Sometimes I talk about unprofessionalism in the Free Zone.

I am not talking about auditors who leaned from teh seats of their pant or the best they could with few or no course room available, provided they try to the best they can and apply a modicum of intelligence in their practice.

I am not talking either about auditors who make errors, mistakes, because they got confused, didnt know any better or somhow misduplicated some minor technical point.

What I am talking is at a completely different level.

What I am talking about unprofessionalism is field trained Class IVs, VIs or lower who have no notion of what a Flag Only Rundown is and claim there is no difference between a provisional Class IV with 500 hours experience and a Flag Interned Clas XII auditor with 30,000 WDAH.

Or a Field auditor which in explicit contradiction of LRH (in Welcome to the Flag Internship) who feels he fully meets all Flag Standards, even though he never did a Flag Intenship, nor his mentors. Such auditors will rationalize why a grossly incomplete L pack without a checksheet nor any of the standard LRH C/Ses sessions taught by a Class VIII is "fine enough for them and their pcs" and sees nothing wrong with Quickying the Rundowns "because he gets such remarkable results" (In other words they do not believe in C/S 43 for audidtors and think that auditors have cases.

Or the self-trained NOTs auditor who has purposefully avoided being checked by anyone with experience with auditing the Rundown. and zip pcs through the program in les than 1/10th of what the well trained auditor will do.

Or the auditor who has not studied more than 2% of the Clearing materials and gleefuly attest people to Clear who have simply not made it.

Whenever I speak against such abuses, always attacking the out-tech, NEVER the personality nor past of the individual, the response tend to be Ad Hominem attacks, deliberate attempts to enturbulate as many people as possible, and spread false and misleading data and trying to impugn my technical integrity by inferring I was mistrained.

(The latest flagrant example is someone largely ignorant of the Ls technology making false assertion that David Mayo and others altered the Ls technology, not knowing that NO L Rundowns Bulletin or issue was published NOR REVISED after 1972, the Class X-XII checksheets I did are dated 1971 or 1972 and that 90% of the course packs are made from LRH C/S sessions with his instructions in hand and all those sessions were done in 1971 and 1972.

David Mayo had nothing to do with the Ls write-ups and did not revise any L bulletin nor issue.

NOBODY REVISED ANY L BULLETIN AFTER 1972!!!! There are no exception.
The Ls bulletins were not even revised to tell to omit the running of R3R on Clears, because per LRH "ONLY A FULL CLASS X can read L-10 issues and nobody got to revise them.

Anyone truly trained on the Ls would know that. Only someone who has accepted verbal tech and rumours and lies as part of his training would spread such blatantly false propaganda. The Course packs that I used were made and stapled on the Apollo, yet the auditor that I labelled Incompletely trained franctically try to fit a round peg in a square hole by inventing false data or spread lies he has heard.

It is a true fact that someone who was declared supressive by LRH himself for false reports in 1976 (se the 1976 HCOB Auditors who falsify worksheets) gave assurances it was "complete". The same auditor has sold over a dozen L pack to any FZ auditor willing to pay the $6000 for it, no matter how bad, flubby or unethical, or even if he wass trained at all as a Class IV. Of course people get mad at me when I tell them they have been ripped off. But they by atacking me they are shooting the Messenger.

Serious Out-Tech consist of the following:

Auditors mixing every conceivable rundowns,

Mixing techniques of Upper OT levels with lower ones,

Using upper techniques on lower level cases,

C/Sing for Solo Actions which could not possibly done Solo,

C/Sing Solo without having even read the Solo C/S Series,

C/Sing NOTs without having read half of the NOTs bulletins,

Zipping people on Rundowns (Ls, Power, Grades, Solo NOTS ) at dizzying quickie speed, and attesting people without the auditor nor pc even knowing what the EP is.

Putting people onto OT levels without any setups or doing any checklist and with many unhandled Bad Indicators,

Allowing pc to natter their head off intensives after intensives without once pulling a withold,

or the auditor who indicate to his pcs that some OT levels were "unnecessary".

This of course does not mention

the auditor who audited his pcs on various processes while they were both sipping beer at a pub,

or the one who encouraged his pc to drink so she would be more amenable to spend the night with him.

nor the one who was secretly having an affair with the wife of the pc he was currently auditing!!!

OR HOW ABOUT THE 60 YEAR PC (too old for past lfe auditing) who has a chronic history of Drug abuse WHO WAS RACED ON THE BRIDGE FROM WOG TO "NOTS COMPLETION" IN LESS THAN 2 INTENSIVES????

These are not invented cases, but only a mere glimpse at the kind of stuff that has come up on my lines...

There is plenty of out-tech in the FZ, outside of IFA.

As one of the FZ top trained people I get often pulled into what I call the FZ "Skid Row".

The very worse of IFA appears quite tame when compared to the whole FZ.


It is unavoidable to make mistakes when one audits. I never said otherwise. especially among beginner auditor.

But what can be surmised about the twenty year old veteran who still without any shame still does a more shabby job that most beginners. Is he truly trying to help.. If he were trying to help he would raise at least a finger to raise above the level of bare mediocrity. What can you say about his respect for the pc`, when the obvious viewpoint is that `sloppiness is good enough for for him (as long as he can pay)`.

I have worked with more beginner auditors than you have and can even imagine and encouraged them tremendously. I am currently working with over a dozen neophyte auditors and I am encouraging them a lot. So you appear to have build a lot of prejudiced ideas about me, either based on someone`s natter, black PR, Church INDOC or other ideas NOT BASED ON ACTUAL EXAMINATION OF MY PRODUCTS AS A TRAINER OF AUDITORS, to the point you say that I am in a bad need of being salvaged through a session from you., and that I must now follow your guidance...What is your training level, since You claim that you can teach me so much..

But what of the auditor who quickies his training, or after years of ample opportunity never raise a finger to maintain a minimum of quality. This is where YOU WORDS and LRH frankly depart. LRH never endorsed LAZYNESS IN AUDITORS.

Would you tolerate a fireman coming to save your house who has not read the ABC about fires, and slept through most of his training. This is different than your next door neighbour trying to help. You would definitely have every right to expect a PROFESSIONAL to have a minimum of skills and not to pour water over a grease fire and destroy the totality of your belongings in the name of help.

In the Amazon there are many Bush pilot who do not have a pilot license, and have no clue about plane maintenance. A good number have their clients never coming back after crashing in the Jungle. `They were trying to help`, though they were too lazy and sloppy to follow any kind of safety standards. Would you honestly fly with them....

It is wonderful thing to try to help. But are you truly helping people by giving them out-lists THAT YOU WONT CORRECT or if your auditing makes him suicidal or if the pc abandons forever auditing (especially in the FZ where some auditors tend to be so defensive about their auditing they sometimes seek to ACTIVELY PREVENT THE CORRECTION OF THEIR FAILED CASES BY ANYONE even if it means the pc abandoning Scn).

For someone who is trained at Flag as a Class 12 to willfully violate the auditor code by evaluating, overrunning FNs and remaining out of comm as one can see in Jason Beghe testimony is not something LRH would be proud of. Neither would I. I am frankly appalled at your open validation of out-tech in an audidtor who should know better. We are not talking about a neophyte making the errors that anyone at his level is expected to make, but an auditor labelled by Flag as `the best of the best` who is certain to repeat the same errors on his next pcs and yet you come to RTC`s rescue as their apologist.

Validation of auditors who recklessly give out-lists to pcs, leave them with unflat Evil Purposes, do not pull their Missed witholds is what produces cases like Lisa MacPherson and Jason Beghe.

Open encouragement of such out-tech is tantamount to saying you would like to see such cases multiply.

There is a FZ faction who feels that "one should never another to adjust his personal truth to others nor society and one must always respect each individual’s self-determination to disagree Standards and redefine them as he sees fit.. In other words, Out-Tech cannot truly exist and there are as many Stnadards as there are individuals.

When I confronted the author of that delirious theory that applying those principles means one would never sent anyone to Ethics, even a known child molester and killer or an anti-semitic individual advocating violence and mayhem. Even when I added that they wold see nothing wrong with processing Charles Manson who in a TV interview admitted a desired to see the whole of  Mankind exterminated, they simply ignored my answers.

Another group feels that everything on a case is simply explained by events that tok place in the last Universe and that our entire life and behavious is actually pre-destined as dictated in a series of previous or paralell universes.

There is yet another group who considers UFOs not only real but occupied by Evil Markabians whose prime operating target is the Church of Scientology and its infiltration. They claim having technology to "telepathicaly defeat" these agressors.

Another says he audited for 4 years Suppressives in a remote Galaxy because they were the reason for al troubles on this planet. Having completed that task he has evolved a "superior form of auditing" and claims to achieve on raw public the same results as Ful OT 7 faster and easier than the average person can brew a cup of coffee.

Finally there is a group who Promotes that QUALITY does no count. Oblivious that most of their stats are actualy false (they produce false Clears and quickie rundowns) they feel that "the end justifies the means".
THe main justification or rationalization for sloppy auditing in the Free Zone is the incorrectly applied datum that "ANY AUDITING IS BETTER THAN NO AUDITING".

Those who use it, always ensure it is taken out of the context of the bulletin or taped lecture it is coming from.




Anyone who has done the SHSBC, would have found over 20 places where LRH amended that datum that "Any auditing is better than no auditing".

Just like those validating untrained people doing the Ls:

In Lecture 7 Jun 1971 LRH said:`Any auditing is better than no Auditing: This applies to Normal auditing. L10 IS NOT NORMAL AUDITING. YOU CAN KILL A PC BY MISRUNNING L10`.

In HCOB 13 Aug 1971 L10 Training Prerequisites LRH states: ``Auditors who do not meet all the above requirements and are flubless have NO BUSINESS RUNNING L10... It is a HIGH CRIME to do otherwise ...you can kill a pc by flubs on L10.

And yet you chant ad nauseam "Any auditing is better than no auditing". Using the words of a Man to contradict him when it so pleases you.

I am starting to wonder if the COMPUTATION: AUDITING IS BETTER THAN NO AUDITING as an eternal apology for recklessness is not the FZ MAJOR SERVICE fac!!!

It certainly makes out-tech auditors and those too lazy to train or improve COMPLETELY RIGHT.

It makes those who work hard like me to ensure the best possible jb and high standards are kept and try to raise standards completely wrong...

It certainly makes them help escape domination (IN fact most natterers agaisnt me after I tried to correct them and they refused claim that I try to dominate them!) ... It makes them seek to dominate anyone who contradicts them.

They certainly see it as aiding their survival because it becomes utterly OK and no longer an overt to do any form of out-tech, no matter how gruesome and they view it as impeding those of people they decide to opperm like me...

In the First Class VIII TAPE LRH states`AUDITING IS NOT WHAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH`.

Perhaps anyone who advocate out-tech as a laudable goal ought to demonstrate that in clay.

WHY GIVE SLOPPY AND LAZY AUDITORS SO MUCH ADMIRATION... Nobody outside of the FZ seems to admire sloppiness and lazyness.


WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH BEING A PROFESSIONAL...

I know which LRH choose.

Pierre EThier



Class XII

Pierre Ethier

True Class XII