Michael Moore and his APIS

A highly trained auditor recently reported this out-tech in the Freezone / Indpendent Scientology field:

Michael Moore, the self-appointed head of APIS, approved an auditor showing the content of the PC folder to the PC and approved the gross evaluation and 3Ping of his PCs with lies.

Michael Moore did the OT Drug Rundown on himself as a solo action.

His direct juniors openly endorse auditors who audit over the phone or Skype. They even endorse auditors who rewrote the Power Processes and run them over the phone like a psycho-analytic session including the evaluations. These auditors even publicly acknowledge that their invented processes make people unstable and that they use their PCs (without telling them , as they profess to be COMPLETELY STANDARD HUBBARD AUDITORS) as guinea pigs to experiment on.

This entry was posted in Freezone Squirreling, Violations of Auditor's Code and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Michael Moore and his APIS

  1. JimL says:

    We need to see more reports like this, but without the generalities. Who are the auditors who have been auditing over the phone or over Skype? Let’s see some actual names so that we can do something to get them corrected. You also don’t say who the auditors are that re-wrote the Power Processes.

  2. Double Standard says:

    The gang of self certified APIS auditors with fraudulent qualifications resembles the mafia.
    —-
    “IFA changes to APIS (Association of Professional Independent Scientologists)
    Posted By:Pat Krenik
    |
    (lightly sarcastic) (see original message from Scotty below.)

    Thank you for missing my intention which was to be listed as a Professional
    Auditor with your new group. You mistook friendly chat about my experience for
    asking to be classified as a Class VIII. I had planned to join and ask what I
    needed to do to get certified.

    thank you for missing the fact that I do follow all of the definitions of Class
    VIII in my practice.

    thank you for mentioning my earlier attempt to get certified by Franklin
    Freeman, without mentioning that I have worked hard on my handwriting since
    then. Thank you for not mentioning that you wouldn’t permit Franklin to join
    your group either if he should apply, even though he is a trained Class VIII
    because he also includes some RONS org tech which by the stringent
    qualifications of APIS no one delivering any RONS org tech would be accepted by
    your APIS group.

    thank you for getting me to understand that the reason I’m being turned down for
    membership is that I am delivering services, and have been for about 12 years,
    some of which I haven’t been formally trained in.

    thank you for getting me to understand that the formal training is senior to
    happy pre-clears and pre-ots. I get it.

    thank you for not noticing that if I hadn’t done what I did in the late 1990′s
    there would be no activity in the Free Zone in the USA and you wouldn’t be in a
    position now to turn my request for membership.

    thank you for leaving the door open a crack so that I could stop all my
    production and run off and train somewhere (maybe Frankie’s, who also would not
    be accepted in your group) to formally do the Class VIII course.

    thank you for not noticing and not caring and not having it be important that I
    have one of the highest stats in the USA for number of testimonials, and only
    caring that I haven’t been formally trained as a Class VIII (I’m a Class VI and
    Class VI C/s)

    thank you for considering me to be in a lowered condition. I get it. The Cert
    is the Thing. I get it. It doesn’t matter how well you audit or produce,
    without the Cert it is a Crime…and in the Free Zone, too. How about that!

    thank you for putting yourself in a position where you could lay out the rules,
    after blowing our Elma group and breaking the Auditor’s Code by leaving three
    pc’s with broken appointments.

    thank you for not noting that there is an LRH policy that permits a challenge of
    the Exams without formal training and the pass gives you a Cert.

    thank you for promoting a double standard, claiming that only LRH tech is used
    by your group while considering it “standard” to add HCOBs issued after LRH died
    in 1986. If it was done in the COS that is standard. I get it. If Pierre
    comes up with an OT IX, that would be squirrel by your standards. I get it.

    thank you for trying to KSW. It really helps to consider auditors who are
    auditing and have happy pcs to be in a lower condition. Oh you guys are so cool

    Buyer Beware of what you are getting into. Michael Moore passed on to someone a
    statement that five years ago I did not finish a cycle (cramming) that I had
    with them…not true. I completed everything that I was told to do and let Chris
    Black and Micheal know. He has just forgotten.

    My hands are clean. If they weren’t I couldn’t keep auditing and c/sing. I
    would have blown long ago. I may not know everything but I know how to help a
    pc or pre-ot get what he wants handled and get up the bridge. To me that is the
    only purpose that is important; anything else takes second place.

    It is a matter of order of importances.

    Pat Krenik, Class VI, Class VI C/S, OT VIII.

    From: Scotty
    To: p_krenik@…
    Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:11 PM
    Subject: APIS Auditor directory

    Dear Pat.

    Thank You for your application for membership and listing in the
    Auditor directory.

    You have according to your own statement under other details on your
    application:

    Other Details
    “Hi. While I am a SHSBC Grad and a Class VI C/S from the COS (28 years
    ago) I have also had much study of the Class VIII materials and
    experience with handling upper levels in the freezone and have many,
    many testimonials from pre-OTs who have gone up the bridge under my
    supervision. I feel like I have been successfully operating as a Class
    VIII and may be in a better position to deliver OT III/Nots than many
    people who were certified in the COS.” end quote.

    Having simply read the Cl 8 and Cl 9 materials and then drilled and
    Audited Pc’s is not Standard Training nor does it lead to qualifying
    as a Standard Auditor or C/S .

    The Cl 8 course is 3 times through the Check Sheet in a Course Room
    under the Supervision of a Course Sup. Then Auditing under a Cl 8 or
    higher C/S for the sole Purpose of exact application of the Tech in
    your Auditing.

    STANDARD TECH, 1. a standardization of processes so that they apply to
    100 per cent of the cases to which they are addressed. (Class VIII,
    No. 19) 2. the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way
    between humanoid and OT, the exact method of organizing them, the
    exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors
    made on that route. (Class VIII, No. 2) 3. that terribly narrow path
    which we now call standard tech is composed of those things which, if
    they are out, inhibit and prohibit all case gain. (Class VIII, No. 1)
    4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is
    following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70) 5. that tech which
    has absolutely no arbitraries. (HCOB 23 Aug 68)

    There is no way you can ask APIS to give you credit for all your past
    Auditing so you can be listed as a Cl 8. What has to be done is do the
    Cl 8 Course in a Course Room, Audit under a Cl 8 or higher C/S to a
    full and complete pass. Then do the Cl 9 course under the same guide
    lines so you can Audit NOTS.

    In the past you have gone to the Freemans for the purpose of becoming
    qualified as a Cl 8 which they denied you. That said, you may
    challenge my decision by providing the necessary documents, Pc
    folders which you have Audited and C/S for and a list of all Pc’s
    names to Chris Black and for your NOTS Auditing we will find a Cl 9
    for those.

    As stated in the APIS Standards for Member Auditor & Group Directory

    http://internationalfreezone.net/standardtech.shtml

    However, when it comes to practicing members, such as those listed on
    the auditor & group list, as the APIS represents standard tech as
    outlined above, and as the public look to APIS for direction to
    standard tech practitioners, such members who advertise or otherwise
    promote their services on the APIS Auditors and Groups list come under
    the APIS umbrella and should only be delivering standard technology.
    In this way, the APIS sees that, within itself, the technology is
    fully preserved, protected and promoted.

    What you do or call yourself outside APIS is none of my concern.

    By delivering Auditing/C/Sing and Training on Pc’s PreOT’s and
    Students above the Level you have been trained at constitutes nothing
    more that Gross Out Tech which brings into question all your previous
    training.

    You can re-apply when you have done Lower conditions and when you
    have shown that you are standardly applying the tech through
    verification of your C/Sing and Auditing by a third party through
    videos and folder review, at your expense.

    Your request for membership and listing on the Auditor director list
    on APIS for any classification is denied.

    Ervin Scott
    OES”

  3. Roadrunner says:

    There are indicators that APIS purposely rejects applicants who wish to focus on the 1972 status quo of the technology. After all L. Ron Hubbard had written:

    “So technical progress has been:
    CLASS VIII – 1968.
    COMPLETE DIANETICS – 1969.
    COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY – 1970.” LRH

    (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

    An evaluation and the tale of an applicant can be consulted at below site:
    http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/

    Roadrunner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>