For having protested David Miscavige’s systematic distmantling of the church 0f Scientology, Mark Shreffler is now being subjected to a systematic black PR campaign by Scientology Inc. Mark is actively challenging accusations about him to his friends emanating from Flag (Scientology Inc’s “mecca”). A letter he recently sent to a Flag MAA (Master at Arms - the Ethics Officer) evidences just how deep the rabbit hole of falsehoods goes in corporate Scientology. It also sums up very accurately how Miscavige has decimated Scientology Inc.
AO FSO MAA (Slavka) August 2, 2012
The latest rumor is that the “dead agent” handling used at the FSO for my friends regarding me is that “Mark’s questions were answered but he did not like the answers he got.” This puts everyone on the wrong scent, and many will not recognize the smell because they are trusting and honorable people who would never think that their most trusted terminals in the church would lie to their faces. Yet, they remain hung up at Doubt. How can an OT with 38 years of highly commended service suddenly go postal and walk away from his friends and colleagues, refusing viable answers to his questions?
Of course the implication here is that I am the one who needs the correction and not the squirrel activities I have been reporting and trying to address.
I’ve realized, with these “r-factors” you have given to my friends, the degree to which third party has been used as a “management tool.” OSA personnel are quite expert with this device. Their normal operating basis seems to be, from what I can determine, deception. This is to such a degree that I’m actually concerned about them personally. It’s like continually postulating trouble!
It causes the actual problems to persist as these lies entered in to the scene make impossible an as-isness of the dilemma.
It is made easier for you, I suppose, by the fact that my friends know that if they call me on the phone to get my side of the story, they’ll be punished for doing so and be driven to huge amounts of expense and dev-t. You threaten their lifestyles and family harmony, and they forget what Ron went through to make the tech available to all of us.
DOUBT formulas are clearly no longer allowed in our church. People with questions must accept what they are told by their MAAs, and anyone with the temerity to communicate outside of those parameters is quickly throttled back in to line with sec checks or goldenrods. “Not being happy with an answer” means the doubt was not resolved, and the notion that one must settle for whatever he is told is fundamentally repugnant to any being applying a standard Doubt Formula, and would only be accepted by a robot.
There, by the use of force and the intelligence of an SP, goes the Church of Scientology.
I did not take the questions I presented you in 2011 lightly, and I really would have noticed if they were answered. It was not in my mind that it would take more than a week or two to handle, and I certainly did not anticipate that I would be walking away from a 38 year career as a gung-ho and highly commended member of this group until I discovered there were no answers for these management aberrations to be found in policy, and no willingness on the part of my terminals in the church to even inquire as to why these outpoints remained unhandled.
So, please, repeat for me if you would the answers I was supposedly given to the following questions:
- LRH said that the “make-break point” of org expansion is 5.4X. This figure was the foundation of the Birthday Game which was giving LRH the only thing he wanted for his birthday: church expansion. He did not want new buildings or people to increase their level of membership in some unaffiliated gung-ho group. My question to you was: “What org in the world that was here 30 years ago is 5.4 times larger today than it was then? How many orgs have achieved this expansion rate? If your answer is “ZERO”, how can we explain these proclamations of “unprecedented expansion?” WHAT is expanding, exactly? And to what does “47 times the expansion of any earlier time” refer? What happened to LRH stats? I don’t recall your answers to these questions.
- What are the STATS of the church from 1985 to 2011 on an annual basis on First Service Starts, WDAH, Pd Comps and GI? How many CL 8 auditors have been created over those years, and what is the trend? I did not get ANY stats from you or any of the terminals at OSA after hours of conversation and many requests – yet this is an essential part of the doubt formula.
- How is it that COB does “International Events” every few months and, in so doing, bypasses the entire command structure to relay information to the rank-and-file that SHOULD be coming to them from their local executives (and thus maintaining the command lines and empowering them)? This is obviously in violation of the policy DANGER CONDITIONS, RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECLARING and drives the lower echelons in to continuing Non Existence conditions. These events also disperse the attention of our congregation to the four winds and AWAY from their local scenes. They alter the importance of the one-by-one nature of Scientology, and the vital need to put most of our attention on bringing NEW people in to the church for services, per PROPORTIONATE MARKETING. How are these “INT EVENTS” justified when there is not ONE policy that supports them or explains their value – quite to the contrary. This is a continuing and Titanic management faux pas.
- Why have my reports since 1992 on the squirreled nature of the FSM program been ignored? If “the whole purpose of the field staff member program is to help increase the number of new people contacted, disseminated to and gotten on to the bridge,” (FSM SERIES #1) how is it that the entire program has been hijacked to the TOP of the bridge, gutting the lower echelons of their public? Why have I gotten many sec checks and a comm ev [which fully vindicated and commended me but ignored utterly the squirreled FSM program] for just writing these reports when millions in fraud have been reported and the flow of new people on and up the bridge brought to a standstill, and the pay of staff members from FSMCR eliminated? How can such obvious crimes that unmock our front-end groups be committed and prolifically reported with no interest or action from management? I don’t recall your response to these queries.
- I mentioned to you the fact that the OCA that LRH used at Saint Hill is not the squirreled version used in the Church today, and that the results of these different versions vary dramatically. This is a game changer because this test is a fundamental tool used in div 6 and div 4. It allows us to MAKE CONTACT with the public with reality. It gives us prediction and allows honest evaluation and correct programming so the public is winning at every turn. Because people are not trained in the use of this tool but are ordered to simply read off computer printouts, trait-by-trait, they have no familiarity with the test or with the fact that it is not the same profile LRH used at Saint Hill and to which he refers in Policy. The results rendered today set up our Div 6ers for wrong indications on their new public, and wrong case programming for C/Ses. This guarantees un-standard results which are puzzling because people do not question their measuring tools! This opens the door for squirreling the tech. How can such a huge alteration occur and it not be corrected – after innumerable reports on the matter?
- Why are there no Basic Books in most of the libraries in the United States even after our management promoted that this job was “DONE!” Anyone can check this because all public libraries are listed on the internet, including what books they have and which ones are being checked out and in what volume. This was my FIRST question to you when you asked “did you write this up?” Remember? I don’t recall your answer to this question. You clearly did not have one – and assume like many others that “everything is OK and that this, too, shall pass!” 10’s of millions of dollars worth of books… vanished. How did this occur, and what is being done about it?
- Why is the hallway at the Sandcastle lined with photos of people who have given money to the IAS, but no photos of people who have achieved the two purposes of orgs and given blood and years to the task of clearing people or opening missions or auditing people? (I understand that these photos have recently been taken down, but I wonder if the off-Source purpose they represent has been removed as well?) I don’t recall your answer to this question.
- What policies create and drive the IAS? It takes many millions from the congregation of the Church of Scientology (to say nothing of the distraction it creates to the attention of our group) and yet has no oversights. This is the elephant in the room. It is, by what I can determine, a renegade operation that has ZERO representation in policy but is apparently simply a money pit to be used in whatever arbitrary fashion is required by management. Where does all the money go that is paid to the IAS? What policy governs it? Who is in charge of it’s disbursement? It is not controlled by the Church of Scientology and does not go through the FP Committee of the Church. If the church public is only dwindling since the “founding” of the IAS by Yeager and Miscavige, how is its existence justified? Where is it in writing that LRH had any knowledge of this group’s formation or purpose? I don’t recall your answer to these questions.
- How many members are there in the IAS? This is an important number because one cannot do service in Div 4 without being a member. We hear numbers of Scientologists “in the millions,” but all I can document is less than 40,000 worldwide – and shrinking.
- Why does management promote that there are so many “new orgs” when in fact they are just new, subsidized buildings, and the “old orgs” they replace are not used any further? The field has not expanded: only their org’s expenses have expanded. How is this beneficial to the actual exchange of Scientology with the world? Who is going to pay the bills for these buildings when the delivery of the org cannot support it? As this is falsely represented as being supported by LRH, does it not invalidate the workability of his actual policies and thus demean the image of Source? I presented a stack of policies that invalidate the conduct of the so-called “Ideal Org” project and was shown ZERO references that justified it. Did I miss something here?
- You will recall the Rollback you gave me regarding my answer to the query of a friend in Australia concerning the Ideal Org project. You asked me where I got these ‘enemy lines’ and I showed them to you in OEC Vol 7. That ended the rollback, of course, but I wonder if you pulled the string further to get to the real heart of that matter – that the Ideal Org program was in contravention of that policy I cited to my friend? The one who started the Ideal Org program, in fact, is the enemy you seek with your rollbacks!
- Who actually OWNS the Ideal Org real estate that is purchased? The Church? CST? What is the policy that governs this?
- The promotion for these Ideal Orgs and the IAS is taken off the page of VERBAL TECH PENALTIES when LRH cautions against the use of brief paragraphs out of context without saying from which policy the quote was taken in order to make it appear that LRH is in support of the program when, in fact, he is clearly opposed to it. I provided evidence of this but there was no reply to this question that I recall.
- Where is it written that LRH put David Miscavige in charge? Where is the structure of church institutions (CST, RTC, CofS and so on) published so we can all see the command structure and org board of our management bodies and understand their relationships?
- Where are the people who run these activities? I know that Guillaume was made “ED INT for LIFE” by LRH, but we never see him anymore. The WDC? Where is Heber? Mithoff? Eastman? Wilhere? And where is Diana Hubbard? Did you answer these questions?
- How is it that “Command Intention” and LRH Intention are taken to mean the same thing when they clearly are NOT? How is it that I have friends who have been declared for being concerned about issues raised in Debbie Cook’s letter – before she was declared? When was it decided that concern for our survival as a group became a suppressive act? When did communication become a crime in our body? Did you answer these questions, and I just missed it?
- How is it that one whole issue of our FREEDOM magazine was mailed out to the readership of the St. Pete Times proclaiming that one of our senior executives was documented as having beat up, on 40 separate occasions, other members of the crew? This issue of FREEDOM was devoted to throwing the entire church management strata, the Church of Scientology, the religion of Scientology and LRH under the bus in order to protect one person: David Miscavige. The rest of our “International Management” were apparently standing around bearing witness to these beatings. They even allowed themselves to be videoed by the press professing the innocence of Miscavige and the guilt of his lieutenant. Did anyone have the idea that the IMPORTANT thing is to show Scientology, Source materials and LRH were not involved in this psychotic demonstration of PTSness, and then use the incident to educate the world on the effects of suppression and the need to be constanty alert and constantly willing to fight back? After all, this “handling” by FREEDOM was a MISTAKE of Tsunamic proportions. These only occur in the presence of suppression. Was there an investigation done? The protection of Miscavige was the ONLY important factor in this entire third dynamic engram. Did you address this question with me, Slavka – because I certainly recall the look on your face when I brought this article to your attention – and the fact that the entire magazine was used not to promote Scientology and the Church and LRH but to white-wash the results of PTSness at our highest levels. Lastly, if the lieutenant was guilty of these beatings as was admitted in the FREEDOM mag, was COB not aware of this behavior? To believe this we would have to think that COB is either incompetent, stupid, or deaf, dumb and blind. If he was aware of it and did nothing to stop it, he needs some time to think for a couple of hundred years before he does A to E. In either case, NOTHING WAS DONE, and this engram continues. What a mess. I don’t recall your address of these issues with me except to ask “Who is in your ear?” as though I have an evil Leprechaun on my shoulder. ANYONE can see this stuff, and what manner of person would NOT want something done about it?
- If our management is as unethical as all of these things suggest, is it rational to assume that the tech and the admin in our church are IN? Do you have an answer for this? Has it not occurred to anyone that people actually like Scientology – Ron’s Brand – and stay away in droves from squirreled activities? How many in the church would leave it if they did not have children or businesses that would be affected? I, myself, have concerns about bringing people in to this atmosphere – and this has been my purpose for the past 38 years! And how many NEW people are turned off by what they THINK is Scientology when it is only the unchecked dramatizations of a few PTS executives – and the PTS congregation that permits it to continue?
- We have an opportunity here to educate the world, but instead we turn on each other and play the “who can we bankrupt first?” Game. Why?
I had many other questions, but I think any Scientologist would have these and would agree that they need to be fully confronted and resolved.
Please stop telling people that “We answered Mark’s questions but he did not like the answers.” You KNOW this is a lie and it is beneath you. I implore you to find out for yourself the answers to these questions and let me know what you discover.
You showed me the reference about how an SP becomes one – where a period of stress at the hands of the SP is followed by the person taking on the SP’s valence. You were showing me this reference as regards Debbie Cook to explain “how she became suppressive.”
I asked you – and I mention this as the last unanswered sample question in my collection – which person it was who’s valence this long-time, highly trained and decorated Sea Org veteran was first suppressed by and who’s valence she later assumed.
WHO were YOU talking about? Did it not occur to you that perhaps the SP who suppressed her and who’s valence she allegedly assumed is still in the church?
Is it a truthful thing to say that by pointing these destructive but actual things out that Debbie Cook was displaying suppressive characteristics?
My own contention, of course, is that after the wars with the IRS in the 80’s and the battle with that band of suppressives, the “war” was actually not over as COB proclaimed. Our own management strata was completely stressed out and actually took on the valence of the SP IRS personnel. It’s just a theory, but there is substantial evidence to support it.
A review of the policy PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE would describe what is happening in our church today, and the need for the gargantuan PR machine that was put in place to cover it all up.
It’s all very fixable, but won’t be as long as the insane are running the asylum. Hence, the growth of the Independent movement – most of whom have shed their PTSness and ironically are more Scientologist than many of the uniformed reps running around.
In any case, this would seem to me to be an important investigation, and might open up the door for a handling or two.