CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[Noname Given]

I'm going to infringe on @jespah and post this...

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...duct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html



*emphasis mine

I imagine that Ranahan has recently had a few rather interesting conversations with her client.

^^^
IDK - Given her response to this whole situation with the non-disclosed e-mails by Alec Peters so far has been to effectively double down - IE

- No she doesn't want to grant attorneys at L&L a second unrestricted disposition with Alec Peters.

- No she doesn't think the Axanar Financials with regard to how the money raised was actually spent should be disclosed or further documents produced and given to the Plaintiffs.

So, honestly, it doesn't appear Ms. Ranahan is making an real disclosure RE:

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

and is going to try to proceed as if there's nothing wrong here - just a little misunderstanding between the parties

or

"I'm sorry your Honor I really knew nothing about this at all and my Client made an honest mistake here and I don't think sanctions are really needed here..."

(And if it's the latter, yeah, Erin Ranahan really is a garden variety 'win no matter what' Civil Attorney that I've encountered many times. There are many like Jespah too, who actually HAVE principles; but they're rarer in this day and age in my experience.)

 

[Jedi_Master]

@jespah is a retired attorney. They can afford to have principles.

I keed, I keed.

 

[Red Shirt]

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Not to steal any of Carlos' thunder (very much looking forward to the Axamonitor article on this), but here are two recent postings from the Facebook group (C/P vs Axanar - where these documents can be found in their entirety - LOTS to look at and read)

I take issue with this statement:
"Given the sensitivities with donors, which has stemmed largely from the delay that this lawsuit has caused........ "

Ms. Ranahan, that is inaccurate and misleading. And CBS/Paramount if you ever see this. And the Court if you ever see this.

This production has delayed itself multiple times since its first crowdfunding. Over multiple years. Long before this lawsuit was brought.

Ms. Ranahan (CBS/Paramount, The Court), we donors have lived with production to begin, delay, production to begin, delay, production to begin, delay, .... for years. This is a multi-years long established pattern with this production that is easy to document.

It is an inaccurate misleading of the Court to tell the Court that "sensitivities with donors" "has stemmed largely from the delay that this lawsuit has caused."

 

[SeerSGB]

So outing the spending of the "most transparent fanfilm ever" would be embarrassing and would damage Alec Peters with the fans/donors?

So they're pretty much saying that he used the money for things unrelated to the production and he doesn't want it to get out what he spent it own and how much cause he'll lose support if it does.

The donors have a right and need to know how their money was wasted and by whom when it comes to why the production is cash poor.

 

[RedForman]

 

[SeerSGB]

How pitiful is it that a grown-man's, is in his 50s, legal defense boils down to: Mommy told me I was special-wecial and "stop, you're being big meanies and everyone is going to make fun of me"

 

[RedForman]

How pitful is it that a grown-man's, is his 50s, legal defense boils down to: Mommy told me I was special-wecial and "stop, you're being big meanies and everyone is going to make fun of me"

This might make a good psychological case study

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

So outing the spending of the "most transparent fanfilm ever" would be embarrassing and would damage Alec Peters with the fans/donors?

So they're pretty much saying that he used the money for things unrelated to the production and he doesn't want it to get out what he spent it on

It does seem a reasonable inference.

 

[SeerSGB]

This might make a good psychological case study

Isn't it though. A case study in the whole man-child thing. There's times I don't think Peters really thinks this way; then he opens his mouth on social media and I realize that he really does seem himself at the gatekeeper of the Church Of Star Trek; that he sees himself as a Trekkie Martin Luther up against the Catholic Church of CBS and Paramount.

 

[RedForman]

Isn't it though. A case study in the whole man-child thing. There's times I don't think Peters really thinks this way; then he opens his mouth on social media and I realize that he really does seem himself at the gatekeeper of the Church Of Star Trek; that he sees himself as a Trekkie Martin Luther up against the Catholic Church of CBS and Paramount.

Or perhaps he's Sybok and his followers constitute the 'Galactic Army of Light'

 

[SeerSGB]

Or perhaps he's Sybok and his followers constitute the 'Galactic Army of Light'

Gul Duhkat and his little cult Bajorans

 

[RedForman]

Gul Duhkat and his little cult Bajorans

I think you're on to something. Though the Kosst Amojan has more of a backbone and isn't as petulant IMO.

(would that make Carlos the 'Emissary' then??)

 

[Jedi_Master]

This might make a good psychological case study

I hear Elba II has a fantastic research facility.

 

[Noname Given]

Since I'm a backer of the Axanar KS - and I saw the Alec Peters is on occasion refunding Backers who post KS comments that paint Axanar in a bad light; I just put the following comment up on the Axanar KS comments section:

Armsman about 1 hour ago
Nice to now how 'Transparent Alec Peters is with Axanar...oh, wait:

From the recent Plantiff filing:
"Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Order, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 3, 10/27/16"

"The only basis offered by Defendants’ counsel for the failure to de-designate this document is that is that the material in that document may embarrass Mr. Peters by showing the ways in which he spent funds that were raised from Star Trek fans..."

Guess 'Transparency" must mean something completely different to Alec Peters and Axanar Productions. I REALLY wish I'd done my homework before deciding to Pledge $75 to a wholesale Grifter. But I only have myself to blame. If other Backers want a more unbiased source of info instead of Alec Peters surrogate and mouthpiece (mouthbreather is more accurate IMO) - Jonathan Lane take a look at:
http://axamonitor.com/doku.php…

(And BTW - Considering how Alec Peters has conducted himself towards backers of Axanar in general - two years late and nothing but excuses and BS even PRIOR to the Lawsuit filing this post IS as 'respectful and considerate' as Alec Peters actions towards us to date.)

maybe if I'm lucky - I'll get a refund. But as the Pledge was $75, I doubt it - it's either been spent on Travel, Con or Festival fees, or gone to fund Discovery [and I don't mean the new Streaming series] - but hey you never know.

 

[MikeH92467]

Please forgive me, but a thought just popped into my head and I wonder now if any of this money could have found it's way to a personal area that shall not be discussed (there was a BIG stink about this the last time Michael Hinman brought it up)......?? The probability in all likelihood is extremely low and I doubt even LFIM would be so stupid as to get anyone too close to him, personally involved in this CF, but given what we know of the man, his past and all the shady dealings he's been involved in (plus the fact he marked those certain docs 'highly confidential'), I can't help but wonder...............(don't worry, won't bring this up again!)

"'tis only a flesh wound!"

 

[oswriter]

Returning to the question of possible sanctions for failing to comply with discovery, here's how the Ninth Circuit explained the law in a 2002 decision affirming a trial court's ruling granting default judgment to a plaintiff (the equivalent of granting a defense motion to dismiss):

A district court should consider five factors before imposing the sanction of dismissal: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Dismissal or default judgment is therefore a last resort if a defendant is "persistent" in refusing to comply with discovery orders. In another case the Ninth Circuit said that dismissal was justified due to a party's "long and unjustified delays in responding to discovery requests and noncompliance with judicial orders." We're not there yet with this case. Now if the Judge grants C/P's application and orders AP to produce certain information, and then he fails to do so, then we may be looking at a default judgment scenario.

 

[MikeH92467]

Returning to the question of possible sanctions for failing to comply with discovery, here's how the Ninth Circuit explained the law in a 2002 decision affirming a trial court's ruling granting default judgment to a plaintiff (the equivalent of granting a defense motion to dismiss):

Dismissal or default judgment is therefore a last resort if a defendant is "persistent" in refusing to comply with discovery orders. In another case the Ninth Circuit said that dismissal was justified due to a party's "long and unjustified delays in responding to discovery requests and noncompliance with judicial orders." We're not there yet with this case. Now if the Judge grants C/P's application and orders AP to produce certain information, and then he fails to do so, then we may be looking at a default judgment scenario.

The pissing and moaning over how "unfair" that would be could be very entertaining or boringly repetitive, depending on how you look at it.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Just catching up on the latest re: the email issue. I bent over in laughter when I read Jonathan Lane's interview from "Legal Eagle", the mystery lawyer.

"LE: Were the alleged missing emails brought up in court?
JON: One was. At the end of his presentation, Jonathan Zavin mentioned that a few years ago, CBS had sent Alec Peters an email about fan films and it wasn’t in the e-mails he provided to them. …
LE: Why is that a problem? He probably deleted it. That email’s been gone for years. He didn’t have it to give them. JON: Well, I don’t know that for certain.
LE: Doesn’t matter. It’s not a big deal because they were the ones who sent it, so they already have it anyway.
JON: But this is the scandal du jour of the Axahaters. They’re making quite a big deal of it.
LE: That’s because they’re idiots. …
JON: So you’re saying this is a non-story.
LE: Completely. … If Alec deleted any of his emails and there’s no backup anywhere, then the emails no longer exist and he isn’t expected to produce them. I’m sure the plaintiffs said the same thing about some of the discovery they were asked to produce. It happens. You can’t force either party to produce something that doesn’t exist."

It's so obviously Peters himself. No lawyer of any worth would use the phrase I have put in bold in an interview. What's more a lawyer of worth would recognise that this is a perfectly normal application when such issues arise and that it is perfectly understandable that evidence would be sought under oath to clarify this point, even if the emails have indeed been deleted on the Axanar side. In addition, if Peters claims the emails are all deleted and it otherwise looks like they aren't, it will go against his credibility as a witness, particularly given the indication from other witnesses that the communications still exist.

This, of course, is one of the many things that comes up in litigation and it by no means a "bombshell", to use Lane's parlance. But it does help to create a picture to the court and to Alec's donors of potential dishonesty. I always thought that Peters would crucify himself when it came to evidence. People like him always do. They think they know better than the court and the lawyers involved. But they don't. Hell, I remember I lost one of my first major civil trials based entirely on my client's character in the witness box at trial. Shot herself in the foot all because she thought she was the smartest in the room. Ended up costing her nearly a £1m in costs orders and legal fees. I think Peters is heading in the same direction. He is the architect of his own demise.

 

[MikeH92467]

If had simply folded up his tent and gone away when the suit hit, he could have got away with the money and probably lived the whole thing down. If I remember correctly, Sky Conway's name was Mud (with one "D" for a long time, but it seems that he has helped make some popular films without any hint (that I know of) of any kind of scandal. My apologies if I am confusing Mr. Conway with someone else.