this. This
system steers you around the rock of missed withholds and
their bombastic consequences.

WITHHOLD SYSTEM

This system has five parts:

0. The Difficulty being handled.

1. What the withhold is.

2. When the withhold occurred.

3. All of the withhold.

4. Who should have known about it.

Numbers (2) (3) and (4) are repeated over and over, each
time testing (1) until (1) no longer reacts.

(2) (3) and (4) clear (1). (1) straightens out in part (0).

(0) is cleaned up by finding many (1)'s and (1) is
straightened up by running (2) (3) and (4) many times.

These steps are called (0) Difficulty, (1) What (2) When
(3) All (4) Who. The auditor must memorize these as What,
When, All and Who. The order is never varied. The questions
are asked one after the other. None of them are repetitive
questions.

USE A MARK IV

The whole operation is done on a Mark IV. Use no other
meter as other meters may read right electronically without
reading mental reactions well enough.

Do this whole system and all questions at sensitivity 16.

THE QUESTIONS

0. The suitable question concerning the Difficulty the pc
is having. Meter reads.

1. What. &quot;What are you withholding about ............?&quot;
(the Difficulty) (or as given in future issues).

Meter reads. Pc answers with a w/h, large or small.

2. When. &quot;When did that occur?&quot; or &quot;When did that happen?&quot;
or &quot;What was the time of that?&quot;

Meter reads. Auditor can date in a generality or precisely
on meter. A generality is best at first, a precise dating
on the meter is used later in this sequence on the same w/h.

3. All. &quot;Is that all of that?&quot; Meter reads. Pc answers.

4. Who. &quot;Who should have known about that?&quot; or &quot;Who didn't
find out about that?&quot; Meter reads. Pc answers.

Now test (1) with the same question that got a read the
first time. (The question for (1) is never varied on the
same w/h.)

If needle still reads ask (2) again, then (3), then (4),
getting as much data as possible on each. Then test (1)
again. (1) is only tested, never worked over except by
using (2), (3) and (4).

Continue this rotation until (1) clears on needle and thus
no longer reacts on a test.

Treat every withhold you find (or have found) in this
fashion always.

SUMMARY

You are looking at a preview of PREPARATORY TO CLEARING.
&quot;Prepclearing&quot; for short. Abandon all further reference to
security checking or sec checking. The task of the auditor
in Prepclearing is to prepare a pc's rudiments so that they
can't go out during 3D Criss Cross.

The value of Prepclearing in case gain, is greater than any
previous Class I or Class II auditing.

We have just risen well above Security Checking in ease of
auditing and in case gains.

You will shortly have the ten Prepclearing lists which give
you the (0) and (1) questions.

Meanwhile, treat every withhold you find in the above
fashion for the sake of the preclear, for your sake as an
auditor and for the sake of the good name of Scientology.

(Note: To practise with this system, take a withhold a pc
has given several times to you or you and other auditors.
Treat the question that originally got it as (1) and clean
it as above in this system. You will be amazed.)

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:sf.cden 
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

45. HCOB   3 MAY 62 ARC BREAKS - MISSED WITHHOLDS


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1962

Franchise

ARC BREAKS - MISSED WITHHOLDS

(HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN.
WHEN AN AUDITOR OR STUDENT HAS TROUBLE WITH AN &quot;ARC
BREAKY PC&quot; OR NO GAIN, OR WHEN AN AUDITOR IS FOUND TO BE
USING FREAK CONTROL METHODS OR PROCESSES TO &quot;KEEP A PC IN
SESSION&quot;, THE HCO SEC, D OF T OR D OF P SHOULD JUST HAND A
COPY OF THIS BULLETIN TO THE AUDITOR AND MAKE HIM OR HER
STUDY IT AND TAKE AN HCO EXAM ON IT.)

After some months of careful observation and tests, I can
state conclusively that: ALL ARC BREAKS STEM FROM MISSED
WITHHOLDS.

This is vital technology, vital to the auditor and to
anyone who wants to live.

Conversely:

THERE ARE NO ARC BREAKS WHEN MISSED WITHHOLDS HAVE BEEN

CLEANED UP.

By WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT.

By MISSED WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL

ACT WHICH HAS BEEN RESTIMULATED BY ANOTHER BUT NOT DISCLOSED.

This is FAR more important in an auditing session than most
auditors have yet realized.

Even when some auditors are told about this and shown it
they still seem to miss its importance and fail to use it.
Instead they continue to use strange methods of controlling
the pc and oddball processes on ARC Breaks.

This is so bad that one auditor let a pc die rather than
pick up the missed withholds! So allergy to picking up
missed withholds can be so great that an auditor has been
known to fail utterly rather than do so. Only constant
hammering can drive this point home. When it is driven
home, only then can auditing begin to happen across the
world; the datum is that important.

An auditing session is 50% technology and 50% application.
I am responsible for the technology. The auditor is wholly
responsible for the application. Only when an auditor
realizes this can he or she begin to obtain uniformly
marvellous results everywhere.

No auditor now needs &quot;something else&quot;, some odd mechanism
to keep pcs in session.

PICKING UP MISSED WITHHOLDS KEEPS PCS IN SESSION.

There is no need for a rough, angry ARC Breaky session. If
there is one it is not the fault of the pc. It is the fault
of the auditor. The auditor has failed to pick up missed
withholds.

As of now it is not the pc that sets the tone of the
session. It is the auditor. And the auditor who has a
difficult session (providing he or she has used standard
technology, model session, and can run an E-Meter), has one 
only because he or she failed to ask for missed withholds.

What is called a &quot;dirty needle&quot; (a pc's needle pattern) is
caused by missed withholds, not withholds.

Technology today is so powerful that it must be flawlessly
applied. One does his CCHs in excellent 2 way comm with the
pc. One has his TRs, Model Session and E-Meter operation
completely perfect. And one follows exact technology. And
one keeps the missed withholds picked up.

There is an exact and precise auditor action and response
for every auditing situation, and for every case. We are
not today beset by variable approaches. The less variable
the auditor's actions and responses, the greater gain in
the pc. It is terribly precise. There is no room for flubs.

Further, every pc action has an exact auditor response. And
each of these has its own drill by which it can be learned.

Auditing today is not an art, either in technology or
procedure. It is an exact science. This removes Scientology
from every one of the past practices of the mind.

Medicine advanced only to the degree that its responses by
the practitioner were standardized and the practitioner had
a professional attitude toward the public.

Scientology is far ahead of that today.

What a joy it is to a preclear to receive a completely
standard session. To receive a text book session. And what
gains the pc makes! And how easy it is on the auditor! It
isn't how interesting or clever the auditor is that makes
the session. It's how standard the auditor is. Therein lies
pc confidence.

Part of that standard technology is asking for missed
withholds any time the pc starts to give any trouble. This
is, to a pc, a totally acceptable control factor. And it
totally smooths the session.

You have no need for and must not use any ARC Break
process. Just ask for missed withholds.

Here are some of the manifestations cured by asking for
missed withholds.

1. Pc failing to make progress.

2. Pc critical of or angry at auditor.

3. Pc refusing to talk to auditor.

4. Pc attempting to leave session.

5. Pc not desirous of being audited (or anybody not
desirous of being audited).

6. Pc boiling off.

7. Pc exhausted.

8. Pc feeling foggy at session end.

9. Dropped havingness.

10. Pc telling others the auditor is no good.

11. Pc demanding redress of wrongs.

12. Pc critical of organizations or people of Scientology.

13. People critical of Scientology.

14. Lack of auditing results.

15. Dissemination failures.

Now I think you will agree that in the above list we have
every ill we suffer from in the activities of auditing.

Now PLEASE believe me when I tell you there is ONE CURE for
the lot and ONLY that one. There are no other cures.

The cure is contained in the simple question or its
variations &quot;Have I missed a withhold on you ? &quot;

THE COMMANDS

In case of any of the conditions l. to 15. above ask the pc
one of the following commands and CLEAN THE NEEDLE OF ALL
INSTANT READ. Ask the exact question you asked the first
time as a final test. The needle must be clean of all
instant reaction before you can go on to anything else. It
helps the pc if each time the needle twitches, the auditor
says, &quot;That&quot; or &quot;There&quot; quietly but only to help the pc see
what is twitching. One doesn't interrupt the pc if he or
she is already giving it. This prompting is the only use of
latent reads in Scientology-to help the pc spot what
reacted in the first place.

The commonest questions:

&quot;In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?&quot;

&quot;In this session have I failed to find out something?&quot;

&quot;In this session is there something I don't know about you?&quot;

The best beginning rudiments withhold question:

&quot;Since the last session is there something you have done
that I don't know about?&quot; Prepcheck Zero Questions follow:

&quot;Has somebody failed to find out about you who should have?&quot;

&quot;Has anyone ever failed to find out something about you?&quot;

&quot;Is there something I failed to find out about you?&quot;

&quot;Have you ever successfully hidden something from an auditor?&quot;

&quot;Have you ever done something somebody failed to discover?&quot;

&quot;Have you ever evaded discovery in this lifetime?&quot;

&quot;Have you ever hidden successfully?&quot;

&quot;Has anyone ever failed to locate you?&quot;

(These Zeroes do not produce &quot;What&quot; questions until the
auditor has located a specific overt.)

When Prepchecking, when running any process but the CCHs,
if any one of the auditing circumstances in l to 15 above
occurs, ask for missed withholds. Before leaving any chain
of overts in Prepchecking, or during Prepchecking, ask
frequently for missed withholds, &quot;Have I missed any
withhold on you?&quot; or as above.

Do not conclude intensives on any process without cleaning
up missed withholds.

Asking for missed withholds does not upset the dictum of
using no O/W processes in rudiments.

Most missed withholds clean up at once on two way comm
providing the auditor doesn't ask leading questions about
what the pc is saying. Two way comm consists of asking for what
the meter showed, acknowledging what the pc said and
checking the meter again with the missed withhold question.
If pc says, &quot;I was mad at my wife,&quot; as an answer, just ack
and check the meter with the missed withhold question.
Don't say, &quot;What was she doing?&quot; In cleaning missed
withholds do not use the Prepcheck system unless you are
Prepchecking. And even in Prepchecking, if the zero is not
a missed withhold question and you are only checking for
missed withholds amid other activities, do it simply as
above, by two way comm, not by the Prepcheck system.

To get auditing into a state of perfection, to get clearing
general, all we have to do is: 1. Know our basics (Axioms,
Scales, Codes, the fundamental theory about the thetan and
the mind);

2. Know our practical (TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, CCHs,
Prepchecking and clearing routines).

In actual fact this is not much to ask. For the return is
smooth results and a far, far better world. An HPA/HCA can
learn the data in l above and all but clearing routines in
the material in 2. An HPA/HCA should know these things to
perfection. They are not hard to learn. Additives and
interpretations are hard to get around. Not the actual data
and performance.

Knowing these things, one also needs to know that all one
has to do is clean the E-Meter of missed withholds to make
any pc sit up and get audited smoothly, and all is as happy
as a summer dream.

We are making all our own trouble. Our trouble is lack of
precise application of Scientology. We fail to apply it in
our lives or sessions and try something bizarre and then we
fail too. And with our TRs, Model Session and meters we are
most of all failing to pick up and clean up MISSED WITHHOLDS.

We don't have to clean up all the withholds if we keep the
Missed Withholds cleaned up.

Give a new auditor the order to clean up &quot;Missed Withholds&quot;
and he or she invariably will start asking the pc for
withholds. That's a mistake. You ask the pc for Missed
Withholds.

Why stir up new ones to be missed when you haven't cleaned
up those already missed? Instead of putting out the fire we
pour on gunpowder. Why find more you can then miss when you
haven't found those that have been missed.

Don't be so confounded reasonable about the pc's
complaints. Sure, they may all be true BUT he's complaining
only because withholds have been missed. Only then does the
pc complain bitterly.

Whatever else you learn, learn and understand this please.
Your auditing future hangs on it. The fate of Scientology
hangs on it. Ask for missed withholds when sessions go wrong.

Get the missed withholds when life goes wrong. Pick up the
missed withholds when staffs go wrong. Only then can we win
and grow. We're waiting for you to become technically
perfect with TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, to be able
to do CCHs and Prepchecking and clearing techniques, and to
learn to spot and pick up missed withholds.

If pcs, organizations and even Scientology vanish from
Man's view it will be because you did not learn and use
these things.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd 
Copyright  1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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


