What's new

Is a new TV series on Scientology disconnection being suppressed?

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Is a new TV series on Scientology disconnection being suppressed?

Phil Jones is the man behind StopScientologyDisconnection.com and the Stop Scientology Disconnection Billboard.

The question above is being asked because Phil posted the following comment on Tony Ortega's blog:


http://tonyortega.org/2017/02/11/wh...reach-your-full-potential/#comment-3150066756

YtzfKBE.png




The question above is also being asked because the @CallMePhilJones campaign Twitter account tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/CallMePhilJones/status/830624184002822145

kbVcQAM.png



I find it very odd and disturbing that the network, "won't even tell [Phil and his wife] whether it will air at some point."
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
In my experience, media organisations will only air something if they are almost certain that it will benefit them enormously. They are commercial operations after all.

That they've said they may air it means to me it's iffy it will go to air soon - possible production problems, maybe legal problems, who knows?

HH could probably tell you the percentage of shows that have been shot and produced ready to go as opposed to the ones that actually make it to air - I dare say there's a lot that just don't make the final jump into the public arena. I do know that there's a lot of news/current affairs stories that fall by the wayside for a whole lot of different reasons as I know plenty of $cientology stories that I've been a small part of that never got aired (and NONE were due to OSA - honest:yes:.)

Well maybe one or two, but they backfired spectacularly and turned influential people very rabidly against the cult for interfering so clumsily.:roflmao:
 

AngeloV

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Is a new TV series on Scientology disconnection being suppressed?"

Suppressed? By whom? This sounds conspiratorial to me.

Networks do not have to tell anyone what they will or will not air. It is purely a business decision based on a number of factors, one of which is will it make money. Can they sell advertising for it.

Phil: "I don't want to be muzzled by not being able to speak out."
What exactly does that mean? Muzzled by whom? Did he sign an NDA with the network about the show?

Bad mouthing A&E is really a poor idea. He needs to stop only thinking about himself and consider the larger picture.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Networks do not have to tell anyone what they will or will not air. It is purely a business decision based on a number of factors, one of which is will it make money. Can they sell advertising for it.

These days there is also the option of selling a series to Netflix or other subscription video business, where advertisers aren't a factor.

Paul
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
In my experience, media organisations will only air something if they are almost certain that it will benefit them enormously. They are commercial operations after all.

That they've said they may air it means to me it's iffy it will go to air soon - possible production problems, maybe legal problems, who knows?

HH could probably tell you the percentage of shows that have been shot and produced ready to go as opposed to the ones that actually make it to air - I dare say there's a lot that just don't make the final jump into the public arena. I do know that there's a lot of news/current affairs stories that fall by the wayside for a whole lot of different reasons as I know plenty of $cientology stories that I've been a small part of that never got aired (and NONE were due to OSA - honest:yes:.)

Well maybe one or two, but they backfired spectacularly and turned influential people very rabidly against the cult for interfering so clumsily.:roflmao:


There are vast numbers of feature films that were produced but never secured distribution or played in movie theaters. Likewise, for TV. . .

wiki
"Many television shows are produced as pilots that never air on television or in any medium. The scope of this article is to list shows that were officially announced to be broadcast, but then canceled prior to the scheduled debut on the original network. Shows are listed in alphabetical order with the slated year of debut (plus timeframe, or specific premiere date, where applicable), known cast and plot information, the reason for cancellation (if known), and what happened to the series after cancellation...."

Click this link for an extensive list of examples:
List of television series canceled before airing an episode

Generally, with the phenomenal critical (creative) and commercial (financial) success of such television programming as the HBO distributed "GOING CLEAR" and A&E distributed "THE AFTERMATH"--the market and appetite for programming about Scientology is absolutely booming. However, without specific details, it is nearly impossible to speculate why any given TV show did not make it into theaters or onto the TV airwaves. It could be just about anything, including such things as:

  • threat of lawsuit
  • lack of legal clearances from persons captured on key footage
  • inability to verify allegations, statements or anecdotes
  • persons withdrawing their stories/testimonial
  • network exec's "expert" opinion that "it doesn't work"
  • unrelated firing or replacement of network exec(s) that produced or championed the show--and new execs having their own projects to push instead.
  • corporate politics having nothing to do with the show's content
  • corporate incompetence resulting in cancellation
  • political correctness triumphing over commercial benefits
  • discovery of compelling contradictory evidence that renders the material weak, invalid or embarrassingly unsubstantiated.


Or maybe they ran a 'Test Screening" of an episode of the show and audience participants in the focus group gave feedback was that the show was "boring" or "sucked"? That could abruptly have halted any thoughts of airing the show.

Or, they could just have program scheduling conflicts and haven't determined when they can plug it in--so they don't want to say anything yet.

Or they simply haven't decided it's a "green light" yet.

If I had to guess, I'd speculate that the network doesn't think the footage contains the stuff of commercial blockbusters. Because, generally, if they thought they had a home run, that alone would push aside all other factors.
 

Karen#1

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are times when the Cult seems mentally unhinged.
Read this threat letter from their Lawyer Burt Deixler (25 years on their payroll) below.

I posted some images on Facebook of Jeffrey and myself having dinner with Phil and Willie
Possibly this made them feel I was in a "conspiracy"
Note the language ~~ laugh with me ~~ they are going to PROVE in COURT that I have "HIP DEEP INVOLVEMENT in disgraceful intentional infliction of emotional distress" ! Even going so far as to asking whether they should serve the law suit directly to me or to my lawyer.
So where is the law suit ? 1 year later nothing.

PATHOLOGICAL LIARS !

These accusations are hot air, bogus. utter codswallop.
I do know that A & E got threatened with litigation incessantly, almost daily while they were filming.

Burt.sirens.png

Burt.Sirens.2.png
 
Last edited:

JustSheila

Crusader
There are times when the Cult seems mentally unhinged.
Read this threat letter from their Lawyer Burt Deixler (25 years on their payroll) below.

I posted some images on Facebook of Jeffrey and myself having dinner with Phil and Willie
Possibly this made them feel I was in a "conspiracy"
Note the language ~~ laugh with me ~~ they are going to PROVE in COURT that I have "HIP DEEP INVOLVEMENT in disgraceful intentional infliction of emotional distress" ! Even going so far as to asking whether they should serve the law suit directly to me or to my lawyer.
So where is the law suit ? 1 year later nothing.

PATHOLOGICAL LIARS !

These accusations are hot air, bogus. utter codswallop.
I do not know that A & E got threatened with litigation incessantly, almost daily while they were filming.


Burt.sirens.png

Burt.Sirens.2.png

:laugh: Bert Deixler is apparently language-challenged in the use of English and unaccustomed to communicating in a professional manner, so I have taken the liberty of proofreading his letter. Would you kindly send it back to him with my corrections? This man needs some serious help:

"On February 8th, I [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] received [STRIKE]on February 8[/STRIKE] your letter dated February 4th. -2 Since your letter [STRIKE]starts[/STRIKE]begins with [STRIKE]a lie[/STRIKE]an item with which I strongly disagree, I [STRIKE]deem no other part of your letter worthy of response.[/STRIKE] will address that item first." -10 points for unprofessional and inappropriate emotional response. Are you writing as an attorney or is this a personal letter to your ex-wife?

[STRIKE]Let me identify the lie.[/STRIKE] -2 Are you asking permission? Just write it. At no time [STRIKE]ever, neither orally, in writing nor even by smoke signals[/STRIKE] -10 Redundant overuse and misuse of no, ever, neither and nor. Also, only two items can be compared with the use of "either/or/nor." Smoke signals sounds childish, too. have I ever been requested by Ray Jeffrey to communicate in any way with Ms. de la Carriere. Indeed, I have never discussed her in any fashion with Mr. Jeffrey in any way on any occasion. Better.:yes: [STRIKE]Since I [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] recently learned of other prevarications by Mr. Jeffrey, I will assume that he [STRIKE]has[/STRIKE] lied to you on this topic and that you merely are publishing that lie.I am open, however, to the idea that the lie is your concoction.[/STRIKE] -10 Professional attorneys do not make assumptions based on rumor and hearsay. An attorney must rely on facts Your use of past and past-perfect verb tenses is awkward, too. Please [STRIKE]sort it out[/STRIKE] discuss this -2 colloquial with Mr. Jeffrey and let me know [STRIKE]which of you accepts responsibility[/STRIKE] the outcome. -2 Strange wording.

As to your demand that I present evidence, I've found that production of evidence is best done in courtrooms. Okay, but are your clients aware that they are charged thousands of dollars for your appearance when a letter with supporting evidence would be sufficient? Isn't this a waste of judge and courtroom time as well as taxpayer dollars? That is where I [STRIKE]do[/STRIKE] intend to demonstrate your client's [STRIKE]hip-deep[/STRIKE] -2 colloquial involvement in this disgraceful, intentional infliction of emotional stress and [STRIKE]false light[/STRIKE] invasion of Mr. Jones' privacy designed to embarrass him and to enrich Sirens Media[STRIKE], its representatives and those who hope to split the swag with him[/STRIKE]. -20 False light invasion? Splitting the swag? What is this, an accusation that Siren Media is involved with extra-terrestrials and they're all getting new curtains together?(Are you alright?)In the interim, if you want to better understand Ms. de la Carriere's involvement [STRIKE]in the conspiracy,[/STRIKE] Conspiracy? -5 Demonstrates paranoia I[STRIKE]'d[/STRIKE] suggest you [STRIKE]start [/STRIKE] first discuss this with her, then[STRIKE] check with[/STRIKE] the Sirens Media representatives, then Mr. Jones' parents. If they are truthful with you[STRIKE] or have any sense of shame[/STRIKE], all of your questions will be addressed. -2 Shame? :duh:Unprofessional, sounds like a kindergarten teacher, not a lawyer.

[STRIKE]Let me leave you with a question,[/STRIKE]-5 Are you again asking permission to write? Will you accept service of process on behalf of Ms. de la Carriere or should we[STRIKE]effect service of process on on her directly[/STRIKE]have her served personally? -10 Clumsy sentence, no specifics of legal process mentioned

[STRIKE]As is clear from the above, this letter is not intended to be a full factual or legal recital. All rights are expressly reserved.
[/STRIKE]
:duh: -20 That's quite clear and also non-sequitur. You are clearly not a patent attorney, either. You sent the letter to someone else. It is no longer yours.
.
F
Retrain from bottom up.
 
Last edited:

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
"Is a new TV series on Scientology disconnection being suppressed?"

Suppressed? By whom? This sounds conspiratorial to me.

Networks do not have to tell anyone what they will or will not air. It is purely a business decision based on a number of factors, one of which is will it make money. Can they sell advertising for it.

Phil: "I don't want to be muzzled by not being able to speak out."
What exactly does that mean? Muzzled by whom? Did he sign an NDA with the network about the show?

Bad mouthing A&E is really a poor idea. He needs to stop only thinking about himself and consider the larger picture.
The title of this thread, and the question asked, were and are mine. I asked the question because it is a reasonable one under the circumstances.

There is no evidence that the TV show in question is on A&E, much less that Phil is "bad mouthing" A&E.

The admonition that Phil "needs to stop only thinking about himself and consider the larger picture" is unwarranted, ludicrous and quite frankly insulting. He is thinking about his family. Phil and Willie Jones have not seen their son Mike in 1,186 days.

Moreover, Phil is thinking about not only his family, but about ALL disconnected families. Phil has ALWAYS thought not only about himself, and has ALWAYS considered the larger picture. As Tony Ortega reported after the first Los Angeles Stop Scientology Disconnection Billboard went up:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

But as they were preparing to make the long drive to Florida last week, Phil contacted us with some pretty startling news.

“Emily called,” he told us.

This took place after Emily had written a harsh letter to the Tampa Bay Times, accusing her parents of being deadbeats who were trying to use their opposition to the church in order to make money. Phil denied those allegations, and Willie gave us a response to her daughter for us to publish. And then, on Friday, they heard from Emily herself, the first phone call they had received from her in several years.

“I was shocked and happy at the same time. Scientology must be getting way nervous about what we are doing if they’ve gone to this extent. Anyway, she called and was calm at first, starting off with ‘Hi, this is Emily’,” Phil says.

“She said that if we wanted to have a relationship with her and Michael again I’d need to do three things. One was to stop the billboard in Clearwater from going up. The second was to back out of the television series that we’re going to appear in. And three was to never criticize Scientology or them ever again.”

Phil tells us he told his daughter that he was willing to do those things — but only if Scientology canceled its disconnection policy against all families, and not just their own.

“She said this was just between her and me. I told her no…I could never abandon all of those others who are suffering from Scientology’s disconnection,” Phil says. “It went back and forth like that for a while as she got a bit more heated. I tried to calm her down but in the end she hung up on me.

“As much as we love our kids and want them back, how would I be able to face anyone if I was that selfish as to agree to those terms and leave everyone else behind?” he says. “It was so nice to hear Emily’s voice. It’s been a few years. Sadly, it may be a few more at this point.”

We asked Willie for her thoughts, and she sent us this message…


Wow, a surprise call from Emily! It was a bag of mixed emotions for both of us. On the one hand it was so nice to hear from her, and on the other it went exactly as expected. It was one sided. I have watched this type of interaction play out in the past. Attack, do not defend, lay out the demands and expect compliance. It makes me sad for her because I know this is not who she is but what has become expected of her. Her survival in the organization depends on 100 percent compliance.


What Emily does not realize yet is that when Phil said he would agree to all three demands if disconnection was abolished for all, he was attempting not only to make her life better but for all Scientologists. The church has a stake in keeping disconnection alive because it is the greatest control mechanism they have. If only they could understand that this is what is doing them in.


After the call we cried and held on to each other. It is a highly emotional subject. Maybe some day instead of seeing us as the enemy, they will understand we never gave up on them.​

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Does that sound like someone who is thinking only about himself?
 
Top