CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
FACT CHECK After a federal magistrate's ruling, Axanar claims a 'big win' for them and a slap-down for CBS/Paramount. AxaMonitor fact-checks each part of Alec Peters' portrayal of the 'victory' in court.
So Alec says the revised accountant's document shows he did not personally take a penny. Given his attorney's and other statements suggest there were personal expenses as the world understands that term, I guess one has to get out the crowbar parser and pry apart the claim of innocence to find the asterick marks and crossed-fingers alternate definitions, as usual.
Someone just got the bad news from the Magistrate "Son, you are. Best to take your Warhammer toys and go home."
As I said a day or two ago, he had better take settlement now. A deposition about why did you conceal this and this and this, and full release of all his records (email, financials, etc.) would probably burn down every fig-leaf tree within a thousand miles of him.
Which I am sure certain government agencies and class action attorneys would be glad to help with. Especially if the settlement showed oddities in the crowdsourced funds balance.
They sued Axanar Productions and Alec. Wouldn't the settlement be required to be extracted from the studio and production funds if Alec can't produce it?
Last edited:
I'm really curious about this because, going by Ranahan's statement as well as the financials produced - Peters paid himself and there were other expenses listed. He's also confirmed this - openly defending himself against many people (myself and several people in this thread included) by justifying the expense. It can't be disputed or glossed over or buried under the donor funded carpet.
He now has the C/P legal team scrutinising these statements, and his OWN legal team can't lie nor accept any retroactively changed documentation that tell a significantly different story or Ranahan would likely be saying cheerio to her job and looking for a new home under a bridge.
.....so in short, what level of bollocks is he babbling on about here? If he going with the "I paid it back!" defense (despite being after the fact), changed everything and pretending he didn't say anything, or just saying whatever he can to appease donors hoping none of them can google?
In fact, the "Merchandise" article on AxaMonitor remains among the most-read articles each each month.
Bottom line, there will be no film made, period. Supporters will not get there money back. All this boils down to is, will Peters have to pay? and if so, how much. Axanar is dead, and for fans to still cling to it, like the film is going to still be made, is pretty delusional. Just saying...
BTW, CASH, CASH, CASH! (I said it 3 times!)
BTW, CASH, CASH, CASH! (I said it 3 times!)
I'm not entirely up on the ethics of ethicalness of asking this question (though I should be) - but... would there be any regular visitor IP's to that specific page that perhaps match the plaintiffs lawyers address at all? As I'm curious as to why thats so highly rated.
Even were he to win, Peters has nowhere near the money he needs to produce Axanar at anything near the level fans were promised. He barely had enough money to make the first half in December and has been shoveling money out the door every month since. Also, while lawyers' fees are covered under the pro bono arrangement, Peters is still responsible for any costs outside the lawyers' time.
Did someone say, "Cash"?Bottom line, there will be no film made, period. Supporters will not get there money back. All this boils down to is, will Peters have to pay? and if so, how much. Axanar is dead, and for fans to still cling to it, like the film is going to still be made, is pretty delusional. Just saying...
BTW, CASH, CASH, CASH! (I said it 3 times!)
Ranahan knew she'd have to give up the financials in discovery, and she will fight tooth and nail to exclude them from evidence at trial (and, I imagine, to be considered by the judge for summary judgment). She actually made the argument that CBS/Paramount have no standing to use the financials as evidence because the money was to go to producing a film they didn't want produced in the first place.
A day late on that one. But hey, next Halloween Alec Peter masks will be all the rage!Did someone say, "Cash"?
Bear in mind this is someone who has defended all along meeting studio "don't make a profit" demands by saying that after he has spent all the money on the cost of building out and operating profit-making assets and a making a teaser, there's nothing left, therefore his operation is "not for profit", and therefore meets the guidelines.
"I did not take a penny" could be that he has paid it all back after complaints; it might be he is considering his donations (he claimed at one point to have put what, $60k of his money into Axanar) to counterbalance his "expenses", or the like.
Or name your astericked variation. It doesn't seem debatable that the literal interpretation of the words is contradicted.
Kinda doubt the studios want to set that precedent with a new class of copyright infringement in new technologies.
Did someone say "Cash" repeatedly?Bottom line, there will be no film made, period. Supporters will not get there money back. All this boils down to is, will Peters have to pay? and if so, how much. Axanar is dead, and for fans to still cling to it, like the film is going to still be made, is pretty delusional. Just saying...
BTW, CASH, CASH, CASH! (I said it 3 times!)
Neil
To be honest - I kind of ignored that part of her defense thus far as either a) it's posturing for the sake of it as she seems to be going down the shout and stamp your foot route, and b) considering the financials were an obvious kickoff point and an unignorable topic, that the judge/courts would as well.
Despite the public stance, this is how I imagine things to go down behind the scenes - I'm just not sure that logic would carry weight. Much like the brand-change from independent to fan film, you can't try and make up for the error you're being sued for after the event and hope to get a wink and a pat on the head.
Not really. In August he complained of little headway in settlement talks. I reported it here.
Re the financials, I think W&S wants to apply legal spin behind closed doors, not try to put out fires from the rest of the world who reads the content literally and sets the defacto interpretation in public before W&S can de-fang it in court. In court, they could try to offer spin-explanations that the studio might let pass unchallenged into the court record and thus become the "official explanations". They could try to get the judge to agree that certain details should be kept secret as "not being relevant to the lawsuit".
P.R.
They say "haters" will use it to unjustifiably defame Alec. Yet ALEC says the financials absolutely prove there is not a penny of impropriety.
There is a broader issue here wrt/ the financial statements, now that they exist.
If the info is innocent, release it. Mark it up with explanations if you want, but make your argument in public, not just in court. The donors have a right to the unredacted financials notwithstanding any issues with the court. If every argument the studios could make about the money is totally indefensible, then public disclosure of all the details (including the studio shenannigans) could not harm the case and could preempt a donor lawsuit.
In contrast, by saying the financials must be kept private, the reaction of DONORS to UNEDITED FACTS has now plainly been called the enemy.
Good luck with that!
P.R.
They say "haters" will use it to unjustifiably defame Alec. Yet ALEC says the financials absolutely prove there is not a penny of impropriety.
There is a broader issue here wrt/ the financial statements, now that they exist.
If the info is innocent, release it. Mark it up with explanations if you want, but make your argument in public, not just in court. The donors have a right to the unredacted financials notwithstanding any issues with the court. If every argument the studios could make about the money is totally indefensible, then public disclosure of all the details (including the studio shenannigans) could not harm the case and could preempt a donor lawsuit.
In contrast, by saying the financials must be kept private, the reaction of DONORS to UNEDITED FACTS has now plainly been called the enemy.
Good luck with that!
Last edited:
I bet that hurts.
1978/9 sued for wearing a mask
Died of a heart attack 12-28-99
- Status