Most people will forget about it five minutes after they read the article.
I'm sure Winston & Strawn will be changing their phone number and email addresses, five minutes after the settlement is signed off on.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Most people will forget about it five minutes after they read the article.
I'm sure Winston & Strawn will be changing their phone number and email addresses, five minutes after the settlement is signed off on.
I'm sure Winston & Strawn will be changing their phone number and email addresses, five minutes after the settlement is signed off on.
I'm sure Ms. Ranahan is making scratches on her wall (or the digital equivalent) counting the days until sign-off!
Wouldn't really matter because it's not really being done by anyone independent or with a financial background...........
Still, it would be interesting to see a set of figures. With the settlement now reached we will never fully know where the money was spent because they can make the two 15-minute films and say they cost $1m to make.
For some reason I am reminded of The Producers...
Any figures he produces are meaningless. I would LOVE to see a full scale forensic exam of his books, but it will never happen. On Facebook just before the settlement a donor had said she would foot the bill for a real CPA to go over his books.......he declined.
watching for "He will never release his financials, because the settlement said it doesn't matter"
I don't know. Is it really worth the time and effort? How many people actually care about this case? How many people who identify as Trek fans really care? Of course, that's impossible to quantify. But, still...
Those that do know and do care, how many of them need it explained what Axanar did was wrong?
Is this really a PR problem? It's not like a movie star caught with a needle in his arm or something.
I found one link to 'a' transcription of the Engage Podcast with CBS John Van Citters clarifying some issues in the guidelines many of us were looking sideways at. And the podcast, and single episode itself, can be listened to on at least iTunes and possibly/probably other podcast hosting formats.....Episode 5: About Those Guidelines The interview with Mr. Van Citters.
About the transcript: A Big Giant Hat's Off to @TrekFanProductions (Trekfanproductions.com) for 'doing' this awesome transcription for everyone!! Now back in June when the podcast aired I listened to the podcast actual several times myself. Did some minor transcribing of points relevant to some of my own questions. And what I noticed in @TrekFanProductions' transcript is that some of the transcription is at times a bit like captions on TV and/or autocorrect and/or the software that transcribes my voicemail to written form.... little bits of just a bit not 'quite'. HOWEVER, @TrekFanProductions has placed awesome and many Time Index markers (e.g., 01:28:37) with each transcribed segment so if I'm reading it and maybe going "Huh?" I can just go to the podcast actual listed Time Index for perhaps a bit more clarification.
So there's 'that' awesome thing @TrekFanProductions did for everybody!!!
@drt is correct regarding things already served up on YouTube get a pass. That info is in the interview with a Time Index marker in the transcript.
There is also a bit of conversation about fan films planned, already cast, and such. With a Time Index marker.
Regarding:
Yes. Unequivocally the production will be held to the settlement agreed upon by Plaintiffs and defense.
I believe there may possibly be much back and forth about 'does That allow me to do This' in days to come. But I believe if there is a measure of specifics being, I dunno, challenged maybe, examined for minute chinks in the wording to offer a possible hold on a loophole or two, the production will unequivocally be held to and presented according to the letter of the settlement.
Exactly
Last edited:
i keep seeing images that just sum this whole thing up:
So Mr. Lane has now commented elsewhere that "operating as a nonprofit means you are seeking nonprofit status".
No, actually, it does not mean that. This is the sleight of hand they have tried to play all along with these words.
It means having organized and operated yourself as if you are already a nonprofit per IRS guidelines, in order to obtain approval as a 501c organization. For details of expectations, see https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf
Axanar may have been "applying for nonprofit status", but the definitely weren't "operating as a nonprofit". Just review the section about what "operated as a nonprofit" specifies in the IRS document:
No, actually, it does not mean that. This is the sleight of hand they have tried to play all along with these words.
It means having organized and operated yourself as if you are already a nonprofit per IRS guidelines, in order to obtain approval as a 501c organization. For details of expectations, see https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf
Axanar may have been "applying for nonprofit status", but the definitely weren't "operating as a nonprofit". Just review the section about what "operated as a nonprofit" specifies in the IRS document:
Operated – Because a substantial portion of an organization’s activities must further its exempt purpose(s), certain other activities are prohibited or restricted including, but not limited to, the following activities. A 501(c)(3) organization:
- must absolutely refrain from participating in the political campaigns of candidates for local, state, or federal office;
- must restrict its lobbying activities to an insubstantial part of its total activities;
- must ensure that its earnings do not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual;
- must not operate for the benefit of private interests such as those of its founder, the founder’s family, its shareholders or persons controlled by such interests;
- must not operate for the primary purpose of conducting a trade or business that is not related to its exempt purpose, such as a school’s operation of a factory; and,
- must not have purposes or activities that are illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
- must absolutely refrain from participating in the political campaigns of candidates for local, state, or federal office;
- must restrict its lobbying activities to an insubstantial part of its total activities;
- must ensure that its earnings do not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual;
- must not operate for the benefit of private interests such as those of its founder, the founder’s family, its shareholders or persons controlled by such interests;
- must not operate for the primary purpose of conducting a trade or business that is not related to its exempt purpose, such as a school’s operation of a factory; and,
- must not have purposes or activities that are illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
I just posted a response to a Jonathan Lane blog that I doubt will see the light of day over there:
Last edited:
The "organized" part of the intro booklet is just as illuminating:
Organized – A 501(c)(3) organization must be organized as a corporation, trust, or unincorporated association. An organization’s organizing documents (articles of incorporation, trust documents, articles of association) must:
- limit its purposes to those described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRC;
- not expressly permit activities that do not further its exempt purpose(s), i.e., unrelated activities; and,
- permanently dedicate its assets to exempt purposes.
Organized – A 501(c)(3) organization must be organized as a corporation, trust, or unincorporated association. An organization’s organizing documents (articles of incorporation, trust documents, articles of association) must:
- limit its purposes to those described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRC;
- not expressly permit activities that do not further its exempt purpose(s), i.e., unrelated activities; and,
- permanently dedicate its assets to exempt purposes.
Terry is making big noises on Facebook/CBS/Axanar that he has evidence that the total money taken in by Axanar even as of April 2016 was well above the 1.4 million they reported in their lawsuit financials in about August 2016, like hundreds of thousands more, maybe as much as 2 million.
This will really motivate Axanar donors to ask "where's the money, Alec", if it turns out that Axanar is concealing cashflow over and above even what they reported under oath, and even so claim none of it is around.
I went on a bit about this a few months ago here; the numbers just dont seem to add up. It would be nice to see the donors take notice.
I guess we will see...
This will really motivate Axanar donors to ask "where's the money, Alec", if it turns out that Axanar is concealing cashflow over and above even what they reported under oath, and even so claim none of it is around.
I went on a bit about this a few months ago here; the numbers just dont seem to add up. It would be nice to see the donors take notice.
I guess we will see...
This is the repercussion of the settlement I don't agree with insofar as AP folding when his legal defenses didn't even add up to a hill of roasted Kharn coffee beans thus avoiding having the financials explored and examined in more detail with disinfectant sunshine for all to see. Perhaps someone will eventually leak all the sordid details that AP is hiding that haven't been brought to light yet.
Not sure if Terry has all the details, but he has been quite clear that he feels he needs to step up now that the prosecution cannot be disrupted by his actions, and that he is calculating exactly the income of Axanar per his donor store and donations records of his software image as of April 2016; and Carlos is signalling that there will be more information coming.
As for emails, I don't know.
I imagine that people disclosing information that could be considered trade-confidential to Axanar might get sued *if* they signed a nondisclosure agreement with Axanar or entered a work-for-hire agreement. If they did it informally and without pay, I don't know the law.
I guess one could understand why CBS might not want to put on all the layers of protective hazard suits required to wade through all this muck in a courtroom.
I suppose so. Perhaps there's enough court documentation regarding the financials that L&L and CBS/P decided they had made their point. AP sure went for a settlement deal when all the financials were becoming a central focus for the impending trial.
As has been pointed out in the past, you can sue anyone for anything. Such a suit by AP (IMHO) would not pass the laugh test and would most likely get dismissed, but as always we have much more learned counsel to rely on for stronger opinion. *goes off to look for pie*
^^^^
Remember - Alec claimed Axanar had no employees;m so unless he had every volunteer sign a Independent Contractor contract of some kind (and sent 1099-Misc forms out to them every year even if no one was paid) ...Alec might have done the former but he may not have done the latter meaning he's in breach of contract himself.
- Status