To what end? He goes by a building that people may, or may not, be working in. "I drove by, and there were 3 cars parking in the parking lot" so what? What new knowledge will be gained by this action?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
To what end? He goes by a building that people may, or may not, be working in. "I drove by, and there were 3 cars parking in the parking lot" so what? What new knowledge will be gained by this action?
He owes me a favour, so I've asked him to go past and see if there is any visible work going on
The work is being done inside, driving by from the outside you can't tell what is going on indoors. Even if they are doing some work on the inside, that is public knowledge (carpets anyone
), so again, nothing new will learned.
The working is being done inside, driving by from the outside you can't tell what is going on indoors. Even if they are doing some work on the inside, that is public knowledge (carpets anyone
Unless Axanar Productions sells the Bridge set to Peters and he is moving it out...
Seems a bit stalkerish to me.
Adverse possession usually requires abandonment of the property or portion of the property by the legal owner AND permission of said owner for a period of time either through direct (granting of) or indirect (failing to deny) permission.
"Abandonment" here doesn't mean they moved away...they just never used it for 7-15 years (depending on the jurisdiction).
Since the owners here never abandoned their property, they never relinquished control, can prove they used the property pretty much non-stop, it doesn't really apply here. The "letting the neighbor's kids play in your yard" is the best analogy.
What Alec and all have done here is built a house on someone else's estate without permission. The owners said months ago they didn't have permission to do this, and now the rightful owners are suing for possession and trying to evict the squatters.
"Abandonment" here doesn't mean they moved away...they just never used it for 7-15 years (depending on the jurisdiction).
Since the owners here never abandoned their property, they never relinquished control, can prove they used the property pretty much non-stop, it doesn't really apply here. The "letting the neighbor's kids play in your yard" is the best analogy.
What Alec and all have done here is built a house on someone else's estate without permission. The owners said months ago they didn't have permission to do this, and now the rightful owners are suing for possession and trying to evict the squatters.
Glad I'm not the only one. It IS their place of work so yes, I'm sure they will be there. I just don't think it is wise to try to insert yourself into it and then post about it. I hope there aren't people waiting to watch me when I get to work tomorrow. It's a civil suit just let it play out.
Most likely - the date agreed to by both parties as the new hearing date just may not have worked for the Judge (IE he has other things already on the docket, a doctor's appointment (wes, Judge's have those too and the courtroom is 'dark' for a day, or half a day, etc.); or again, he's putting BOTH sides on effective notice he won't accomodate delays.
According to the Stipulation, they could not begin/continue any filming on the project. The wording was pretty specific. Nothing saying they couldn't still build sets, hang lights, make script changes, or anything else not related to actually filming scenes.
Blog post about the Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Complaint is up -
http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-motion-to-dismiss-or-strike-complaint/
Thank you, as always, for your kind support. Sorry it's so damned long; there was a lot to cover and I wanted to make it as understandable to the layperson as possible. Questions? I'm more likely to see them in the comments section there or corral me on Facebook.
http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-motion-to-dismiss-or-strike-complaint/
Thank you, as always, for your kind support. Sorry it's so damned long; there was a lot to cover and I wanted to make it as understandable to the layperson as possible. Questions? I'm more likely to see them in the comments section there or corral me on Facebook.
I would take it as a given that Paramount and/or CBS has some kind of copy of the script, otherwise any claims against the script could likely be dismissed as hearsay.Refresh my memory here. Hasn't RMB stated that the most recent iteration of the script (the script that was said to be "locked") has been sent to agencies in Hollywood?
If so, then isn't it possible, even likely, that CBS/Paramount has a copy of the script?
In which case, as part of the amended complaint, couldn't CBS/P drop an annotated version of the script, pointing out every single copyright infringement? Since the Axanar argument is that there hasn't been any infringement yet, because the film hasn't been made, wouldn't it benefit CBS/P to show how Axanar intended to infringe?
Wouldn't that be fun?
The whole issue of "intent to infringe" is what is being taken to task. Axanar's lawyers say this could be considered "prior restraint" if Paramount and CBS intend to bring suit against something that hasn't actually been made yet.
Thanks again for your HOURS of work Janet.Blog post about the Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Complaint is up -
http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-motion-to-dismiss-or-strike-complaint/
Thank you, as always, for your kind support. Sorry it's so damned long; there was a lot to cover and I wanted to make it as understandable to the layperson as possible. Questions? I'm more likely to see them in the comments section there or corral me on Facebook.
It is.
You're welcome (it beats the hell outta homework sometimes
)!
Janet, I know you once said you were retired but still in good standing.... Could you represent people taking out a case against Peters for fraud based on the fact he has not delivered a film within the designated time frame?
Maybe. Or maybe Judge Klausner is just confirming his reputation for not granting extensions in cases in order to keep them moving. Interesting he granted Axanar's request for a continuance (agreed to by Paramount and CBS) when Axanar's lawyers came on the job, but denied Paramount and CBS's request (agreed to by Axanar) for time to respond to the Motion To Dismiss.
On that note - does it really seem plausible to anyone that C/P gave Axanar zero heads-up/chance to cease-and-desist prior to filing a lawsuit, as Axanar has claimed? Even with deep pockets, filing a lawsuit is a pretty big step because, if the defendant doesn't fold, plaintiff has voluntarily committed himself to a potentially lengthy and expensive judicial process. Normal way to proceed here is to make a formal C&D demand in writing, with threat of a lawsuit to follow if the C&D is not complied with by a date certain. Yes, you can file a lawsuit without the C&D step (it's not legally required) - but if we are keeping with the commonly-held wisdom that C/P expected Axanar to fold quickly, one would think C/P would test those waters with a C&D first and result to a lawsuit only when that failed.
My speculation (and that's all it is), is that either (as someone mentioned earlier today and @Squiggy suggests above), C/P was in fact pretty blunt about their concerns in the meeting Alec has referenced and he ignored (or was oblivious to) their concerns (he "heard only what he wanted to hear")), or there was a C&D or similar "time to stop, guys" letter from C/P to Axanar in the November-December deadline that went unheeded and is not being publicly acknowledged by Axanar.
M
- Status