CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[carlosp]

HIDDEN BOOKS In Part 2 of AxaMonitor's look at Axanar's 'independent' financial review — one member’s resignation shines a spotlight on possible flaws in the scope of Axanar’s independent financial review committee, especially on revelations the committee isn’t examining all of Axanar’s books.

 

[RedForman]

I think I've run out of things to say about Slow Lane (he makes RMB look like he's got an actual backbone?)

http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/01/15...ys-to-win-than-to-lose-the-lawsuit-interview/

 

[OtherGene]

RMB has gone pretty quiet just lately, in fact I can't remember the last time he was active on social media (or anywhere else) on matters pertaining to Axanar. I wonder...

 

[Campe]

Apparently RMB was in the last Official Axanar Podcast. I don't have the stomach to listen to it.

 

[jespah]

Yet again - for the cheap seats - if W & S stop giving their 'A game' when they decide they will lose the case is when they start behaving unethically. We lawyers are obligated to zealously represent our clients, even when it looks like we're going to lose. Hell, clients who are about to lose need our services more than slam-dunk winners.

Any firm which would stop and decide not to bother anymore would be massively unethical. This does not mean W & S aren't encouraging settlement - they probably have been for quite a while now. There's nothing wrong or unethical about being realistic about the client's chances. But to suggest they would shrug it off and not do their level best is a nasty insinuation and if Ms. Ranahan isn't going to take umbrage over it, then I sure as hell am going to do it for her.

This is skirting close to libel territory in that blog. The 'expert' is spitballing at best and is really just handing out the insults right now.

http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule3110.aspx

 

[Squiggy]

Yet again - for the cheap seats - if W & S stop giving their 'A game' when they decide they will lose the case is when they start behaving unethically. We lawyers are obligated to zealously represent our clients, even when it looks like we're going to lose. Hell, clients who are about to lose need our services more than slam-dunk winners.

Any firm which would stop and decide not to bother anymore would be massively unethical. This does not mean W & S aren't encouraging settlement - they probably have been for quite a while now. There's nothing wrong or unethical about being realistic about the client's chances. But to suggest they would shrug it off and not do their level best is a nasty insinuation and if Ms. Ranahan isn't going to take umbrage over it, then I sure as hell am going to do it for her.

This is skirting close to libel territory in that blog. The 'expert' is spitballing at best and is really just handing out the insults right now.

http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule3110.aspx

Is it ethical to flat-out tell a client, "I'll represent you, but we have no case, we will loose and loose badly. You need to do X,Y, and Z. If you don't, that's on you."

 

[RedForman]

Yet again - for the cheap seats - if W & S stop giving their 'A game' when they decide they will lose the case is when they start behaving unethically. We lawyers are obligated to zealously represent our clients, even when it looks like we're going to lose. Hell, clients who are about to lose need our services more than slam-dunk winners.

Any firm which would stop and decide not to bother anymore would be massively unethical. This does not mean W & S aren't encouraging settlement - they probably have been for quite a while now. There's nothing wrong or unethical about being realistic about the client's chances. But to suggest they would shrug it off and not do their level best is a nasty insinuation and if Ms. Ranahan isn't going to take umbrage over it, then I sure as hell am going to do it for her.

This is skirting close to libel territory in that blog. The 'expert' is spitballing at best and is really just handing out the insults right now.

http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule3110.aspx

I'd expect nothing less from Slow Lane and any/all individuals making an appearance on his blog. Given the fact he hasn't really changed his tune, toned down or shut up one bit, to me, that just paints FFF as a glorified propaganda outlet aimed right at the (ever diminishing numbers of) Axa-faithful.

We're long past the point where he/LFIM could sway public opinion. Too bad they don't realize this.

 

[muCephi]

HIDDEN BOOKS In Part 2 of AxaMonitor's look at Axanar's 'independent' financial review — one member’s resignation shines a spotlight on possible flaws in the scope of Axanar’s independent financial review committee, especially on revelations the committee isn’t examining all of Axanar’s books.

So how, exactly, does one extract only the Kickstarter and Indiegogo donor funds and review how *only* those funds were spent?

Were the donor funds kept in separate bank accounts which Alec was careful not to charge any sushi cupcakes against, or pay any "independent contractor" salaries for working on developing/licensing of ripped off game pieces, or prepare the studio to be an independent business, etc, etc?

Can you split a tribble hair?

And
"More than one of the committee members wondered why an
actual accountant wasn’t conducting, or at least participating in,
the review."

Let me take a guess: "WTF are these holding companies and where did the money in them come from?"

Someone contact the Oxford Dictionary, we have a definition for "duh" [Valley Girl inflection].

In sum,

"Within the cherrypicked information we were given, reviewee-defined mandate of what to look at, and allowing we were required not to disclose certain unnamed information and who knows, maybe subject our results to censoring against the nondisclosure terms,

we can see how hard it was to do a good job managing this money with all the pressures of actually making a film.

It might have made more sense to have people who know what to look for do this review, just sayin'.

But attaboy, holder of our donations and future jobs and professional reputations, from whom we are independent."

 

[Reilly]

The thing for me is that even if we take things as given, the committee have taken the job seriously, reviewed the Kickstarter/Indiegogo fairly and decided it's all fine, then there's *still* serious questions as to how he's blown 1.4 million.

At best he's someone who took a hell of a lot of money for a fan film, got totally in over his head and has wasted it all. Bearing in mind they still only aimed to make half the movie with the funds available.

I can't see how there can possibly be a reasonable explanation for the amount of money spent and lack of tangible footage. However I look forward to reading this report and seeing what it says.

(Of course, at this point I'm firmly of the opinion it got blown on living a lifestyle, but let's see what justification we get).

For me it's why the "wilful infringement" part of the case is potentially the most interesting part. Technically I don't see how any fan film *isn't* wilful infringement (we all know we don't have the rights), but it'll be interesting if the court can be persuaded that Alec was just someone out of his depth, or if he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[muCephi]

...it'll be interesting if the court can be persuaded that Alec was just someone out of his depth, or if he knew exactly what he was doing.

Guess that depends how many of the emails show Alec deliberately taking concrete steps that could only be seen as creating a personally-beneficial business off donations. If I were at the studios that would definitely be something I'd be choice-excerpting for trial. Wasn't there an email quote of someone along the way to the effect they were only in it for the studio? A few things like that, if they exist, would go a long way towards dispelling "fan out of his depth" arguments.

 

[Reilly]

I think it was on a podcast interview that Alec made the infamous "the studio is the endgame" comment.

My opinion is that he started off with good intentions, but once the money started rolling in it changed things and that's when the commercialisation aspect kicked in. Sure you can argue the studio would've only served fan films, made no profit etc but none the less the intention was there to continue to crowdfund for an ongoing series of films. Where this can then be differentiated from the likes of Continues will be in how that money is being spent. Regardless of personal expenses or not, Continues is clearly making a love letter to the original series whereas Axanar seeked to supplant official productions and generate an ongoing revenue stream for itself (profit or not).

 

[Search4]

Really there are multiple questions.

First - all money inbound and source. Note, you need to have all legal entities identified and all sources of income traced to each entity. (For example, if the donor store funds went to a different company than the Kickstarter...)
Second - where did that money specifically go and was it intermingled. For example, if Alec is leaving out his contributions, where did it actually go? You need to know where it went account by account. All funds.
Third - because money is interchangeable when received - where was it spent, item by item, so that it reconciles to the actual bank account balance for every entity for every month.
Fourth - were those expenditures valid, e.g. i would think it would be okay to buy the crew donuts, but not fly away to England for a convention. The first three items listed above are facts, this is a judgment call. For example, AAA membership doesn't seem to be not valid under any circumstances. Payments to Alec/Diana etc - well, doesn't sound valid to me but perhaps its okay to pay Diana for the donor fulfillment (instead of a vendor). Payments to a contractor who built the lighting grid - that's how you get a grid. Each item has to be reviewed.
Fifth - Specific comparison of how much Alec has put in, versus how much was spent on "invalid" items, MONTH BY MONTH. I'd probably segregate that on what he spent on himself (e.g. the salary), and how much went for other questionable items (e.g. TSA fees). I'd like to know if he was "ahead" for a while and later made up the payments to him, for example.
Sixth - Tax filings, 1099s, and that sort of thing... every payment to a person needs a 1099 or equivalent. Since some of that was presumably to Alec, he should also get a 1099.
Seventh - actual tax books for Axanar productions and all related items. Like did they pay sales tax, did they pay withholding on employees if any, that sort of thing.

THEN you could do a comparison as to whether he simply put in what was taken out for him, and do a fair analysis.

 

[jespah]

Is it ethical to flat-out tell a client, "I'll represent you, but we have no case, we will loose and loose badly. You need to do X,Y, and Z. If you don't, that's on you."

I don't see any reason why it's not okay ethically. People bring crappy cases all the time (e. g. they are the driver of the rear car in a rear-ender case, for example, and they're the one suing) or they have little to no defense but, against the effective assistance and advice of counsel, want to go down swinging anyway.

The lawyer would be unethical in knowingly bringing a lawsuit simply to harass another individual (e. g. a SLAPP suit). But the hook there is the word 'knowingly'. If you sue me for defamation, your lawyer might think you have a case, particularly if you cherry pick the information you give to your lawyer. But once the lawyer sees he or she is being dragged into an ethical quagmire, the thing for them to do is extricate him/herself as quickly as possible. E. g. during discovery it's not so bad, but during trial? That's not impossible (and it's been known to happen), but it's a mess as you can imagine. Sometimes, the judge will push for the lawyer to stay on despite the ethical issues because the client needs to have representation of some sort, but that is more likely to happen in a defense situation and it's a lot more likely in a criminal defense matter. You're entitled to the assistance of counsel when you're arrested. But you're not entitled to lie to them and make them suborn perjury or harass other litigants for your own amusement.

 

[carlosp]

Really there are multiple questions.

First - all money inbound and source. Note, you need to have all legal entities identified and all sources of income traced to each entity. (For example, if the donor store funds went to a different company than the Kickstarter...)
Second - where did that money specifically go and was it intermingled. For example, if Alec is leaving out his contributions, where did it actually go? You need to know where it went account by account. All funds.
Third - because money is interchangeable when received - where was it spent, item by item, so that it reconciles to the actual bank account balance for every entity for every month.
Fourth - were those expenditures valid, e.g. i would think it would be okay to buy the crew donuts, but not fly away to England for a convention. The first three items listed above are facts, this is a judgment call. For example, AAA membership doesn't seem to be not valid under any circumstances. Payments to Alec/Diana etc - well, doesn't sound valid to me but perhaps its okay to pay Diana for the donor fulfillment (instead of a vendor). Payments to a contractor who built the lighting grid - that's how you get a grid. Each item has to be reviewed.
Fifth - Specific comparison of how much Alec has put in, versus how much was spent on "invalid" items, MONTH BY MONTH. I'd probably segregate that on what he spent on himself (e.g. the salary), and how much went for other questionable items (e.g. TSA fees). I'd like to know if he was "ahead" for a while and later made up the payments to him, for example.
Sixth - Tax filings, 1099s, and that sort of thing... every payment to a person needs a 1099 or equivalent. Since some of that was presumably to Alec, he should also get a 1099.
Seventh - actual tax books for Axanar productions and all related items. Like did they pay sales tax, did they pay withholding on employees if any, that sort of thing.

THEN you could do a comparison as to whether he simply put in what was taken out for him, and do a fair analysis.

The plaintiffs detail what they plan to show in court about how and why the financials were put together to eliminate the personal expenses from what the defense wanted the jury to see. The judge is allowing both sets of financials.

AxaMonitor also details the problems with any salary later paid back to cover personal expenses.

 

[muCephi]

The plaintiffs detail what they plan to show in court about how and why the financials were put together to eliminate the personal expenses from what the defense wanted the jury to see. The judge is allowing both sets of financials.

AxaMonitor also details the problems with any salary later paid back to cover personal expenses.

I would pay good money to see the jury's Spock eyebrows at being asked to swallow financials that simply edit out misconduct documented on the other version.

 

[muCephi]

...once the money started rolling in it changed things and that's when the commercialisation aspect kicked in. Sure you can argue the studio would've only served fan films, made no profit etc ...

No need to explore this cloud of smoke about 'serve only fan films, make no profit'. In August 2015 Alec podcasted that the studio was planned to make non-related SF, and RMB drew comparison to an independent studio film (that was run for-profit) as a model, to which Alec agreed. All Alec ever claimed about nonprofit was that *Axanar operations* were not profitable, not that his eventual larger business (perhaps hosting some fan films too) would be not profitable. "Mind the asterick" should be on a sign in the jury room.

 

[JD]

I think I've run out of things to say about Slow Lane (he makes RMB look like he's got an actual backbone?)

http://fanfilmfactor.com/2017/01/15...ys-to-win-than-to-lose-the-lawsuit-interview/

The fun thing about situations like this is you can find experts who will say anything. Plenty of trials have had testimony from experts on both sides, who say the exact opposite things from each other,

 

[Khan 2.0]

the tens of thousands of $s on restaurant meals is fascinating and intriguing .. what meals? Sushi? anyone else want to know?

 

[feek61]

After all of this time it still blows me away the way LFIM feels he can control the narrative and at this point; the facts. He made a big deal of this "independent financial review board" which as we have found is anything but. In the real world an independent board would consists of people not affiliated with the production at all, they would be accountants and would have access to ALL financial records; not cherry picked records from AP. It's funny how last year we were told that all of the donor money was safe and put into an escrow account; another lie from AP. If he somehow lies his way out of this mess; I will have lost all faith in the justice system. This case seems to be a slam-dunk for the plaintiff's and I hope it is.

 

[carlosp]

To be fair, Peters never directly said anything about an escrow account. That was something floated by one of his surrogates. It was also a recommendation of his spokesman, Mike Bawden. Alas, it was part of a long string of Bawden's advice summarily rejected.