An auditor doing a Sec Check can run into a phenomenon that goes like this:

An auditor doing a Sec Check can run into a phenomenon that goes like this:

The pc says to the auditor „I am in possession of a lot of secret data – therefore I cannot get off my withholds“. And the auditor buys it and the case fails.

The pc says to the auditor „I am in possession of a lot of secret data – therefore I cannot get off my withholds“. And the auditor buys it and the case fails.

Actually this is in large measure a lie, used to cover actual overts against the group or its VIPs.

Actually this is in large measure a lie, used to cover actual overts against the group or its VIPs.

When you look at the definition of a real overt as some­thing contrary to the mores of a group, you realize that the withhold one is looking for is a withhold of having committed an actual overt on the group by omit or commit. At best you see that the pc excuse does not wash.

When you look at the definition of a real overt as some­thing contrary to the mores of a group, you realize that the withhold one is looking for is a withhold of having committed an actual overt on the group by omit or commit. At best you see that the pc excuse does not wash.

If the auditor were to ask for „overts contrary to the mores of the group and withholds of having done them or omitted actions that by omission caused harm to the group or its people“ one gets around that excuse.

If the auditor were to ask for „overts contrary to the mores of the group and withholds of having done them or omitted actions that by omission caused harm to the group or its people“ one gets around that excuse.

The GO people and many others pull this.

The GO people and many others pull this.

The auditor technically is NOT interested in confidences or overts against a group’s enemies or withholds thereof. He is looking for overts against the group as above and the withholding of having committed them by omit or commit.

The auditor technically is NOT interested in confidences or overts against a group’s enemies or withholds thereof. He is looking for overts against the group as above and the withholding of having committed them by omit or commit.

If this were made plain to Sec Checkers, the swindle could no longer be pulled by such pcs and the cases would not fail.

If this were made plain to Sec Checkers, the swindle could no longer be pulled by such pcs and the cases would not fail.

A failed case will continue to be one as long as he is committing overts on the thing that is supposed to help him. But, with skilled auditing, this can be handled.

A failed case will continue to be one as long as he is committing overts on the thing that is supposed to help him. But, with skilled auditing, this can be handled.

I hope this helps resolve some „failed cases“.

I hope this helps resolve some „failed cases“.