So, 1.4 million got sucked into a black hole, and donors only got a couple of minutes of film for it. Biggest. Boondoggle. Ever (well, at least in fandom).
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Yep. I'm sure when his counsel question him, he'll probably come off as charming to a degree. When he's 'challenged' and the opposing counsel asks about things that don't fit his spun narrative (and include evidence gathered during Discovery) - I'm sure they'll then see the 'other' Alec Peters we 'Haters' have come to know.
So what sort of comments are coming out in defense of Axanar on the Facebook groups after the financial figures were released showing the defecit?
And this is why I've been saying all along that this is not a slam dunk for CBS/P.
Yes. I agree with both of you. While all might sail as smoothly to the conclusion that bear out the facts as they stand from my point of view, if there is anything I've learned from this almost full year of examining how all of this could have happened is that I keep finding court decisions, however few in number, on every level I've identified in every types of cases I run into that were so clearly judged wrong. Even down to jurors interviewed after cases saying they 'knew' the person/company/etc. was guilty but had to make their decisions only by what was allowed into evidence under the mandates of law in interpreting them, so had to acquit.
Jury pool individuals can harbor unconscious bias. You get someone whose cousin-in-law's uncle worked for a large company who screwed him over in a way that turned his and his family's world upside down.... that juror could unknowingly view evidence through an unrecognized, even to him, bias against a big business corporation. Or a juror who had always had a secret dream to do more than just film all their family's events and holidays.... maybe they unconsciously identify with the defendant. A juror might like/dislike one lawyer over another and so without conscious intent favor the version of events from one of them over the other.
There are so many variables that have at least 'a' possibility of misalignment at any given point throughout an entire lawsuit. Which can appear without warning. That sometimes have the capability of swaying things and causing unexpected consequences. Small things that can turn a case to real justice... or away from it. It just isn't, from anything that I've seen anyway, a given in and with the Courts. The odds may be worth placing bets on, and Justice may more often than not prevail... but neither Justice nor this case is a guaranteed slam dunk sure thing as far as I've been able to learn over this past year. No matter the facts, no matter the evidence.
Last edited:
You should recall that this federal judge is empowered to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, whereby he can overrule a jury's decision, reversing or amending its verdict. The principle permits the judge to exercise discretion in order to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions unsupported by the law.
I do. Thanks. I do remember that can happen with the extreme and/or unreasonable unsupported by law. And thank goodness for that when things like that happen. I wasn't thinking of the extreme unreasonable unsupported by law stuff though. Just considering the everyday variables, vagaries, talents, and biases that move cases to conclusion.
How often does that happen I wonder. I don't remember running into a case like that over this last year examining all of this. I know I've been aware of this since long before this lawsuit. But I don't remember where I learned about it.
Last edited:
JNOVs can happen (judgment notwithstanding a verdict).
Smart, well-versed lawyers (and they exist on both sides herein) push for their own versions of everything from the statements of facts allegedly not in dispute to the jury instructions they present to the judge (the judge can decide between instructions provided to him or select his own).
Yes, bad jury decisions do happen. More likely, if this case goes the opposite of what a lot of people like me think will happen, it will be less due to a 'rogue jury' and more likely due to the wrong documentation being excluded from evidence/witnesses coming across as unsympathetic/lawyers coming across as uncaring.
Smart, well-versed lawyers (and they exist on both sides herein) push for their own versions of everything from the statements of facts allegedly not in dispute to the jury instructions they present to the judge (the judge can decide between instructions provided to him or select his own).
Yes, bad jury decisions do happen. More likely, if this case goes the opposite of what a lot of people like me think will happen, it will be less due to a 'rogue jury' and more likely due to the wrong documentation being excluded from evidence/witnesses coming across as unsympathetic/lawyers coming across as uncaring.
Sushi.
It's a 'slam dunk' as far as guilt.
The only thing the Jury may lowball will be punitive damages. Remember though that statutory damages would be awarded regardless - as well as any 'profit' Axanar made as defined under the Civil copyright statute.
I won't jinx anything by saying it's a slam dunk. But I do think some of y'all are way over-thinking this. Strip away LFIM's theatrics and this is a pretty straightforward infringement case.
There's definitely a MMM since Judge Klausner mentioned it an order yesterday. It's identified as an "Axanar document" attached as an exhibit to the Grossman declaration. The court denied the application to file this document under seal.
That's the one, and why I was asking. :-)
There's about 50 pages of the script devoted to battle scenes. You can plus or minus that for the final film, but with the last 30 pages of the script one giant pew-pew, there's not -much- you can do to minus that number.
New on AxaMonitor:
HIDING FROM THE PUBLIC A federal judge admonished attorneys on both sides of the Axanar lawsuit, denying a defense effort to hide a document — the elusive Exhibit MMM — shedding light on Axanar’s professional ambitions, and plaintiffs’ attempt to make a Paramount official’s testimony confidential. Read more »
HIDING FROM THE PUBLIC A federal judge admonished attorneys on both sides of the Axanar lawsuit, denying a defense effort to hide a document — the elusive Exhibit MMM — shedding light on Axanar’s professional ambitions, and plaintiffs’ attempt to make a Paramount official’s testimony confidential. Read more »
Last edited:
But Alec says it's all transparent!New on AxaMonitor:
HIDING FROM THE PUBLIC A federal judge admonished attorneys on both sides of the Axanar lawsuit, denying a defense effort to hide a document — the elusive Exhibit MMM — shedding light on Axanar’s professional ambitions, and plaintiffs’ attempt to make a Paramount official’s testimony confidential. Read more »
- Status