Thank you.

Well, it’s to a point now where there isn’t anything can be done for you. Yeah, sighs of relief, huh?

Now, got a make-break point spotted in any case. A make-break point that determines whether or not the case will advance or not advance, whether or not it will benefit from processing or fail in auditing. And that point is simply whether or not this case can be run successfully on Objective Havingness of some kind.

Now, that is a tremendous win for you because it narrows down the worries and wonders of what you should be doing about the case, and so forth, to a remarkably narrow state.

Now, if Havingness won’t move a tone arm, why, you’ve had it as far as the case is concerned — except for these little salvaging points: cases which are sitting in the middle of heavy overts, which would mean ARC breaks. Overts, ARC breaks, what’s the difference, you see? All ARC breaks are occasioned by overts. Maybe you hadn’t realized that as a head-on fact, but it is a head-on fact, so that you got an overt line that can be followed. You will see this and you must beware of some of these points.

Now we’ve got a make-break point, and that’s just dandy. But remember there are some other things that can stall a needle which are part of this make-break point and which are not quite as obvious.

And the first of those is, of course, a withhold on the part of the pc. Now, a pc can be doing this sort of thing: You have found Havingness Process XXI and it’s just moving the case very nicely, and everything seems to be going along splendiferously with its accompanying or another Confront Process, and you’re just doing dandy, you know, and all of a sudden the tone arm stops moving.

Well, you could be fooled if the tone arm stopped moving with the case on a Clear read. You could be fooled. This is the only point where auditors can be fooled, so let me really stress this point here in passing, is the tone arm can be sitting right there on Clear read for the pc’s sex, and the pc is going nowhere and isn’t Clear.

Well, the telltale there is the needle action. And if the needle is going through a stage four-type needle or is stuck or is very sticky and gluey, why, watch out because all you’ve succeeded in getting there is a dead body read.

You see, a dead body is a mockery harmonic of a Theta Clear on an E-Meter. And you could hit that band and see the tone arm sitting there very, very nicely at the pc’s Clear read and say, ‘Well, we really, really accomplished something here,” you say. But look at that needle. Look at that needle before you say, Well, he’s in fine shape.”

The needle could be sticky, gluey, not responding — it could be doing a theta bop as far as that’s concerned, except I’ve never seen that particular combination, but I suppose it can exist.

And the other one — the other one, of course, is the stage four needle. Now, maybe you’re not acquainted with this particular needle phenomenon and I’d better point it out It doesn’t matter the width of a stage four reading. I suppose it could be wider than a dial. But ordinarily, ordinarily if it’s wider than a dial, your tone arm will be moving, see? So you can just discount the wider than a dial on what I’m telling you right now about the Clear read.

It would go up about a third of the dial or something of that sort, or a quarter of the dial, or an eighth of the dial, or a half a dial. It rises, rises, rises, rises, rises, does a little tick, and falls. Rises, rises, rises, rises, rises, does a little tick and falls. Each time falls to the same position it was in before. It’s quite precise.

It’s a repetitive duplication, actually, of a needle read, and it means that the pc is totally overwhelmed by a circuit or something of the sort, and the only thing that can bail him out of it is a Havingness Process that works. I know we’ve tried to bail out these stage four cases, and I got very clever one time with machinery — classified machinery into three different classes — and would run Help on this type of machinery, and actually did bail some of these cases out But it wasn’t broadly enough successful and it required so confounded much judgment that it’s rather senseless to pass it on.

The thing which will cure a stage four needle of that character of course is to improve the pc’s havingness.

Now, if you can get the pc to run Havingness, a stage four needle will cease. If you can get a pc to run Havingness successfully, of course, a sticky needle will change, won’t necessarily become free, but it’s liable to go stuck, stuck, stuck, stucker, stucker, stucker, stucker, stucker, and then free. See, something of that sort Or it’s liable to get stick, stick, stick, stick, less stick, less stick, less stick, a little free, stick, stick, stick, stick, less . .. , you know, relative changes.

Now, you would get a change on the case on running some Havingness Process, but basically if the Havingness Process does not move the tone arm — let’s get back on to that — why, the pc is actually not getting any real benefit from Havingness.

He might be getting a slight benefit from Havingness, which would be told to you by the needle. You’d get a change of needle pattern. But, boy, that’s sure a microscopic benefit But it’d be worth running if you couldn’t do anything else.

Now, the thing which the pc must be able to change on, I repeat, is a Havingness Process. Now, there are various Havingness Processes, and they all come under the heading of improving the pc’s duplication ability. They all come under that heading, because a pc’s duplication and his havingness are very closely associated. So we mustn’t rule out this sort of thing.

The pc goes right along having a fine time and running Havingness, and so forth, and he comes in on the next session and the needle arm — and the tone arm does not change. There it is at 3.25, and there it is. And you’re running the same process you ran yesterday.

Well now, look, don’t blow your brains out and don’t blow his brains out, because all that’s happened is, is your pc has run into a present time problem or a withhold of magnitude. That’s all.

And you see, he’s run into a situation that he can’t duplicate or is unwilling to duplicate, and this stops his advance. And the thing for you to do is to find and free up what’s happened between sessions rather than get into the supergenius category of finding another process. That’s very important.

In other words, if the pc at any given time — the pc has been running on a process, and for your money it’s a good valid Havingness Process, and the pc was advancing, a cessation of advancement brings up the possibility that the pc has hit an overt, a withhold, PTP. In other words, he’s hit a nonduplicative action in present time. Now, he’s unwilling to duplicate you as the auditor, for instance. See, he becomes unwilling — there’s been a bunch of fancied ARC breaks piling up here of one character or another and it just gets down to a stall — he is unwilling to duplicate, in other words, the auditor.

So, actually, the present time problem is the auditing situation, and he assigns this to various other things and calls it an ARC break. Now, it’s actually his overts against the auditor. He’s done something in the break or between sessions or something like that, that — well, he’s been critical of the auditor or he’s believed that the auditor was trying to do him in, or he’s suddenly realized that the auditor looked just exactly like the captain of his particular spaceship, you see, or something of the sort.

And he’s got an overt. And he’s thinking critical thoughts or he’s made a crack about his auditor, or something of the sort, and of course it’ll get a slowdown because there you sit in two chairs, you see, and, with the pc in one and you in the other and it’s a setup for a duplication. One of the reasons auditing works is because duplication occurs.

Freudian analysis, for instance, brought in a no-duplication system of the patient on the couch and the practitioner in a chair. That’s nonduplicative and, of course, that all by itself as little mechanical action, slowed down the amount of gain which could have been achieved.

By the way, we first used to do that in Dianetics and an old-time auditor whose name I won’t mention, eventually, three or four years later was in Phoenix and was lying on the couch as the auditor, with the pc sitting in the chair. Trying to get that one balanced out.

So the very fact that the auditor and the pc are sitting in the same position, of course, gives the pc a sense of duplication. And an ARC break probably wouldn’t be as violent if die auditor were in the chair and the pc was on the couch, don’t you see? You probably wouldn’t get head-on into as much difficulty, but you’d lose, at the same time, tremendous amounts of the advantage of the duplication involved. It’s not the remedy to do that But anyway, an ARC break in a modem auditing situation can do more to wreck the session than practically anything else. Even though this thing is very temporary. Only ARC breaks reduce a profile. Quite interesting. It’s about — that is the only thing in auditing that will shoot a profile to pieces. Enough ARC breaks during an intensive and the profile will drop.

A present time problem will simply stop the profile from advancing. Both of these things, an ARC break and a present time problem, can by themselves vary the read of the tone arm.

In other words, last session, why, the pc was reading very comfortably at 2.5, and they come in, this next session, and they’re reading 5.5. There’s ARC breaks with existence here. And of course, what is a PTP but an ARC break with existence? There’s ARC breaks here. There’s present time problems with, basically “unwillingness to duplicate” is the best way you can phrase it.

He’s run into something he’s unwilling to duplicate. He’s run into some situation that he doesn’t think is duplicatable. So as long as he sits there in that nonduplicative frame of mind, his tone arm reading is either going to worsen or stop.

Now, you can audit a person who has a severe ARC break of some kind or another and actually get the tone arm moving, but it moves on up toward 6.0 or down toward 1.0. You can do this, and what tells you what’s happened there is that it moves on up to a high read or a very low read and just stays there.

This is given, now, that the pc was running on a Havingness Process successfully, and then stopped running on the Havingness Process. Well, that just tells you the pc is in a nondupUcative frame of mind. They have overts against the auditor or against the environment and so forth. Now, what you have to do is get that straightened out and get them off. Now the cleverness with which you do this regulates the speed it is done.

Now I can give you, of course, the old standard Present Time Problem and Overt/Withhold Processes, but this is just because, frankly, you have difficulty in picking the locks of people’s brains. It’s really not necessary, in a majority of such cases to go ahead and run a repetitive process, really not necessary.

If you understand your business well enough, why, you know what’s happened, and then you go ahead and get the pc to as-is it You get him to find his overts and who he’s trying to make guilty, and a few things like this. You just run through the actual condition in which he’s sitting in. One of the key questions for this sort of thing is “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” Of course, that’s in addition to “Do you have an ARC break? Is there a present time problem? Is it all right for me to audit you?” All of these are the same category of question. But “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” can fool you.

Now, let’s go over this just a little further here on this nondupUcative frame of mind on the part of the pc. If he’s bad off and had trouble at the beginning in getting Havingness, you can count on the fact that he will obsessively go into nondupUcative frames of mind, right? That’s all that’s wrong with him, so naturally he’ll ARC break easily. Naturally, he will ARC break easily with the environment He will get himself into the mud with the greatest of ease with the people he’s associated with between sessions. The worse off a case is, the more nonduplication, ARC breaks, overts against the environment, difficulties with the auditor, that the pc will indulge in. Got it?

That is the state of case. That’s all. And, of course, there’s a much worse state of case who simply is not capable of having an ARC break or a present time problem but has them all the time. Case is in a total propitiation. This case, by the way, is given away at once with the nonmovingness of the tone arm, so this case can’t fool you anymore.

The case is sitting there and saying, “Oh, I just feel wonderful, your auditing is doing me so much good.” And the pc has been sitting there at 5.25 — their whole motion of the tone arm is from 5.25 to 4.5, to 5.25 to 4.5, 5.25, 4.5. And they just go at this hour after hour, and they tell you how good they feel and how much good it’s doing. Oh, you’re almost justified in kicking them, (laughter)

Every time they tell you that, they put another lie on their case. They just stack their bank up a little harder. Those are actually overts because they’re getting in your road.

But again, all you have to do is find some havingness this pc can have. Now, the pc that sits there with a nonmoving tone arm can be freed by getting off a few overts. You can always get overts, if you really get them off, to move the tone arm, providing they are overts for which the pc can take responsibility. Now, there’s where your Security Checks break down. And there’s where the E-Meter breaks down, as far as this is concerned.

If you don’t know how to read an irresponsible case on an E-Meter and what an irresponsible case looks like on an E-Meter, it’d be a stage four needle, a stuck tone arm, a sticky needle — you see these various malbehaviors of the E-Meter, when they’re extreme, denote a totally irresponsible case.

This person could go out and shoot down a policeman, come back into the session and sit there without, apparendy, a PT problem. It’s quite remarkable. This is the only fooler on a Security Check. It’s not much of a fooler because anybody who knows an E-Meter can recognize this case very easily.

I only know — I’ll give you the frequency of this case, by the way — I only know of two cases in the entire London area that won’t security check. That’s out of hundreds of people, so you see, it’s not a — it’s not a very frequent circumstance. That is to say, people that I have had something to do with their security checking and know they can’t be security checked, and so forth Has nothing to do with this class.

Now, you can be fooled this way with this, “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” The irresponsible person — question doesn’t mean anything to him. They’ll tell you anything, if you happen to ask them, but the needle won’t flick.

“What question shouldn’t I ask you?”

Well, they poisoned their grandma and the needle doesn’t flick.

If you happen to know something about the case, you say, “Did you poison your grandma?”

And they say, “Yes, yes, I poisoned Grandma.” It’s no withhold. And again, the needle doesn’t move.

Beware of that one, because that one can also sit on a Clear read. Let’s get what a fooler it is, and usually does sit on a Clear read. It’s the lower harmonic, the dead body case.

Person, however, has no concept of help, cannot discuss help intelligendy. Has no real concept of responsibility, if you said, “What part of your married life could you be responsible for?” they would think for a very long time and then finally tell you, ‘Well, all of it”

And you’d say, ‘Well, just name one little part of it”

‘Well, I could be responsible for once thinking I was married.”

That would be about the extent of it You get the idea? The responsibility questions just don’t make sense. So talk about help, talk about responsibility, talk about past — this person can’t recall this morning, see. So it’s easy to establish the case that’s in that condition.

The case is rare, but is the fooler. But you’re going to get fooled when you ask a case, “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” We’re not now talking about this extreme case, we’re talking about the bulk of cases. “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” And the needle falls, and you drag it up.

And you say, “That’s fine. I’m done with that line of questioning.” And you sail back onto the Havingness and the Confront Process and go on with your presessioning.

Well, just get an idea of your Instructors or me standing back of your left ear when you catch yourself doing this, boxing them severely, because you didn’t bleed the case of information. You just didn V bleed it down. The case is still there all swelled up with overts. And just because you were clever enough to get one off and worm one out, is no reason under the sun that you’ve done your job. Remember what I told you about asking a case several times when you get a little tiniest needle flick, you know. Ask them several times to develop the needle’s swing. Remember what I ask then?

Well, just getting off one “What shouldn’t I ask you?” is the same action as getting a tiny needle flick if you ask the case if he has an overt. You’re going to develop some whammos! If this individual has got one, the first one is usually something that is quite inappropriate or unreal.

A girl who has been married for a long time, maybe married four, five, six times, will sit there and say, sometimes, “Well,” very coyly, “uh ... I know the needle dropped. Yeah, there is something just flashed in my head. It’s... something that you shouldn’t ask me on it.”

And you say eagerly, “What’s that? What’s that?”

And she says, ‘Well, you shouldn’t ask me whether or not I’m a virgin.”

It just doesn’t make sense, see? Ah! that, about that moment, should cause you to wax the ends of your long moustache! You should think to yourself, Well, well. Well, well. Well, well,” because all that we got here is a substitute. The rule of substitutes is applying here. They have given you the most substituted substitute of the substitute, and they are all set for you to be appeased with this. And this is a Munich this person is willing to settle for, see? Appeasement Ah! Let’s press the next one.

Now, //you produced a considerable change in the case — this is where this probing and picking the lock of a brain goes astray. If you produced a tremendous change in the read of a tone arm by picking up a fact or two, of overts out of the pc’s psyche, leaving it at that without further probing and bleeding it all the way down, makes you guilty of changing the process when the case changed. You have disobeyed the Auditor’s Code. Well, I don’t care if it’s not a repetitive process.

You say something like “What question shouldn’t I ask you? What question shouldn’t I ask you?”

And all of a sudden, you get wham and crash, and the person says, “Well... (sniff, sigh) no, I can’t tell you that,” see. And you finally manage to drag it out of them and you get some long, sordid, sorry tale, you see.

And “All right. Fine. Fine.” And the tone arm comes down and it all cools off, and you say three cheers and go on running some other process.

Mmmmmm! That’s a Q and A

Look, if one overt off the case can make that much difference to the case, you had better find out right here and now that you have a process which is producing enormous change on the case. So let’s just press this ruddy process right home to the hilt and right on out through the butt of a spear. You got it?

‘Teah, well, we produced that one. Mmmh. Ahhh!”

“Well, what question shouldn’t I ask you now?”

You see, you’ve been appeased. You’ve been disarmed. But if you get something that cools off the meter, that straightens out the whole case, and so forth, run it until it no longer produces change, and you’re right in hand in glove with the Auditor’s Code.

The mistake you normally make is that you think that a yap-yap process, just two-way comm on something of the sort, isn’t a process. A process is a duplicative process, isn’t it?

Oh, any random question that produces a fabulous change on the case became at that instant a process. I don’t care what it is. “How many wheels are there on an automobile,” did you say? And the individual goes wham on the tone arm and vooomff. . . You’re in for it, it’s a process.

Well, I don’t care whether you run it duplicatively or nonduplicatively or by two-way comm, but if you were running it by two-way comm, you ought to continue to run the same process by two-way comm.

Now, you should keep a record of a pc’s case. This business of just keeping it all in your head or something of the sort when you’re auditing one pc over a length of time, is not so good, because a pc may boggle up the line someplace and leave you without information.

Actually, the pc boggled two days before and you’ve been trying to get it off the launching pad ever since and you’ll perhaps forget what you were running when they boggled. What happened? So what you do is put down what was going on at a major bog. This is a safe way to audit.

Case came in reading at 6.0. The case has been reading at 3.5 down to 2.0, and the case came in reading at 6.0. You’d better make a note of that and before you’ve forgotten it, what you were running yesterday, see?

And you say, “Yesterday I was running,” so forth, “and this morning the case came in at 6.0.” That’s good enough, see. Now you’ve got it spotted on the track because you might solve it and then it goes unsolved, and you need this datum.

Now, you’re going to plow around and find out what happened to the thing, well, for heaven’s sakes put down what straightened the case out Put down what straightened it out Because then you’ve got a significant moment of change. You’ve got a moment of worsen and you’ve got a moment of heavy change. You got the case going again, and the case came down this time to 3.0 and was going between 2.0, 3.5 very nicely again, and so forth, but something made that case go to 6.0. And you’d better have a record of it.

That keeps you from blowing your brains out by pure speculation. What you want is a record which gives you the major changes of the case. And every time you get a major change of the case, you owe it to the case, actually, to have a note of what was run before the change, what happened during the change, that is to say, just what was being run, said, processed, and so forth, and how it was cleared up.

After you’ve done this three or four times with a case, it will suddenly... Some tremendously related data might suddenly dawn on you, like “This case has present time problems at home all the time. Yeah, and that means that — comes in... There must be a lot of swearing about the auditor or something, or something. Let’s just look this over. Why does this case continue to bog?”

And some little gem might come out. The fact that you’ve been auditing her all day and she gets audited reversewise all night, see? So something might fall out here which is valuable to the resolution of the case. You got the idea?

So if you just make sure that these major changes for the worse or the better are noted, when they occurred, and what was run before and after — you know, what solved it You’ll find out what keeps upsetting this case, and you’ll be able to undo the hang-ups in the case.

Now, the other rule which goes along... You might, you see, optimistically, go another three or four days and say, “Well, we’ve got that all solved, and that case is never going to do this, and all of a sudden it goes clank! And it does it again.

And you say, “Wow, wow, wow. Now let’s see. Let’s see. What do I do now?” And you start dreaming up something to do now. Well, you’re going to make a mistake. You may have an unflat process which produced an enormous change just four days before. And the unflatness of that process is sneaking up on you, and it’s no more significant than that. You cooled off the whole case with something that you thought you bled down, but it didn’t It didn’t.

You interjected something to patch up the case so you could get it audited and that something that you patched up the case with turns out to be the major process for the case. And because you didn’t flatten it, the case bogs. Sometimes it takes two or three days for a case to bog down. But you’d better know those moments of large change in the case and what was being run before, during and after. Got it?

You just better know those large moments about a case. Otherwise, you’ll wind up with a lot of missing information and you undoubtedly could bring it off, eventually, but you sure save yourself an awful lot of work and an awful lot of auditing time if you know what produces changes on any given case.

You get so that you can predict them and straighten them out and wham and then all of a sudden say, “You know, I’d sure better do something about whatever it was that just consistendy produced down changes on the case, you know, and do something about it” Straighten it out because the case obviously is going to keep falling on its head until you do something about that You got it?

Now, we have the common denominator, how it gets a case off the pad and on its way, in Havingness. But Havingness itself is not going to produce any tremendous, lasting result This we already know. All Havingness is going to do is set the case up so that its bank can be shifted. The guy’s bank can be shifted, /havingness can be maintained. You got it?

So we have to have something else that shifts the bank. And the best thing that shifts the bank, of course, Confrontingness Processes because they bring in the absolute lineup of duplication. Ordinary Confront, if it can be run and if it produces tone arm change, will produce tremendous gains for a case, providing havingness is kept up.

Just ordinary, “What could you confront? What would you rather not confront?” is pretty dam marvelous, because it straightens out an awful lot of track, and it’s very general, it’s very permissive, and so forth, if it can be run. But of course, that is a very direct case. And it would get exactly nowhere on a case with a black or moving field, and it has a limitation, you see. So other Confront Processes are necessary to go along with the Havingness undercuts.

And if a case has to run some very abstruse brand of Havingness, why, they’ll probably have to run some very abstruse brand of Confront, too.

After you’ve got the Havingness settled, what will change the tone arm of this case, providing I keep pulling the overts off of it that accumulates during the night or something of the sort, providing the Havingness is running, you can then establish and get real case gains on the Confront. You got it?

The Confront is what is going to do the business. And the Havingness is going to keep the case from caving in on you and is going to keep the case rolling.

Now, there’s the combination. The present environment — auditing environment, is ordinarily not the thing which is aberrative to a pc. Oh, I imagine if you were auditing somebody in a foxhole or during a bomb raid or something like this, it’d be rather rough, but the ordinary environment of an auditing session, of course, is something the pc should be able to have. And if the pc can’t have that environment, any auditing simply gets the pc lost on the time track. The pc just goes adrift and astray and hasn’t anything to orient anything against, don’t you see? And they just chew up energy and snarl around, and go this way and that way, and so on.

You’re auditing, basically, a disenfranchised person. Probably the first and foremost present time problem of any thetan is how to keep up with this universe as it goes clickety-clack along the time track. That is probably the first and foremost problem. It is probably a consistent and continuing present time problem of which your pc is not aware.

How is he going to keep up? Well, if he’s already lost it, he thinks, if he’s already lost present time environment, and is just keeping up on some odd automaticity, he goes adrift very easily on the time track, because he doesn’t have any stable point to relate any gain to. So he can just flounder forever on the time track unless he can run havingness. This is one of the reasons why Havingness works. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was the total reason. But there is an anxiety about keeping up with this universe.

The individual says, “It’s no good. I hate it. I don’t want anything to do with it. I wish I could blow the whole thing up.” Aw, he’s just running on a scarcity of the physical universe. And none of these things are true.

He says, “It’s so scarce that I must say I don’t like it, because I can’t have it” And I don’t care what his frame of mind apparently is about the physical universe, the actual problem he has with the physical universe is trying to keep up with it. And his difficulties in keeping up with it and getting shot, killed, exteriorized, blown out of this, losing his property here, doing something there, you see, all these things all along the track have driven him into a total despair about keeping up with it So he just goes nyah, chew, chew, chew on the engrams and there he goes.

Now, you can’t keep this problem solved of how he keeps up with the physical universe, you’re not going to get anyplace auditing him subjectively. And I can tell you that straight from the shoulder. I’ve had quite a bit of experience trying to audit people up and down the time track who couldn’t orient themselves in the physical universe around them, and although you got apparent gains, actually the individual just kept tumbling and spinning around and disoriented, and so forth.

The gains were minimal. They were hardly worth working for. They were very disappointing. So that an individual, in order to have a case gain, must have a gain also in the direction of keeping up with this physical universe. And all of his gains must be related to the physical universe in which he exists. And if his gains are so related, why, then they are gains. And if they cannot be so related, then they are not gains because there’s no stable point on the track to which to relate them. This is elementary.

But I think it’s sweepingly overlooked. It’s one of these terrific simplicities that we have not been looking at for many years. There has to be a point of orientation, otherwise, you have confusion And the point of orientation on which everybody agrees and the only one the pc will settle for is the physical universe. Unless he has some duplicative abilities with regard to the physical universe, he cannot have the physical universe. His duplicative abilities are cut down consistently by his doing of things which he cannot or will not himself duplicate.

He does things he won’t duplicate. For instance, he’s very critical of you, the auditor, out of session. Well, he’d hate to have somebody be that critical of him. He knows it’s a betrayal, that’s all.

So he comes in and he’s got a bog, and the tone arm doesn’t move. That doesn’t mean the Havingness Process has ceased to work. No, that means your pc, if the Havingness Process was established and did work, and if it was hard to establish, you can count on the fact that it’s going to stall because of the overts and motivators which the pc accumulates in his day-to-day livingness. You got to keep them pulled, that’s all. Well, how do you keep them pulled? Well, that’s up to your genius. Havingness itself will do something about it. Ordinary Confront will do something about handling them. Long, arduous and involved discussions of the subject, of course, will to some degree handle it But a pc who is withholding from the auditor is a pc who is at once demonstrating an unwillingness to duplicate the auditor. Simple, isn’t it? The pc reads it in reverse. Because the pc is withholding, he thinks he’s guilty of an overt act against the auditor, you see, because the common denominator of all of his overt acts was a failure to duplicate the victim. So withhold tells him there must be a victim. Got the idea?

See, so tiny, microscopic, little pieces of goofiness all of a sudden causes a nonduplication of the auditor. So the auditing command isn’t followed, so the pc doesn’t make any gains, so the pc is sitting there piling up little, more critical overts of some kind or another against the auditor, and so on, and the case stalls.

Now, get the difference between a case that isn’t started and a case that is stalled. Get the difference because there’s a big difference.

Once you have established the Havingness Process which changes the pc’s tone arm, a case can only stall. And a case stalls only because of overts and present time problems — present time problems are there because of overts.

Now, this is not a lecture on how to dear up ARC breaks and present time problems, it’s a case on — it’s a lecture on stalled cases or stallingness of cases.

Now, I don’t want you to go out of here and run a case with a Havingness Process and get the case wheeling, very nicely, and then have the case stall, and dream up another Havingness Process, and get the case wheeling very nicely, and then have the case stall, and dream up another Havingness Process, and get the case wheeling very ... Now, exactly what would you be doing if you did that?

You would be ignoring the overts, present time problems, ARC breaks of the pc. And a case is not going to make any progress, that I guarantee to you. I don’t care how many processes you dream up to improve the pc’s havingness. Now, already you know it is quite a trick, quite a trick to improve and get a bite on the pc’s havingness and get Havingness to really move on this case one way or the other. You know that’s a trick.

It could also be done by pulling a few overts, establishing a bit of ARC with the pc. It could be done in numerous ways, but you get the havingness running on the case, well, let’s keep it running. And let’s keep the case advancing. And let’s make sure that this case is flying straight up, at least where the auditor is concerned. They can be revolting against the government and shooting women or men by the dozens in their fine irresponsibility, but let’s not have any kind of an upset condition going along with the auditor, hm?

Now you, by doing a relatively perfect job of auditing, which is to say, good duplication, no flubs, actually getting in there and pitching, not being too accusative of the pc, following the Auditor’s Code and, of course, set yourself up as being duplicatable. And you become very duplicatable to the pc, so the pc all of a sudden can conceive ARC and goes right in and pitches.

But, let’s not go to all the work of getting a case running and then forget what can stall the case. Also, cases will stall when they have had enormous changes which never occurred thereafterwards. This is what we call as being hung up in a big win, some kind or another. So you get enormous changes occasionally on this case, you don’t follow them through. If you don’t follow them through or flatten out those enormous changes, the case will just keep yammering to himself about these huge changes and “Why isn’t it like that every day?”

Well, all he’s doing is saying the change process was not flattened. All right You’ve got, actually, the world in your paws, as far as that’s concerned, on cases. You shouldn’t have any real trouble with cases because these elements are very elementary. They are very fundamental, and there’s some way you can get the case to start duplicating something someplace. That’s for sure. And there are ways and means that you can keep cases cleaned up as they run. That’s for sure. And between these two things, why, you’ve got running cases, and having that, you’ll have Clears.

Clear was jammed at starting cases, not clearing them. Do you get the idea? There’s where all clearing was jammed. That’s where we see it now, and that’s what we’ve got pretty well untangled at this time.

So, good luck to you.