Greg and Debra Barnes
1282 Jasmine Way
Clearwater, Florida 33756


April 12th, 2001




Dear Glen,

Since you did not respond to my March 26th letter I write to you again demanding
that you refund our monies.

Just as a side note you mentioned in one of your earlier letters that “we barely
know each other”. Was that you who attended our “comm ev” and sat next to Art
Webb? Just curious, maybe I can now put a face with the letters.

Now lets focus on the issue at hand and you said it best in your December 7th
2000 letter in which you state to us regarding the return of our money on
account“just simply honor your agreements”. In your May 15th 2000 letter you state
that we signed enrollment forms that stated we would abide by the policies of the
Claims Verification Board of the Church of Scientology etc etc.

Now Glen if you work with me here and keep personal comments and
accusations about me to a minimum then we can bring this cycle of action to a
conclusion. I do understand though your perspective 100% and even though I do
not agree with them lets assume for a moment that we can make Hubbard’s tech,
statements and policy our basis of mutual understanding. With that agreement
inmind we will be able to move on.

First and foremost the basic policy letter KSW would be agreed by most
Scientologists one of the most senior policies as well as deliver what you
promise.

Our basic fact is that we were not delivered LRH tech on the services sold to us
called the “six month checks” and now referred to as the “refreshers”. There
are no references that Hubbard wrote that mention these “actions”. Matter of fact
C/S Series 73RA states emphatically to not audit FPRD on individuals who are in the
middle of a major action and this includes OT 7. Now C/S Series 73RA states to
not interfere with anyone who is progressing well with sec checks or anything
else.


(2)

Not only were we sold services that violated the above two senior Hubbard
bulletins but we were declared for telling two other OT’s to read such
references.

Now since Flag promotes itself as the Mecca of tech and it is widely known that
the tech delivered there is only Hubbards, then the fact that we were delivered
someone else’s tech other than Hubbards is one of our basis for asking for our
money back.

My wife and I have both read the deputy senior c/s’es instruct on why Flag
delivers the refresher and the MAA’s office and Quals story of why LRH technical
bulletins are being ignored is because RTC licenses us and if we do not do what
RTC says we lose our license. The MAA’s office states according to April
Buchanan and Causma Passaro that “we can not trust OT 7’s”.

Be that as it may Qual and the MAA’s opinions are not the point. The fact is
the Sandcastle (Flag) is not delivering Hubbards tech as Hubbard laid it out to
be
delivered and C/S Series 73RA and RB state it very emphatically. Unkown to us
at the time we read C/S series 73RB was the income that Flag generates from
selling these “off - source, squirrel services”.

Now since we were all trained on KSW and hammered and hammered that the
only tech we need is Hubbards and that the only tech any org or mission should
be
delivering is Hubbards and that all Hubbards HCOB’s are senior to all other
policies or Flag orders etc etc. then the obvious fact that we were not
delivered
“standard tech” is our basis for asking for our money back.

Now do not state to me as you did to the consumer complaint department that
we are not satisfied with some “brand” of Scientology because according to
Hubbard there is only one brand and no substitutes. This was the intention of
the
Golden Age of Tech to get only standard tech delivered every where around the
planet.

Now Flag is also known as Ron’s org and only Ron’s tech is delivered there.
This is the promise of Flag as well as the assumption that parishioners coming
there for services have. Ron’s tech is not what we were delivered per the C/S
series references we have referred to above.

This is just one of our basis for asking for our money back that was donated for
services we should not have received.

(3)


Deliver what you promise is the second most senior policy second only to KSW.

Now Debra and I have been coming to Flag for years thinking we were being
delivered standard LRH tech and we weren’t as C/S series 73RB and RA state.

We paid for OT 5 twice and this is another example of both KSW and deliver
what you promise not being done. We did not get what was promised the first
time and had to pay for it a second time.

My point is to explain to you our basis for our claim of a refund and
repayment. Now Hubbard talks a lot about exchange and lists several types of
exchange as you are well aware.

What would Ron call someone who sold someone else a Mercedes but it was
really a Dodge frame with a Chrysler motor and a Russian paint job. After
drivingthis $190,000 car off the lot they discover it was only a Mercedes body and
nothing else not to mention all the troubles with the car that ensued
afterwards.What level of exchange would Ron call this ? He would call it criminal exchange
or rip off.This is our basis for asking for our money back.

This is what is going on over at Flag specifically for the OT 7’s.

Now Glen you state we signed documents stating that we would abide by the
Claims Verification Board and follow church policy blah blah blah. Now these
documents were for the Church of Scientology founded by L. Ron Hubbard, that
was our understanding.

Since we were not delivered Hubbards tech and we never read anything in any
documents about the fact that “hey, Hubbard died and we are fucked so we now
have to make shit up because we need lots of money”. Some how I missed that
line.
This is our basis for demanding our money back.

Now when we joined Scientology we understood that it was a self
improvement group with global goals to free mankind of aberrations that make
him do insane things. Scientology preaches ethics and morals and to not be


(4)


criminal or “violate the laws of the land” as stated in Fundamentals of Thought,
at
least the version I have states thus.

Glen when we read of all the civil and criminal problems that OSA and others
associated with the COS had gotten convicted of around the world in the 90’s we
were shocked and I doubt if many of your present parishioners know of these
activities either.

Nothing in the document “What your donations buy” states anything about
hiring sleazy private detectives or law firms to harass ex members who know of
your crimes. Nothing in that booklet stated anything about my donations being
used to pay off upper Scientology executives who left the church. (Mayo, Franks,
Aznarans,Armstrong)

Nothing in that booklet stated that my donations would be used to pay for libel
and slander awards by the Church of Scientology’s “Fair Game” tactics.

Now you have the Lopez case in California of which you stole over a million
dollars from a brain damaged car accident victim who has the IQ of a 14 year old
and instead of giving him his money back you would rather spend your
parishioners money to fight a lost battle in court. I won’t even mention the
money
you spent on legal fee’s and still are in the Wollersheim case.

No Glen I doubt very much if most of your parishioners know where there
donations really go. Nor do they know how Hubbard really died.
This is my basis for asking for our money back.

The written promises promoted by your organization regarding the “spiritual”
gains is not only misleading but a total lie as far as we are concerned. We did
not
get the rewards and gains as promised by your organization, and Hubbard does
state to deliver what you promise.

Hubbards lies about what Dianetics can deliver, his lies about his
accomplishments with the tech, the lies about what the tech can do and the
criminal element of OSA are also reasons for our demand of our money back.


(5)

So I hope you got the idea of why we want our money back. Maybe more
people need to know of the fraud and deception and our specific findings on
Hubbard and other references.

Your lack of response will only force us to involve others. We want closure
Stilo and your lack of response will only create more and more work for you.


Sincerely,


Greg Barnes




A near-verbatim copy of http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/RonSez.html

L. Ron Hubbard - A Profile
[a parody by Ro1and Rash1eigh-Berry]


Mind-Improvement Guru and
Religious Leader, L. Ron Hubbard


L. Ron Hubbard was a man of many talents. His belief was that we are all
capable of a great many things, except that something stops us from displaying
this ability. However, through his discovery of Scientology* and its process
known as "auditing", a person uncovers the abilities they inherently possess
and are able to display those abilities. He described it as "making the able
more able". Listen then, to Ron, in his very own words, imparting wisdom to his
followers about the many roles he was able to assume in life:


Ron the Mathematician

Ron had an acute mind for mathematical accuracy. While auditing he was able to
place things in time to the nearest second even though the event could have
occured millions, billions, or even trillions of years ago. For example, in his
researches of his distant past, he recalled when he had previously gone to
heaven (HCOB 11 May 1963). http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/bfm/heaven.htm

The first time I arrived and the moment of the implant To Forget was dated at
43,891,832,611,177 years, 344 days, 10 hours, 20 minutes and 40 seconds from
10:02 PM Daylight Greenwich Time May 9, 1963. The second series was dated to
the moment of the implant To Forget as 42,681,459,477,315 years, 132 days, 18
hours, 20 minutes and 15 seconds from 11:02 PM Daylight Greenwich Time May 9,
1963.

It can be no surprise therefore that Scientology is described as an exact
science by its followers. Listen then as this same lightning-fast mathematical
mind copes with the intricacies of complex higher-mathematical analysis.


... So how much time does it take for an auditor to get in good shape? How much
time does it take for an auditor to get up to operating thetan?

Well, let's say each one of you could afford a hundred hours of auditing. That
is relatively, maybe, five times as many as you should have if you are being
well audited. Let's put the factor of five in there. And just throw that in
there and say it's a hundred hours. Could you afford to spend a hundred hours
as an auditor on the couch? Boy, I'm sure afraid you could. Why, you could dig
up a hundred hours someplace. You could put in three nights a week at a couple
of hours a session. What would happen if you put in three nights a week at two
hours a session? That adds up to six hours a week, doesn't it? How long does
that take to get to a hundred hours? Sixty-six and two-thirds, is that right?
Well, six and two-thirds weeks.

[from audience members] Sixteen.

Sixteen. Have to figure in arithmetic. I have an awful time with MEST
arithmetic -- just horrible -- just terrible. Sixteen weeks. Okay? That's very
interesting. I have to completely change reality to get a MEST arithmetical
thing. You see, MEST arithmetic doesn't happen to be real -- I mean, happen to
be actual. It's real. Fascinating.

-- "Summary to Date: Handling Step I and Demo", lecture 54 of the Philadelphia
Doctorate Course Lectures, 17 December 1952 (01:27)

Back to EXIT page,
Root Index