I think it would be useful to clear up this KR bit.
Auditors are NOT required to write KR's on things their PC divulges in session UNLESS it is under "I am not auditing you.", i.e. an HCO sec-check R-factor.
In a normal session the PC's overts are considered non-actionable by HCO.
That IS "standard tech" on the matter.
I find it strange that Caroline would be fussing about this shit re Karen writing up KR's on her PCs when there is NO REQUIREMENT to do so per "standard tech" when giving a regular auditing session - I would think she should know better given her level of training.
Well I'd find such a characterization strange too. But please show me where I am "fussing about this shit re Karen writing up KR's on her PCs," any more than you're fussing about whatever you're interested in or writing about.
The earliest version of Miscellaneous Reports was published in 1972, according to the Board Technical Bulletin published in the 1976 edition of the Technical Volumes, which I'll post in relevant part. When I got into Scientology in 1975 this was the operative technical bulletin:
BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN
7 NOVEMBER 1972R
Revised & Reissued 20 November 1974 as BTB
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER 1972
(Revisions in this type style)
Auditor Admin Series 20R
A Miscellaneous Report is a report such as an MO Report, a D of P Inteview, an Ethics Report, a Success Story, etc, which is put in the pc’s folder and gives a C/S more information about a case.
It is the responsibility of HGC Admin to see that Miscellaneous Reports get into the folder.
It is the Auditor’s responsibility to enter these details in the Folder Summary.
When an Auditor finds an Ethics Situation he should mark it and circle it in red after the session. The pc is not necessarily turned in because a pc cannot be tried on his auditing, it’s illegal, but the Auditor should make mention of it on his Auditor’s C/S. If it is a serious Ethics Situation that affects others, then it is the Auditor’s responsibility to report it.
The Auditor would make out the report with a carbon copy. He marks it “SESSION KNOWLEDGE REPORT NON-ACTIONABLE ON (pc’s name)” and makes out the report. Both copies are left in the folder. The C/S initials the one for Ethics and sends it on. The other stays in the folder.
Sometimes one finds another person’s offences than the pc’s in getting off withholds. These when serious should be reported to Ethics for investigation. Pcs can be sent to Ethics (i.e. for PTS handling, Court of Ethics for refusing to answer an Auditing Question, etc, etc) but the following rule applies:
THERE IS NO DIRECT ROUTING OF PRECLEARS TO THE ETHICS OFFICER EXCEPT THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF THE QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION.
When the C/S decides to send the pc to Ethics, he marks a small goldenrod card “ETH”, clips it to the folder and sends the folder to the Examiner.
The Examiner checks over the folder, and calls pc in via Qual I&I for an Examination. If folder not okay, it is returned to the C/S with appropriate Cramming Orders.
If all is correct the Examiner sends the pc direct to Ethics.
If not, pc is routed back to the HGC and the Examiner or Cramming Officer writes up the required Cramming Orders.
When pc has finished his Ethics Cycle he is routed back to the Examiner and is returned to the HGC via Qual I & I.
It is D of P’s responsibility to keep a tension line in with Ethics to make sure the Ethics cycle is completed and the pc is returned to Tech lines.
If the pc is returned to HGC lines for a PTS situation to be handled by auditing, a small yellow card is clipped to the outside of the folder by the C/S until the pc finishes the PTS R/D.
All data about such actions are filed in the folder, including a copy of the Ethics Officer Interview notes.
It is the responsibility of HGC Admin to see that Conditions Orders and Ethics Orders that affect the preclear’s auditing progress get put in the pc’s folder for the C/S to see.
Cases undergoing Ethics actions, Comm Evs, amends projects or low conditions should not be audited until the Ethics matter is cleared up and complete. It only louses up their cases to audit them when under such stress.
Pcs in lowered conditions should be encouraged to work out of the condition and when they reach Emergency the auditing may be resumed.
Details of these Ethics cycles should be entered by the Auditor in the Folder Summary.
References: HCO P/L 19 Apr 65 “Ethics”
HCO P/L 29 Apr 65 “Ethics—Review”
HCO P/L 4 July 65 “Pc Routing Review Code”
HCO P/L 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”
HCO P/L 17 Jun 65 “Staff Auditor Advices”
HCO P/L 30 July 65 “Pc Routing to Ethics”
HCO P/L 16 Nov 71 “Conditions, Awards and Penances”
Tape 7 April 72 Exp Dn Tape 3 “Auditor Administration”
HCO B 29 Mar 70 “Auditing and Ethics”
Training & Services Bureau
Corrected by CS—5
Ens. Judy Ziff
Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow
Commodore’s Staff Aides
Approved by the Board of Issues
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
There are all kinds of ways that Scientologists, including auditors, C/Ses, Ds of P, FESers, Examiners, Ethics Officers, OSA, RTC, etc. betray their patients' or clients' trust, violate confidences, and desecrate the priest-penitent concept and privilege.
According to the dates of these technical issues, the minimum time frame for this particular abuse is 1974 to 2013. The abuse clearly began earlier. See, for example GO 121669 MSH December 16, 1969 PROGRAMME: INTELLIGENCE: INTERNAL SECURITY. Whether or not any of us knew it at the time, we all violated people and principle when we followed the rules.
I've said repeatedly that the problem is systemic. Karen's video actually supports that premise, where she says that at any time 20-30-40 people have, or had, access to "confidential" PC information. I held multiple Sea Org posts, between 1978 and 1987, where by doing my job, I personally violated persons and the principles our PRs and marketers said we were helping or defending. What Scientology staff member or Sea Org member did not contribute to this abuse? Wikipedia: Priest-Penitent privilege.
There is no doubt that Hubbard, and not DM is the source of most of the abuses in Scientology, and definitely the desecration of the Priest-Penitent privilege. DM might be responsible for musical chairs one night, and what music accompanied the process, but Hubbard was responsible for the system in which "Bohemian Rhapsody" was played and in which every Scientologist present went along with its playing. Everyone's recovery from this behavior has to begin with seeing the situation and the system as it is, not as the abusers want us to see it. There is a set of abusers that want everyone to see a false who, David Miscavige. I am not arguing that he is not a psychopath. If he is, he is a psychopath running a psychopath's psychopathic system. The "Indies," so they say, just don't want psychopath DM running their psychopathic system.
I realize that Scientology practitioners who benefit from promoting and delivering Scientology have a heavier vested interest in Scientology, and will probably not be the first to break free of Hubbard's brainwashing. The practitioners will undoubtedly be among the most strident of deniers of this truth, and for understandable, but not moral or humane, reasons. The following hypothesis for messianic movements like Scientology has relevance I believe, in this situation:
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief.
Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. How and why does such a response to contradictory evidence come about? This is the question on which this book focuses. We hope that, by the end of the volume, we will have provided an adequate answer to the question, an answer documented by data. Let us begin by stating the conditions under which we would expect to observe increased fervor following the disconfirmation of a belief.
There are five such conditions.
1. A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves.
2. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief.
3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
4. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The first two of these conditions specify the circumstances that will make the belief resistant to change. The third and fourth conditions together, on the other hand, point to factors that would exert powerful pressure on a believer to discard his belief. It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation. We must, therefore, state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor.
5. The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of dis-confirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct. These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.
Leon Festinger, Stanley W. Riecken Schachter (2013-04-01). When Prophecy Fails (Kindle Locations 46-76). . Kindle Edition.
We do not have to wait until the Scientologists wake up in order to stop the abuse, and it would be foolish to do so, or to forward this concept as sensible.
Either the IFA-certified auditors, including Karen deliver standard tech auditing or they don't. If they don't, they should cop to the false advertising and take down their fraudulent promo pages. If they do deliver standard tech auditing, they should stop. The abuse is inherent, and it is systemic.