No, it's my procedural mistake. Where I practice you have to seek permission to appeal a first instance civil judgment.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Interesting. Is permission requested from the same judge(s) who presided over the trial? The only similar procedure I can think of is that in Federal criminal trials, the judge can decide whether to grant bail pending appeal depending on whether said judge believes the points raised by the defense stand a reasonable chance of being upheld by the appeal court. It pretty much amounts to going to jail, directly to jail without collecting $200.
Alec Peters could technically appeal it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme court - although I doubt they'd agree to hear it meaning the results of the appeal from the highest U.S. court that did hear and rule on it would stand. But bottom line - appeals aren't quick so yes, if Alec Peters used every chance at an appeal he had; it could be dragged out for years.
And look at the case as it stands: The case as it is has actually proceeded pretty quickly in Judicial terms, and there really hasn't been a lot of arguments or evidence submitted (in comparison of similar cases); and it's still taken a year to get to this point in the case.
If Peters can just hang on long enough, he can use his monthly Social Security check to help fund the lawsuit!
No rest for the wicked! Most recent court filings have been duly blogged about -
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-pretrial-voir-dire-lcs-petition/
Most festive new year to all! <3
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/axanar-pretrial-voir-dire-lcs-petition/
Most festive new year to all! <3
First I'd like to wish everyone a safe and sane New Year.
Second I hope we see a swift end to this lawsuit.
Third I'd like to see Alec involved in producing some really awesome My Mother the Car episodes because they would be really really neat'o and nobody would notice.
Fourth I'd like to see John Van Critters call a meeting with actual Star Trek Fan Film Producers and revisit the guidelines. ( file that under "Be careful of what you wish for") If you think about it, C/P could have gone after LFIM and dragged in all the parties Peters claimed he paid to create unlicensed Star Trek articles. It appears they have instead taken a very surgical approach to curtail the type of abuse Peters attempted to commit on their intellectual property.
Fifth I'd like to continue to see all the wonderful Star Trek Fan Film imaginationings that I've come to know and enjoy pre-Axanar.
Second I hope we see a swift end to this lawsuit.
Third I'd like to see Alec involved in producing some really awesome My Mother the Car episodes because they would be really really neat'o and nobody would notice.
Fourth I'd like to see John Van Critters call a meeting with actual Star Trek Fan Film Producers and revisit the guidelines. ( file that under "Be careful of what you wish for") If you think about it, C/P could have gone after LFIM and dragged in all the parties Peters claimed he paid to create unlicensed Star Trek articles. It appears they have instead taken a very surgical approach to curtail the type of abuse Peters attempted to commit on their intellectual property.
Fifth I'd like to continue to see all the wonderful Star Trek Fan Film imaginationings that I've come to know and enjoy pre-Axanar.
Happy New Year to one and all.
So, barring an overwhelming summary judgement from Judge Klausner, are we still on course for a trial start date on January 31st?
So, barring an overwhelming summary judgement from Judge Klausner, are we still on course for a trial start date on January 31st?
You seek permission from the trial judge and if it is refused then you apply directly to the appellate court for permission. So you have to go through quite a few hurdles in order to get a full appeal heard, and the permission stage is not only to prevent vexatious appeals, but also to make sure the application contains an arguable point of law.
Since I am not an expert (or trained as one) I want to the American Bar Association page and found this:
Appeal Procedure
The party appealing is called the appellant, or sometimes the petitioner. The other party is the appellee or the respondent. The appeal is instituted with the filing of a notice of appeal. This filing marks the beginning of the time period within which the appellant must file a brief, a written argument containing that side's view of the facts and the legal arguments upon which they rely in seeking a reversal of the trial court. The appellee then has a specified time to file an answering brief. The appellant may then file a second brief answering the appellee's brief.
Sometimes, appeals courts make their decision only on the basis of the written briefs. Sometimes, they hear oral arguments before deciding a case.
Even if the appeal court finds errors, they can be ruled "harmless" (I think the technical term is diminimus) with no impact on the original ruling. One outcome that seems to happen quite often in the U.S. is that enormous monetary awards are substantially reduced.
Appeal Procedure
The party appealing is called the appellant, or sometimes the petitioner. The other party is the appellee or the respondent. The appeal is instituted with the filing of a notice of appeal. This filing marks the beginning of the time period within which the appellant must file a brief, a written argument containing that side's view of the facts and the legal arguments upon which they rely in seeking a reversal of the trial court. The appellee then has a specified time to file an answering brief. The appellant may then file a second brief answering the appellee's brief.
Sometimes, appeals courts make their decision only on the basis of the written briefs. Sometimes, they hear oral arguments before deciding a case.
Even if the appeal court finds errors, they can be ruled "harmless" (I think the technical term is diminimus) with no impact on the original ruling. One outcome that seems to happen quite often in the U.S. is that enormous monetary awards are substantially reduced.
I'm not a lawyer, but allow me to offer my opinion...
No, because if they had filed suit earlier, it would have given credence to the idea that Axanar was targeted when others were allowed to do the same thing. By waiting until the money was spent, CBS had the proof that AP was in it for the money and not to make a fan-film.
"Competent counsel"??
Seriously, even as a lay-person, I am underwhelmed by Ranahan's performance. Going back the beginning, she filed to have the case dismissed, which was rejected, and then filed a second time with the exact same arguments. It reminded me of that scene in A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise objected, was overruled, and then "strenuously objected" as if that would change the judge's mind. My opinion of Ranahan's competency doesn't improve one bit after reading later documents she filed in the case.
As CBS did not contribute to the crowd-funding, they would have had no standing to legally file a complaint with the FTC. Their only option was to file for copyright (and/or trademark) violations.
Possibly. However, comma, CBS had to do "something" on the off-chance that AP could pull it together and make Axanar, and they had to fire a warning shot at anyone else brave/stupid enough to try the same thing.
Yes and no. For years, Alec Peters was the lone voice in the wilderness calling for written rules. Everyone else in the fan-film community had a "gentleman's agreement" with CBS on what was and was not acceptable. AP knew this. Go back into the archives here on Trek-BBS and you can read it in his own words where he acknowledged said "unwritten guidelines" and even stated he would abide by them. And then he turned around and broke dang near every rule in the list. Yes, there was an "arms race" that CBS had to put a stop to. But consider that Axanar pushed said arms race to the next level. If it hadn't been for Axanar, CBS probably would have told the rest of the fan-film projects to "dial it back", and that would have been that. I put 95%-99% of the blame for the CBS rules squarely on Alec Peters.
Van Critters, and CBS as a whole, was in a "Darned if you do / darned if you don't" situation. They also have conflicting views between legal and public relations. The PR side says "it's good if we support our fans", but legal has to say "that opens a can of worms." And once again, Peters didn't need to "test the boundaries", for he knew exactly what CBS would and would not tolerate.
Yes, there's reason to believe Peter's would not have complied. He HAD just such a meeting and blew it off. Prior to that, he was heavily involved in discussions about the "unwritten rules" here on Trek-BBS. And said rules were not at all "vague" to anyone with half a brain and willingness to follow them.
Given what I've read in the court documents, I fail to see how Axanar can pull off even a minor victory anywhere in the case. If Ms. Ranahan supports him with an appeal, my opinion of her as a lawyer will be further reduced.
Happy 2017!. May it be better than 2016.
Much, much better
Too true, but I prefer John Olivers' version (note, the language is NSFW!)
Dudes.
^^ Bad urbankringle, bad man!!
What Peters should have done last year when presented with the lawsuit is this:
- Immediately suspend all work on the production and any spending of donor money.
- Put all Donor money in an escrow account and not touch a dime of it.
- Lay off any employees and volunteers until the lawsuit is resolved so you can protect them from possibly legal issues if they continue to work on Axanar. This includes RMB, Terry, Diana, everyone! (In other words, be a man and DON'T let others risk going down with you!)
- Tried to work out an Immediate settlement with CBS last January.
- If no settlement can be reached at that time, get legal counsel.
- After 2 months, break the lease and give up the studio so you are not paying monthly rent!! Also, obvious don't continue to put money into the studio! (Carpet anyone?)
- If after 3 to 4 months if there is still no resolution with CBS, return what you can of the donors money. He should have been able to return ALL of the Indiogogo donor money (if the money was frozen in escrow account in December), He obviously could not return the Kickstarter money since it was mostly all spent at the time of the lawsuit. However, if there was any of the money left he should have tried to pay the smaller Kickstarter donors back first, this would have reduced the overall amount of donors he would have to owe.
I think if he would of taken these steps with would have been a lot better for him.
This assumes that LFIM is at the core, a rational person. It's been amply demonstrated across multiple pages of this very thread that he isn't and hasn't been acting rationally for quite some time. The Trekzone interview with Gossett (where he spelled out how he tried to help LFIM along and explained if he wanted this to work, there was a specific way to go about it and specific things he needed to do) is a great example (I don't think his narcissm or his attempts to cultivate a 'cult of personality' need any explanation).
Would you look at this though??
- Status