Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
default_judgment [2019/05/30 18:41] – Carlos Pedrazadefault_judgment [2019/06/06 19:18] (current) – updated axanar blog link to webarchive version; Peters has removed his victory claim from the blog as it appears today. Carlos Pedraza
Line 1: Line 1:
-[splash image]\\ +{{::alec-and-rob-split-600x423-1.jpg|}} 
-<fs smaller>[cutline]</fs> <fs x-small>//Source//</fs>+<fs smaller>**FORMER FRIENDS** Alec Peters and Robert Meyer Burnett stood together defending Axanar in the landmark copyright infringement lawsuit brought by CBS and Paramount Pictures. Today, they're bitter enemies.</fs> <fs x-small>//Image/Axanar Productions//</fs>
  
 <fs x-small>MAY 30, 2019<wrap indent> | </wrap><wrap indent> 3 MIN READ</wrap></fs> <fs x-small>MAY 30, 2019<wrap indent> | </wrap><wrap indent> 3 MIN READ</wrap></fs>
Line 6: Line 6:
 ====== Peters Claims Spurious Victory in Burnett Lawsuit ====== ====== Peters Claims Spurious Victory in Burnett Lawsuit ======
  
-<font inherit/inherit;;#c0392b;;inherit><fs larger>**AxaFact Checker**</fs></font>\\ +<WRAP>//**__<wrap em>AxaFact Checker</wrap>__**//</WRAP> 
-Has Alec Peters really won his case against former Axanar director Robert Meyer Burnett? Peters makes that claim in a blog yesterday, but Georgia state law says different. Here’s our analysis.+<fs larger>Has Alec Peters really won his case against former Axanar director Robert Meyer Burnett? While Peters has made that claim, Georgia state law says something different. Here’s our analysis.</fs>
  
-<WRAP left round box>+<WRAP left box>
 {{::mudd.png?40 |}}{{::mudd.png?40 |}}{{::mudd.png?40 |}} {{::mudd.png?40 |}}{{::mudd.png?40 |}}{{::mudd.png?40 |}}
-<fs smaller>**Three Mudds — Mostly false**. //Statements may be technically correct but so taken out of context as to significantly mislead.//</fs>+<fs smaller>**MOSTLY FALSE**. //AxaMonitor's three-Mudds rating is for statements that may be technically correct but so taken out of context as to significantly mislead.//</fs>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 {{TOC}}{{page>byline}} {{TOC}}{{page>byline}}
  
-**Alec Peters claims** he's won a default judgment in his lawsuit against former Axanar director Robert Meyer Burnett, in which his primary goal is getting the digital assets he needs to produce the Axanar short films.+**Alec Peters claims** he's [[https://web.archive.org/web/20190529222730/https://axanarproductions.com/why-axanar-sued-robert-meyer-burnett//|won a default judgment]] in his [[peters_sues_burnett|lawsuit]] against former Axanar director Robert Meyer Burnett, in which his primary goal is getting the digital assets he needs to produce the Axanar short films.
  
-{{page>subscribe}}{{page>see also}}+{{page>subscribe}} 
 +<WRAP center 90%> <fs smaller>**//See also: [[burnett_responds|Burnett Attorney Demands Peters Refrain from Defamation]]//** </fs> </WRAP>
  
 ===== Default Judgment ===== ===== Default Judgment =====
Line 27: Line 28:
  
 Peters says Robert Meyer Burnett failed to respond to his legal complaint, filed in Georgia state court, before the deadline, so he thinks he's won. Peters says Robert Meyer Burnett failed to respond to his legal complaint, filed in Georgia state court, before the deadline, so he thinks he's won.
 +
 +{{page>fact check}}
  
 However, the Georgia court's online database is undergoing extensive maintenance, so confirmation on the case's status must wait for business hours. Meanwhile, it's possible Peters has miscounted how many days Burnett had to file a response and is assuming he’s entitled to a default judgment. However, the Georgia court's online database is undergoing extensive maintenance, so confirmation on the case's status must wait for business hours. Meanwhile, it's possible Peters has miscounted how many days Burnett had to file a response and is assuming he’s entitled to a default judgment.
Line 33: Line 36:
  
 Under Georgia law, Burnett is entitled 15 days after the default judgment was entered to re-open the case; the court is then required to hear Burnett’s case. Under Georgia law, Burnett is entitled 15 days after the default judgment was entered to re-open the case; the court is then required to hear Burnett’s case.
 +
 +[{{ :captain-peters-1.jpg?100|**Alec Peters**}}]
  
 ===== Not Dead Yet ===== ===== Not Dead Yet =====
  
 Burnett has plenty of grounds to reverse a default judgment and reopen the case, even if he does miss the 15-day window to get it heard automatically. Of the three possible grounds under Georgia law, Burnett may be able to claim two: Burnett has plenty of grounds to reverse a default judgment and reopen the case, even if he does miss the 15-day window to get it heard automatically. Of the three possible grounds under Georgia law, Burnett may be able to claim two:
 +
 +[{{ :rmb_headshot-1.jpg?100|**Robert Meyer Burnett**}}]
 +
 <WRAP 95% center> <WRAP 95% center>
   - **Lack of personal jurisdiction** over the defendant. This means the defendant subject to the judgment is not a resident of Georgia and has no significant ties to Georgia. This has been an issue with Peters’ suit from the start, and none of his court filings have demonstrated why a Georgia court would have jurisdiction over a California resident over actions that didn’t occur in Georgia.   - **Lack of personal jurisdiction** over the defendant. This means the defendant subject to the judgment is not a resident of Georgia and has no significant ties to Georgia. This has been an issue with Peters’ suit from the start, and none of his court filings have demonstrated why a Georgia court would have jurisdiction over a California resident over actions that didn’t occur in Georgia.
   - **Lack of a valid claim**. This option requires the defendant to show that plaintiff's original pleadings did not actually state a valid claim under Georgia law and the defendant should not be liable.   - **Lack of a valid claim**. This option requires the defendant to show that plaintiff's original pleadings did not actually state a valid claim under Georgia law and the defendant should not be liable.
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 +
 +===== Years to Vacate Judgment =====
 +
 +Under Georgia law, once a defendant becomes aware of a default judgment, he must file a motion to vacate it within a reasonable time. “Reasonable time” apparently means three years. A court can vacate a judgment within three years from the original entry of judgment.
  
 <WRAP right round info 320px> <WRAP right round info 320px>
Line 48: Line 60:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-===== Three Years to Vacate =====+===== Fact Check Rating =====
  
-Under Georgia law, once a defendant becomes aware of a default judgment, he must file a motion to vacate it within a reasonable time. “Reasonable time” apparently means three years. A court can vacate a judgment within three years from the original entry of judgment.+Peters' blog is based on some accurate legal concepts — that Burnett has to have responded to the lawsuit by a certain deadline, and that if Burnett missed the deadline Peters is entitled to seek a default judgment, but that's not the same as winning the lawsuit. By making that claim, he's deliberately and significantly misleading the public, hence our three-Mudd rating, **Mostly False**. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
  
-{{page>footer}}{{tag>Peters_v._Burnett lawsuit Robert_Meyer_Burnett}}+<WRAP tip 90%> 
 +<wrap em>COMMENT & SHARE</wrap> \\ 
 +<wrap lo>Discuss this article in [[face>groups/axamonitor/permalink/643438052837712/|AxaMonitor's Facebook group]] or share on:</wrap>~~socialite~~ 
 +</WRAP> 
 +---- 
 +**Keywords** {{tag>fact_check Peters_v._Burnett lawsuit Robert_Meyer_Burnett}}