The reasons overts are overts to people is justifications.

If you ask a pc what overt he has committed, and then ask him why it wasn’t an overt, you will find that it wasn’t an overt and therefore didn’t relieve as an answer because it was all justified.

One of the powerful new overt processes (as given by me on recent tapes) is:

1. In this lifetime what overt have you committed?

2. How have you justified it?

(2) is run flat until the overt given in (1) is knocked out. Then a new overt is found and (2) is done thoroughly and repetitively on it.

This is not a new form of process but these are very new commands.

Note it is not an alternate command. Note that a cycle of action is completed with question (2) or*Typo: It should read ‚on’ instead of ‚or’. (1) before you leave off processing this particular overt. Only when you have all the justifications and cognitions possible on (1) do you ask for a new overt from the pc.

This cracks the general irresponsibility the auditor is met with in trying to get O/W to benefit the irresponsible case.

“In this lifetime” is added because the pc who can’t face his overts not only justifies them but goes way back into his past lives to find overts instead of getting off the simple this lifetime ones.

This is not the same process as plain “What have you done?” in which any action done by the pc is accepted as the answer.

However in simple general O/W you will find the pc is not answering the auditing question but is answering “What have I done that caused my trouble?” The pc is running “What action that I have done explains what has happened to me? “

Therefore running justifications off is a further south process than any earlier version of O/W and is very effective in raising the Cause Level of the pc.