• 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.
It's nice to know at least one person (formerly) involved with official Trek actually knows what's really going on here.
 
Here is a little more about what Wheaton thinks about this topic:

qKiegwY.jpg


https://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/137360569719/regarding-the-axanar-kerfuffle
 
OtherGene said:
To be fair, I thought Peters was fine in Prelude, an opinion sure to unleash the wrath of many because Anger. That said, all the role entailed was just sitting down and talking. Maybe he reminded me of Forrest Gump on that bench.
Click to expand...
Nah, that's totally cool. That's a difference of opinion on how two people experience art, as opposed to two people assessing Alec's objectively unethical behavior.
 
RCAM said:
He's a fascinating celebrity case study. Most Star Trek fans love Wil and despise his character. For my part, I was a child when TNG was produced, so Wesley Crusher was cherished wish fulfillment for me.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely, I was about 8-15 while TNG aired first run, and I watched TNG from the start. Welsey was my favorite.
 
Just got back from a week long vacation (w/only spotty satellite internet where I stayed), but damn, looks like I missed out on quite a bit.

At this point, with the Doe day of reckoning come and gone, I would think that not being named would serve as ample motivation for people not named (like say, RMB.....) to finally cut loose so they can salvage whats left of their own 'personal brand'. I can't imagine that with everything that's been put out on social media channels that it would be easy for any of them to get new day jobs let alone advance very far in the ones they already have (as keeping a 'clean slate online' has become common sense these days).

I've started to wonder how much RMB actually knows and whether or not its real or he's just a sock-puppet for Lord Alec, used to disseminate lies, half-truths and other propaganda. The rest of his twitter feed, ST stuff notwithstanding, shows us a pretty normal guy......if he is indeed normal, at least in the same manner as Terry (as abrasive as he is), then why hasn't he cut loose? Is he deluded in a similar manner as Lord Alec, or is he just weak enough so as to be easily manipulated in such a manner?

I also wonder whether those VFX shots Tobias Richter did for that 'trailer' were done recently or not? I only bring that up because I'd like to see the same happen to him as has already happened to Sean T (who I very much admire for staying level-headed in all this). Despite his obvious talent, the 'red line' has very much been crossed already (as has been pointed out numerous times) and the longer this draws out, the more blatant his infringement becomes. IMO, he deserves to deal with some consequence for his participation.

With the lawsuit very much alive as well, I think a great question to ask is will the courts punish Lord Alec enough......(so as to keep him from realizing his goal of both finishing Axanar and ever having a productive career in film) ?? He's never going to STFU, but if his pocketbooks, wallets and hidden safes are all emptied, he's going to have to find some new hobbies (as well as legitimate work).
 
Wait! Maybe The High Lord Infringor and his Accolytes are making sense (cents?) and we just do not understand the language! Perhaps this little Translator gem could be of use...but first, the Fund Raising!

1.jpg
 
jespah said:
Discovery - the schedule has already been laid out by the court and the parties. Subpoena lists already exist (AP has said he is listed to be deposed although that's hardly a surprise as he is the sole named defendant).

Questioning is generally open except for relevancy objections. You can't pull a self-incrimination dodge in civil cases, but if anything is asked wherein the question could incriminate anyone in a potential future criminal matter (that could include criminal fraud, sports fans), then a witness could try to plead the Fifth Amendment. If I am the party asking the question being objected to, I am probably taking it to the judge for a ruling. But a ruling over the phone (if that is what happens) might not result in much more than a one- or two-line ruling. We might not see too much detail from our vantage point.

Case relevancy is technically anything within the pleadings or related thereto, so the Mary Sue bedtime story is actually in the mix (e. g. would AP's third grade transcripts apply? We all would rightfully find that to be stupid overreaching, but it's Winston and Strawn who opened up that door, and not Loeb and Loeb). However, AP's love life is not up for grabs except in the context of Ms. Kingsbury being a part of the production and fulfillment staff, and potentially Crysstal (I have forgotten her surname, sorry) knowing something or other although I think she doesn't know anything that can't better be testified to by someone else.

If I am plaintiffs, I want to know about the following topics:
  • Intentional infringement - that would mean higher-ups in the production of both Prelude and the full-length feature. Hence we are talking RMB, possibly Mr. Gossett. It is highly likely that would not mean actors.
  • Material gain and benefit - that would mean people involved with the money and its collection and the means for collecting it, which is Mr. McIntosh, Ms. Kingsbury, and possibly (albeit less likely) higher-up artists creating items which the production ended up selling, although I think that's a stretch. That's Mr. Tourangeau and Mr. Richter but again I think they are less likely to be subpoenaed. Does it mean anyone in what I have been calling the investment consortium? That might be considered to be a fishing expedition. We shall see.
  • Continued infringement and benefit - that would mean a look into the financials. AP is the person to ask about this but it would be in conjunction with a forensic audit by a licensing CPA.
Hence they would be (I believe) subpoenaing AP (we already know this), RMB, Mr. McIntosh, and Ms. Kingsbury, and demanding a forensic audit. Others might or might not be subpoenaed as more information comes to light.

If I am defense, I want to know about the following topics:
  • Permission, whether express or implied - that would mean anyone AP alleges he conversed with regarding guidelines or issues. That is Ms. Kalodner, Mr. Ross, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Van Citters. The former two are Paramount, I believe, with the latter two being with CBS.
  • Any way I can show fair use or the implication thereof - I think it's more likely that would be a subpoena duces tecum, which is for documents, rather than a subpoena for anyone to appear, although usually someone has to interpret on the record what documents mean. If any of the four people I mentioned can do that, then there is no need for a fifth witness.
Hence there may be as many as four subpoenas to appear going out from this side, but if they can do it with just one representative from each plaintiff, they may prefer to do it that way unless new information comes to light. Plus an SDC to get any supporting documents if any exist.

We will see little of this unless either (a) AP or the like say something and/or (b ) it turns up in court documentation or motion practice.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming those who might be subpeonaed would need to have their own attorneys present? Would there be any coordination between say RMB's attorney and Peters'?
 
Given what I've seen / read from RMB, I suspect he'll be arrogant (or stupid) enough to either not have a lawyer at all or worse yet let Erin Ranahan advise him. Seriously, I am thus far unimpressed with Ms. Ranahan. This case should never have reached this point. She was either unable and/or unwilling to convince her client to throw in the towel when there was still hope of walking away reasonably unscathed. Unable because AP (and RMB) are simply too arrogant to listen to reason; unwilling because I still believe she has a hidden agenda in all this that may be in direct conflict with her client's best interests.
 
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