Isn't it more the opposite: "fans" are stringing Abdin along in order to maintain their illusion of the bankruptcy of the franchise? It seems like he was prepared to throw in the towel before Gary Buechler intervened.
Tardigrade lawsuit appealed
- Thread starter Krandor
- Start date
- Status
I think we should all band together and start 2 fundraisers to
a) Sue CBS for making Fake Trek™ (and fill the filing with handwritten links to Youtube videos) and,
b) Make our own True Trek™ movie, Prelude to Nacelle Pylons IV. We'll tell everyone it's the best Trek in 30 years, that it's a return to Roddenberry's Values and put out a teaser full of space battles and shield percentages.
We can live off the donations and what we don't need, we'll put into shitty merchandise we'll never actually ship.
a) Sue CBS for making Fake Trek™ (and fill the filing with handwritten links to Youtube videos) and,
b) Make our own True Trek™ movie, Prelude to Nacelle Pylons IV. We'll tell everyone it's the best Trek in 30 years, that it's a return to Roddenberry's Values and put out a teaser full of space battles and shield percentages.
We can live off the donations and what we don't need, we'll put into shitty merchandise we'll never actually ship.
I think, right now, he is a convenient mascot, for want of a better word. He represents the fans interest against the corporate interests.
The funny thing is...,
'Dishonored' Judges, may not really be all that helpful in court cases that have no Jury.
Their presence is more apt to be a hindrance rather than asset, as their past misconduct can weigh on how the presiding Judge views their contribution to the case.
Human Nature and all that jazz.
Last edited:
Probably. At the same time, he should know better.
Well I once did a Star Trek jigsaw puzzle with the Enterprise in the middle and Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty in the 4 corners of the puzzle, and there was a nacelle flying on its own with no ship attached. Still to this day have no idea why they'd draw that.
They did several versions of puzzles and also had one with the Bridge and 4 female crew in the corners.
They did several versions of puzzles and also had one with the Bridge and 4 female crew in the corners.
What I found fascinating was the description and explanation of Discovery. It had to be written as though the reader had no clue as to what Discovery, Star Trek, or even science fiction is.
Wook Hwang lays it all out then slowly moves to a point where he can loosen up and mention”Ripper,” Burnham, etc, without qualifiers. Means that attorney Hwang had to have had an intimate understanding of all 3 of the aforementioned. All of this just made wonder if Hwang might now be a DSC watcher now. It’s work for him, so probably not, but I still wonder.
Some people in the thread have mentioned something about a retired judge, can anyone explain to me what the story is with this? Thx.
In a further bid to legitimize his lawsuit he has now enlisted the help of a former Chief judge of the appeals judge (who happens to have resigned due to an ethics breach). The implication being that him consulting for them means there's merit to his claims.
Anas has filed his response to CBS's brief. Can be found here https://www.docdroid.net/RplwYYb/abdin-v-cbs-broadcasting-inc-02cae-19-03160-00790.pdf
Case is on the calendar for week of 5/11.
Case is on the calendar for week of 5/11.
He's not going to win this.
Okay, I went and read this.
First things first. Back when I first took interest in this and decided to read the motion to dismiss by CBS I was really intimidated to read 30 pages of legalese. But to my surprise, I had hardly a problem reading it, because it was very well constructed and written. They made a point to present the argument the plaintiff was making, and then went point by point through their arguments against it. If they cited precedence from another case they made sure to explain enough about it that you could easily understand their point.
This thing I just read? It's gibberish in places. There's passages I had to read several times to try and make sense of them. They're citing cases and I have no idea what that case was about or how the passage they cited relates to ... anything, really. Like:
What?
The entire document is riddled with notions of "facts", like, there's "questions of facts", "issues of fact", "the existence of facts within the plaintiff's work" and I have no clue what that even means. The "refutation", if you want to call it that, of the games characters not being to generic is this:
followed by a side by side of pictures of the characters from show and game. And that's it. In it's entirety. It has it's own header. Well, convincing point well made. /s
And while we are at it, perfect place to mention the mistakes. Like the passage I just quoted appears again towards the end of the document with a slightly different header and the sentence "the similarities here are striking" added. And there's a factual error where they try to argue that it doesn't matter that the hug sequence was only published in July 2017 and Discovery came out in October 2017. That would be September 2017. And don't get me started that they again claim that CBS "admitted" to copying them. Which, noooooo?
I could go on (it's a goldmine) but I feel like I have already sacrificed enough of my time and sanity to this. Please, read it yourself folks, so that I mustn't suffer alone.
That’s just word salad. I felt brain cells die as I read that short passage.
100% agree. My head hurt reading it. It was very disjointed and the section with the pictures of the characters was in there twice for some reason. It was really poorly constructed and written. I’m not a lawyer but it was hard to read not because of leagalese but because it didn’t flow well.
as you stated in several sections it was hard to even tell what they were refuting. It read or as here’s a bunch of random facts.
And the whole “cbs admitted copying” because of a statement that cbs was assuming facts true for purpose of the motion is simply how a motion to dismiss is handled - it assumes plaintiff is right. It isn’t cbs admitting anything which is just a nonsensical argument.
yes he’s losing the appeal but I wouldn’t be shocked if the opinion is pretty scathing and even questions why this was ever appealed.
If anything the response shows the difference between GOOD Lawyers (who know what they're doing (like the team working for CBS) and BAD Lawyers who just want to put a show on for the client to make them feel all those billable hours they're charged for wasn't a waste.
The factual errors when the lawyer can't even get the premiere date of ST: D correct (something he could Google in 30 seconds or less) - plus the arguments that either don't make sense OR have already been ruled on with the Judge stating the legal basis for said ruling; just shows at this point, Abdin's lawyer is just putting on a show (and not a good one at that) for his client.
The factual errors when the lawyer can't even get the premiere date of ST: D correct (something he could Google in 30 seconds or less) - plus the arguments that either don't make sense OR have already been ruled on with the Judge stating the legal basis for said ruling; just shows at this point, Abdin's lawyer is just putting on a show (and not a good one at that) for his client.
Last edited:
his lawyers can’t even number his exhibits properly. They had to file a letter to the court indicating they numbered them wrong.
His lawyers are very incompetent. Did they get their degree from a Crackerjack box?
Imagine they would have gotten a decoder ring instead! Maybe this whole mess could have been avoided if his legal team had been sent on a different path.
- Status
Similar threads
