CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Nothing to is too good for the Gatekeeper of Star Trek, especially when it's someone else's cash being spent. Seriously though, tens of thousands on restaurants? That answers why AP wanted W&S to hide financial information from donors and the general public.
Last edited:
1) Just let me say - yes, there is a way to clear the 'redactions' in the documents.
2) It's NOT all that straightforward to do so (IE you have to have some more than average computer knowledge and certain software - although the software needed is COMMON and not any type of 'hacking' software at all. You can legally buy it anywhere openly. IMO it does take a bit of 'playing around' though
.)IDK if the court will see that as an actionable slip up as the intent to redact is there - the redactions exist - and most will not know how to clear them - and I believe it was the court who posted the final versions of the submitted documents.
About the most damning things are:
- The amount of salary Alec Peters paid himself. (It's quite a bit higher then what he claimed in the publically released Axanar finance report they self posted prior to the lawsuit.)
- The other incidentals and bills and expenses paid for himself and other members of his inner circle whom WERE NOT actors or actual Hollywood production personnel.
- The amount of time (measured in years) that Alec Peters was in fact using donor money to pay these incidentals for himself and his inner circle.
- Admission to trying to get certain streaming services to agree to buy/use his finished product once it was ready; and his hopes it would be a 'calling card' to Hollywood and CBS/Paramount.
- His belief that he could trademark "Axanar" for his own commercial use.
The rest of the redactions is basically him admitting in his deposition exactly what CBS/Paramount accused him of - namely wholesale and knowledgeable copying of Star Trek elements (including known characters) for the production.
I get why the stuff that I bulleted was redacted from the public; but don't understand why Alec Peters basically admitting what he in fact did was also redacted because (IMO) IF this case goes to a Jury - all these admissions will come out in the public record. If Alec peters were to try and contradict these aspects in on the stand testimony - he'd just hang himself further.
Still, it's an interesting read; and most of what Karzak and others accused Alec Peters of over the years prior to the lawsuit being filed with regard to exactly what donor pledged funds were being used for (IE NOT just for 'production costs' - and towards what could be termed 'personal living' costs) was admitted to by Alec Peters in his two depositions.
Alec Peters must be fully delusional because if what I read was accurately summarized by the CBS/Paramount lawyers; the Ninth Circuit certainly wouldn't use this case to mo0dify copyright law as it really is a straight up case of fully willful copyright infringement. IF C/P offered ANY sort of settlement he should have JUMPED at it.
Last edited:
Someone's CASH you say?
Did someone say, "Cash"?
Neil
You're a national treasure, Neil. Never stop Cashing.
Well if/when his deposition testimony becomes public people will see just how BIG a liar he really is.Here's a screen shot of AP's antics over at kickstarter today ...
Your own financial report says otherwise, AP ...
AP, nothing more than a lying liar that lies.
So Alec, *when* did you put in the $150k? And was that 150k on the books anywhere as donations (or loans) from you, as a business would need to record? If so, why don't you just publish the schedule of donations as reflected in the Axanar books? Did you cite it in your legal defense? It seems like the verifiable details of this could go a long way towards getting you off the hook for the charge of personally benefiting from Axanar.
You keep saying you 'paid back' the cash you paid yourself, but you don't seem to realize what this means to everyone reading it. Time is not circular, you don't get to draw on Axanar funds for personal compensation for years, and then say that it was all a withdrawal of funds you hadn't put in yet. Especially if you 'donated' the money only starting after the lawsuit dropped. And you called it salary and expenses. So what was the chronology?
And why not just pay your expenses to start with? Why wouldn't you just loan to Axanar if it needed cash? Why withdraw the money in taxable forms where you lose from it? Why obscure the relationship between yourself and Axanar wrt/ the money flowing into Axanar and back out again?
And what's this about saying that 'donations', in your case, are something naturally and reasonably to be 'paid back'? Do you accord this benefit to your general donors as well?
Without details about your donations, one could see how the studios might see it as drawing personal pay/benefits from Axanar. But that impression could be eradicated if you could show that Axanar received documented loans (not donations, which are not appropriately paid back) personally from you (not from Propworx channeled through Axanar to you), spent on Axanar operations (not on building the studio asset you own) before the dates where you drew down the funds from Axanar.
Easy peasy. I bet it could help with the donor impression of this situation, as well as in court. Suggest you document the loans in a verifiable way (promissory notes from Axanar to you, in the Axanar books with dates and amounts), and show how your compensation occurred *after* each installment of the money was put in. A bit sticky having done all the 'donation reimbursements' in a way legally indistinguishable from business salary/expenses, but maybe it could change the perception.
And since you say Propworx paid rent to Axanar, showing the promissory instruments could firewall the donations/loans from the rent, two separate cashflows into Axanar. Always best to keep these sorts of things clear, especially when the IRS comes around.
You keep saying you 'paid back' the cash you paid yourself, but you don't seem to realize what this means to everyone reading it. Time is not circular, you don't get to draw on Axanar funds for personal compensation for years, and then say that it was all a withdrawal of funds you hadn't put in yet. Especially if you 'donated' the money only starting after the lawsuit dropped. And you called it salary and expenses. So what was the chronology?
And why not just pay your expenses to start with? Why wouldn't you just loan to Axanar if it needed cash? Why withdraw the money in taxable forms where you lose from it? Why obscure the relationship between yourself and Axanar wrt/ the money flowing into Axanar and back out again?
And what's this about saying that 'donations', in your case, are something naturally and reasonably to be 'paid back'? Do you accord this benefit to your general donors as well?
Without details about your donations, one could see how the studios might see it as drawing personal pay/benefits from Axanar. But that impression could be eradicated if you could show that Axanar received documented loans (not donations, which are not appropriately paid back) personally from you (not from Propworx channeled through Axanar to you), spent on Axanar operations (not on building the studio asset you own) before the dates where you drew down the funds from Axanar.
Easy peasy. I bet it could help with the donor impression of this situation, as well as in court. Suggest you document the loans in a verifiable way (promissory notes from Axanar to you, in the Axanar books with dates and amounts), and show how your compensation occurred *after* each installment of the money was put in. A bit sticky having done all the 'donation reimbursements' in a way legally indistinguishable from business salary/expenses, but maybe it could change the perception.
And since you say Propworx paid rent to Axanar, showing the promissory instruments could firewall the donations/loans from the rent, two separate cashflows into Axanar. Always best to keep these sorts of things clear, especially when the IRS comes around.
Last edited:
Here's a screen shot of AP's antics over at kickstarter today ...
Your own financial report says otherwise, AP ...
AP, nothing more than a lying liar that lies.
Why did he need to pay himself even he was contributing money that went to his salary? Couldn't he just... not pay himself?
At best, it sounds stupid. At worst, it sounds like he used donor money as a big fucking loan to himself--interest free, to cover living expenses. That is, of course, if he's not lying.
Edited to add: and it sounds like someone is having a wee bit of a meltdown online.
I think the answers to your very legitimate questions are answered here in the above screen shot, again taken from the Axanar kickstarter site page.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar/comments
Last edited:
Now that is an interesting thing. The defendant said that?
And that 'is' a very interesting question isn't it.
I think the answers to your very legitimate questions are answered here in the above screen shot, again taken from the Axanar kickstarter site page.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar/comments
Just offering Alec a way to make good on his emphatic claim that he didn't actually take donor money because he donated it into the project. Ok, show it on the books, show it was before the drawdowns, and if it was loans, call it loans, because saying you had a right to take Axanar money as compensation for your 'donation' opens a can of worms with the other donors.
Here's his chance to do more than huff and puff. He might be able to save his butt. Show that he actually did put in the money personally before he drew it out (and not via Propworx payments to Axanar, or counting paying for the lights after running out of money). I actually think it might go some way to mitigating the damages if he can really document that he put in the money *first* with an expectation (eg as in a loan) that he could draw it back out. However unfortunately the method.
Its most likely the same as him saying "nonprofit" means "no money left after its all spent on what I want". But he has yet another shot to clear himself some. He blew JJ/Justin chance, and so many others with untruths and manipulation. Maybe he has some truth that supports him this time.
Last edited:
2) It's NOT all that straightforward to do so (IE you have to have some more than average computer knowledge and certain software - although the software needed is COMMON and not any type of 'hacking' software at all. You can legally buy it anywhere openly. IMO it does take a bit of 'playing around' though
FWIW, anyone on a Mac can do this with only tools included with the operating system. The Preview application works just fine for copy/paste (though it's slightly wonky due to formatting). I checked because I was shocked that someone in the legal profession would make this kind of error.
I'm very curious as to who actually did the redaction. There's also an interesting question of liability (presuming that the court cares); does the submission of the document to the court count as "publishing to the public"? Or is it the court's systems that made it available to the public without any kind of safeguard? Dunno how that works.
I just wish I had time to read it all at the moment; all the good stuff happens when I'm overly busy.
This PDF redaction problem as far as I know has been well known among Adobe users for years. And I mean, years. Any firm that depends on the feature would surely have upgraded their sw by now, if Adobe provided a fix, and would have used another method, if not. Think of the trouble they could get into otherwise, disclosing corporate financials, statements violating rights of third parties, etc.
So I would have a real problem with any law firm who used this buggy (or Adobe-documented limited capability of redaction) software release to comply with court ordered sealing of documents. And I think W&S will, too. It would not surprise me at all if it were being actively used right now to try to win a better settlement for Axanar.
So I would have a real problem with any law firm who used this buggy (or Adobe-documented limited capability of redaction) software release to comply with court ordered sealing of documents. And I think W&S will, too. It would not surprise me at all if it were being actively used right now to try to win a better settlement for Axanar.
Last edited:
"... Apparently Peters' infringement was clearly willful as well, as he is a trained attorney....... UMF 116. ...."
You sure called that one @Campe98
Last edited:
If we are going there, I did say a few pages back that the emails would land like an asteroid
- Status