CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
That is their stated strategy.
But since when in this project has Axanar management shown willingness to take the the harder long term action instead of the easier short term self-serving one?
- Say they are nonprofit but not buckle down to true nonprofit rules
- Say they have a budget but not stick to it when the prospect of getting more money appears
etc. etc. etc. etc.etc.
If the reality of having to face the whole industry and a million dollars of penalties sinks in, I would not be surprised to see a reinvention of Axanar to take an easier escape route for the management. IMO.
Would his current Ranahan & Co be on the hook to represent him for appeal pro bono, if the judgement went against him?
I always wanted my Trek to be tied up in courts while a narcissistic madman prances around.
<sigh>, now my life is complete.
That begs the question: are they still trying to be an actual nonprofit? Have they even started the paperwork?
Doubt they are. My point was simply that they SAY over and over they have a strategy that would require effort and which would impose delivery requirements on them, but they EXECUTE some sort of wheels-come-loose alternative action that only advances their personal short term objectives and seeks to escape consequences of living up to commitments.
Patch rewards for kickstarter, but blowout delivery so they can fiddle with other things. Promise a film, but front load the money with a gift of a studio to grab *first* from the money. All professional project, but no professionals' opinion tolerated.
So will Axanar management have the nerve to stick with their law firm's apparent idea that they can win in appeal? If there is an escape route in the face of real consequences, I think perhaps not.
First, apologies. This comment is off topic to the interesting discussion going on. It was the above ^^^ comment abt the production co 'management' 'escape route' that made me think of this.
So, w&s take the client's case. The production gets a we'llnevertell investor group. The client offers the ex-IT guy a percentage indicating the client is, as has been widely thought, part of the we'llnevertell group. I and at least several more in our conversations also believe the volunteer PR new media producer guy is also part of the 'group'. (I'm just pulling pieces together right now to see how they fit) Later the client says there's another attorney (maybe Firm) now in the picture. And AxaMonitor follows a lead from the whateverit'scalledtoday studio to the, what was it, Georgia?, long time association with the client... attorney. Who looks to have direct involvement in part/some/a bunch of the we'llnevertell studio & investor group.
The Plaintiffs have dialogue in some of the recent killing-way-to-many-trees-already documents in Discovery about 'some' attorney(s?) alluded to by the client. But as it turns out may not necessarily be an extra attorney on this thread's litigation case, but instead a long time associate working with the client 'on an escape route.' for the studio & funds gleaned from conventions, crowdfunds, online store, individual donations, etc.
My thinking circles around the 'other' alluded to attorney so excited about helping with the case.... being the Georgia guy. Who was misrepresented to us by the client as being excited about helping with the w&s case. And is instead the long time associated attorney working on the side of the escape route for the we'llnevertell investors' business. With all (most) of this sidebar moving& shaking possibly/probably being openly (mostly) known to w&s. As in w&s know that side is there but outside of case interference it means nothing to them. And that w&s is focused on their firm's goals & client's defense.... with the business side escape route being filtered through the guidance of the Georgia attorney.
It looks like 'a' picture, I mean to me. And as of this post of course. Spider web kind of intricacies, and quite interesting.
So, w&s take the client's case. The production gets a we'llnevertell investor group. The client offers the ex-IT guy a percentage indicating the client is, as has been widely thought, part of the we'llnevertell group. I and at least several more in our conversations also believe the volunteer PR new media producer guy is also part of the 'group'. (I'm just pulling pieces together right now to see how they fit) Later the client says there's another attorney (maybe Firm) now in the picture. And AxaMonitor follows a lead from the whateverit'scalledtoday studio to the, what was it, Georgia?, long time association with the client... attorney. Who looks to have direct involvement in part/some/a bunch of the we'llnevertell studio & investor group.
The Plaintiffs have dialogue in some of the recent killing-way-to-many-trees-already documents in Discovery about 'some' attorney(s?) alluded to by the client. But as it turns out may not necessarily be an extra attorney on this thread's litigation case, but instead a long time associate working with the client 'on an escape route.' for the studio & funds gleaned from conventions, crowdfunds, online store, individual donations, etc.
My thinking circles around the 'other' alluded to attorney so excited about helping with the case.... being the Georgia guy. Who was misrepresented to us by the client as being excited about helping with the w&s case. And is instead the long time associated attorney working on the side of the escape route for the we'llnevertell investors' business. With all (most) of this sidebar moving& shaking possibly/probably being openly (mostly) known to w&s. As in w&s know that side is there but outside of case interference it means nothing to them. And that w&s is focused on their firm's goals & client's defense.... with the business side escape route being filtered through the guidance of the Georgia attorney.
It looks like 'a' picture, I mean to me. And as of this post of course. Spider web kind of intricacies, and quite interesting.
Last edited:
This whole "investors" thing seemed to have gotten started after the lawsuit. An attempt to shield the assets of Axanar Productions by selling them, particularly to parties who reasonably would be aware that the transfer fell under "fraudulent conveyance", might be something the studios could go after.
As I read it, the new owner could be liable for the fair market price less what was paid to the defendant, or forced at their legal expense to return the property to the defendant, provided the defendant claimed insolvency to meet the judgment in the absence of the asset. https://www.assetprotectionplanners...et-protection-planning/fraudulent-conveyance/
I am not at all clear what the "investors" get out of this except ego stroking and a risky discount from market based on the volunteers not having been paid as much as usual to build the studio out. Its basically no different than if they had bought any other comparable asset, its a lease approaching end of term with "purchased" infrastructure they'd have to leave behind or remove at their expense if the owner decided to go with a different lessee. AND the "discount" they might have gotten may be encumbered by the studio lawsuit and risk of a donor lawsuit. As I noted, the only way I could see this working is if the "investors" bought the facility as well as the Axanar assets.
Last edited:
I'm optimistically optimistic that the "investor group" is included in discovery, along with all the other "top secret" stuff that AP talked about but never produced.
I fully take your point. And it all definitely went into high gear then, for sure.
I will add that the client does say in his pre-lawsuit blog, official podcast, or official vlog (I forget which one.. there are so many) that he is hoping an investor or investors get interested in the production company. He said something like 'a billionaire gets interested'.... or something like that.
Which I mean says to me at least the client was giving the soliciteds (<-- invented noun) more clues to the client's 'after the film' production company goals and directions.
Last edited:
Assuming the studios file summary judgment, they would have to establish that no facts are in dispute. I think that would include proof of intentional violation, if going for statutory damages. Just a guess, trying to shield the assets might be something they'd cite in this reagard. http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/what-is-summary-judgment.html
Actually, that's one thing Erin Ranahan COULD shield UNTIL (and if) they get to the 'Damages' phase where the Plaintiff's assets are fair game as the Plaintiff's get to start collecting any awarded damages.
Reason: The whole investor debacle occurred after the filing of the lawsuit; and again, until Axanar Productions/Alec Peters is judged liable and has to pay a damage award, that deal is currently immaterial.
Couldn't it be material to whether the violations were willful, an attempt to acquire value being willful as evidenced by actions to shield it from recovery?
Last edited:
Huh. Interesting.
At best, I would say it could be material to whether the defendant thinks they're going to win the case -- but even if they think they won't, that doesn't mean they're automatically guilty, either; only that they think their opponent has a better hand.
JMHO, and IANAL.
On a tangentially related note (not sure if it's been mentioned yet, there are a lot of posts in this thread now) but the Galactic Empire...er...Disney is going after some aspiring young Jedis. Interestingly, Axanar is briefly mentioned at the bottom of the article as a similar case.
Agree. Although I keep having this 'sense' or 'feeling' there's something more. Not just part of the picture still missing to outsiders such as myself, but some substantial monetary prize that has yet to be seen. And the whateverit'scalledtoday studio has entirely left the Star Trek world where this whole thing began so their continued 'seeming' .... Shenanigans (<-TM--> jespah)... just do not add up to me. Without an expected real financial payoff for them I mean. It's like with w&s taking the case out of altruism. That wouldn't make sense to me. But a chance to make a name for themselves in legal history in addition to giving their client the best representation they can? That makes it make sense to me.
So these we'llnevertell investors who keep maneuvering? Without a real -financial payoff- play being made they don't make sense to me.
I keep asking myself what is their motivation? What's in it for them? I believe altruism is one of the great things a society can offer itself. However, at this point in this case I just don't see altruism playing even the tiniest role anymore.
Last edited:
Yes, those lightsaber people have been pushing it in a similar way, they started out fannish then turned it into a business while being told by the IP owner that no licenses would be issued for their activities. I read they also do not obtain permits for commercial use of public space, which commercial endeavors are supposed to do in some municipalities.
The talk here about Disney has been mainly around how likely they could be to join with CBS/Paramount amicus if the Axanar case goes to appeal.
The tie-in to Axanar is anemic IMO.
I don't see this as being similar at all. The Jedi class people are, after all, not making movies (AFAIK). From what little I know, they're essentially teaching a class on how to choreograph a lightsaber battle. The most I could see LFILM (see what I did there?
) winning is an injunction against/damages for using their logos and terminology. I would be genuinely surprised if they have a prayer of stopping the actual classes.Then again, I only read that one article, so...
- Status