Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by Richard Baker, Dec 30, 2015.
On AxaMonitor: Judge gives mixed ruling on both sides' motions to exclude evidence.
Thanks! Really do appreciate everything you do in allllll this documenting and organizing and researching and .... Everything.
I do not understand a lot of what's on that list means. And sorta barely understand others among them. A couple, well, actually not at all. But if you ever consider putting each one of them in wayeasierthanlayman's wording give me a heads up. (and totally no worries if you don't) I'm reasonably certain I can understand wayeasierthanlayman's wording.
My recent tweets are more in layman' terms. @AxaMonitor
Blog post is up re the ruling (which is rather bare bones so I'm afraid the post is as well) -
We may see more documents, particularly about plaintiffs' MIL #6, and we will probably see some sort of clarification from the judge regarding today's rulings. Rulings were mixed but mainly serve to improve the signal to noise ratio for the jury.
And with that, I bid you all a fond good night.
<heads off to Twitter>
Thanks @carlosp, that was a great summary on @AxaMonitor.
I have to say it all sounds very fair and reasonable for both sides. You can see the Judge is attempting to streamline the information, wheat from chaff etc etc. Chief Axanar blogger Mr Lane does appear to have enough to go on to produce another incredibly misleading and overly optimistic piece to keep the worms on the hooks, though, sadly.
EDIT - And so it has come to pass. I only scanned it as my self loathing doesn't extend to that level of punishment but the gist appears to be if it's bad for Axanar then remember it's only tentative and if it's good for Axanar then it's a big win.
I'd give real money if he'd shut up (seriously, who does Slow Lane expect to keep lapping up this drivel?)
Tried to read that through and just gave up-
I think I will just join that whinny kid over there and watch some paint dry instead...
That's some awfully nice paint drying there.
Also, on Monday the 9th, the judge did not hear oral arguments on the motions – it was a pretrial conference. Did they talk about the pending motions? Possibly. But it was not formal oral arguments. Pretrial conferences are for other purposes, such as tying up all the loose ends before trial, ironing out any possible scheduling conflicts that have cropped up (e. g. heaven forbid, a lawyer's kid has to have surgery on the scheduled start date for the trial and the date just came up and can't be moved, that sort of thing). It is also an opportunity for the judge to, yet again, knock heads together and try to get everyone to settle the case.
As a courtesy (albeit not necessary), it can also be a moment for the court to receive word of any intended interlocutory appeals.
But it was not oral arguments on the pending motions.
Defense Motion #8 strikes me as unmitigated gall (Chutzpah?). Did I read right that they were asking to remove any references to Star Trek?
A wall of letters, characters and words. I just can't get past two paragraphs in this passive-aggressive, condescending drivel.
Yep - I believe their claim was Mr. Peters NEVER used the term 'Star Trek' to promote the film - it was always called just 'Axanar'
(Of course this ignored the submitted 'casting call' sheet that was sent to agencies that had 'Star Trek Axanar' as the title, or the fact that the Axanar twitter account name is: @StarTrekAxanar - but again, that's a Defense lawyer for you when they really have nothing - they HOPE the Judge and/or his research attorneys don't really bother to research beyond whats stated by the Defense in a motion.)
So yeah, the Judge properly denied this Defense request to exclude.
So he never used the name Star Trek to promote Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar?
He never used Star Trek when he was saying he was making a professional Star Trek film?!
Anybody I'm needing some clarification on this ruling thing.
If I'm understanding it right AxaMonitor is saying there had been a ruling on these points. It reads, at least to me I mean, that the judge had, you know, said 'On these points this is the way it is, guys.' Now fff is agreeing that the judge made the ruling but is also saying that the judge went to all in caps measures adding the word tentative to the word 'ruling'... to make sure everyone understands this is a tentative ruling and not to consider it a 'This is the way it is, guys' ruling yet.
I know AxaMonitor would have made it absolutely clear that this ruling is a tentative ruling if that what it is. That point would most assuredly not been omitted. But Mr. Lane is persuasive about the judge taking measures to make sure everyone is clear that these rulings are, at this time, tentative. He's really clear on this and that the judge and all....
And 'judge makes tentative rulings' and 'judge makes rulings' carry different, to me I mean, connotations. So I'm somewhat confused and need a bit of help understanding.
[EDIT: Oops, my bad. The rulings document does actually confirm it is fff that is correct. It says the rulings are tentative and has the word tentative written in all caps.]
Don't feel bad - this laymen also has that question! I assume this will stand, but know Carlos will make corrections when needed and wondered if Lane would just want to re-assure his readers of his importance since he was banished from the room.
My curiosity is.... the 'drama' thing. This still means their depositions are in evidence, right? It's a stupid question, I know - but I'd rather have the answer of people in the know before I say anything out loud. And there are good people in the know here!
The 'drama'. Now that's one of the places in the Rulings list I wasn't clear on. In the 'granted' Defense Motions to Exclude #5 is it saying that the drama part of Mr. Gossett & McIntosh's testimony is to be excluded from being examined in court but the 'this is what he said & did regarding intent & infringement, et al., is allowed? Surely they will still be permitted to testify regarding those things. Right?
" 9. Motion to preclude Plaintiffs from introducing evidence as to the professional nature of Defendants’ Works — GRANTED. "
Could this impact ability to present the fundraising claims of being a professional project, the fact that professionals were sought out to do the work, etc.?
Separate names with a comma.