• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smoked Salmon said:
You aren't in a position to determine that because you have no idea what the projected costs were.
Click to expand...

I kinda think you're missing the point here. He was paying himself, his girlfriend and covering personal expenses with money that was donated for the project. It was never "his" money to do that with.

When he took these "loans" did he draw up the proper documents for transferring monetary assets from the Axanar corporation to himself? I seriously doubt it. And it still doesn't answer why he would take money from the project if he had money to pay his own bills to begin with?

Even now, the money isn't paying for Axanar, it is paying for a for-profit studio.
 
The thing about giving the $$ back (let's operate under that premise and accept it as fact for the sake of this post, mmmkay?) is, funds garner interest when kept in accounts, of course. And even if you're keeping your $$ in Paypal, it is still an issue. And Paypal's belief in your ability to pay can impact your credit score. And that's just assuming a shell game of transferring around funds without even spending a dime.

Step 1: Move cash (hi, @Indysolo !) into your bank account
Step 2: Pay credit card debt, or buy stuff, or gamble, or get your teeth fixed, or make good on kited checks, or donate to St. Majel's Home for Wayward Trekkies, or eat at Dave's House o' Sushi. Or just keep it in your bank account.
Step 3: Somehow get funds to pay the money back, whether through borrowing against a different credit card (a sign of a major financial problem, folks), or taking out a bank loan, or gambling winnings, or donations, or selling props or CDs or whatever, or a gift from dear old Mom, or salary from a real-live job (what a concept), or you found it in the street. Whatevz.

This is not honest. This is not ethical. Even if you pay it all back. Even if you pay it back with interest. And while you don't have a specific fiduciary duty when it comes to crowdfunding moola (although I bet that's coming), this playing 'hot potato' with the donations is ethically questionable at best.

In da law, we keep escrow funds. Those are for things like a client buying a house. The big ethical thing is to never, ever mess with escrow. And lawyers - particularly those with some sort of addiction problem, I have noticed - are disbarred over touching escrow funds. EVEN IF THEY PUT IT ALL BACK WITH INTEREST.
 
Dennis said:
TL;DR: They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, promise to pay the money back, and Alec Peters has a massive persecution complex and is full of shit.
Click to expand...
Salaries_zpsdjltzn4t.jpg


full%20time%20job_zpsoljnrr4y.jpg

I completely agree. AP was caught by L&L doctoring his own financial records during the discovery phase of the lawsuits. Oops. AP very loudly and repeatedly defended taking donor funds for his own personal use. Watching him now flipflop with lame excuses is worthy of at least a triple face-palm.
 
Last edited:
BillJ said:
I kinda think you're missing the point here. He was paying himself, his girlfriend and covering personal expenses with money that was donated for the project. It was never "his" money to do that with.

When he took these "loans" did he draw up the proper documents for transferring monetary assets from the Axanar corporation to himself? I seriously doubt it. And it still doesn't answer why he would take money from the project if he had money to pay his own bills to begin with?

Even now, the money isn't paying for Axanar, it is paying for a for-profit studio.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's me who is missing the point.

Too many of you are letting your hard on for Peters get in the way. I have already given the answer above, you're just not bothering to read what I am saying because you're more interested in winning this conversation than actually talking about what is happening. I have not disputed anything you have said in your post. I am trying to offer up the most realistic reason as to why he ended up putting his own money it.

Peters clearly thought he could complete the project with the donor funds and also use them to pay for his lifestyle. That's why he exploited them and used it for his personal costs (read "expenses"). Then, as time went on, it was costing more and more money and so he could no longer rely on donor funds - so he had to, out of lack of choice, put in his own funds to keep it all afloat, which he otherwise would not have done had the project come in on budget. He's now spinning that to make it look like he was funding it as a fan project all along. Do you follow?

The problem with your argument is that it presumes that the project was always coming in on budget and therefore he should not, at any point, have needed to put more money. But that is short-sighted because it ignores the fact that Peters knows that if he doesn't deliver he has to refund his donors out of money he likely no longer has, and probably also has to pay off other costs, like employee wages, rent and so on. He's putting his own money in order to survive, when otherwise he wouldn't have. See the bigger picture.
 
full%20time%20job_zpsoljnrr4y.jpg


That's interesting. Charles Britto has often billed himself as an Axanar Super Marine and generally displays a level of offensiveness previously only attained by Terry McIntosh and yet that thread reveals that not only is he not a donor but Alec Peters appears to not know who he is. Worra troll.
 
Last edited:
Smoked Salmon said:
Look, not everything here is an example of Peters being a douche, and I think sometimes some of you get a little too carried away in trying to find wrongdoing in every single thing he's done.

The most likely explanation is that he needed to keep the project afloat and was running out of donor surplus to do it with, irrespective of the manner in which he spent those funds. So he started putting in his own money. I expect it's no more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

And that's a totally fair explanation of the fact he put money in.

But I don't think that is what anyone has a problem with. Its Alec's claim that his choice to take personal payouts as salary and benefits against Trek IP value, without any stated intent to ever put the money back (does anyone ever take "salary" and "expenses" for a "full time job" with an intent that it is to be paid back?) is erased as a moral and legal consideration by this donating back of the funds at a late date, when he had no other choice if he didn't want his studio asset to implode.

He can put back the money but he can't put back the act of taking the money out with no intent to return it in the first place. Nor can he take back the act of withdrawing money for things which could not possibly be considered operating expenses for a fan film. Nor can he take back trying to hide this information from donors.
 
Last edited:
"We have decided to create an Independent Financial Review Committee, a group of industry professionals and donors"
Click to expand...
Independent review is a process, independent of all affected parties

Which:
-cannot include even one industry professional who has any connection with the production or defendant in the past, present, or anticipate (either publicly, privately, or secretly) future connections with the production or defendant.
-cannot have even one donor who has donated to this production. Said 'donors' cannot have any connections with the production or defendant in the past, present, or anticipate (either publicly, privately, or secretly) future connections with the production or defendant.

Therefore an Independent Financial Review Committee partially comprised of donors negates it being an actual Independent Financial Review Committee.

This defendant, W&S, Mr. Lane, Mssrs Bawden, Burnett, et al will in fact know this.


Who are the industry professionals? Why have industry professionals on a Financial review committee?

Accountants who work as industry professional accountants.... yes. Industry professional does not by any definition denote qualification to accurately review and assess Financials. Industry Professionals use Accountants.

This defendant, W&S, Mr. Lane, Mssrs Bawden, Burnett, et al will in fact know this.

They know this.

The coming 'Independent Financial Review Committee, a group of industry professionals and donors' will only serve to assuage donors who believe. The defendant, et al know this. And I suppose, that is the point of this coming review committee. Not fact, not accuracy, not scrutiny of financial authenticity.... just merely to soothe the donors who believe.

“Facts do not have much power against a set of beliefs." Fact is puny compared to belief because belief 'shapes' interpretation of fact.
 
Last edited:
Smoked Salmon said:
Look, I think it's pretty clear what I think of Peters, but not every single move he has made is evidence of him being the sperm of the devil. I'm trying to be a voice of reason and fairness...and yeah, that means Peters is entitled to fairness when it warrants it (which isn't often!).
Click to expand...

And I agree, when he has a legit point, it should stand. It just always seems to be used as a vehicle for proposing a whole bunch of inaccuracies attached to the legit point, and one has to pry it apart to say yes, but that doesn't justify the rest. Which you are doing. Thanks.
 
Smoked Salmon said:
Given what is in the oral evidence that's very close to being a lie and Peters would be best advise to go on lockdown for the rest of the case. He's doing himself no favours by continuing his self appointed mission to defeat "the haters".
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I was repeating some of the assertions in Alec's recent posts, then criticising it. And they should put him in a cone of silence with a mirror on the other side for company.
 
Last edited:
jespah said:
The thing about giving the $$ back (let's operate under that premise and accept it as fact for the sake of this post, mmmkay?) is, funds garner interest when kept in accounts, of course. And even if you're keeping your $$ in Paypal, it is still an issue. And Paypal's belief in your ability to pay can impact your credit score. And that's just assuming a shell game of transferring around funds without even spending a dime.

Step 1: Move cash (hi, @Indysolo !) into your bank account
Step 2: Pay credit card debt, or buy stuff, or gamble, or get your teeth fixed, or make good on kited checks, or donate to St. Majel's Home for Wayward Trekkies, or eat at Dave's House o' Sushi. Or just keep it in your bank account.
Step 3: Somehow get funds to pay the money back, whether through borrowing against a different credit card (a sign of a major financial problem, folks), or taking out a bank loan, or gambling winnings, or donations, or selling props or CDs or whatever, or a gift from dear old Mom, or salary from a real-live job (what a concept), or you found it in the street. Whatevz.

This is not honest. This is not ethical. Even if you pay it all back. Even if you pay it back with interest. And while you don't have a specific fiduciary duty when it comes to crowdfunding moola (although I bet that's coming), this playing 'hot potato' with the donations is ethically questionable at best.

In da law, we keep escrow funds. Those are for things like a client buying a house. The big ethical thing is to never, ever mess with escrow. And lawyers - particularly those with some sort of addiction problem, I have noticed - are disbarred over touching escrow funds. EVEN IF THEY PUT IT ALL BACK WITH INTEREST.
Click to expand...

Fiduciary duty covers a lot of ground
“A fiduciary relationship is ‘ “ ‘any relation existing between parties to a transaction wherein one of the parties is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Such a relation ordinarily arises where a confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interest of the other party without the latter’s knowledge or consent.
 
ThankYouGeneR said:
Independent review is a process, independent of all affected parties
Click to expand...

- "Independent" of any views except Alec's
- "Nonprofit" for anyone except Alec and his friends
- "Fully Professional" in fully professing Alec's point of view
- "Authentic Star Trek" slavishly copied unowned IP
- "Production" in quotes, in theory, in aspiration, in some future phase of donations

I think I am a pretty tolerant person. This BS about investing in his private business being represented as payback of salary and benefits is just reprehensible.
 
Last edited:
It's unfortunate to see so much drama surrounding the Axanar project. I watched and loved the trailer. I eagerly showed it to my friends and family, telling them that THIS was the Star Trek I knew and loved. I particularly enjoyed the references to the new ships being developed. I still have my old FASA Star Trek role playing game, including additional gaming books with lots of ship details, so it was cool to hear about the D-7 Klingon Cruiser coming online.

At this point it seems unlikely that we will see the project get finished, but the work that was done was already impressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top