CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[jamestyler]

I have actually wondered exactly that, @Noname Given. I have heard word that Peters only counts the crowdfunding proceeds from Kickstarter and Indiegogo as "donor money." All other undisclosed income is "his." I'm hoping to get this opinion of his confirmed, as it fits the revisions he's said to have made in the Axanar financials submitted to the court the second time.

I missed this the first time round (cheers @OtherGene for quoting that! ) but... I've been pondering this as well.

When the donor list wall was changed, or whatever happened to it, I had a peek through and scanned for some names of friends who have donated in person at conventions. I assume the list on the donor wall is just taken from the IGG/KS databases, so it really just a recap of who's donated to the projects via an online method, so the reason I couldn't se the names was just that in-person donations aren't accounted for or credited publicly.

But it has made me wonder if those donations were placed on record at all. Whether on the database, or on financials. I'm already well aware that those donating were given inaccurate information on the project (one thing in particular they mentioned was an outright lie), and we've already seen that Team Axanar has a distinct lack of orginisational skills and questionable morality when it comes to handling the money - so I have little to no faith that any of the money raised at events was properly accounted for (if at all).

 

[OtherGene]

I missed this the first time round (cheers @OtherGene for quoting that! ) but... I've been pondering this as well.

When the donor list wall was changed, or whatever happened to it, I had a peek through and scanned for some names of friends who have donated in person at conventions. I assume the list on the donor wall is just taken from the IGG/KS databases, so it really just a recap of who's donated to the projects via an online method, so the reason I couldn't se the names was just that in-person donations aren't accounted for or credited publicly.

But it has made me wonder if those donations were placed on record at all. Whether on the database, or on financials. I'm already well aware that those donating were given inaccurate information on the project (one thing in particular they mentioned was an outright lie), and we've already seen that Team Axanar has a distinct lack of orginisational skills and questionable morality when it comes to handling the money - so I have little to no faith that any of the money raised at events was properly accounted for (if at all).

Essentially, it looks like the money collected at the conventions was cash-in-hand, no receipt, amounts-totalled-on-the-back-of-a-cigarette-packet kind of thing.

Which isn't dodgy at all

 

[Search4]

Boom, it all makes sense now. Classic Alec Peters. That would be why he repeatedly states he hasn't spent a dime of donor money on personal expenses he has ,instead, splurged mightily on income he perceives as his.

Now that is a con-man at work.

And this is why free press, and the freedom to investigate is a luxury we shouldn't take for granted, even on small issues like a Star Trek fan-film (a small issue with a big amount of money attached to it).

Well I might take the opposite view. If someone "bought" a model kit - their transaction was fulfilled and it is money not from a donor.

 

[Rincewiend]

Boom, it all makes sense now. Classic Alec Peters. That would be why he repeatedly states he hasn't spent a dime of donor money on personal expenses he has ,instead, splurged mightily on income he perceives as his.

Now that is a con-man at work.

And this is why free press, and the freedom to investigate is a luxury we shouldn't take for granted, even on small issues like a Star Trek fan-film (a small issue with a big amount of money attached to it).

And that would probably where the $50,000-$150,000(whatever the claimed amount is today) "of his own" money came from...

 

[Jedi_Master]

Essentially, it looks like the money collected at the conventions was cash-in-hand, no receipt, amounts-totalled-on-the-back-of-a-cigarette-packet kind of thing.

Which isn't dodgy at all

I would love to see a few receipts from folks who "donated" at cons... I wonder who the charging entity was?

If it was Axanar Productions, then he may have had a cavalier attitude towards that money, but it was still "income" for the production and not his to spend.
But it would make sense if he view Donor Station and direct sales... I mean "donations" at cons as his money, which would also make sense as to why he states that "the production" has never given him a penny. In his mind that extra cash is play money, so he just takes that money, "reimburses" Axanar for the money he took out a year or so ago, and then viola! it's all even.

Of course he is ignoring the fact that people gave him that money with the express intent to fund a film, but that ship has long since sailed.

 

[Squiggy]

These days, one has to allow "equal time" even when one of the persons arguing is saying CO2 can't change climate because the other side of the flat earth is all forest.

That's actually not the case, news interviews are an exemption. CNN just does that because CNN.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Axa-bashing, already in progress.

 

[oswriter]

Well I might take the opposite view. If someone "bought" a model kit - their transaction was fulfilled and it is money not from a donor.

And this is the type of confusion that will (and probably should) invite regulatory oversight of crowdfunding. Calling consumers "donors" and offering them "perks" instead of merchandise really muddies up the waters. It opens the door for someone like LFIM to pretend to be a non-profit without actually complying with IRS regulations governing charitable organizations.

 

[OtherGene]

Well I might take the opposite view. If someone "bought" a model kit - their transaction was fulfilled and it is money not from a donor.

Ignoring for now that those model kits looked awfully similar to officially licensed model kits (!) the Axanar swag was still presented as being a means to an end and that end was not phone bills, auto repairs and Alec and the missus having a generally lovely time.

 

[carlosp]

Well I might take the opposite view. If someone "bought" a model kit - their transaction was fulfilled and it is money not from a donor.

Except that gaining access to the "Donor Store" requires you in the first place to have made a "donation," hence a donor.

 

[jamestyler]

Except that gaining access to the "Donor Store" requires you in the first place to have made a "donation," hence a donor.

Unless some upset donor gives everyone the password and lets us take screencaps

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

I have heard word that Peters only counts the crowdfunding proceeds from Kickstarter and Indiegogo as "donor money." All other undisclosed income is "his." I'm hoping to get this opinion of his confirmed, as it fits the revisions he's said to have made in the Axanar financials submitted to the court the second time.

That the defendant [possibly] viewed "undisclosed income is his."

You gotta wonder if that is part of the "$150,000 of his own money" claim <--- Where Alec Peters now claims he paid back to Axanar somehow.

It certainly does beg the question.

That would be why he repeatedly states he hasn't spent a dime of donor money on personal expenses he has, instead, splurged mightily on income he perceives as his.

Again, begs the question.

I missed this the first time round (,,,, @OtherGene ... I've been pondering this as well.
.....................
I assume the list on the donor wall is just taken from the IGG/KS databases, so it really just a recap of who's donated to the projects via an online method, so the reason I couldn't se the names was just that in-person donations aren't accounted for or credited publicly.

But it has made me wonder if those donations were placed on record at all. Whether on the database, or on financials.

Understood. I just rechecked the Donor Roster Page and see our name (combined moneys single Cr Crd used, name on Cr Crd displayed) is still under the two appropriate headings; Star Trek: Axanar (Kickstarter) Donors & Axanar (Indiegogo) Donors. I noted our name is showing under both headings but now in a different places under each headings than it sat before. Still alphabetical, but now in different columns. Could be any number of reasonable reasons for this so it's just data at this time.

That we donated three separate times is not showing. And reasonably our third donation possibly might not be deemed even necessary to be listed on the Donor Roster since our last donation was simply donated but not through one of the 'packages'. So that, also, is just data to me.

Essentially, it looks like the money collected at the conventions was cash-in-hand, no receipt, amounts-totalled-on-the-back-of-a-cigarette-packet kind of thing.

It is worth scrutiny at this point because all the Slippery (<- @jespah) that is being documented.
“and even sold out of all 30 Blu-rays and all but 2 DVDs! Mini-posters sold out too and we took in over $3,000 in donations! “

Well I might take the opposite view. If someone "bought" a model kit - their transaction was fulfilled and it is money not from a donor.

I can follow that train of thought and included Blu-rays, DVDs, and posters sold at conventions. Right?
“and even sold out of all 30 Blu-rays and all but 2 DVDs! Mini-posters sold out too.

And that would probably where the $50,000-$150,000(whatever the claimed amount is today) "of his own" money came from...

It certainly deserves further scrutiny 'if' the defendant actually has been working from the theory (information from backdoor data gathering, confirmation being worked on) that the defendant viewed undisclosed income as his.

I would love to see a few receipts from folks who "donated" at cons... I wonder who the charging entity was?

If it was Axanar Productions, then he may have had a cavalier attitude towards that money, but it was still "income" for the production and not his to spend.

But it would make sense if he view Donor Station and direct sales... I mean "donations" at cons as his money, which would also make sense as to why he states that "the production" has never given him a penny. In his mind that extra cash is play money, so he just takes that money, "reimburses" Axanar for the money he took out a year or so ago, and then viola! it's all even.

Of course he is ignoring the fact that people gave him that money with the express intent to fund a film

Agree. “and even sold out of all 30 Blu-rays and all but 2 DVDs! Mini-posters sold out too and we took in over $3,000 in donations!"

the Axanar swag was still presented as being a means to an end and that end was not phone bills, auto repairs and Alec and the missus having a generally lovely time.

Agree

Where is the money, Mr. Peters?

 

[muCephi]

Boom, it all makes sense now. Classic Alec Peters. That would be why he repeatedly states he hasn't spent a dime of donor money on personal expenses he has ,instead, splurged mightily on income he perceives as his.

It's a little known fact that the Scimitar was actually equipped with a bunch of crowbars to pry apart the Matryoshka doll posings of Axanar. When that didn't work, the industry sent the Narada. And no, the Garth alternate timeline ultimately didn't survive into sequels.

Essentially, it looks like the money collected at the conventions was cash-in-hand, no receipt, amounts-totalled-on-the-back-of-a-cigarette-packet kind of thing.

Which isn't dodgy at all

How much you wanna bet Axanar freely took checks? There's a thread to pull.

Well I might take the opposite view. If someone "bought" a model kit - their transaction was fulfilled and it is money not from a donor.

Please do keep that money Axanar. Now you are talking violation of counterfeit laws, a criminal offense, as Carlos has described.

...
But it would make sense if he view Donor Station and direct sales... I mean "donations" at cons as his money, which would also make sense as to why he states that "the production" has never given him a penny. In his mind that extra cash is play money, so he just takes that money, "reimburses" Axanar for the money he took out a year or so ago, and then viola! it's all even.

A question to ask as part of "where's the million, Alec?"

That's actually not the case, news interviews are an exemption. CNN just does that because CNN.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Axa-bashing, already in progress.

I was thinking more of the (former) Fairness Doctrine, which applied to controversial issues, and its echoes implemented "as if it were required" (braindeadedly) as "find 'the other side' let them say anything without questioning it" in news shows (so you can maintain ratings). The Equal Time regulations are strictly for election coverage. But point taken.

And this is the type of confusion that will (and probably should) invite regulatory oversight of crowdfunding. Calling consumers "donors" and offering them "perks" instead of merchandise really muddies up the waters. It opens the door for someone like LFIM to pretend to be a non-profit without actually complying with IRS regulations governing charitable organizations.

Representing that you are a nonprofit when you are not has to be illegal somehow... at the very least, you are defrauding the people who donate thinking they can claim an exemption... and I believe there have been citations here of California state laws which are more aggressive in penalizing. Not that the IRS wouldn't get to the violations eventually, but they need to launch auditors while they get the carrier turned around.

Note Alec often seemed to use weaselwords like "operating as a nonprofit, which means we take no money out of it, it all goes to the business objective"... but he never said they *had* their 501c3...

Accept *his* redefinition of legal/commonly understood terms and its ok, because words. Sound familiar?

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Representing that you are a nonprofit when you are not has to be illegal somehow... at the very least, you are defrauding the people who donate thinking they can claim an exemption... and I believe there have been citations here of California state laws which are more aggressive.

ohhhh. I had forgotten about all the nonprofit mentionings in the 'before'. Before this 'nonprofit' point kept being brought up by the questioners and documenters. It would be worth scrutiny that the word nonprofit is still sometimes used at in-person conventions promoting sales and donations.

Note Alec often seemed to use weaselwords like "operating as a nonprofit, which means we take no money out of it, it all goes to the business objective"... but he never said they *had* their 501c3...

Accept *his* redefinition of legal/commonly understood terms and its ok, because words. Sound familiar?

Yes. Yes it does.

 

[oswriter]

Representing that you are a nonprofit when you are not has to be illegal somehow... at the very least, you are defrauding the people who donate thinking they can claim an exemption... and I believe there have been citations here of California state laws which are more aggressive in penalizing. Not that the IRS wouldn't get to the violations eventually, but they need to launch auditors while they get the carrier turned around.

Note Alec often seemed to use weaselwords like "operating as a nonprofit, which means we take no money out of it, it all goes to the business objective"... but he never said they *had* their 501c3...

Accept *his* redefinition of legal/commonly understood terms and its ok, because words. Sound familiar?

The California Attorney General's Office regulates all charitable organizations (also known as public benefit corporations) that solicit money in the state. Axanar/LFIM would have a hard time complying with those those rules. For example, the AG has to approve any sort of "self-dealing" between the charity and one of its officers or directors:

Self-dealing transactions between a director and the corporation on which the director serves are inherently suspect. The director's first duty of loyalty is to the corporation, and it may be difficult for a director to carry out that duty if he or she is also looking to make a profit from transacting business
with the corporation. This is one reason that California law requires that all boards of directors ofpublic benefit corporations be composed of at least 51 percent of directors who are “disinterested” persons. “Disinterested” means that neither the director nor any member of his family is paid by the corporation to do anything other than act as a director. For example, a director who is a paid
employee, or whose spouse is a paid employee, of the corporation is not a disinterested person. A majority disinterested board of directors helps to insure that the corporation is protected against unfair self-dealing transactions and other conflicts of interest.

There are even stricter rules against a California charity loaning money to an interested person:

In reviewing requests to approve proposed loans from a public benefit corporation to a director or officer, the Attorney General applies a standard of strict scrutiny. Unlike self-dealing transactions, which may be validated under statutory standards, most loans from a public benefit corporation to a director or officer are prohibited in the absence of Attorney General approval. In reviewing a loan transaction, the Attorney General asks whether the loan is strictly necessary to carry out the charitable program and to protect charitable assets. Additional criteria applied by the Attorney General in reviewing a loan transaction include whether better alternatives are available to the corporation, whether the terms and interest rate are fair to the corporation, and whether the loan is secured.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

The California Attorney General's Office regulates all charitable organizations (also known as public benefit corporations) that solicit money in the state.
---------------------
There are even stricter rules against a California charity loaning money to an interested person:

I am proceeding with a heavy helping of 'not really grasping this'. May I presume all charities are nonprofit? Are all nonprofit organizations also 'charities/charitable institutes'? If not do the, what are they - statutes? - do the above [I'll just call them in perfect ignorance] statutes also apply to a nonprofit that is not a charity or charitable institute? (And are the words charity & charitable institute as applied to business/organizations interchangeable? Synonymous?)

 

[MikeH92467]

It's a little known fact that the Scimitar was actually equipped with a bunch of crowbars to pry apart the Matryoshka doll posings of Axanar. When that didn't work, the industry sent the Narada. And no, the Garth alternate timeline ultimately didn't survive into sequels.



How much you wanna bet Axanar freely took checks? There's a thread to pull.



Please do keep that money Axanar. Now you are talking violation of counterfeit laws, a criminal offense, as Carlos has described.



A question to ask as part of "where's the million, Alec?"



I was thinking more of the (former) Fairness Doctrine, which applied to controversial issues, and its echoes implemented "as if it were required" (braindeadedly) as "find 'the other side' let them say anything without questioning it" in news shows (so you can maintain ratings). The Equal Time regulations are strictly for election coverage. But point taken.



Representing that you are a nonprofit when you are not has to be illegal somehow... at the very least, you are defrauding the people who donate thinking they can claim an exemption... and I believe there have been citations here of California state laws which are more aggressive in penalizing. Not that the IRS wouldn't get to the violations eventually, but they need to launch auditors while they get the carrier turned around.

Note Alec often seemed to use weaselwords like "operating as a nonprofit, which means we take no money out of it, it all goes to the business objective"... but he never said they *had* their 501c3...

Accept *his* redefinition of legal/commonly understood terms and its ok, because words. Sound familiar?

I can assure from y personal experience that mentioning to anyone on his FB page that he does not have 501(c)3 status sends LFIM into a rage. He butted into a thread I was posting in where I pointed out to someone who asked about the non-profit angle that there is no 501(c)3 there and told me if I wanted to "bitch" about Axanar I should go elsewhere. He threatened to ban me, but never did. He also wanted to argue about everything else and I told him there were only two things I would comment on: his lack of a film ("it takes time to make a film Mike!") despite all the money and his lack of 501(c)3 status since those were two indisputable facts. He also wanted to argue about Star Trek Continues having it and I basically told him to piss off.

 

[urbandefault]

This is a nice little commentary on what we already know, but many others don't. (And those who do ... *)

https://theunjaydedbook.wordpress.c...dition/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

* -Cardinal Biggles, MPFC.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

I hadn't read it. Thanks for posting it.

 

[jespah]

More to read when I return (and I understand there is more court stuff to read because why the hell should this week be different from all other weeks?)!

 

[dmac]

There were times when I considered if any other true Fan Film studio would be slapped with a lawsuit for setting out to produce the Axanar movie. Then I remembered, what movie?