CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[muCephi]

Reading about RMB's 'shake the fans to the core' film, one thing comes prominently to mind. He and Alec have recorded in podcasts and elsewhere enough insults, bragging, contradictions to their stated position in the lawsuit, and so on, to overdub any "documentary" many times over with their true conduct in their own voices.

Better watch out, Axanar official storytellers, real fans will do a parade of "What's Up Tiger Lily" fan films on you, starring you speaking your *real* words in your apologia. THAT will still be shown on real starships.

lets try a little sample, shall we?

RMB, podcast 31, 1:23:52 while talking about TMP costuming: Uhura was *rockin* the afro in The Motion Picture, before she went all *Jheri Curl* in Star Trek 3 [interviewer laughs] RMB: she had her soul glow on then...

 

[AndyPandy]

I would very much like to see one of the other fan film productions creating a compliant fan film called "Axanar" right about now - just to see Peters try and sue for copyright infringement of some kind.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

He tried to literally write himself into Trek. He tried to buy himself into professional Trek with other people's money.

That is also my own conclusion. And I, personally, take it further.... not only professional Trek, but also a buy-in for becoming a player in Hollywood itself .... with other people's money.

 

[Sgt_G]

Podcasts. Wow. Just think of those poor CBS lawyers who, for discovery, must sit and listen to who-know-how-many Axanar podcasts and make transcripts of every word, looking for evidence they can use in court. I mean, talk about an Agonizer Booth setting. Wow.

 

[Wowbagger]

I would very much like to see one of the other fan film productions creating a compliant fan film called "Axanar" right about now - just to see Peters try and sue for copyright infringement of some kind.

Some anonymous wag is talking about it: axanarfanfilm.com

 

[Warped9]

Podcasts. Wow. Just think of those poor CBS lawyers who, for discovery, must sit and listen to who-know-how-many Axanar podcasts and make transcripts of every word, looking for evidence they can use in court. I mean, talk about an Agonizer Booth setting. Wow.

Look at the upside. There has to be a point when AP is sitting in court and all the evidence against him is laid out when the realization dawns on him, "It's over, man. I am truly and royally fucked, here. I'm fucking done."

 

[asurob]

Again, I do not want a settlement in this case. I want it to go to trail in January. I want to be a witness to every single ugly wart.

 

[Amaris]

Look at the upside. There has to be a point when AP is sitting in court and all the evidence against him is laid out when the realization dawns on him, "It's over, man. I am truly and royally fucked, here. I'm fucking done."

Not really. I get the feeling that someone like Alec will just get angry and assume that he's been royally screwed over by an unfair justice system. He's deluded himself into thinking this is a good cause, and that he is in the right. It's a powerful delusion, one a mere court sentencing can't break.

 

[urbandefault]

Not really. I get the feeling that someone like Alec will just get angry and assume that he's been royally screwed over by an unfair justice system. He's deluded himself into thinking this is a good cause, and that he is in the right. It's a powerful delusion, one a mere court sentencing can't break.

Too bad there's no one to teach him how to shapeshift.

 

[Sgt_G]

We've already seen him turn into a snake .......

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Am reading about the Protective Order agreed to by each of the parties involved and the Federal magistrate on July 12th.

I pretty much understand the why of it. And all litigants in this could be asked for sensitive materials in Discovery. Right? So I get this.

I'm looking for clarification on the first point under the Seeking Protection section:

In their proposed order, both sides stipulated to the type of information deserving confidential status, including:

• Private and highly sensitive financial information regarding revenues, expenses and profits from the motion picture works involved in the case.

I fully understand the reason (The intention here was to prevent competitors from obtaining such information)

Where I'm looking for clarification... Is the 'motion picture works involved' only applying to the production being sued? Or does is also apply to the productions of the Plaintiffs?

After that... does this now tell us that the accounts of the production, which have been sorted and straightened out by the Outside Accountant, will now become - well, Not transparent - to the donors anymore?

 

[CaptGrumpy]

Where I'm looking for clarification... Is the 'motion picture works involved' only applying to the production being sued? Or does is also apply to the productions of the Plaintiffs?

After that... does this now tell us that the accounts of the production, which have been sorted and straightened out by the Outside Accountant, will now become - well, Not transparent - to the donors anymore?

With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been trained as one, my guess is that the books won't be transparent to donors. I'm guessing they'd have to sue on their own to get a look at the books

 

[jespah]

With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been trained as one, my guess is that the books won't be transparent to donors. I'm guessing they'd have to sue on their own to get a look at the books

That's the way I see it, too. And it is entirely possible this was the sticking point for getting a peek into the Axafinances. We shall see.

 

[Noname Given]

Podcasts. Wow. Just think of those poor CBS lawyers who, for discovery, must sit and listen to who-know-how-many Axanar podcasts and make transcripts of every word, looking for evidence they can use in court. I mean, talk about an Agonizer Booth setting. Wow.

Are you kidding? Lawyers LOVE video where the Defendant is talking up a storm and saying VERY self-incriminating stuff. Usually the other side will object and try and block its introduction into evidence claiming that some level of privacy was expected, etc; but W&S can't do that with these Podcasts because they were expressly made for the public to see and posted openly on various social media.

Both Alec and RMB are idiots because they probably thought: "These old lawyers probably don't bother with social media." But let me tell you, they do, and video of a defendant saying incriminating stuff (that also is different then what they claimed in any legal documents filed with the court); is usually good and admitted not as prima fascia proof; but rather to impeach the credibility of any sworn testimony. IE:

Attorney: "Mr. Peters, you claim your warehouse studio was only being retrofitted to produce the Axanar feature film?"

Alec Peters: "Yes."

Attorney: "May I direct the court and the jurors attention to a playback of a Podcast made by the defendant..."

<Podcast plays and the scene of Alec stating his plans for the studio to make genre science fiction films is seen/heard.>

Attorney: "Mr. Peters, is it still your sworn testimony here today that your warehouse studio was only being retrofitted to produce the Axanar feature film?"
^^^
So, yes in the above hypothetical scenario the podcast isn't being presented to prove anything outright; but it is being used to show the Jury that Alec Peters made a contrary statement at an earlier time; and then asking Mr. Peters about it while Mr. Peters is testifying under oath. It's done so the Jury members can decide for themselves if what Mr. Peters is saying on the stand is believable, etc. And using outside 'hersay' evidence for this purpose is allowed.

 

[Karzak]

Agreed. Its all still out there and I sure as shit have been doing my part of downloading, copying, and archiving as much of it as I can, given how frequently and easily these jokers put something insanely dumb and incriminating out there only to then remove it as if it had never happened. Nuh uh. Nice try. Loeb & Loeb are welcome to all of it if they want it.

Peters and Burnett can blow several goats as far as I'm concerned. They deserve everything that's coming to them.

 

[JD]

Could an outside person like Karzak or Calos send Loeb & Loeb stuff that they could use in the case, or would people in the firm or hired by them be the only ones who could use stuff they found totally on their own?

 

[Sgt_G]

I'm sure they would have to independently verify it, so any screen captures of now-deleted messages would not be usable.

 

[Wowbagger]

Are you kidding? Lawyers LOVE video where the Defendant is talking up a storm and saying VERY self-incriminating stuff. Usually the other side will object and try and block its introduction into evidence claiming that some level of privacy was expected, etc; but W&S can't do that with these Podcasts because they were expressly made for the public to see and posted openly on various social media.

Both Alec and RMB are idiots because they probably thought: "These old lawyers probably don't bother with social media." But let me tell you, they do, and video of a defendant saying incriminating stuff (that also is different then what they claimed in any legal documents filed with the court); is usually good and admitted not as prima fascia proof; but rather to impeach the credibility of any sworn testimony. IE:

Attorney: "Mr. Peters, you claim your warehouse studio was only being retrofitted to produce the Axanar feature film?"

Alec Peters: "Yes."

Attorney: "May I direct the court and the jurors attention to a playback of a Podcast made by the defendant..."

<Podcast plays and the scene of Alec stating his plans for the studio to make genre science fiction films is seen/heard.>

Attorney: "Mr. Peters, is it still your sworn testimony here today that your warehouse studio was only being retrofitted to produce the Axanar feature film?"
^^^
So, yes in the above hypothetical scenario the podcast isn't being presented to prove anything outright; but it is being used to show the Jury that Alec Peters made a contrary statement at an earlier time; and then asking Mr. Peters about it while Mr. Peters is testifying under oath. It's done so the Jury members can decide for themselves if what Mr. Peters is saying on the stand is believable, etc. And using outside 'hersay' evidence for this purpose is allowed.

General question about legal process:

All evidence gets cleared with the judge prior to showing up in court before a jury, right? So no defendant is ever going to get surprised by evidence against him. He's going to KNOW whether or not he can get away with a lie, because he KNOWS all the evidence the prosecution has on him.

So why would any defendant ever lie at trial, knowing that his lie will be immediately disproven in the embarrassing way you just described?

 

[Sgt_G]

So why would any defendant ever lie at trial, knowing that his lie will be immediately disproven in the embarrassing way you just described?

Now, just take another look at exactly who the defendant is in this case, and then consider whether or not that was a silly question.

 

[Trekkin]

General question about legal process:

All evidence gets cleared with the judge prior to showing up in court before a jury, right? So no defendant is ever going to get surprised by evidence against him. He's going to KNOW whether or not he can get away with a lie, because he KNOWS all the evidence the prosecution has on him.

So why would any defendant ever lie at trial, knowing that his lie will be immediately disproven in the embarrassing way you just described?

Because they're stupid, because the pressure of questioning makes them forget what evidence the other side has, because they make a genuine mistake, because they think their side can throw enough shade on the evidence to make their 'new' story look more plausible...

Lots of reasons.