this seems pretty easy to confirm or refute
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
this seems pretty easy to confirm or refute
The press release states, "Winston & Strawn have agreed to represent Axanar Productions and Alec Peters on a pro-bono basis."
Neil
Peters now says his quotes in the 1701 article were taken out of context and others heavily edited out, which isn't surprising that he would make that claim. And that he'd do so in his echo chamber:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/axanarfansgroup/permalink/545837935592375/
All the Sushi is going to his head....
I wonder if CBS will take that Ares model too....
I hope Zavin knocks it on the floor and stomps on it as he heroically wrestles Ares Studios from Peters!
Mind if I quote this on Facebook?
Be my guest. You can also include my actual Backer name from KS - "Armsman".
Thanks! I dropped in a group that Peters was in earlier today.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ModernStartrek/
hmm...That was my question too: "Is this going to be another lawsuit threat?"
You'll tell us if you get a lawsuit threat?
Peters threatens lawsuits to every one. It is probably his small talk before having sex.
that's going to become more difficult as the costs mount.
A
Amaris
Guest
I hope Zavin knocks it on the floor and stomps on it as he heroically wrestles Ares Studios from Peters!
"Hey baby, how about a little pro bono?"
Well, okay, what do we 'know'? I mean, who has actually said they've had a lawsuit threat so far? No, I mean how many have said this, not who they are.
Last edited:
He has two pro bono law firms now.
I read a blogger who says he got one.
There's the probability the threat to Oliva was one.
Mike from G & T got one.
Did the FB host of ISWCBS mention he got one?
There's the probability the threat to Oliva was one.
Mike from G & T got one.
Did the FB host of ISWCBS mention he got one?
The passing remark about a second firm is somewhat cryptic - did Peters tell this to Kirk? Did he name the firm? Did he describe the circumstances under which the second firm was signed?
Did Kirk ask? A second law firm, after all, is the only piece of real news in the article.
Maybe it's a replacement firm - or will be after the "A" team digests this article.
Did Kirk ask? A second law firm, after all, is the only piece of real news in the article.
Maybe it's a replacement firm - or will be after the "A" team digests this article.
amendment: threatening suit costs nothing. executing on it may get expensive. doubt pro bono firm will welcome giving away random quashes of critics on the side.
The passing remark about a second firm is somewhat cryptic - did Peters tell this to Kirk? Did he name the firm? Did he describe the circumstances under which the second firm was signed?
Did Kirk ask? A second law firm, after all, is the only piece of real news in the article.
Maybe it's a replacement firm - or will be after the "A" team digests this article.
I do feel sorry for his lawyers.
Last edited:
I think they're the real victims in all this.
- Status