THIS HANDLING IS DONE BY THE ETHICS OFFICER OF AN ORG OR THE HAS OR IN THEIR ABSENCE BY THE QUAL SEC.

Per HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964, a PTS (meaning a Potential Trouble Source) type A is a person "intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice PTS persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong."

It is actually an interview with the suspected PTS person. It is often done on an E-Meter to assist the verification or data.

(See also:

Such persons with antagonistic family members are a source of trouble to Scientology because their family members are not inactive. In fact from direct experience with Inquiry after Inquiry into Scientology, it has been found that those who have created the conditions which brought about the Inquiry in the first place and those who testified before same have been the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, or grandparents of some Scientologist. Their testimony has been full of such statements as, "My son completely changed after he went into Scientology – he no longer was respectful to me." "My daughter gave up a wonderful career as a hairdresser to go into Scientology." "My sister got these funny staring eyes the way all Scientologists have."

• HCOB 10 Aug 73, PTS Handling

Their testimony was illogical and their descriptions of what occured were untrue, but the point of the matter is that such persons did cause Scientology, Scientology Orgs and fellow Scientologists a great deal of trouble and difficulty.

Many Scientologists in their misunderstanding and misapplication of Scientology create the conditions that bring about the antagonism in the first place. A few illustrations of how this is done are as follows:

Scientologist to mother: "I now know where you are on the Tone Scale – 1.1. Boy are you sneaky!" (Evaluation and invalidation.)

Father to Scientologist: "Now I don't want you to borrow the car again without my permission. I have told you time and time…" Scientologist to father: "OKAY! FINE! OKAY! GOOD! THANK YOU! I GOT THAT!" (Not an acknowledgement, but an effort to shut up the father.)

If a PTS situation actually exists, the interview must result in a written program agreed upon by the preclear with copies to the preclear and to his Ethics file.

Scientologist to older brother: "You murdered me in a past life, you dirty dog!" (Evaluation and invalidation.)

As the person does the steps of the program he reports their accomplishment to the org officer who interviewed him.

Mother to Scientologist: "Whatever are you doing?" Scientologist to mother: "I'm trying to confront your dreadful bank." (Invalidation.)

If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, then the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject (A PTS Rundown given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).

There are so many ways to misuse tech and to invalidate and evaluate for others in a destructive fashion to bring about bypassed charge, ARC Breaks and upset that they can not all be possibly listed. The idea is not to do so. Why create trouble for yourself and for your fellow Scientologists as nothing will have been gained but ill-will?

If, after a PTS Rundown the person feels fine but the persons suppressing him are still making trouble, then the Ethics Officer must require the person to have a SUPPRESSED PERSONS RUNDOWN.

The first step of any interview must be the balance of this BPL, clearing up any misunderstood words or definitions in it and making certain the person knows what “PTS” really means.

Per HCO Policy Letter of March 7, 1965, it is a CRIME to be or become a PTS without reporting it or taking action, or to receive processing while PTS. Further as per HCO Policy letter of October 27, 1964, a PTS may not be trained.

Part of any handling may include the person being required to take a course that is usually called “The PTS-SP Checksheet”.

This means that a person who is PTS may not receive processing or training while PTS and it also means that they had better do something to handle their condition. As per older, now cancelled policy; the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.

But in any case and in any handling, one cannot permit the person to go on being PTS as it can ruin his life.

Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time we have had more PTS trouble than before.

Therefore what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.

Per HCO Policy Letter of 7 May 69, a PTS … (meaning a Potential Trouble Source) Type A is a person … “intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.”

Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics find a Why as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. The Why could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn't stand the thought of being a lawyer!

Or perhaps the Why is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the Why could be that the mother has just read an entheta newspaper article.

Such persons with antagonistic family members are a source of trouble to Scientology because their family members are not inactive. In fact from direct experience with Inquiry after Inquiry into Scientology, it has been found that those who have created the conditions which brought about the Inquiry in the first place and those who testified before same have been the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, or grandparents of some Scientologist. Their testimony has been full of such statements as, “My son completely changed after he went into Scientology – he no longer was respectful to me.” “My daughter gave up a wonderful career as a hairdresser to go into Scientology.” “My sister got these funny staring eyes the way all Scientologists have.”

In any case the Why should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle.

Their testimony was illogical and their descriptions of what occurred were untrue, but the point of the matter is that such persons DID cause Scientology, Scientology Orgs and fellow Scientologists a great deal of trouble and difficulty.

See the Data Series P/Ls (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.

Many Scientologists in their misunderstanding and misapplication of Scientology create the conditions that bring about the antagonism in the first place. A few illustrations of how this is done are as follows:

The person who is PTS should be declared as such by Ethics and should not receive Scientology training or processing until the situation has been handled.

Scientologist to mother: “I now know where you are on the Tone Scale – 1.1. Boy are you sneaky” (Evaluation and invalidation.)

The handling could be as simple as writing to one's father and saying, "I do not complain that you are a janitor, please do not complain that I am a Scientologist. The important thing is that I am your son and that I love and respect you. I know you love me, but please learn to respect me as an adult individual who knows what he wants in life." Or it could be as follows, "I am writing to you, Daddy, because mother keeps sending me these dreadful newspaper clippings and they are upsetting to me because I know they are not true. You do not do this and so it is easier for me to write to you."

Father to Scientologist: “Now I don’t want you to borrow the car again without my permission. I have told you time and time…” Scientologist to father: “OKAY! FINE! OKAY! GOOD! THANK YOU’ I GOT THAT!“ (Not an acknowledgement but an effort to shut up the father.)

Again there are as many ways of handling as there are Why's found. Each case is individual. Remember, too, there is always the possibility of a no situation. And if the person think's he's a PTS and isn't he can get sick. Or if he insists he isn't and is, he can also get upset. So find if there is a situation first.

Scientologist to older brother: “You murdered me in a past life, you dirty dog’“ (Evaluation and invalidation.)

It is the purpose of Ethics to ensure that the situation is handled.

Mother to Scientologist: “Whatever are you doing?” Scientologist to mother: “I’m trying to confront your dreadful bank.” (Invalidation.)

There are so many ways to misuse tech and to invalidate and evaluate for others in a destructive fashion to bring about bypassed charge, ARC Breaks and upset that they can not all be possibly listed. The idea is NOT to do so. Why create trouble for yourself and for your fellow Scientologists as nothing will have been gained but ill-will?

Per HCO Policy Letter of March 7, 1965, it is a CRIME to be or become a PTS without reporting it or taking action, or to receive processing while PTS. Further as per HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964, a PTS may not be trained.

This means that a person who is PTS may not receive processing or training while PTS and it also means that they had better do something to handle their condition. As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.

Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time, we have had more PTS trouble than before.

Therefore, what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.

Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics, find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. The WHY could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn’t stand the thought of being a lawyer.

Or perhaps the WHY is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the WHY could be that the mother has just read an entheta newspaper article.

In any case the WHY should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle.

See the Data Series PLs (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why. This is not mandatory – for doing the PTS-SP Detection Checksheet (BPL 31 May 1971RG).

The person who is PTS should be declared as such by Ethics and should not receive Scientology training or processing until the situation has been handled. (The exception to this is a full PTS Rundown done in the HGC.)

The handling could be as simple as writing to one’s father and saying, “I do not complain that you are a janitor, please do not complain that I am a Scientologist. The important thing is that I am your son and that I love and respect you. I know you love me, but please learn to respect me as an adult individual who knows what he wants in life.” Or it could be as follows, “I am writing to you, Daddy, because Mother keeps sending me these dreadful newspaper clippings and they are upsetting to me because I know they are not true. You do not do this and so it is easier for me to write to you.”

Again there are as many ways of handling as there are Whys found. Each case is individual. Remember, too, there is always the possibility of a NO situation. And if the person thinks he’s PTS and isn’t, he can get sick. Or if he insists he isn’t and is, he can also get upset. So find if there IS a situation first.

It is the purpose of Ethics to ensure that the situation is handled.