CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Michael Hinman]

Michael, I respect that you feel you are not in the wrong with posting this information and for the most part, I think you're right. I think marking the connection with the Godsons, CERTAINLY, was over the line.

I did NOT do that. I never said who lived there, because I didn't know. Alec Peters is the one who drew the connection to his godsons. I had no idea who was there, and I only reposted the conversation that Alec Peters decided to have with me. But I have made it clear many times to him that ANY conversation he has with me is on-the-record, both publicly and privately (which is why he has not reached out to me before yesterday).

What sucks is that the Facebook area is gone, so you cannot see that. But trust me, those who were reading the conversations and post will tell you that I never once mentioned who was living at the address, whether it was children or what-not. As far as I knew, Peters was using it as a vacation home, or was renting it out to general tenants. Part of that was based on the fact that he also previously owned a timeshare property in Florida.

The only reason why there is a connection between that address and Peters' "godsons" is because Peters himself drew the connection. I did not.

I am not here to throw people personally under the bus. Heck, there were a few times I even stood up for Peters and some things that were posted, because I felt they were too personal (and I don't even like the guy). But to say that I drew the line between the address and his "godsons," that would be very, very, very incorrect.

However, as opposed to linking directly to the documents, was any consideration given to taking screenshots of the records and redacting addresses? Were the addresses themselves necessary to the line of questioning?

No. Why would I do that? Why would I redact a public document? What would be my responsibility in doing that? Anyone can access the record. You could do it right now, with very minimal effort.

If Peters was so sensitive about that address, why would he include it in a public document? Why is it MY responsibility to protect that address, when he didn't take the responsibility of doing it?

That's where I am confused. It's all blame me. Sure, blame me for digging things up and asking questions. And it's even a legitimate criticism to say that this most likely has nothing to do with Axanar. Maybe so.

But why am I being blamed for indirectly providing an address that Peters (or someone associated with him) put into a public document that I linked to?

Trust me, I spent many years where you could not find my home address, no matter how hard you looked. I know what that's like. But I certainly wouldn't put that address in a public document, and then yell and scream at someone who then found that public document and shared it. The blame wouldn't be on them ... it would start with me.

 

[Michael Hinman]

I don't know the man. I have no emotional connection to him, positive or negative.

I'm interested in the case. I'm interested in the law and the facts. I hope donors can get recourse if they want it (or if they choose not to seek it, then they are adults and can spend their funds as they wish, of course, as can any of us).

The document had an address on it which was placed there by the site keeping the record, far as I recall. I had no idea it connected with anyone's home (I think I saw the whole thing briefly before signing off last night. I have no idea what the specific address was) - but if that is such an issue, then why not change the address on the document? And perhaps that change is in the works.

If I tell you a corporation is located at 1313 Mockingbird Lane*, how are you to know that's a private residence, or who lives there, or what their relationship is with, well, anyone? Even Googling the address won't tell you much.

Passions have run high. I get it; I do! But let's not attribute motives and feelings if we could, okay? The only people who know such things are the people with those motives and/or emotions.

*Spoiler alert - the Munsters live there.

Exactly. Really. This is the whole thing where it boils down to ... I didn't put the address on the public documents. They were there.

I did point out that the corporate address listed on the public document went to a townhouse that an Alec Peters Jr. out of California purchased in March 2013. That also is public record.

Any discussion of who is living there and everything else, that came from someone who was not me.

 

[Michael Hinman]

Spiderman was a photo reporter, The Question was an investigative reporter, Captain Marvel was a radio reporter...

I hate you people. =P lol!

 

[Michael Hinman]

There are a group of people out there that are action oriented. They won't actively seek out information on their own, but will act on information given to them.

For our purposes, I think actively putting addresses into the public discussion is poor judgement.

I respect that opinion. And I agree. Alec Peters should not have used that address on a public document if he didn't want that address to be in public.

When you file corporate records, even online, it makes it clear that you are filing a public document, and based on Florida Sunshine Laws, all information provided will be available to the public.

What do you want me to do? I was unaware of the "godsend" issue until after the post was made. But I didn't feel that negated the questions, so why would I remove the question and its context?

 

[Albinator]

Once in a great while, they make a claim that I agree with, and will adjust whatever accordingly. But usually, they are puffing their chest, without much to do it for.

Case in point...

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/marvel-harassing-news-sites.html

They think a scary veiled threat will get them what they want.

 

[Albinator]

Wasn't Billy Batson a cub reporter?

 

[Michael Hinman]

This whole "where the money went" investigation and digging into Peters' personal business is unnecessary and a little bit creepy.

In what way? It's not like Peters had a job, he was paid for that job, and he would then spend his money at a casino instead of paying his bills. That would be "personal" and "a little bit creepy."

But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about more than $1 million, collected from fans who were told that it would be used for a Star Trek production, among other things, over the course of that fundraising. That action is now tied up in a lawsuit filed by CBS Corp. and Paramount Pictures, and involves donations of thousands of people.

Where is the creepiness of asking questions about it?

Peters admitted to paying himself and his wife a salary and using the majority of the funds to renting and setting up studio space which he intends to use for other productions as well.

How is $200,000 a "majority" of $1.2 million? I'm a writer, not a math expert ... but that doesn't come up to "majority."

Also, this information was provided in a non-audited, non-accounting report from everything that I have read about it. It was like when TrekUnited wanted to just give me a financial report of the donations they were using to supposedly fund a new season of "Star Trek: Enterprise," and balked when I asked to have it audited. I even offered to fund the audit.

Have you ever invested in a public company? Like, say CBS. Corp.? Every quarter, the company is required by the SEC to file detailed finances. I mean, we're talking hundreds of pages. And guess what? It's not just CBS saying what they spent money on where, it's AUDITED. There's a reason why it has to be audited ... because otherwise, it's like telling your wife you spent the $20 she gave you on toilet paper, when you actually spent it on lotto tickets.

I really don't think he's trying to hide where any of the money went.

Then why is there not an audited report? Or is there? If so, can you link it?

But even if he did, it's really irrelevant.

If someone is hiding money or not using money they collected from others for what they advertised it would be for, there is a word for that ... I think it starts with an "F." And if such a thing WERE happening, it would be quite relevant.

 

[Michael Hinman]

Case in point...

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/marvel-harassing-news-sites.html

They think a scary veiled threat will get them what they want.

And here is the story I alluded to earlier ...

http://airlockalpha.com/8520/attorney-claims-colton-haynes-photos-are-pornography-html

Oh, and at the end of the story, I said I was waiting for the response Haynes' lawyer promised me. Some five years later, still waiting ...

 

[Professor Zoom]

If you just agreed with what I said, then what is your point?

My point was: just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we HAVE to.

I wasn't. Showed me where I turned this into a story.

That's my point. You aren't working as a reporter on this. So, why are you acting like one? Why are you wrapping yourself in the clothes of a reporter, when, in fact, on this, you aren't?

No more than someone is paying you to comment on this thread or take part in discussions about this lawsuit (assuming, of course, you are NOT being paid, lol!)

Actually, I AM JJ Abrams.

That's said. Exactly. You are a poster. Why are you digging around? Why are you making it such a personal battle? Do you have no sense of propriety? Is ALL things on the table in this silly "battle"?

I am not saying that there is anything fraudulent in this particular case at all (we simply don't know what's going on there) ... but let me be "pedantic" again. You only believe that government corruption should be exposed?

No. I just think it's a better use of journalist skills.

I mean, if someone was out there collecting money for, say, the Fireman's Relief Fund (sorry if that is a real place, meant to be a fictional example), and they were simply pocketing the money ... that wouldn't matter to you, because it's not government corruption?

That would be a better use of journalistic skills. A Fireman's Relief Fund is actually about helping people in ACTUAL NEED. So, yeah, investigate that.

But, Axanar is a fan film that a bunch of fans contributed to. No one's actual life is at stake. Maybe it isn't necessary to go all Dan Rather.

Maybe you don't care if you lose money or not. But I have dealt with fans, especially Star Trek fans, for nearly two decades. And have helped cover some big things where fans were having money taken away from them in a way that it shouldn't have been.

Great. Flag for you. I think you crossed a line. I think a lot of people think you crossed a line. You can't win any awards if you go Full Dan Rather.

 

[Michael Hinman]

My point was: just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we HAVE to.

That's right. It's called free choice. And you're free to disagree with that choice.

That's my point. You aren't working as a reporter on this. So, why are you acting like one? Why are you wrapping yourself in the clothes of a reporter, when, in fact, on this, you aren't?

Did I present myself as a reporter in this particular case? Just because I have skills acquired as an investigative reporter doesn't mean I am acting as one. And even if I were ... these are legitimate questions that even a reporter would ask.

Let me tell you how, if I was not familiar with any of the parties involved, that a story like this would be approached.

REPORTER: I just found this LLC that Alec Peters created in Florida.

EDITOR: So?

REPORTER: It is called "Woodland Terrace Investments," and it was created during the same time period he was raising more than $1 million from fan donations, which is now subject to a lawsuit from a major studio.

EDITOR: And?

REPORTER: Well, I traced the listed corporate address to a residential property in Orlando, that Peters purchased in March 2013.

EDITOR: Is he living there?

REPORTER: Doesn't seem like it. It doesn't appear that his tax records are showing a homestead exemption, so it's likely a vacation home or an investment property. In fact, I found that he did have a mortgage for a vacation property in Orlando up to 2012, until it was sold in what appeared to be a court judgment.

EDITOR: Well, maybe the company is just being used to legally protect a property investment.

REPORTER: That's very, very possible. But here's the thing: The company was formed 11 months ago, and there is no quitclaim or any other type of property transfer since that time. The company is based out of this address, but if he's using it to simply protect a piece of investment property, he has not taken the standards steps necessary to do that. Like a quitclaim or some sort of property transfer.

EDITOR: Maybe he is struggling with the bank on making the change. Maybe the bank who has the loan on the property isn't kosher with making an ownership change. Look up the mortgage in public records, and maybe reach out to the bank.

REPORTER: There is no listed mortgage, at least not under Peters' name. That suggests he bought it outright.

EDITOR: Sounds like enough to look into it more ...

But I wasn't writing a story. It's simply here is some information, and here's the lack of information where typically there is some. Why is that? It's a question being asked. As a poster in a social medium, where it simply interrupted the "Downfall" videos and anti-Axanar memes, and re-posting and discussion of what Axanar is saying on its own forums.

That's said. Exactly. You are a poster. Why are you digging around?

Why shouldn't I? I am still waiting to hear why it's wrong for me to do what is all of our rights, and access public documents. And I did it, because no one else had done it yet. I actually waited for someone else to do it, and then decided to just do it myself.

Why are you making it such a personal battle? Do you have no sense of propriety? Is ALL things on the table in this silly "battle"?

It's not personal. I was asking questions about a BUSINESS. I thought Alec separated personal and business. So how can it be "personal" if I am talking about a "business"?

No. I just think it's a better use of journalist skills.

Oh, and now you're an expert on journalism?

 

[dahj]

If someone is hiding money or not using money they collected from others for what they advertised it would be for, there is a word for that ... I think it starts with an "F." And if such a thing WERE happening, it would be quite relevant.

It's not relevant to the lawsuit.
He got $1,2 million dollars. That shows "enjoying direct financial benefit" from using Star Trek IP. From the lawsuit's standpoint that's enough.

As for where the money went, that's really for the people who donated to ask, though they can't do much about it because he's under no legal obligation to deliver the promised product, nor refund the money.

For what it's worth I really don't get the impression that Alec Peters is a fraud by intent as much as incompetence. It seems to me he really wants to make this film, but he got carried away with the initial success, lost touch with reality and grew megalomaniacal. Kinda like the character he's supposed to play.

 

[urbandefault]

Superman does.

Spiderman was a photo reporter, The Question was an investigative reporter, Captain Marvel was a radio reporter...

Hey, SPOILERS!

 

[Professor Zoom]

That's right. It's called free choice. And you're free to disagree with that choice.

Uh. Thanks? I think that's what I've been doing.

Oh, and now you're an expert on journalism?

You're exhausting.

 

[Indysolo]

Someone please make it stop.

Neil

 

[Michael Hinman]

It's not relevant to the lawsuit.
He got $1,2 million dollars. That shows "enjoying direct financial benefit" from using Star Trek IP. From the lawsuit's standpoint that's enough.

That's great. Except I missed the part where I am only limited to talk about the lawsuit. Can you please point that out? I am not fighting the lawsuit on behalf of CBS/Paramount, so why would I have to limit the scope of my discussion?

As for where the money went, that's really for the people who donated to ask,

Actually, it's really fair game for anyone to ask. He doesn't have to answer, of course, but that doesn't mean people can't ask. Wow ... you are very bossy.

though they can't do much about it because he's under no legal obligation to deliver the promised product, nor refund the money.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a lawyer on this. I'm very sorry.

Although, I know if I asked my attorney about this, she would say that it would depend on the contract that was in place with the medium being used, in this case, IGG. They are the bridge between the donor and the receiver, and have set the rules. So it might say that.

However, there's also another issue at stake, and maybe one that is not brought up enough. While there might be a civil case that says there are no guarantees that money raised is going to be used for what is advertised, there are some criminal aspects that do still come into play.

For instance, I cannot raise $50,000 to say I'm going to feed the homeless, when the whole time I planned to just buy a Tesla. There's a word for that ... again it starts with an "F" ... damn, I can't think of it.

Not saying that is happening here. But once again, there is a moral responsibility I feel that people in general should at least ask the question. And sometimes in place of those who are unable, or afraid to ask on their own behalf.

For what it's worth I really don't get the impression that Alec Peters is a fraud by intent as much as incompetence. It seems to me he really wants to make this film, but he got carried away with the initial success, lost touch with reality and grew megalomaniacal. Kinda like the character he's supposed to play.

That is very, very, possible. Seriously. I mean this possibility is definitely out there. But so are many possibilities.

 

[Michael Hinman]

You're exhausting.

I'll take that as a "no." Thanks for chatting!

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'll take that as a "no." Thanks for chatting!

It's not a no. It's a "I don't like to repeat myself and read walls of text from someone trying to justify what they did." So... I'll let you keep on keeping on and scroll past. Thanks.

 

[dahj]

That's great. Except I missed the part where I am only limited to talk about the lawsuit. Can you please point that out? I am not fighting the lawsuit on behalf of CBS/Paramount, so why would I have to limit the scope of my discussion?

Because the title of the thread is "CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar"?

 

[Lynsioux]

There's a word for that ... again it starts with an "F" ... damn, I can't think of it.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

For instance, I cannot raise $50,000 to say I'm going to feed the homeless, when the whole time I planned to just buy a Tesla. There's a word for that ... again it starts with an "F" ... damn, I can't think of it.

Fornication