CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[jespah]

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.

Plus a mountain of proof (it's not evidence until and unless it's admitted) is hard to go through. One party may feel, I don't know, the color of the Kharn costume doesn't matter, and then the jury sees a contradiction, and that's what they end up fixating on.

Also, not only does this stuff go to the judge before trial, it hits both sides. Often, repeatedly. Surprise witnesses don't really happen. But surprise testimony? Sure. People lie, they forget, the change their story.

 

[MikeH92467]

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?

Consider this from Will Rogers: "If you tell the truth to begin with, you don't have to worry about keeping your story straight."

 

[Noname Given]

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 people are people. IE they still let their egos get in the way, are still unable to see the reality of the situation, etc. Also, they may not remember everything they said, or believe that ion front of a Jury, they can clarify/spin, make the Jury 'see it their way.'

It's also why most (90% +) Civil cases settle. Those that don't are because:
1) One side believes going top court will send a clear unambiguous signal (For C/P it's "Keep yo0ur hands off commercializing something we own without getting a License agreement...")
OR
2) Someone believes they can convince a Jury to give them more than the other side is willing to. (And if you wonder why I say a Jury and don't include 'Judge' it's that a Judge will tell both sides (separately) what he really believes their case is worth given the evidence/proof they have - and will work both sides as best he can to get them to agree to that number in cash.)

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Plus a mountain of proof (it's not evidence until and unless it's admitted) is hard to go through. One party may feel, I don't know, the color of the Kharn costume doesn't matter, and then the jury sees a contradiction, and that's what they end up fixating on.

Also, not only does this stuff go to the judge before trial, it hits both sides. Often, repeatedly. Surprise witnesses don't really happen. But surprise testimony? Sure. People lie, they forget, the change their story.

Indeed. I will add that I 'think' (and DO correct me where I'm wrong and/or incomplete here) evidence can sometimes be argued to a judge by talented attorneys to be prejudicial to their client. The opposing attorney rebuts, etc etc. So sometimes a talented attorney can have evidence clearly pointing to the 'crime', even 'innocence' too, struck by a court as inadmissible.

So there's that.

Plus an attorney (either side) can be adept at spinning a piece of evidence to less/more important than it really is. This is often the art within the expertise of talented and determined attorneys. So things can be spun to get the jury/judge/deposition to see the contradiction, fixate on it, making rulings and verdicts.

So there's that too.

Sought after firms are populated with attorneys adept at painting the picture - spinning - to support their clients, no matter the facts of it.

This is tricky stuff, this getting the reality, the facts as they are exactly, to be allowed and/or presented and perceived exactly as they are.

And each attorney, with the knowledge of the opposing litigant's information that will be allowed by the court will, in most cases, have a decent idea of the opposing team's strategy too.

So each team/attorney can intentionally and thoroughly prep their clients in how to respond to the opponent's attorney's every questioning, tack, and sometimes badgering each opposing attorney will use to trip up a testimony to get the court to actually 'see' the truth... and more often to see the truth as each attorney wishes the court or deposing questioning to see it.

In this litigation, even though the defendant is often on record elsewhere as defensive, aggressive, self entitled, etc., he also has a demonstrated ability to be - I'm going to term it charismatic in lieu of better terminology for the moment. He also has shown the ability to come across as sympathetic and sincere. He has a demonstrated ability to sell himself and what he wants.

I suggest he will be well prepped to remain so in deposition and/or court if it comes to that, in attempt, even likelihood of making sure his unsympathetic side will be minimized at worst. And at best... not seen by the court/deposition at all.

I 'think' that while facts in this case can be indisputable, they can - and will - be spun and questioned and rebutted and re-framed by the determined and talented Ms. Ranahan and the resources backing her in W&S to get what she wants; which is all the better accomplished by getting her client some to most of what he wants too.

Therefore, where I may be confident in my own determinings of how every aspect of this litigation rightfully Should turn out, I am also aware the possibility of not everything turning out as I have determined it rightfully should.

I have strong faith in the talented and determined Ms. Ranahan, and I do Not want her to succeed in this litigation. I 'believe' Loeb&Loeb may also be as talented and I hope as determined as she and W&S.

Which gives me hope as I wait.

 

[Indysolo]

2) Someone believes they can convince a Jury to give them more than the other side is willing to. (And if you wonder why I say a Jury and don't include 'Judge' it's that a Judge will tell both sides (separately) what he really believes their case is worth given the evidence/proof they have - and will work both sides as best he can to get them to agree to that number in cash.)

Did someone say "Cash"?

Neil

 

[jespah]

Indeed. I will add that I 'think' (and DO correct me where I'm wrong and/or incomplete here) evidence can sometimes be argued to a judge by talented attorneys to be prejudicial to their client. The opposing attorney rebuts, etc etc. So sometimes a talented attorney can have evidence clearly pointing to the 'crime', even 'innocence' too, struck by a court as inadmissible.

So there's that.

Plus an attorney (either side) can be adept at spinning a piece of evidence to less/more important than it really is. This is often the art within the expertise of talented and determined attorneys. So things can be spun to get the jury/judge/deposition to see the contradiction, fixate on it, making rulings and verdicts.

So there's that too.

Sought after firms are populated with attorneys adept at painting the picture - spinning - to support their clients, no matter the facts of it.

This is tricky stuff, this getting the reality, the facts as they are exactly, to be allowed and/or presented and perceived exactly as they are.

And each attorney, with the knowledge of the opposing litigant's information that will be allowed by the court will, in most cases, have a decent idea of the opposing team's strategy too.

So each team/attorney can often prep their clients in how to respond to the opponent's attorney's questioning, tacks, and sometimes badgering each opposing attorney will use to trip up a testimony to get the court to actually 'see' the truth... and more often to see the truth as each attorney wishes the court or deposing questioning to be interpreted.

In this litigation, even though the defendant is often on record elsewhere as defensive, aggressive, self entitled, etc., he also has a demonstrated ability to be - I'm going to term it charismatic in lieu of better terminology for the moment. He has the ability to come across as sympathetic and sincere. He has a demonstrated his ability to sell himself to the endgame of selling what he wants.

I suggest he will be well prepped to remain so in deposition and/or court if it comes to that, in attempt, even likelihood of making sure his unsympathetic side will be minimized at worst. And at best... not seen by the court/deposition at all.

I 'think' that while facts in this case can be indisputable, they can - and will - be spun and questioned and rebutted and re-framed by the determined and talented Ms. Ranahan and the resources backing her in W&S to get what she wants; which is all the better accomplished by getting her client some to most of what he wants too.

Therefore, where I may be confident in my own determinings of how every aspect of this litigation rightfully Should turn out, I am also aware the possibility of not everything turning out as I have determined it rightfully should.

I have strong faith in the talented and determined Ms. Ranahan. I 'believe' Loeb&Loeb may also as talented and I hope as determined as she and W&S.

Which gives me strong hope as I wait.

Well, we are required to provide our clients with zealous yet ethical representation. I have to tell the jury, for instance, that the color of the costume is no big deal. Hence I bury it within a ton of other things. I emphasize other points. I also don't ask my client too many questions in order to avoid opening up other areas.

The other side, instead, opens with the color of the costume and harps on it. If they can, they ask everyone even remotely germane to the question about it.

We also use diction. I might speak more softly (but I still have to be audible) and maybe quickly. If the matter stretches over several days, I might even wear an outfit that's less memorable or a hairstyle to help me blend into the background more, signifying that whatever we are talking about is not so important. Don't laugh! Subtlety is important!

The other side, instead, speaks more loudly about the costume color. They might also speak more slowly, enunciating every word, making sure the jury hears and understands what they are saying. Not shouting; they are just making it crystal clear. On the day they talk about the costume color, they might wear a memorable tie, let's say. They do this so that, in the jury room, if somebody asks, "When did they mention the costume color?" then someone else on the jury will say, "It was the day that lawyer wore the Donald Duck tie." Of course in capital cases you don't wear Donald Duck ties, and I am overemphasizing in order to make the point.

True story. I used to handle product liability permanent wave cases. These were where the plaintiff would lose her (almost always, these were women) hair, usually temporarily, after a beauty salon treatment to get a perm. One guy used to handle all the salons, and he was the biggest douchecanoe I knew at the time. I was all of (no lie) maybe 25, and handled the manufacturer. I well recall two days of a deposition where a beautiful and elegant woman was reduced to swearing at him in Italian, she hated him so. Finally, it came to be my turn to ask questions. I only asked one, which was, "Mrs. ___, do you know which hair treatment was used on you?" She said no. We moved to dismiss.

As I recall, we lost that motion, but the point is that they could ask us nearly nothing in court, because there was but one question connecting plaintiff to my client. And the third-party plaintiff (the salon)'s representative just knew she had used some unmarked bottle of stuff and couldn't recall what it was, either. Kept our head down, blended in with the wood paneling in the courtroom, and the jury pretty much forgot about us. I think we were dinged for 5% liability, IIRC.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

^^^^ That

 

[Karzak]

Thank goodness you're on our side, @jespah !

 

[MikeH92467]

Reminds me of a massive drug case I covered as a reporter in Tampa with a large number of defendants. One guy's lawyer (the late Jack Edmonds, a southern gentleman down to his string ties and cowboy boots) apparently figured out that there was no real evidence against his client so he just sat there and doodled on his note pad for the first part of the trial never objecting to anything or cross-examining anyone. Finally as the prosecution was wrapping up there was a massive bench conference which Jack didn't bother to walk up to. The other lawyers had to call him up to the bench so the judge could tell him the prosecutor had thrown in the towel and was dropping all charges against his client. I've seen some awful good lawyers (and a fair number of hacks) but for sheer guts that may have been the best strategy I've ever seen. Now back to our regular programming...

 

[Noname Given]

Indeed. I will add that I 'think' (and DO correct me where I'm wrong and/or incomplete here) evidence can sometimes be argued to a judge by talented attorneys to be prejudicial to their client. The opposing attorney rebuts, etc etc. So sometimes a talented attorney can have evidence clearly pointing to the 'crime', even 'innocence' too, struck by a court as inadmissible.

So there's that.

Plus an attorney (either side) can be adept at spinning a piece of evidence to less/more important than it really is. This is often the art within the expertise of talented and determined attorneys. So things can be spun to get the jury/judge/deposition to see the contradiction, fixate on it, making rulings and verdicts.

So there's that too.

Sought after firms are populated with attorneys adept at painting the picture - spinning - to support their clients, no matter the facts of it.

This is tricky stuff, this getting the reality, the facts as they are exactly, to be allowed and/or presented and perceived exactly as they are.

And each attorney, with the knowledge of the opposing litigant's information that will be allowed by the court will, in most cases, have a decent idea of the opposing team's strategy too.

So each team/attorney can intentionally and thoroughly prep their clients in how to respond to the opponent's attorney's every questioning, tack, and sometimes badgering each opposing attorney will use to trip up a testimony to get the court to actually 'see' the truth... and more often to see the truth as each attorney wishes the court or deposing questioning to see it.

In this litigation, even though the defendant is often on record elsewhere as defensive, aggressive, self entitled, etc., he also has a demonstrated ability to be - I'm going to term it charismatic in lieu of better terminology for the moment. He also has shown the ability to come across as sympathetic and sincere. He has a demonstrated ability to sell himself and what he wants.

I suggest he will be well prepped to remain so in deposition and/or court if it comes to that, in attempt, even likelihood of making sure his unsympathetic side will be minimized at worst. And at best... not seen by the court/deposition at all.

I 'think' that while facts in this case can be indisputable, they can - and will - be spun and questioned and rebutted and re-framed by the determined and talented Ms. Ranahan and the resources backing her in W&S to get what she wants; which is all the better accomplished by getting her client some to most of what he wants too.

Therefore, where I may be confident in my own determinings of how every aspect of this litigation rightfully Should turn out, I am also aware the possibility of not everything turning out as I have determined it rightfully should.

I have strong faith in the talented and determined Ms. Ranahan, and I do Not want her to succeed in this litigation. I 'believe' Loeb&Loeb may also be as talented and I hope as determined as she and W&S.

Which gives me hope as I wait.

The one thing I've noticed about Mr. Alec Peter is: As long as he can 'stay on script' as it were - and be allowed to tell things his way; yes, he appears collected, calm, and occasionally charming.

BUT...

As soon as he's challenged; or in responding to questions, doesn't like the way something is worded - he will immediately 'turn' and show his a**hole side. And to get that to come out doesn't take much. Plus once he's in that mode he'll talk and talk and talk about everything under the sun and usually let slip something that doesn't jive with his previous comments; or try to correct a point, tell the person they're asking the wrong question or worse asking the question wrong.

Again, Alec Peters is delusional when it comes to the whole Axanar situation; and I think he truly believes he is fandom's gift to Star Trek - and once everyone realizes it, he'll be vindicates, and get to do exactly what he wants with/in the Star Trek franchise.

No amount of preparation is going to change that core character trait of Mr. Alec Peters; and once he gets on the stand; with the right prodding (and light goading by the cross-examining Attorney); I'm sure the Jury will see ALL aspects of Alec Peters; and even as he's doing this, in Alec Peters will in his mind be thinking: "This is where I show all the 'Haters' and armchair lawyers how wrong they are. With this out, I'll win this case right here..."

Again I fully admit it's entirely possible this case won't go to trial, or if it does W&S will go through great lengths to keep Alec Peters off the witness stand (if they're competent that is); but should Mr. Peters take the stand and give sworn testimony, I stand by my above prediction of how it will go,

 

[muCephi]

...Again, Alec Peters is delusional when it comes to the whole Axanar situation; and I think he truly believes he is fandom's gift to Star Trek - and once everyone realizes it, he'll be vindicates, and get to do exactly what he wants with/in the Star Trek franchise....

...Again I fully admit it's entirely possible this case won't go to trial, or if it does W&S will go through great lengths to keep Alec Peters off the witness stand (if they're competent that is); but should Mr. Peters take the stand and give sworn testimony, I stand by my above prediction of how it will go,

It simple. Trek is holy. I acted to preserve it when no one else did. Therefore, I am holy. Therefore, all criticisms of anything I do are sacrilege against the holiness of Trek.

The promotion of self to holiness simply because of acting is of course the crap. They can break his delusion of holiness before the jury by showing that his virtue is tarnished by repeated premeditated venality in business matters. And they will.

As for keeping him off the stand, they can't keep him out of depositions during discovery. L&L are probably selling tickets for staff to watch.

 

[Sgt_G]

they can't keep him out of depositions during discovery

Fact? Or just your supposition? I know it's in Discovery, but have depositions already started?

 

[urbandefault]

Fact? Or just your supposition? I know it's in Discovery, but have depositions already started?

Wouldn't depositions be a part of the discovery process?

I don't know, just asking.

 

[Sgt_G]

Yes, as I understand it. But discovery is much more than depositions. I presume they are only gathering documents at this time, so they know what questions to ask during deposition.

 

[scifib5st]

Thank goodness you're on our side, @jespah !

Could not have said it better!

 

[jespah]

Aw, thanks! I gotta say, I am so glad I don't do that anymore. I used to mainline generic Maalox. Practicing is stressful.

I would enjoy coming out of retirement in order to conduct that deposition.

Mr. Peters, can you tell us, please, how long you have been a Star Trek fan?
AP starts to launch in on a long, drawn-out explanation of the interrupted sleep, the footie pajamas and Cheetos he associates (maybe) with Leonard Nimoy, etc.
Thank you. And would you consider yourself a super-fan?
Why yes, yes I would!
So tell us for the record, please, whether Sarek is an important character.
Objection (from Ms. Ranahan).
I'll rephrase that and lay a foundation. Can you please tell us who the character of Sarek is.
Why he's Spock's father, and is seen in several episodes, ....
So, sir, would you say that number of episodes, could you characterize that figure as being significant?
Yes!
Would you call Sarek especially distinctive?
Yes!
Would you refer to the character of Sarek as having widely identifiable traits?
Yes!
Would the amount of screen time for the Sarek character, in your opinion as a super-fan, enable us to designate that character as being important?
Of course!
Sir, I'd like to direct your attention to the sworn pleadings in this matter, entered as defense exhibits 15 through 30. (hands the witness a copy). Could you please read aloud what it says there? Page 21, if you please.

Here, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
any of the characters they claim have been infringed—Garth of Izar, Soval, Richard
Robau, John Gill, Captain Robert April, Chang, or Sarek (FAC at 11-12, ¶ 66)—meet
the requirements for copyright protection because they have not set forth “especially
distinctive” and “widely identifiable traits” of these characters that Defendants have
copied.​

Thank you. Nothing further!

 

[muCephi]

Yes, as I understand it. But discovery is much more than depositions. I presume they are only gathering documents at this time, so they know what questions to ask during deposition.

With standard I am not an attorney qualifiers, my personal experience needing to depose someone did not require a gigantic justification. And Alec is specifically named and at the center of it all. If they don't settle, I do not see how the defense could rule out every possible grounds for obtaining information verbally from Alec. but IANAA.

 

[muCephi]

Here, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that

any of the characters they claim have been infringed—Garth of Izar, Soval, Richard
Robau, John Gill, Captain Robert April, Chang, or Sarek (FAC at 11-12, ¶ 66)—meet
the requirements for copyright protection because they have not set forth “especially
distinctive” and “widely identifiable traits” of these characters that Defendants have
copied.​

Thank you. Nothing further!

This says that the studios in their complaint did not enumerate the *distinctive or widely identifiable traits* of the alllegedly copied characters. If the studios merely named the characters, the above statement is true. Does this affect your decisiveness?

 

[Franklin]

Aw, thanks! I gotta say, I am so glad I don't do that anymore. I used to mainline generic Maalox. Practicing is stressful.

I would enjoy coming out of retirement in order to conduct that deposition.

Mr. Peters, can you tell us, please, how long you have been a Star Trek fan?
AP starts to launch in on a long, drawn-out explanation of the interrupted sleep, the footie pajamas and Cheetos he associates (maybe) with Leonard Nimoy, etc.
Thank you. And would you consider yourself a super-fan?
Why yes, yes I would!
So tell us for the record, please, whether Sarek is an important character.
Objection (from Ms. Ranahan).
I'll rephrase that and lay a foundation. Can you please tell us who the character of Sarek is.
Why he's Spock's father, and is seen in several episodes, ....
So, sir, would you say that number of episodes, could you characterize that figure as being significant?
Yes!
Would you call Sarek especially distinctive?
Yes!
Would you refer to the character of Sarek as having widely identifiable traits?
Yes!
Would the amount of screen time for the Sarek character, in your opinion as a super-fan, enable us to designate that character as being important?
Of course!
Sir, I'd like to direct your attention to the sworn pleadings in this matter, entered as defense exhibits 15 through 30. (hands the witness a copy). Could you please read aloud what it says there? Page 21, if you please.

Here, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
any of the characters they claim have been infringed—Garth of Izar, Soval, Richard
Robau, John Gill, Captain Robert April, Chang, or Sarek (FAC at 11-12, ¶ 66)—meet
the requirements for copyright protection because they have not set forth “especially
distinctive” and “widely identifiable traits” of these characters that Defendants have
copied.​

Thank you. Nothing further!

Sweet fantasies! Yep. Going through things like that help me fall asleep at night.

 

[jespah]

This says that the studios in their complaint did not enumerate the *distinctive or widely identifiable traits* of the alllegedly copied characters. If the studios merely named the characters, the above statement is true. Does this affect your decisiveness?

That's the sort of thing that comes out in discovery - if it's important (and frankly it might be kind of in the middle in terms of just how vital it really is), then you call in writers or the like. You can't call Mark Lenard but you can call in whoever directed him or who wrote the character, and have them explain that it's not just a generic alien but that there is a serious history with this particular character.

I agree that some of the allegations are less than perfect and Gill in particular is just sort of a yeah, whatever kind of character. The name is used as continuity porn more than anything else. But the Sarek character is seen in three series and in more than one of the films, and in both continuities. He is the best character to argue when you are arguing the characters are meaningful. And if you are taking the defense's side, the best character to argue is Gill.

PS The show is getting underway - http://www.gandtshow.com/streaming/

Many thanks for your kind support.