Chuck Beatty
Internet Posts, July 2012


Home

Chuck Beatty

I'm an ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003), in Scientology's religious order, called the Sea Organization.

Here's my bio in full bore Sea Org jargon:

Flag CW Dec 1975-Jun 1983 (TTC, Sup, Word Clearer, D of T, etc.)
Int Base 1983-1984 (Routing Forms Pjt)
Snr HCO Int in the FB in LA 1984-87
Course Supervisor Re-Training (Int and LA) 87-88
Int Training Org, LA 88 (Sec Checker Course Sup)
LRH Tech Research and Comps, CMO Int, (Sept 88-Feb 89)
Int RPF (Feb-Mar 89)
PAC RPF (Mar-May 89)
Int Training Org (May-Sept 89) (Admin Sup)
INCOMM Sep 89-Sept 90 (Routing Forms Pjt)
INCOMM Sept 90-May92 (Computer Room LA & Int)
ASI May 92-Dec95 (Computer Room, In-Training Esto)
Decks Int (Dec 95-Jun 96)
Int RPF (Jun 96-Nov 2000)
PAC RPF (Nov 2000-Mar2003)
Routed out March 29, 2003.

call or email me. [email protected] 412-260-1170

Comments made 15 July 2012, Village Voice blog article:

“[re Bruce Hines, former Senior C/S Int Office staffer…]
He never was a "bad" abuser type in his time his whole career. He was more criticized for being too soft, he wasn't the hard ass OSA person, Bruce was a Senior C/S Int Office "Folder Review and Video Review" tech person who watched tens of thousands of videos and checked tens of thousands of people's folders to ensure the "tech" was done correctly on them.

You got some wrong history attached to Bruce Hines, Barb, I think.

Bruce spoke out in the 2005 LA Times Int Base article, together with Karen Schless Pressley, together with Shelly Brit (ex RTC Dissem person) and ex Gold Base camera woman Maureen Bolstad Smith, they were the new round of ex Int Base staff speaking out newly, in late 2005.

Bruce was never an "ethics" person, he was a tech person, and didn't go around doing any of the RTC or OSA crap on anyone.

Bruce did numerous TV appearances after 2005 for years. ...

----------------------

Marianna Perebenesiuk 5 hours ago in reply to Chuck Beatty

I don't know Chuck, do you think that to spend one's time in looking at other people's confidences is a GOOD thing? Legal thing? In Orwell's world, maybe. In the USA, no.

--------------------------------------

Chuck Beatty 4 hours ago in reply to Marianna Perebenesiuk

Hubbard's got a slew of church staffer positions, which have evolved which look NOT at the confessions, but for technical errors in implementing the therapy in the sessions.

The "review" people look for therapist errors.

Now, in the Office of Special Affairs, there are also some nefarious "review" people who look for the dirt that can be used to shut up those parishioners if those parishioners turn against Scientology.

Bruce was NOT an OSA folder review person for vetting and writing the blackmail summaries.

Bruce was a reviewer to ensure the therapists were doing their therapy principles and procedures correctly, and the Senior Case Supervisor Officer at the Int Base still might be doing that function today.

It's in Los Angeles, up in the two floors in the upper top of the 12 story management building (middle management) where OSA has a few staff who do the dirty secrets extractings for use against members when those members go bad.

Because the church has possession of the case folders (for instance in my 27 years of the Hubbard therapy, I accumulated a total of 125 case folders, each 2-3 inches thick at the spine). When a parishioner goes bad, or even earlier in their careers, their "dirty" confessions most damaging info is already summarized and it's on a computer system, called the "RTC Personnel and Ethics Data Base" which is a computer data base set up by the INCOMM (Sea Org) computer branch. I know, I used the RTC Int and Pers Data Base, in my last job, looking for replacements for positions in the Scientology for profit company, Author Services In. The RTC Int Pers and Ethics data bases has the dirt on the staffers.

I think OSA is the place they keep a similar data base. I'm not sure, but Dan Garvin might know, he's a former computer OSA guy and helped set up a lot of the OSA computer setups.

I do know that OSA has the staff who review the confessional case folders, and look for the dirt on whoever's folders they need to check into.

Bruce was NOT doing that type of case folder review, he was in the Senior Case Supervisor International Office, reviewing case folders purely to correct the therapists and correct lower echelon case supervisors.

Further, there are warehouses, one is at the Int Base, see Marc Headley's book inside front flap, North Side number 36, "Archives storage" is where they keep the average run of the mill 'bad" ex members' case folders today, my educated guess.

Tom or Katie's case folders, my guess they will put those in some special locked place, and if anything, my guess is that Shelly Miscavige is the type of person who would be assigned to set up these more sensitive case folder storage of the blockbuster celebrities of Scientology who go bad, type thing.

I wonder if a celebrity knows this, and maybe they'd like to have their case folders destroyed, for sure Scientology once getting that request, will surely have someone, like the OSA review people, go through those folders for the dirt, before they destroy the case folders, which I heard in one media article that Scientology will destroy an ex parishioner's case folders if the ex parishioner requests it, so they invite the ex parishioner to the paper shredding place (industrial public places that do mass paper destruction in vats of corrosive liquid I think), and let the ex parishioner witness the total destruction of their case files.

If Katie asks for that to be done, that's likely how they'd do it. Scientology spiritual tech rules say you can't let the parishioner look at his own case folder, since it will contain evaluations of the parishioner's case that likely will offend the parishioner! So mosttimes, the bad ex members asking for their folders back, all they'll do is invite the ex parshioner to witness the destruction of that ex parishioner's case folders, but they don't give the lot of the case folders over to the ex parishioner.

-----------------------------------------

Marianna Perebenesiuk 3 hours ago in reply to Chuck Beatty

Chuck, it's getting unreal. I understand that you spent many years there and your mind bears a print of that organisation, I respect you as well, but...

Can't you just understand that it's neither normal, no good, no legal to look through people's confidences? Privacy is actually a basic civil right. Well, I understand that the scientology organisation violates almost all civil rights (if not all at once) of its members and this case seems to be not the most tragic one, but doing it is still neither good, no legal.

You say :

"Bruce was a reviewer to ensure the therapists were doing their therapy principles and procedures correctly"

I'm sorry to remind you this, but there is no therapy in scientology! In this world medical, psychological therapies are certified and are done by certified specialists. No correct therapy procedures are possible just because there is no therapy. He had not a slightest right to look through it, he is certified of nothing and the thing he was doing is certified of nothing in our real world. I will remind you that scientologists themselves are taught to speak about spiritual work with religious ministers when asked, because on the top they know very well that it's completely illegal.

The only cases when someone can gather, stock and use confidential information are written in laws and they concern real things.

Welcome to our world, Chuck!

P.S. Believe me, I don't feel good to write it, but it's necessary.

-------------------------------------------------

Chuck Beatty 1 minute ago in reply to Marianna Perebenesiuk

Marianna,

We were Hubbard indoctrinated long term staff dupes, unaware, for the most part of the legalities we violated, dodging ethical and legal rules that therapists must follow, ourselves play acting like legitimate religious spiritual counselors, violating blatantly the moral and ethical standards religions traditionally uphold.

Guilty on all counts! Thankyou.

Chuck

-----------------------------------------------

Chuck Beatty 1 hour ago in reply to Marianna Perebenesiuk

Well, I invite you to read Hubbard's works.

The red volumes are his therapy, agreed it is not legitimized at all, it is NOT peer reviewed, but it is quasi- or pseudo- therapy, I believe.

Observers from the 1950s onwards called it crank pseudo- or quasi- therapy.

So, better I should have included pseudo- and crank/pseudo- in front of the therapy label I used.

Thanks. (But I've been commenting since 2004, and simply regurgitating all the smarter conclusions, and pseudo- and crank and quasi- are the adjectives I earlier have used, and shall henceforth include again, in labeling the Hubbard therapy.)

The raw evidence of the pseudo/crank/quasi Hubbard therapy are Subject Volumes 3 and 4.

The raw evidence of the pseudo/crank/quasi Hubbard "case supervision" rules and regulations for overseeing the whole daily, session by session, of the Hubbard practice is Subject Volume 1 "Case Supervisor Series."

You have no idea how inflated Hubbard was of his pseudo/crank/quasi therapy, nor of his exorcism.

If you ever get a chance, look at Subject Volume 1, 3,and 4. That's the Hubbard pseudo therapy and case supervision subject, bare bones, and it's thousands of pages, but easily skimmed to get the point.

------------------------------------------------

Marianna Perebenesiuk 3 hours ago in reply to Synthia Elizabeth Fagen

Synthia, I'm sorry, I saw the Chuck's answer first, so I responded him first, but I can only say that I'd give you the same answer. It's not about doing bad things with people's confidences, the mere fact of looking at people's confidences while he has not any right to do it, is neigher neutral, no legal.

Psychological counselors are certified, the scientology isn't, this whole "therapy" doesn't exist legally.

--------------------------

Marianna Perebenesiuk 2 hours ago in reply to Synthia Elizabeth Fagen

Thank you, Synthia. It's very important. He didn't have a clue and it's sad, but rather than defending this practice and leading other people into wrong ideas, all of this must be laid out clearly. This practice is illegal and almost every aspect of it is illegal, that is why the CoS organisation desperately tries to pass it for a religiousl practice, which it is not. Scientologists themselves think of it as of therapy and it is sold to people experiencing some trouble as a therapy.

P.S. Sorry, it's not about me and you, I respect you and your beliefs, believe me, I actually hate upsetting or being in a conflict with nice people as you are, but it is very important to get to straight things one day, to get rid of some wrongful ideas which can exist only within the closed world of this organisation. I really believe that once we face the reality, we can see it all more clearly and it may help other people.

------------------------------

Chuck Beatty 1 hour ago in reply to Marianna Perebenesiuk

yes, this is exactly part of the whole conundrum.

What Scientology is, is non peer reviewed and universally dismissed crank pseudo quasi "therapy" which Hubbard ran away from the challenges of legitimizing, into the loophole of religion counseling.

A shorter accurate label of the Scientology core practice I think that includes it's crank/pseudo/quasi/non-peer-reviewed existence, a sound bite sized label for it, should become the predominant zeitgeist definition of "auditing" instead of using "auditing".

"Auditing" is a word that lets Hubbard off the hook for what his practice is.

The Scientology subject does include "auditing", "case supervising" "Folder Error Summary", "case folder review", and various phrases that Office of Special Affairs staff use internally to dig through a parishioner's case folder for info to ultimately use against that parishioner if that parishioner turns bad.

I'd love to have you discuss this further with me, because the world is always slightly bamboozled by Scientology's use of the word "auditing"

chuckbeatty77(at)aol(dot)com

----------------------------

Chuck Beatty 44 minutes ago in reply to Chuck Beatty

I'd hate for the world to understand "auditing" as "spiritual enlightenment counseling"!!! If I were an Indie Scientologist, that's how I'd define it though. (I'm atheist though.)

The battle for defining auditing is important! The history of the practice of auditing need be inclusive of auditing's non peer reviewed and it's quasi/pseudo therapy history.

Hubbard used the word auditing in Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health, so even during the pre Scientology and pre religion era, Hubbard often used the word therapy for auditing.

Help! Scholars aren't charging forward to do the bite sized authoritative label for the word auditing, which the public deserve when they hear the word auditing, is all!







DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology?. Dianetics?, Scientology are service marks and trademarks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.




Home. Index for all posts.

















This site is hosted for FREE by FreeWebs.com. Click here to get your own Free Website!