It has been found that the Overt-Withhold Straight-Wire Process runs better on HAS Co-Audit than the Communication Process, as the Communication Process does not get off overts, it causes people to "blow" the course.

To revert to previous instructions, then, run the following Process on HAS Co-Audits:

Here we go. I told you in the last Franchise Bulletin that we had hit a jackpot. Of course, you to some degree put this down to the usual Hubbard enthusiasm. But my enthusiasm and encouragement was what kept us at it until we knew what we had to know to go for broke on OT and quite incidentally on all lower level cases. And this isn’t even related to enthusiasm. No more cold-blooded statement was ever made than my telling you that the situation was definitely corralled. It is. I am sorry that the gen is sort of complicated and requires know-how, and would much rather have arranged it so all we had to do was push the button and we got a clear, but as soon as you see and experience this data I think you will be very happy with it.

• "Recall something you have done to……" (terminal)

It all begins back in Wichita when I wrote that extremely unpopular article which is still appearing in Advanced Procedure and Axioms — FULL RESPONSIBILITY. It turns out that this is the hottest thought the old man ever thought but it didn’t come into view in its full importance for more than eight years.

The one thing the public doesn’t want to have anything to do with is FULL RESPONSIBILITY. They shudder and they run whenever they think of it. So thee and me will have to shoulder the load and shove them at the sausage machine and all that. For the whole story develops around this center pin of responsibility. There was so much to the story and so many possible variations of the tale that getting it all in line and trailmarking a way through the darkly woods has been a very painful job — both to you and to me. But we did it. And we’ve got it. And if we can just hold still long enough we’ll have the full benefit of it.

(one question after the other)

Overt acts and withholds are important technology. If you can get somebody to take the overts out of any incident the incident will tend to vanish. And it would vanish completely except for one thing. Telling another person about one’s overts is not enough. It is also necessary to take full responsibility for them. Thus the old wheeze about confession as advocated by one of the pagan churches (pagan to Scientology), that all one had to do was whisper one’s misdeeds and they would go away, turns out to be so halfhearted that it becomes a very vicious operation. I’ve just been all over this ground and can tell you as a technical fact that the simple imparting of one’s sins, or, more comprehensibly, one’s overts and withholds, is as inadequate as using paste to build a skyscraper — and about as dangerous. If the Church or somebody then pretended to take responsibility for the confided overts, then we’ve spun our fellow in just like that and we’ve degraded the person and the society. The person who confides must then take responsibility for the action he considered a sin by means of honest processing or it’s just no-go, no-show, spin-down-spin-in. And there went the co- audits running overt-withhold. And there went up the tone arms when the pc told us his crimes. The rule is a thorough, harsh, unavoidable rule: When we get a person to confide a crime, we must then run on that crime what part of it he could be responsible for until it goes. ALERT YE HGCs. If you don’t do just that you’ll have some very unhappy people on your hands.

The Co-Audit Instructor should select a terminal by communicating freely with the pc, asking questions relating to pc's present life terminals and the eight dynamics. Pc will be fixated on any terminals against which he has committed overt acts – even though these overts may have been not-ised. The terminal chosen by the Instructor must be real to the pc and must show charge on the E-Meter.

THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED THAT — whenever a person has discovered to the auditor a sin, crime or discreditable act or discreditable creation, that auditor is honor bound on all dynamics to run at once a process that will bring about the person’s taking responsibility for his action. If the auditor does not he will have a spinning pc.

Keep up the Co-Audit pc's interest in Case. This is a most important factor if large groups are to be maintained. If there is little change in needle reaction and no obvious signs of mis-emotion on terminal, then run terminal to a comm lag flat point and then locate another terminal. After this terminal has been handled it may be preferable to return to previous terminal, but this is a matter for the Instructor's discretion.

THIS GIVES US THE ONLY PROCESS WE COULD GET AWAY WITH IN A PE CO-AUDIT: That would be a process which recovered responsibility. The currently indicated process, done without assessment, would be “WHAT PART OF YOUR LIFE (PAST) COULD YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?” DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ELSE IN CO-AUDIT!

If pc runs out of answers (for Co-Audit only) abandon terminal and find another. "What have you done?" "What have you withheld?" is the general form of this process and may be used.

Of course doing an overt or a withhold is a refusal to take responsibility in some sphere, but overts and withholds are the offshoot of responsibility or lack of it not vice versa.

Now go back and read this again and start clearing some people. More gen later.

[See also HCO B 15 December AD 9, Urgent Change in All Co-audit Courses, on the following page, which was issued later than the above HCO B.]

Writ by me for thee URGENT EXPRESS.