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
summary_replies [2016/12/13 13:08] – [Inspirations for 'Axanar'] format fix Carlos Pedrazasummary_replies [2018/07/03 18:53] (current) – [Misleading Financial Information] Carlos Pedraza
Line 24: Line 24:
 {{page>summary judgment box}} {{page>summary judgment box}}
  
-[{{ ::summary-timeline.png?direct&300|**THIS TIMELINE** lays out events for each side's motion for summary judgment scheduled for a hearing December 19 before Judge R. Gary Klausner. //Click the image to view full size.//}}]+[{{ ::summary-timeline-2.png?direct&300|**THIS TIMELINE** lays out events for each side's motion for summary judgment to be decided by federal Judge R. Gary Klausner. //Click the image to view full size.//}}]
  
 For the defendants' part, their goal — in addition to successfully arguing Axanar's depiction of Star Trek constitutes fair use — was to derail the studios' attempt to get a partial summary judgment by proving the material facts they alleged remain in dispute and should be decided by a jury. For the defendants' part, their goal — in addition to successfully arguing Axanar's depiction of Star Trek constitutes fair use — was to derail the studios' attempt to get a partial summary judgment by proving the material facts they alleged remain in dispute and should be decided by a jury.
Line 170: Line 170:
 ==== Axanar's Money is Gone ==== ==== Axanar's Money is Gone ====
  
-In a report prepared by its expert financial witness, certified public accountant Christian Tregellis, the defense disclosed Axanar had earned $1,428,902.43 from January 2014-October 2016. The same document showed Peters had spent $1,433,003.67 in that same period, incurring a $4,131.24 deficit((Expert Report of Christian Tregellis, CPA, ABV, CFF, CLP, Hemming Morse, LLP, p. 15, 12/5/16.)) — consistent with [[annual_report#deficits|overspending previously documented]] by AxaMonitor's analysis of Axanar's 2015 financial report.+In a report prepared by its expert financial witness, certified public accountant Christian Tregillis, the defense disclosed Axanar had earned $1,428,902.43 from January 2014-October 2016. The same document showed Peters had spent $1,433,003.67 in that same period, incurring a $4,131.24 deficit((Expert Report of Christian Tregillis, CPA, ABV, CFF, CLP, Hemming Morse, LLP, p. 15, 12/5/16.)) — consistent with [[annual_report#deficits|overspending previously documented]] by AxaMonitor's analysis of Axanar's 2015 financial report. 
 + 
 +<wrap lo>**//See also: [[studio-financials|Axanar's Thin Financial Report and a New Crowdfund Campaign]]//**</wrap> 
  
 ==== Mockumentary Isn't New ==== ==== Mockumentary Isn't New ====
Line 198: Line 201:
 > The memories and experiences of those shows and movies are not something that is tangible [that could be provided according to the subpoena demand], as I rely on my experience and memory when creating fiction works.((Supplemental Declaration of Alec Peters in Support of Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [redacted], docket 105.8, p. 1, 12/5/16.)) > The memories and experiences of those shows and movies are not something that is tangible [that could be provided according to the subpoena demand], as I rely on my experience and memory when creating fiction works.((Supplemental Declaration of Alec Peters in Support of Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [redacted], docket 105.8, p. 1, 12/5/16.))
  
-Peters further disclaimed his reliance on the sourcebook, "The Four Years War," part of the copyrighted Star Trek Role-Playing Game produced by FASA under license by Paramount Pictures, stating that he made minimal use of it. The plaintiffs discounted that new claims, stating:+Peters further disclaimed his reliance on the sourcebook, "The Four Years War," part of the copyrighted Star Trek Role-Playing Game produced by FASA under license by Paramount Pictures, stating that he made minimal use of it. The plaintiffs discounted that new claim, stating:
  
 > Defendants’ argument that The Four Years War was not used as source material ignores, and fails to refute, the testimony of Prelude’s director, Christian Gossett, that Peters used The Four Years War supplement as a “bible,” or the email describing it as such.((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, docket 102.1 ¶34, pp. 22-23, 12/5/16.)) > Defendants’ argument that The Four Years War was not used as source material ignores, and fails to refute, the testimony of Prelude’s director, Christian Gossett, that Peters used The Four Years War supplement as a “bible,” or the email describing it as such.((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, docket 102.1 ¶34, pp. 22-23, 12/5/16.))
Line 206: Line 209:
 In addressing Peters' spending of donors' money, the plaintiffs pointed to two different financial summaries he produced in [[discovery]] — one of which divulged extensive personal spending from donor money raised to produce //Axanar//, and a later version in which those expenses were excluded. In addressing Peters' spending of donors' money, the plaintiffs pointed to two different financial summaries he produced in [[discovery]] — one of which divulged extensive personal spending from donor money raised to produce //Axanar//, and a later version in which those expenses were excluded.
  
-<wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' Shocking Personal Spending in Asking Judge for Summary Judgment]]//</wrap>+**<wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_motions_filed|Plaintiffs Cite Peters' Shocking Personal Spending in Asking Judge for Summary Judgment]]//</wrap>**
  
 Though defendants' precise reaction to the two financial summaries was redacted, the remaining text made clear what the plaintiffs thought of Peters' action: Though defendants' precise reaction to the two financial summaries was redacted, the remaining text made clear what the plaintiffs thought of Peters' action: