Are "Leaving Staff" Sec Checks Reverse Processing?

[uniquemand]

I have read issues that talk about critics of scientology being considered anti-scientologists, which is just another way of saying Supppressive Persons, IMO.

We know that LRH wrote issues declaring SPs fair game. We also know that he wrote that one of the things that should be done with such people, if they show up at Qual, is that they should be reverse processed.

I'm wondering if the decision to leave staff actually is seen as reason to consider a person a critic/anti/SP, and if at this point, Qual starts reverse processing them, and if the Leaving Staff Sec Check isn't this in practice. Certainly, on mine, they never let me flatten anything they found, and asserted I had more that I had not told them, which is reverse processing if you ask me!

Thoughts? Are leaving staff routing forms pretty much naive, really being nothing more than a signal to management that they need to destroy this person?

[Tim Skog]

You might just have something there.

[clamicide]

I have read issues that talk about critics of scientology being considered anti-scientologists, which is just another way of saying Supppressive Persons, IMO.

We know that LRH wrote issues declaring SPs fair game. We also know that he wrote that one of the things that should be done with such people, if they show up at Qual, is that they should be reverse processed.

I'm wondering if the decision to leave staff actually is seen as reason to consider a person a critic/anti/SP, and if at this point, Qual starts reverse processing them, and if the Leaving Staff Sec Check isn't this in practice. Certainly, on mine, they never let me flatten anything they found, and asserted I had more that I had not told them, which is reverse processing if you ask me!

Thoughts? Are leaving staff routing forms pretty much naive, really being nothing more than a signal to management that they need to destroy this person?

Interesting concept. I could actually see this in the SO, but someone in that area would have to respond.

I can only speak for our org. Doing Leaving Staff Sec Checks was one of the worst assignments in the world. It was the auditor who usually got threatened with the SP declare if they didn't find all the giant withholds that was causing this guy to want to leave. Guy still wants to leave=you're missing withholds on him=Suppressive Act. There was such a fixed idea that only withholds caused this desire that the idea was to keep adding questions to the list until you finally got the ones that were causing the guy to want to blow. If the guy could never be allowed to be 'clean', perhaps that could be seen as reverse processing. It took a HELL of a lot for everybody to finally give up and let the guy declare to the completion of the Sec Check. Wound up with claiming the guy was a no-responsibility case, or if the auditor later got in ANY trouble, it was all the auditor's fault.

There were a couple of times our org did try to work on getting people declared who wanted to leave staff. It didn't happen, and it was told to the terminals trying to get this done that wanting to leave staff in itself was not cause for an SP declare. Don't know who the rational soul was that kicked those packets back.

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

We also know that he wrote that one of the things that should be done with such people, if they show up at Qual, is that they should be reverse processed.

Could you gives us a reference to this.
I don't recall this at all.

[FinallyFree]

Interesting concept. I could actually see this in the SO, but someone in that area would have to respond.

I can only speak for our org. Doing Leaving Staff Sec Checks was one of the worst assignments in the world. It was the auditor who usually got threatened with the SP declare if they didn't find all the giant withholds that was causing this guy to want to leave. Guy still wants to leave=you're missing withholds on him=Suppressive Act. There was such a fixed idea that only withholds caused this desire that the idea was to keep adding questions to the list until you finally got the ones that were causing the guy to want to blow. If the guy could never be allowed to be 'clean', perhaps that could be seen as reverse processing. It took a HELL of a lot for everybody to finally give up and let the guy declare to the completion of the Sec Check. Wound up with claiming the guy was a no-responsibility case, or if the auditor later got in ANY trouble, it was all the auditor's fault.

There were a couple of times our org did try to work on getting people declared who wanted to leave staff. It didn't happen, and it was told to the terminals trying to get this done that wanting to leave staff in itself was not cause for an SP declare. Don't know who the rational soul was that kicked those packets back.

So THAT'S why I never got my sec check.... probably why others never got their sec check's.

[clamicide]

So THAT'S why I never got my sec check.... probably why others never got their sec check's.

Also, good luck getting an auditor's time "wasted" on 'non-paying-counter-intention-worthless-scum' if there is even a chance in hell of them auditing a paying public. We actually had staff who paid for theirs so they could actually get in session instead of spending their days on MEST work (obviously had family with $).

[uniquemand]

Interesting concept. I could actually see this in the SO, but someone in that area would have to respond.

I can only speak for our org. Doing Leaving Staff Sec Checks was one of the worst assignments in the world. It was the auditor who usually got threatened with the SP declare if they didn't find all the giant withholds that was causing this guy to want to leave. Guy still wants to leave=you're missing withholds on him=Suppressive Act. There was such a fixed idea that only withholds caused this desire that the idea was to keep adding questions to the list until you finally got the ones that were causing the guy to want to blow. If the guy could never be allowed to be 'clean', perhaps that could be seen as reverse processing. It took a HELL of a lot for everybody to finally give up and let the guy declare to the completion of the Sec Check. Wound up with claiming the guy was a no-responsibility case, or if the auditor later got in ANY trouble, it was all the auditor's fault.

There were a couple of times our org did try to work on getting people declared who wanted to leave staff. It didn't happen, and it was told to the terminals trying to get this done that wanting to leave staff in itself was not cause for an SP declare. Don't know who the rational soul was that kicked those packets back.

The guy who was doing mine was in a hell of a bind, then, because while admin idiots who don't understand the tech at all might think anybody leaving means they are "blowing" (a blow is ONLY a sudden, unexplained departure), I was actually leaving because my wife was pregnant, and I thought the most ethical thing I could do was get a job that paid enough money to support my family, and be a paying PUBLIC, so that I could get the services I needed to later come back as a better staff member.

Link to document referencing the bit about reverse processing SPs

[clamicide]

The guy who was doing mine was in a hell of a bind, then, because while admin idiots who don't understand the tech at all might think anybody leaving means they are "blowing" (a blow is ONLY a sudden, unexplained departure), I was actually leaving because my wife was pregnant, and I thought the most ethical thing I could do was get a job that paid enough money to support my family, and be a paying PUBLIC, so that I could get the services I needed to later come back as a better staff member.

Link to document referencing the bit about reverse processing SPs

Thanks for posting the link. I usually forget about the reverse processing clause. Oh, and yes...in your case? Going into agreement with you needing to leave for that would have been 'being reasonable'. You should have been able to make it go right to stay. Whether you 'blew' was irrelevant, you wanted to leave.

[FinallyFree]

Also, good luck getting an auditor's time "wasted" on 'non-paying-counter-intention-worthless-scum' if there is even a chance in hell of them auditing a paying public. We actually had staff who paid for theirs so they could actually get in session instead of spending their days on MEST work (obviously had family with $).

My sister took a loan out to get her sec check.

[uniquemand]

Mine was added to my F/L debt, which I paid later.