CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[SuperSpaceMan]

Sorry, but to me, things like corporate filings, where he's spending money and any sort of "investigation" like that should be left to the court room or real investigative reporters.

Facebook and online forums are not the place for that sort of thing.

Sorry, but to me, things like corporate filings, where he's spending money and any sort of "investigation" like that should be left to the court room or real investigative reporters.

Facebook and online forums are not the place for that sort of thing.

Why are screen caps of the Fan group okay, but not screen caps of the Secretary of State's corporate listing? or local property tax collector?

Investigation isn't where this went sideways, it went sideways when a reasonable explanation was given, and the responsible party didn't do the decent thing, by removing the OP.

 

[Earthrise]

Last night, as I was sleeping next to my buxom bride, someone in the I Stand With CBS group did something they shouldn't have. I think it crossed the line and if the group was still around the posts would have been deleted and said poster removed.

I wake up this morning to my delightful offspring kissing my cheek and read a threatening Facebook message (with the same threatener's phone number so I have that now). Someone involved with Axanar took umbrage - and, being their nature - threatened to involve the police and serve many a lawsuit. I talked with the aforementioned bride and followed her recommendation to close the group to avoid any more fucking drama.

Honestly, the game of oneupmanship over the past couple of days meant this was going to happen sooner rather than later. When someone wrote that faux-review on my Zillow profile I considered walking away at that point.

Why did I close it rather than just hand it off to someone else? I didn't want someone else taken down in the cross-fire. Not everyone has a million dollars or pro-bono representation to fight their lawsuits for them. I'm one of those people.

To wander off topic for a moment (like this thread hasn't done any of that before), I think it was a good move. It's just Facebook. It's not worth any stress, anxiety, or any more time than one cares to spend on it.

 

[wtriker1701]

Last night, as I was sleeping next to my buxom bride, someone in the I Stand With CBS group did something they shouldn't have. I think it crossed the line and if the group was still around the posts would have been deleted and said poster removed.

I wake up this morning to my delightful offspring kissing my cheek and read a threatening Facebook message (with the same threatener's phone number so I have that now). Someone involved with Axanar took umbrage - and, being their nature - threatened to involve the police and serve many a lawsuit. I talked with the aforementioned bride and followed her recommendation to close the group to avoid any more fucking drama.

Honestly, the game of oneupmanship over the past couple of days meant this was going to happen sooner rather than later. When someone wrote that faux-review on my Zillow profile I considered walking away at that point.

Why did I close it rather than just hand it off to someone else? I didn't want someone else taken down in the cross-fire. Not everyone has a million dollars or pro-bono representation to fight their lawsuits for them. I'm one of those people.

You did right so. It's spinning out of control on either side. I feel sorry for you and the just cause you tried to establish there.
But: The story will unfold before our eyes anyway, no matter what input we throw in between. Let's all have a little patience.
Where are the Organians when we all need them the most?

 

[muCephi]

To wander off topic for a moment (like this thread hasn't done any of that before), I think it was a good move. It's just Facebook. It's not worth any stress, anxiety, or any more time than one cares to spend on it.

agree. hashtags disappear in moments. lawsuits don't :-)

 

[Professor Zoom]

It's always a shame when one person takes things to far and ruins things for everybody else. From the posts on here it sounds like the incident in question might have been somewhat accidental, but when it comes to anything like this financial and house stuff, you have to be careful you're not posting anything you shouldn't. Even if they didn't mean to reveal somebody's address, they still made a mistake by not checking things more closely before they posted them.

I question why the person was even investigating ANY of that. This isn't some sort of government conspiracy. This isn't a corporation trying to cover up poisoning a town. This is a movie about people playing dress up that is getting busted because they didn't stand in bounds.

There's no reason to go all X-Files on Peters or ANYone related to this. WTF.

It's the worst of internet behavior.

@Squiggy You so did the right thing. It may have been a frivolous lawsuit that would get thrown out, but, it takes time and money to deal with bullshit. The internet aint worth it.

 

[BillJ]

I question why the person was even investigating ANY of that. This isn't some sort of government conspiracy. This isn't a corporation trying to cover up poisoning a town. This is a movie about people playing dress up that is getting busted because they didn't stand in bounds.

There's no reason to go all X-Files on Peters or ANYone related to this. WTF.

It's the worst of internet behavior.

Where's the "double-like" button?

 

[Michael Hinman]

Let me respond to some of the comments about the questions that were raised, and remove some misperceptions that exist.

First, any addresses that were shared were part of PUBLIC DOCUMENTS that were created by Alec Peters or those associated with him, not me or anyone else. They are accessible by ANYONE (thus, are a "public document.") If you have an address that is so sensitive that you can't have, it discussed, then here's a suggestion: DO NOT USE IT IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

I didn't know what was at the address. All I knew is that it was listed as the business address for Woodland Terrace Investments, with another Axanar/Propworx primary person as the registered agent. The title was under Alec Peters' name, using his California address (also public record in Florida), and it was not homesteaded (which would be reflected in the taxes), so it appeared to be nothing more than an investment property.

While it is possible that the company was used as a corporate veil for an investment property, there were two things that were evident that raised my initial questions: Why was the company formed 23 months after the sale? And why wasn't the property transferred over in the 11 months since the company was formed?

Peters then answered this (which is exactly what I was asking for) by saying that he did it on advice of "council," which I think he meant "counsel." That it was for that property.

But then that still left the other question unanswered. If you were transferring the property to that company, and that was the company's purpose, then why was the property not transferred? I mean, you can't use a corporate veil if the corporation doesn't take possession. And there would be a public document, most likely a quitclaim deed, that would've showed that.

The company was formed 11 months ago, yet there is no quitclaim, and apparently no mortgage that would've possibly slowed such a quitclaim process down. A quitclaim is a very easy form to file, which would've required a simple trip to the county controller's office, a small fee, and that's it. Yet, it wasn't done.

Maybe it wasn't a top priority, I don't know. The reason why it came up was because the timing of the creation of the company took place during a similar time period of the Axanar fundraising. "Investments" is a trigger word for me, which does catch my attention.

It could be entirely innocent. But I looked at that, looked to see if there was an obvious explanation (like whether it was used to protect an asset behind the corporate veil) where no explanation was obvious, and then posed the question on what it was.

Yes, I am trying to figure out why a fan production needs to spend more than $10,000 a month on studio space, that apparently shares the address with a for-profit company. Why a producer of a fan production needs to collect a salary, no matter how nominal he claims it is. And I'm just curious to where this whole $1.1 million is going. That's a lot of money — especially for a fan production. I know people who have created wonderful films, feature length even, for far less than that. And those were for-profit productions.

They are really questions for CBS/Paramount, if they even choose to ask it. But why would that prevent the rest of us from discussing it? We all seem to be open to discussing everything else.

I never said who lived at the address (I didn't know, and it was immaterial). But that was the address used in a corporate filing, that you, I, or anyone with access to a computer can pull up. Try it yourself ... go to Sunbiz.org (which is Florida's division of corporation records), do a search by officers/registered agents, and put "Peters Alec" and see what comes up.

The ONLY person that tied this to his "godsons" or whatever was Alec Peters. Nowhere in my discussion did I even mention them (I didn't even know they existed). The address came up because that was used as the address for the basis of a corporation, which he filed as a public document with the Florida state government. I only pointed out the ownership of that property, which also is public record. Any discussion of tenants and such, well, that's on those who chose to bring it up.

 

[BillJ]

...

I still think there's a bit of overzealousness on all our parts (me included) over something that, in the grand scheme of things, isn't important in the slightest.

 

[Mudd]

So the address is the office of an LLC.

My home address is the office of an LLC.

 

[BillJ]

I was thinking, the silence may destroy Peters quicker than anything we say. It will drive him batty not to be the center of attention.

 

[Michael Hinman]

I still think there's a bit of overzealousness on all our parts (me included) over something that, in the grand scheme of things, isn't important in the slightest.

Well, I'm amazed that you were able to come to that conclusion. On what basis?

We ask questions to hold people accountable, and to get information. The timing of the creation of this company (in the middle of fundraising seven digits on the backs of fans) raised an eyebrow. And it could very well be an unrelated raised eyebrow. But that doesn't negate the questions, because there is still enough "coincidence" to simply ask the question.

If I was in the middle of raising money from donations, intended to build a homeless shelter in the middle of St. Louis, and was enjoying a lot of success, raising far beyond my goals -- and suddenly I created an investment company in another state at the same time I am enjoying that success. Wouldn't it be at least worth asking the question about what it is? I would think so.

We are losing sight of what this battle is about. It's not just about whether CBS and Paramount has a right to defend its intellectual property. It's also about what fans are convinced to spend their hard-earned money on. Yes, it's up to the fans on where they put that money, and it's their right to just throw it away.

But as I have fought for over and over and over and over and over again, I just want to make sure that, at the very least, those fans had every opportunity to know where those dollars they were giving away were going.

 

[Michael Hinman]

I was thinking, the silence may destroy Peters quicker than anything we say. It will drive him batty not to be the center of attention.

I think you're probably right.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Let me respond to some of the comments about the questions that were raised, and remove some misperceptions that exist.

First, any addresses that were shared were part of PUBLIC DOCUMENTS that were created by Alec Peters or those associated with him, not me or anyone else. They are accessible by ANYONE (thus, are a "public document.") If you have an address that is so sensitive that you can't have, it discussed, then here's a suggestion: DO NOT USE IT IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

So? Just because a thing CAN be found doesn't mean it NEEDS to be found. What is gained from digging into all of this personal finical stuff? Who does it serve? Consider the flip side, would you want someone going through all of your personal information, regardless if it was public documents or not?

But, ultimately, it's the fucking pile on that I can't believe that is happening. Peters is in plenty of trouble. And there is plenty to talk about without having to dig into all of the public records. Again: who does it serve? Is it just a power play? Schadenfreude? The ability to say, "SEE I UNCOVERED THIS!"

Again, I think it's the worst sort of internet behavior. Unnecessary. Unneeded. Uncalled for.

Maybe that time could have been spent on something actually important to the world. Like the gas leak in California. The lead poisoning in Michigan. There's plenty of real problems.

EDITED TO ADD

I want to respond to this:

We are losing sight of what this battle is about. It's not just about whether CBS and Paramount has a right to defend its intellectual property. It's also about what fans are convinced to spend their hard-earned money on. Yes, it's up to the fans on where they put that money, and it's their right to just throw it away.

Battle? Are you serious? This isn't a battle. This is a lawsuit. Between CBS/Paramount. And it's about copyright. You might feel it's a "battle." But, it's not. If it is: it's a ridiculous battle.

 

[Tom]

So the address is the office of an LLC.

My home address is the office of an LLC.

Yup that is very common since LLC's are usually smaller 'sole proprietor" companies, many times run out of someone's residence. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[BillJ]

We are losing sight of what this battle is about. It's not just about whether CBS and Paramount has a right to defend its intellectual property. It's also about what fans are convinced to spend their hard-earned money on. Yes, it's up to the fans on where they put that money, and it's their right to just throw it away.

When we're calling it "a battle", I think we're taking it too seriously. When we're publishing addresses (whether publicly available or not), I think we're taking things a bit too seriously.

YMMV.

 

[Indysolo]

And I'm just curious to where this whole $1.1 million is going.

To CBS and Paramount for copyright violation.

Neil

 

[Michael Hinman]

Sorry, but to me, things like corporate filings, where he's spending money and any sort of "investigation" like that should be left to the court room or real investigative reporters.

Facebook and online forums are not the place for that sort of thing.

Where does it state that? Where in any law in any county or municipality or state (or even the federal level) does it state that public records (like corporate filings) are restricted only to the court room or "real investigative reporters"?

This is the thing that always bugged me as a reporter, especially when I covered government. As a reporter, I not only worked to expose things that needed to be exposed, but I also pointed out how anyone else could come up with that information, too.

Public record is not just meant for reporters looking for a good story. It's meant as a way for you and me, as members of the public, to hold accountable areas where we should be holding people accountable.

But apathy doesn't allow that. Well, that, and the belief that public records, despite the word "public" being in the name, is not meant for the public.

When I did my investigative work on a Trump Tower project in Florida (which won me a top journalism prize with the Society of Professional Journalists), I relied primarily on records that anyone could find, if they simply knew where to look. Not a single piece of information came from some secret source, providing documents that no one else could get.

It raised questions. We are so sensitive about children that it comes up as a deflection more often than it should. You allowed Alec Peters to deflect you from a discussion about what is this company, and why does it exist, to "Oh, you exposed my family!" Which actually didn't happen.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I have friends who formed an LLC to purchase personal watercraft. Two jetskis, if I remember correctly. The address of that LLC is their home address.

 

[BillJ]

As much as we've all gotten sucked into this, we aren't the arbiters of right and wrong.

 

[Michael Hinman]

When we're calling it "a battle", I think we're taking it too seriously. When we're publishing addresses (whether publicly available or not), I think we're taking things a bit too seriously.

YMMV.

I didn't publish a single address, Bill. I linked to a PUBLIC DOCUMENT that I had no ability to alter in any way. So let's at least stick with facts. I didn't "publish" addresses. I talked about a company, and in that discussion, I pointed to public documents, which had addresses on them that I did not place there.

Or would you prefer people to simply talk out of their asses, and not back up what it is that they are saying or asking about? It seems like people prefer that, because it's easier, and they can simply make up whatever they want.