Lisa McPherson files

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
This is what Alain Kartuzinski said were the mistakes with Lisa McPherson's handling:

On October 13 1998 Alain Kartuzinski said:
Q. Okay. Well, why would the existence of a criminal
investigation cause somebody to document or not document
something? Why would you suppose that? Is that an
experience with the church that if there's a problem like
this that's perceived as being investigated that they don't
document things the same way they would in other situations?

A. I don't have such knowledge. It is just something
I have been thinking a lot of -- about and of in the last
three years, and I know that I'm the one who is responsible
for this, for whatever errors were made, and I know this is
understood, although it was not written, and I know this is
why I have the position I have now for which I am very over
qualified. I hope I'm answering your question.

Q. Whatever -- there's no right or wrong answer to
that question. I'm asking your opinion, so --
You said that you know that you were responsible
for whatever errors were made in reference to Lisa
McPherson. What, in your mind, were the errors that you
made and how do they relate to what happened to her?
A. There are several things that I feel I -- in
retrospect -- you know, I did not do these errors on purpose
at the time. It's just I have had a lot of time to look at
it. - How could I do this better if it occurred again?
The first error, I think, is that it violated the
church policy on -- to bring her to the Fort Harrison in the
first place, which was my call, because we do not ordinarily
deal deal with people who have this kind of problem.

Q. Are you talking about type threes?

A. Meaning psychotic people.

Q. Okay. Where would they normally be dealt with?

A. They would not -- they would not -- definitely not
be even church public, meaning as a friend or family could
take care of them and suddenly -- we wouldn't abandon
someone, just throw them in the street or anything like
that, but whatever help would be given to them would be on
a -- via their family and, you know, through advices or
showing them the scriptures, things Mr. Hubbard wrote on the
subject, so that they could deal with this problem, which is
a considerable problem.

Q. Okay. Well, who, then, is in charge of isolation
watches and introspection run-downs, not auditors, under the
senior CS's command?

A. All right. So first of all, at Flag we have a
definite policy not to accept these people, which is not
necessarily the case in other churches.

Q. Why is that?

A. That's the way that it is. I don't --

Q. Was it that way in '95?

A. It was that way in '95.

Q. Did you know of this policy?

A. Yes, I did, and so that's why I'm saying this is
probably the -- the biggest mistake I made, which led to
other mistakes.

Q. How do you know that policy exists?

A. Because I read it many times.

Q. Is it in writing?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Okay. And is there a document that you can tell
me what it is?

A. Absolutely.

Q. What's the name of the document?

A. It's Base Flag Order, I think, 286. I'm not sure
of the number.

THE DEPONENT: Do we have these materials?

MR. TITUS: I have them for you if you want.

MR. CROW: Sure.
BY MR. CROW:

Q. Go ahead. You can --

A. So that was the --

MR. TITUS: See if it's that one (indicating.)

THE WITNESS: 456 is the number.

BY MR. CROW:

Q. Okay. Who -- who called your attention to this,
or did you know about it?

A. Oh, I knew about it.

Q. You had read it before?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Okay. And who -- did you know the actual -- that
it was 456 or did somebody look that up?

A. No, no, I knew perfectly about this issue.

Q. Okay. And as far as pulling it to bring it to the
statement today, did you do that or did your attorney do it?

MR. TITUS: I did.

BY MR. CROW:

Q. Okay. Continue. I was asking you about what you
identified as your errors.

A. Now, maybe I -- if you don't mind, I'd like to
explain why I made that decision.

Q. Well, let's finish this -- finish the answer to
the question I've asked and --

A. Okay.

Q. then you can go back and explain later.

A. Okay.

[...]

A. I think the second thing that was wrong was that I
had -- I was in a position where I had a lot of work, and I
was, at the time, holding three different jobs, and this
this amount of work and not delegating some of it was, I
think, a big error, because I possibly could have done
better at the time having more time to devote to Lisa.
You know, although I did do a lot to help her, it
may have gone differently if I had more time, and I
didn't -- I didn't organize that.

Q. Okay. Is that it in terms of your errors?

A. Well, I just thought of something right now
which -- in the scriptures there is definite mention of
obtaining full medical examinations of such a person in such
a distraught state, and when I went to the hospital, I
assumed she had had such a physical examination, and that's
all I can say about that, that -- okay, she has just had an
accident. I imagine the procedure is you would examine the
person to see if they're okay, and I don't know whether it
would have changed something or not. I don't know if what
she had could have been detected before she had it. I don't
know. Quite possibly it could have, so that's what I was
thinking about.

Q. Anything else?

MR. MCGARRY: Well, let's follow up on the
other two jobs he had. He mentioned --

BY MR. CROW:

Q. Okay. Well, any other errors?

A. This is a possible error. I'm not totally certain
about this. You probably know that in the -- in the months
of June, July and August Lisa was in a similar, although
less grave, state, and at the time what -- what happened was
that I was her own minister. I decided to do that in August

to a very good result, and so when I saw her on that night
at the hospital and later that same day, our understanding
was that I was going to take care of her, and, you know, she
knew that I was going to help her, but I was the only person
that could be the case supervisor at that particular point
to help her. I was the only one trained that was on the
premises to do that.


Sworn Statement of Alain Kartuzinski (October 13, 1998)

Can anyone here post a copy of Flag Base Order 456?
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Flag Base Order 458 of 7 July 1992 "Handling Psychotics At The FSO" is a highly relevant Hubbard directive for Flag Base Tech and Security personnel, et al. We do not have a date for the Hubbard order, but believe it was when he was in Dunedin in the FSO's early days.

FBO 458 said:
BASE FLAG ORDER 458

7 July 1992​

FSO
Technical Personnel
Qual Personnel
Registrars
Dept 3
Security Personnel
KOT

HANDLING PSYCHOTICS AT THE FSO
(Taken from an LRH advice on the FSO.)

If a person comes onto registration lines who is psychotic and requires
accompaniment and a ward and they have to hold the person in a motel room — this
type of pc is not to be on the FSO's lines. Most cases are technically handleable in a
high-grade technical sphere such as is maintained at the FSO. But a plant who has
come in to blow the place up or a person who comes in and tries to eat the telephone
— it is that level that we must discard.

Security plays a definite pan in this. If a person comes into the lobby and
starts to say, "Up with Communism and down with the workers of the world," or
something of the sort, this is simply a Security matter and the person would be
routed off the premises.

But generally these people are detected on the tech lines (Ref: HCO PL 28
Jan. 91 II, THE TECH ESTIMATE LINE).

Psychotics must not be accepted, but are to be gotten off the org's lines. They
have usually been in the hands of psychiatrists and leave the organization open to
failures.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Compilation assisted by
LRH Technical Research
and Compilations​
 
Top