Defense Resists Releasing Axanar’s ‘Embarrassing’ Records of Spending Donor Funds

In a flurry of documents filed in court on October 27, attorneys for CBS and Paramount castigated the defense for refusing a second deposition of Alec Peters after confirming AxaMonitor‘s report the Axanar producer withheld documents subpoenaed in the copyright suit he faces.

In a 19-page request to federal magistrate Charles Eick, the studios’ attorney, Jennifer Jason, also asked Eick to remove the “highly confidential” designation of Axanar’s financial summary after the defense argued that “public disclosure of the ways in which Mr. Peters spent funds from Star Trek fans could cause embarrassment for [him].” You can read the entire document here:

Following Peters’ disclosure in his own October 19 deposition, the plaintiffs also sought a log of privileged communications between Peters and his former legal counsel prior to the filing of the copyright infringement lawsuit in December 2015, about which current attorney, Erin Ranahan, had previously stated, “We are not withholding anything from before the lawsuit was filed as privileged.”

The court filings confirmed AxaMonitor‘s report earlier in the week that, despite winning a court order compelling plaintiffs to provide records, the defendants had run into their own discovery trouble, particularly with emails.

In a related development, an exhibit in the filing had Ranahan publicly confirming that Star Trek producer J.J. Abrams and director Justin Lin were scheduled to be deposed in the case after they got involved in the case several months before.

AxaMonitor unsuccessfully attempted to contact Axanar’s spokesman for comment on the allegations late Thursday night.

Discovering the Missing Emails

According to Jason’s court statement, the missing emails came up in the course of the October 22 deposition of Prelude to Axanar director Christian Gossett, in which it became plain Peters engaged in discussions about the production of the Axanar works that had not been disclosed:

Gossett produced thousands of pages of documents, which included hundreds of emails between himself and Mr. Peters. These emails were not produced by Mr. Peters, who hardly produced any emails between himself and his creative collaborators.

In an October 26 email to Ranahan, Grossman described Peters’ the missing emails as “improperly withheld … emails that go to the heart of the claims in this case.”

‘Prelude” Director Christian Gossett

Gossett resigned from Axanar in May 2015 amid concerns about Peters’ spending of donor funds and management of the project that he detailed in an interview with the G&T Show. Robert Meyer Burnett, the editor of Prelude, was named director of the feature, Axanar, shortly thereafter.

Deposing Peters Again

Jason’s court statement asked the federal magistrate to order Peters to appear at a second deposition after his attorney refused to allow it. She quoted the declaration made by her fellow attorney David Grossman:

The day prior to his deposition, Mr. Gossett produced thousands of pages of documents, including hundreds of emails between himself and Mr. Peters (as well as other source documents showing the material that was used to create the Axanar Works). … The majority of these documents were communications between Mr. Gossett and Alec Peters. …. Virtually none of these documents were produced by Mr. Peters.

This contradicted testimony provided by Peters in his deposition:

Mr. Peters produced emails from that same email account, from the same time period, and he also testified that he did not delete substantive emails with Mr. Gossett.

Because of all this new information, the studios’ attorneys asked to depose Peters again. Ranahan refused another open-ended deposition, imposing a two-hour time limit and only on subjects related to additional, unknown records she promised to deliver. Jason told the judge Ranahan also refused to certify that Peters had turned over everything he was instructed to in his subpoena.

Burnett’s Missing Emails, Social Media

Peters wasn’t the only deponent who withheld records stipulated to in his subpoena. Axanar director Burnett offered no emails between him and Peters and refused to supply the social media postings the subpoena had sought. Jason stated:

Mr. Burnett has not produced any documents or communications relating to his involvement with the Axanar project; Plaintiffs believe that the Court should order that Mr. Burnett and Mr. Peters certify that all responsive documents (including emails, social media and internet postings and text messages) have been produced.

Peters’ and Burnett’s social media postings were a particularly glaring omission given “their large social media presence.”  Ranahan said those postings were all “publicly available.”

Discovery Order

This new round of discovery disputes followed last week’s court order in which Axanar persuaded a judge to order CBS and Paramount to deliver to Axanar’s attorneys some records they had resisted handing over, including a fair amount of emails the defense complained to the judge it needed to make its case.

Earlier, Axanar’s surrogate blog, Fan Film Factor, gloated on October 25 that Peters had turned over 31,000 pages of documents to the plaintiffs’ attorney, contrasting that with the supposed non-responsiveness by the plaintiffs:

Axanar turned over pretty much everything the plaintiffs wanted … 31,000 pages of emails and documents. And that was probably enough to make the studios happy, as they did not request any additional documentation.

An October 26 email from Grossman to Ranahan made it clear the studios were far from happy, since those 31,000 records apparently did not the hundreds of emails about the production of the Axanar works that were revealed in Gossett’s deposition.

Financial Disclosure

The plaintiffs’ new filing sought to have the court lift the “attorneys’ eyes only” or “highly confidential” designations that had been granted under a previous protective order to Axanar’s financial documents showing how Peters had spent the donations he raised from Star Trek fans.

Embarrassing Disclosures

That order provided that financial information could be held confidential in order to prevent release that could imperil the parties’ business competitiveness. As a self-designated fan film, Axanar had no competitiveness to protect, the plaintiffs asserted:

The only basis offered by Defendants’ counsel for the failure to de-designate this document is that is that the material in that document may embarrass Mr. Peters by showing the ways in which he spent funds that were raised from Star Trek fans. This is not a proper basis for designating a document as Highly Confidential and Plaintiffs request that the Court order this document de-designated.

Jason’s statement went on to discuss what Peters was afraid of disclosing outside of attorneys’ purview:

That Mr. Peters does not want to reveal the amounts that he paid to himself and his colleagues, or the amounts he spent on personal expenses, is not a sufficient basis for restricting access to that information.
The Need for Financial Records

Faced with the waning days of the court-designated period for discovery, the plaintiffs argued that their case would be harmed if they couldn’t discuss Axanar’s finances with two upcoming deposition witnesses, one of whom was former chief technologist Terry McIntosh, now a vocal Axanar critic.

There are two remaining depositions in this matter, and Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if they are not able to provide this financial summary to actual and potential witnesses, as this document evidences the nature of Mr. Peters’ Star Trek production, which he has (in this lawsuit) mischaracterized as a “fan film” and a non-commercial enterprise.

McIntosh was scheduled to be deposed October 28 in Seattle.

‘Transparent and Accountable’

Jason argued Peters’ continued resistance to disclosure contradicted his public stance:

Mr. Peters previously disclosed, in a published report, the expenditures made on his first Star Trek film project, Prelude to Axanar. And in that financial disclosure document (which Mr. Peters inexplicably did not turn over in this lawsuit), Mr. Peters explained that: “[o]ne thing we at Axanar pride ourselves on is being the most transparent and accountable crowd-funded film out there.”
Privilege Log

Jason’s third request of the court was for a privilege log, a list of records the defense claimed are protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. Despite Ranahan’s earlier statement to the studios’ attorney that there were no privileged communications between Peters and legal counsel prior to the lawsuit, Peters confirmed in his deposition that he had, in fact, engaged and paid counsel in that time period. That was confirmed by Gossett in his deposition:

Mr. Gossett testified regarding documents that he produced (and Mr. Peters did not produce) showing that Mr. Peters had engaged counsel … to prepare agreements relating to the films, and other legal documents. … After [Ranahan’s] statement that no privilege communications existed prior to the filing of this lawsuit was proven incorrect, Plaintiffs requested that a privilege log be provided.
Revving Up the Spin Machine
Based on a tip from a source who spoke only on condition of anonymity, AxaMonitor had reported Axanar’s emerging discovery trouble in a tweet. Within a day, talking points were prepared and dispersed, starting with Peters’ favored blog for lawsuit news, Fan Film Factor, where Lane tried to address “the growing rumor that Alec Peters hadn’t turned over all his e-mails in discovery,” asking an anonymous lawyer “if that were something big and problematic.”

The Tweet

Both Lane and his anonymous source (dubbed “Legal Eagle”) assumed that missing emails were an issue raised at the October 21 discovery motion hearing and proceeded in an October 25 chat to dismiss the “rumor”:

LE: Were the alleged missing emails brought up in court?
JON: One was. At the end of his presentation, Jonathan Zavin mentioned that a few years ago, CBS had sent Alec Peters an email about fan films and it wasn’t in the e-mails he provided to them. …
LE: Why is that a problem? He probably deleted it. That email’s been gone for years. He didn’t have it to give them. JON: Well, I don’t know that for certain.
LE: Doesn’t matter. It’s not a big deal because they were the ones who sent it, so they already have it anyway.
JON: But this is the scandal du jour of the Axahaters. They’re making quite a big deal of it.
LE: That’s because they’re idiots. …
JON: So you’re saying this is a non-story.
LE: Completely. … If Alec deleted any of his emails and there’s no backup anywhere, then the emails no longer exist and he isn’t expected to produce them. I’m sure the plaintiffs said the same thing about some of the discovery they were asked to produce. It happens. You can’t force either party to produce something that doesn’t exist.
The Rumor That Wasn’t
Trouble is, the missing trove of missing emails — hundreds at least — weren’t revealed until Gossett’s deposition the day after the hearing. Other than the AxaMonitor report, the emails weren’t publicly known until the plaintiffs’ October 27 court filing. In the meantime, Axanar supporters were instructed how to address the “rumor” — even posting the talking points on forums where Carlos Pedraza posted on entirely unrelated subjects.

Meanwhile, Lane himself questioned the veracity of the AxaMonitor report:

I was in the courtroom. Carlos wasn’t. 🙂 … I’ve been asked about this ridiculous rumor for the past two days by half a dozen people. … To me the REAL big story here is asking where Carlos Pedraza is getting his inside information from. There were EIGHT people in that courtroom on Friday: me, Erin Rahanan and Kelly Oki from Winston & Strawn, Jonathan Zavin and David Grossman from Loeb & Loeb, the judge, the clerk, and the court stenographer.

I’m pretty sure the last three didn’t run and tell Carlos what was said during the hearing. I know that I didn’t tell him. I’m pretty sure Erin and Kelly didn’t tell him because, honestly, they don’t even tell ME jack shat! (And trust me, I’ve been trying!!!) So that leaves the Loeb & Loeb attorneys. I’m not sure which of them (or both) is feeding Carlos information about the case to disseminate to the masses, but the reason why is obvious: the studios need to find a way to drum up some support and sympathy from the fans. Carlos is a PR vehicle for them.

Loeb attorneys have not responded to AxaMonitor‘s repeated requests for interviews, just as Winston’s have not; Editor Carlos Pedraza has no relationship with any of the attorneys. We got our information the old-fashioned way: feet-on-the-beat reporting.

This article was originally posted at AxaMonitor.

newest oldest

This is like court room drama… soap opera…circus…. and the 2016 election all rolled into one

(cue Law & Order sound effect)

As someone who donated to Prelude and the full feature, I just want it to get made. I know there are legal implications on if Peters/others were drawing salary from funds, but frankly I don’t care if he pocketed all my money…. the end result was going to be a movie we wanted to see, it’s not like they took all the money with the intention of NOT making the movie.

I know there’s all sorts of legal stuff this is just one fans feelings.

Your comment seems oxymoronic…If someone is pocketing or otherwise spending all of the money on non-production related costs, how do you expect a film to be made? It takes money to make a film, which is why lots of donors are upset… because the money might not have gone to make Axanar…. it may have gone into the pockets of people like Peters/others, as you mention.

In one post you pretty much summed up the issue with crowd sourced funds. No accountability. Yeah, he kicked out a trailer, and if he blew the rest on Vegas weekends, expensive hookers and coke, you could keep shoveling cash his way forever and never, ever see the finished product.

“Vegas weekends, expensive hookers and coke” – If they make a Star Trek fan film about this, then I’ll watch it.

Could’ve been those Orion Girl and Harry Mudd-themed blow-up dolls.

As a lawyer, I can tell you with almost certainty that this movie will not get made, particularly as the Axanar side have already had to concede that the studios own the intellectual property in dispute. They are reduced to a fair use defence, and with the profit making, merchandising and considerable IP use it is highly unlikely that they will succeed.

As a donor you should monitor the situation as in the event that Axanar loses, as if they do they will be unable to deliver on their promises to you (arising out of a contractual relationship) and you will be entitled to claim your money back. Whether Peters will have any money left to pay you will remain to be seen.

El Chup,

Thanks. As a donor with a considerable financial stake in this mess, that is certainly my intent.

You actually gave these people money. There’s one born every minute….

Ted, there is a difference between a sucker like Nigerian email scams and someone with a good heart donating to something they believe in because the people behind it appear to be passionate. Don’t be a fracking ass.

@TheChadwick Here’s my question – can donors do anything legally about this? If you donate to something and it doesn’t happen – is there any legal footing (class action, Kickstarter rules)?

(sorry, I missed El Chup’s comment on this – Could Peters argue that the lawsuit was beyond his control and, therefore, he couldn’t finish Axanar?)

@scotchy I still wonder whether Peters deliberately poked the studios into a lawsuit. Not sure why he would have, but I can speculate. Publicity? To distract from misspending? To raise more money? Actual belief that Paramount would bring Axanar into the fold? No idea. Whatever the reason, he was insistent that this wasn’t a fan film, that it was what “the fans” wanted after Abrams’ mishandling of the franchise, and that it was the first in a series of professional non-Trek productions. He even said that they started their company with a Trek production because they knew fans wouldn’t donate to an original idea. He may deny all that here. Years ago, Martin Short did a slimy lawyer character, Nathan Thurm – and Peters and associates’ online comments sound a lot like him – Thurm:”I never said that, you said that.” If you complain about Peters tactics and actions, they argue, then you’re a hater of an award-winning production, a stooge for Pedraza, part of a coordinated smear campaign and you don’t understand art (“Sad!” one once said in a very Trump-like response). They never address the actual allegations. I still don’t understand what was stopping them from making this movie before the lawsuit. They’d raised a shit-load of money (have the amount of non-Kickstarter/crowd-funding donations been revealed?) but, as I can recall then, their blog was all about the acting school they’d set up, how they were decorating their offices at the new studio and pleas for more money.… Read more »

Guess I’m not a fan by Alec’s measure. Axanar doesn’t really interest me. I was never much into focusing on wars and battles in Star Trek. Makes great Drama in smaller doses, but as a fan of Trek it’s not what I ‘want’. I mean, it might have turned out great and I could have loved it, if it turned out to be about more than just a reason to throw a bunch of special effects at me.

I like it when Star Trek has some depth, focuses on the characters and the SFX come in a far second. The JJ films just aren’t as bad as they’re made out to be.

Honestly I think you hint at the real root of the conflict – former PTB upset their Trek bland has been up rooted to appease TOS (and DS9?) fans which in their eyes are unsophisticated war mongers for wanting to see the Enterprise treated as a heavy cruiser and the frontier being filled with cultures that just aren’t just humans in make up, greedy for their dilithium crystals? I think there is definitely some of that going on here. To paraphrase – why can’t TOS and DS9 fans just be happy watching holodeck detective stories and some Young and the Restless on the Enterprise.. in the 25th century and in Andromeda!?!? Why must it always be some sort of conflict – man vs nature, Federation vs Klingons, etc. Can’t we just get along?

Whatever merit Peters may have had, the wheels fall off if he was high rollering it on Kickstarter funds. This will never go to trial at this point.

I still remember Peters arguing that the salary (again, unclear to me how much other money/goods he and Diana were getting in total ) was barely a living wage in L.A. – as if that somehow makes it okay.

As a fan, I might have supported the guy (people make honest mistakes sometimes) if he didn’t seem intent on bringing down all of Star Trek with him – and then, it seems, after he has, he imagines that they’ll invite him to make the next Trek movie). I’m honestly reminded of Trump in all this.

The personalities of Peters and DJT seem remarkably similar. May their hubris be rewarded as tradition requires.

Wait… so they demanded that CBS/Paramount disclose every document regarding this absolute disaster yet they themselves want to shove, obviously incriminating and in their own words “embarrasing” documents under the rug and forget about them?

As a journalist, I find Mr. Pedraza’s writing to be an embarassment. He needs to learn what it means to be a journalist. His opinionated and innuendo filled articles are an embarassment to

AXANAR much there, ‘RVT’ … ? By the way, who do you write for?

As a professional journalist myself, I hold Pedraza’s work in high esteem based on his website and reporting here.


Re:By the way, who …

Apparently, an Army Vet -Thank you for your service, Rob- who’s single act of defiance in distributing the US Constitution on a college campus on Constitution Day turned a lot of campuses’ free speech restrictions on their ears?

Peters–I mean, Van Tuinen–you are not a journalist.

Van Tuinen might be real — misinformed or delusional, but it doesn’t write quite like AP.

He’s not a journalist.

The problem with some of these Axamonitor articles is that they seem to be too interested in calling out Peters’ stooge, Jonathan Lane, rather than simply sticking to the case. It betrays the fact that there’s clearly a little competition going on out there between rival parties over who can get one over the other.

Plus, quite simply, the time and investment that folks like Pedraza and others in the anti-Axanar cabal devote to this betray the fact that they have a very keen interest in seeing Peters & Co fall on their swords…and that desire is clearly much greater than simply wanting justice to be done. Pedraza for one is also a former fan film maker and likely had dealings with Peters, which were presumably unsavoury, through then mutual contact James Cawley, well before this case was ever issued. So I assume there is a hidden motivation there, even if not admitted.

El Chup,

Re: He’s not a journalist.

Pedraza definitely is not telling the whole story on fan productions calling themselves “not a fan film” and definitely misrepresents Axanar as the first and only one to do it with “obvious” professional ambitions:

“Of course the producers don’t really use the term ‘fanfilm’ at all, referring to it as an ‘independent film.’ They have big dreams for Of Gods and Men…they want CBS to license it as an official Star Trek product. They point out how CBS have put together ‘fan fiction’ into official trek book compellations [ sic ] (the ‘Strange New Worlds series) and see fan films as just the next logical step. Other fan films like Star Trek New Voyages have the same goal, but it appears according to our sources in CBS that OGaM is the test case.” — ” ‘Of Gods And Men’…The Other ‘Trek Movie’” | By: A. Pascale | October 5, 2006 | TrekMovie

“You’ll note from those dates [ Star Trek: New Voyages (2006-2009), and script supervisor for StarTrek: Of Gods and Men (2007)] that I left fan films before Alec Peters showed up at New Voyages, and I haven’t been active in the fan film community since.” — Carlos Pedraza

He claimed to me that his distance from those productions removed all bias from his reporting. But it seems to have also induced a convenient amnesia about these other STAR TREK “independent films'” “professional” ambitions.


That’s why I say that the main leaders of the anti-Axanar side of things aren’t coming at this entirely objectively…and the problem is that when you have them so prominent on the other side of things it just feeds into Peters’ narrative of “haters”. While I respect the effort Carlos puts into this, which is certainly vastly superior to anything Peters or the laughable Jonathan Lane have managed, it nonetheless still betrays the subjectivity of the writer – even if the manner is subtle.

There is, of course, the question of major hypocrisy as well. Although they aren’t the ones to be sued, the likes of New Voyages, Gods and Men, Continues and so on are all IP violators and all semi-professional productions. Although their profit making activities aren’t anywhere close to Axanar or as obvious, they were still paying people and still using professional talent. So it strikes me a bit rich to hold one’s self out as objective and in the interest of justice alone, while happy to have turned a blind eye to IP violations when CBS/Paramount hadn’t complained.

The vast majority of Axanar critics are pretty decent and balanced, and many are just folks who see Peters for what he is. But I am concerned that one or two of those driving the anti-Axanar side are people who have personal beefs with Peters, and, like I say, it just means they play into his narrative.

Call it hypocrisy if you wish. IP allows the owner to pick and choose what they will permit and what they won’t. It’s no different than real property in that sense. If there’s a guy hanging out on the corner of my property feeding the pigeons, I’m just as inclined to let him do it. If there’s another guy taking a leak in my bushes, I’m likely to have him hauled away. The only difference is, under the law if I let the pigeon guy hang out on my real property too long, I’ll have a harder time getting rid of him if I need to.

Curious Cadet,

El Chup and I aren’t discussing the hypocrisy of the case but the hypocrisy of supposed unbiased reporting that claims Peters brought all this on himself because he’s supposedly the only one to have crossed this or that line when clearly he wasn’t.

Besides, whether or not copyright let’s Paramount & CBS behave unfairly is irrelevant when clearly they are sensitive as to how they are perceived in this by the fans and consumers as it can impact on their public image which in turn impacts their being perceived as an acceptable entertainment choice. As Mr. Epi-pen learned: just because you have the legal right doesn’t mean the rest of us have to cowtow and let you profit from behaving so. Patents and copyrights only convey an opportunity to exclusively profit, it guarantees neither sales nor profits.

That’s rich, one only needs to look at the conduct and absolute corruption of the nation’s journalists to realize that the majority of them are less than honest and have their own political agendas. That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I think you’re right Woodstein….and it’s not just an American problem either.

What makes me laugh are newspapers that still print opinion pieces, when most newspapers are so obviously politically biased in their reporting it renders the very idea of an opinion piece superfluous.

I disagree, unless we’re talking about Breitbart etc. And there’s a difference between editorials/opinions pieces and reporting.

But not unexpected. TrekMovie has always had a bias leaning towards the studios.

And censorship, and liberalism. I’m just sayin’.

I’m a journalist. I think Pedraza does good work.


Re: I think Pedraza does good work.

Except when he embarrassingly serves, by his own definition, as a surrogate for the plaintiffs’ mischaracterizations instead of unbiased accuracy.

The word is put in quotations and is based on what is pleaded in the application, where the word embarrassment is used. What’s the problem?

Seems like a bunch of procedural stuff that isn’t necessarily dispositive of anything important.

Depends. If Peters is indeed hiding things it goes against his credibility as a witness.

El Chup Today 7:35 pm

Depends. If Peters is indeed hiding things it goes against his credibility as a witness.

Sure, but what’s he going to bear witness to that’s so important? In copyright law, it’s irrelevant whether the infringement was knowing or ignorant—at issue is the ownership of the IP and whether or not it was infringed upon. If this were a class action suit, where fraud was at issue, then Peters’ credibility would very much be at issue. But, for a copyright claim?

Cygnus-X1 (Excellent username, BTW) knowing (willfull) or ignorant infringement is absolutely an issue, the difference being statutory damages ranging from $200-$150,000 per infringing act. See 17 U.S. Code § 504(c)(2).

NO_YES October 29, 2016 2:21 pm

Ah, OK. The judge has discretion based on intent.

Thank you for that.

El Chup,

Does this prinicpal work both ways? Does it go against CBS/Paramount’s credibility that they haven’t produced ordered documents either, i.e. because they are “obviously” trying to hide something?

Also, is the Judge likely to look kindly to the plaintiff’s motions that Axanar’s not a fan film production when they want to charge them with copyright violations but ARE a fan film production when they want to compel public disclosure? Can they have it both ways?

It’s been a while but I thought I learned in Business Law that operating a business as a non-profit doesn’t automatically disqualify the entity from consideration as an operation with trade secrets that need to be protected from public disclosure. It doesn’t even automatically make it a charity, tax free or otherwise, as most assume.

Disinvited, There is a key difference here and that is that Peters has to respond to the claim that he is running a profit making business. Fan film, professional production…at the end of the day the IP infringement and the profit making are the main issues. Sure, you can say that the studios may have something to hide, but what? Are the Axanar team hoping that there is an internal email that says “yup, fan films to any extent are allowed”? That seems to me to be the only possible thing that would help them…and even then I’m not so sure it would as the IP still belongs to the studio and the court would have to consider whether or not, in spite of such an email, they were still entitled to claim infringement. In any event, I understand that the court has already given directions on this issue and part of the Axanar application was granted. In contrast, the Axanar team have to defend against the accusation that they are profit making using the IP. So the question of what may be being retained is different. If witnesses who previously worked on the project are producing thousands of documents and Peters & Burnett are not, then there can be no doubt that further documents existed and, even if they have been destroyed, at the very least Peters & Burnett should be deposed to explain why they did not address them in their first round of oral evidence. Bottom line… Read more »

I donated a few bucks for Prelude when the whole thing got started. Kept waiting for it to be completed and released. Decided after several months of waiting not to donate anymore. Just didn’t feel right. Even after Prelude was released, was still skeptical. Glad I kept my money.

They kept their word with Prelude, hence why I donated twice to the feature.

That’s what I did as well. Donated for Prelude, got my perks. Watched a few things happen that worried me and held off from donating for the film and then the flood gates opened. If nothing else, I enjoy Prelude for what it is but this just gets worse and worse. I hope for everyone’s sake this doesn’t go any deeper. It’s unfortunate to see this happen, especially during the 50th year.

Everything can be found on Anthony Wiener’s cell phone!

I just want my money back. It is obvious that this entire affair is a goat rope.

And this is the sad part. I think about how many people donated and on a very substantial level. I gave a bit for Prelude but I think about people who gave large amounts for the film, purchased the high-priced starship model, etc and they’ll never see the return on the money they gave. They were Trek fans (many purists) who just wanted something nice.

There should be no confidentiality regarding how Shifty Pete blew other people’s money on a fan project.

This dude’s shady dealings should be exposed like bacteria under a germicidal lamp.

Missing e-mails, subpoena… is this a presidential debate? What’s next? Has NAFTA killed Enterprise in 2005?

The sad thing is that I’m under the impression that all of this has got an impact on the progression of REAL Star Trek. Discovery being postponed because of this legal “discovery” phase? Brian Fuller stepping down as executive producer just days after an important court decision? I smell a rat there…

‘Discovery’ is merely coincidentally the term lawyers use to describe the searching through documents and precident cases for relevant information. Its not a reference to the new show…

“Brian Fuller stepping down as executive producer just days after an important court decision? I smell a rat there…”

I smell your tin foil hat.

In my opinion Axamonitor is doing a superb job! Peters should learn that he simply can’t get away with what he has done! In 50 years Star Trek fandom no one has ever had the audacity an disrespect to fans/donors that he had. Yes I accept that certain people will not like my comment. But freedom of speech is still our right! Sorry Alec Peters learn from your mistakes – I hope you never have something to do with Star Trek ever again.

“Peters should learn that he simply can’t get away with what he has done! ”

This is for the court to ultimately decide though. Not fans or former associates who have a personal grudge.

Assuming the Axanar crowd loses the case etc. etc., I wonder what will happen to the costumes, props and sets etc. Will Propwerx sell them off, will Paramount/CBS confiscate them, or will they be seized by the court to pay recompense for the donors or attorneys?

Niall Johnson,

You mean assuming CBS doesn’t license Peters’ set museum tours so that he can generate revenue to pay judgements and everyone else back?

There is zero chance CBS will ever license anything from Peters.

Honestly, licencing tours of half completed sets would be a lot more trouble than it’s worth. It would be some time before Paramount/CBS saw ROI.

Niall Johnson,

The precedent’s already been set. CBS did it for the infringing STAR TREK: NEW VOYAGES/PHASE 2’s RETRO STUDIO who didn’t only just likewise infringe but gave ORIGINAL STAR TREK DESILU set tours before they even had a license.

Besides, are you really sure you want to discount the licensed barker skills of a guy who could raise a cool mil unlicensed?

I is likely they would be ordered to destroy them. Selling them would defeat the purpose of the court’s judgment, Albeit, I suppose the studio copuld licence the sale on the basis that the funds would be used exclusively to pay off any judgment debt, but I doubt that would happen.

If they had just not tried making a movie using property that didn’t belong to them this never would have happened.

Ted C,

This is bogus, because it tries to create the fiction that Peters was the first and only with the ambition to do so when clearly:

That was not the case.

Yeah, but they wouldn’t have raised 1/100th or a thousandth of what they did w/o the trek name on it. Folks who are used to getting away with stuff keep on trying till forcibly put down.


Re: Folks who are used to getting away with stuff keep on trying till forcibly put down.

Clearly, not the operating principle for CBS where my previous cite shows those who have been continuing all their infringing activity since 2006 with the sole goal of getting a license from CBS, culminating in this tickets sold unlicensed Trekonderoga activity on Labor Day Weekend of 2015:

were NOT forcibly shut down as you claim is the appropriate response but instead given a license:

in July of the following year.

One instance doesn’t excuse the other. I only know about trekonderoga from your posts, but I’ve read tons about Peters’ behavior on the auction house front as well as this.


Re: One instance doesn’t excuse the other.

Agreed, but if I read your stated principle correctly the one that’s been infringing the longer and more repeatedly actually getting multiple movies produced deserves the swifter and more severe smack down and NOT a permit to legitimately continue on cashing in on the brand?

Re:I only know about trekonderoga from your posts

And that could be because I had to dig it out of the internet archive as the postings documenting those unsanctioned activities were removed from the STAR TREK NEW VOYAGES site:

Re: I’ve read tons about Peters’ behavior on the auction house front

As have I, but that’s a matter for another court as that has no bearing on the copyright case law which is being litigated in the case being discussed here. And is on the level of me responding: but I’ve read tons on Brad Grey’s behavior in hiring Anthony Pellicano as his personal dirty trickster on the private investigator front.

It may be on that level, but that is where I’m living with regard to this: Peters is one of the Bad Guys, and perhaps even worse, has apparently managed to do a Snoke-job on RMB to turn him into a corrupt mess.


Re: Peters is one of the Bad Guys

Again, unless you want to try to argue to me that Brad Grey never turned talent into a corrupt mess, they both are and that’s where I’m living with regard to this.

Is Brad Grey the guy who ripped off Gary Shandling? I remember that name in association with LARRY SANDERS, and that Shandling’s affairs were ill-managed in a pretty vile fashion.


Re: Grey the guy who ripped off Gary Shandling?

You have correctly identified the perp and one of his vile acts.

Am thinking Peters and RMB should be volunteering for that mars mission getting talked up – they can play ‘Space Seed’ and hope to wake up in a world that is even more gullible than this one … “we offered the [trek] world ORDER!”

kmart Today 6:31 am

You know what, I actually think that your Alec Peters as the Khan of the Trek fan film community premise isn’t half bad. Though, it wasn’t as though Peters was trying to control the other fan film productions… until the end, maybe, when he started trying to negotiate with CBS over their “Guidelines.” A more fitting application of the Khan analogy, though, would be the coup that JJ Abrams tried to pull immediately after STID. He really did try to take over all of Trek. Fortunately, CBS thwarted his attempt, which is when he decided that he wasn’t so “loyal to Star Trek” after all, and decided to do Star Wars.

Disappointing… almost broken hearted. I really loved Prelude. It had heart, intrigue, and excellent casting. However… this development really seems to make this out to be a negative disaster.

I will be so glad when this is all over and we can stop seeing Peters’ name on this site. He’s irrelevant.

I hate to feed his ego, but one thing he isn’t is irrelevant. He may well have inadvertently changed the face of fan films, based on major franchises, forever.

For the Alec Peters sycophants you would think the revelation that Peters own attorney says it would be “embarrassing” to reveal what donor money was spent on would open their eyes.

D.J. Ammons,

This was a third hand report of a second hand characterization of Peters attorney’s representation by the plaintiff’s attorney’s who previously were “shocked” that the defendant would make self-serving motions and representations. Is anyone shocked that the plaintiffs might make self-serving representations?

We won’t be able to judge how fair the characterization was until either the defense responds, the judge rules, or we see transcripts of the actual deposition.

D.J. Ammons,

As you can see in the defense response here:

There’s no truth to the assertion that Peters’ attorney said that. It was just a self-serving mischaracterization by the plaintiffs’ attorney.

“Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants’ designation is based on “embarrassment” is utterly false and ignores the actual reasons.” — Axanar attorney Erin Ranahan

It will be interesting to see if this article’s misleading title gets corrected.

Alec Peters reminds me of a terrible chess player who refuses to resign and aimlessly stretches out a lost game for as long as possible.

This has gotten ridiculous. Its a fan film but CBS owns the rights. Time to just call it a day the film isn’t getting made and the people who donated are out of money. Sucks for them but yeah you are always taking that risks on stuff like this.

Alec Peters was sued and he had the ability to fight back. Better than just rolling over and capitulating. And, yes, all crowdfunding ventures are a risk as there is no guarantee of satisfaction.

Atoz the Unforgettable

Is anyone else hoping Peters used the crowdfunding revenue to buy Austin Powers’ penis enlarger pump? This soap opera needs to make the full pivot to farce.

That’s not my bag, baby. Oh wait.

Puts a whole new meaning to “mini me”.

This post I think just goes to show how embarrassing it is that the Axanar team was able to excite fans in a way that CBS/Paramount despite spending tens of millions of dollars and owning the IP to the point that they not only are taking unprecedented legal action (which even JJ thought wasn’t par for the course) but a creepy PR campaign that does nothing but expose that the one thing CBS / Paramount did right is take away the keys – hopefully there are lessons learned here for the new show runners (lessons I think Nick Meyer already knows – I doesn’t matter how much bland Trek they made, they ran the audience to the ground to the point Axanar is the biggest news impacting Trek (how sad is that?), keep them as far away as possible. They were fired for a reason, the only concern you should have is why did it take 30 years?).

Correction, Axanar excited a mere fraction of the fan base, which numbers more than three million. The idea that Axanar somehow represents the majority of fans and that this is some sort of fans vs big bad corporation situation is just emotional rhetoric advanced by Peters to get himself support. But in reality those wanting the Axanar film, or who even knew about it, amount to 10k – 20k fans at best. The idea that it is any way overshadows the official output is just wishful thinking.

@El Chup. Exactly, 15,000ish donors (not sure if there are repeats there). That’s not enough viewers to float a mid-market local 5pm newscast, let alone a multi-million-dollar franchise.

@ Cmd. Took away the keys from whom? Bad Robot is still involved in the new show. Who got fired? And, even if they did, what the heck does it have to do with Axanar?

And I still disagree that Beyond bombed. It wasn’t Force Awakens money, but it brought in $340 million worldwide in a tepid summer – and, domestically, was the 14th biggest earner in the last 365 days (above hundreds of other movies, including X-Men and independence day). And even if it was a disappointment, I think it’s fantasy to think that Axanar had anything to do with it.

The three Bad Robot movies have brought in $1.2 billion worldwide.


Bad Robot is not involved in Discovery. Alex Kurtzman and Heather Kadin are affiliated with Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout productions, not Bad Robot. Even then, we don’t know if Discovery will be produced by any television production company beyond CBS.

@John. Ah, okay. Thanks. Some bad googling on my part.

Hey, look. Over 2.6 million views! Sure, some watched it more than once, so let’s say, 1.75 million viewers. That’s a lot of excitement! And, it seems neither CBS or Paramount are upset enough about Axanar to ask Youtube to take it down. Can it really be that bothersoe to them, or is it really good advertising for their own product?

El Chup,

Wouldn’t you say that no matter how few, they still wielded enough economic power to get this lawsuit launched and in that respect, at least, they represent some significant faction to the plaintiffs?

Dis, I don’t think the lawsuit has anything to do with the NUMBER of fans; it’s to do with what Peters did with their money, whether there were 15,000 donors, or 50.


Re: I don’t think the lawsuit has anything to do with the NUMBER of fans

Well, the lawsuit has to do with copyright’s exclusive economic opportunity. What he does with their money after is irrelevant to that. What’s germane is did he unfairly deprive legitimate STAR TREK copyright holders’ of economic opportunities which were wrongly diverted to his ends?

Now in calculating damages the court can consider such things as deliberate misrepresentations by made by Peters in acquiring those funds.

It’s this fan mitigation that I really object to with this creepy PR campaign. Who really cares about Peters? What you see is that Paramount/CBS are trying to mitigate fans who were excited at the thought of Axanar with strategic use of starships, a more realistic and exciting universe styled on the TOS UFP, the Klingons as the “Soviet Union” of the 23rd century capable of matching the UFP and a struggle to keep the ideals of freedom, liberty and exploration in a universe filled with hardships, dilithium crystal shortages and where the Vulcans working with the Andorians is a miracle come true. This is the universe that had Trek fans buying technical manuals comparing the statistics of Constitution class cruisers wondering how the stack up with the D-7 battle crusier and where was Andor positioned in comparison with Vulcan, that loved the last twenty minutes of TWOK with starships maneuvering – Horatio Hornblower and “Wagon Train to the Stars”. My worry is that what really upsets Paramount CBS is that they are really upset that there are fans who want that Trek over their bland Trek. You only need to look at the numbers for Enterprise to see the fans jump in to watch the pilot excited by the concept to leave when they found out that there was already peace with the Klingons, starfleet command is always in contact with transporters and phasers. Imagine if that pilot had had a post WW3 Earth trying to get its act… Read more »

So glad I never donated to this disaster.

Mee, too!

If more Trek “fans” used their money to support Beyond instead of this cluster (you know what) we’d all be better off.

Carlos just put some stuff up about the tech guy’s deposition – it certainly sounds like it went CBS/Par’s way, hope that continues!


I would think the whole embarrassing reason for this misleading “embarrasing” article for trekmovie would warrant more attention?:

Her refutation is nonsense (interesting that she already admitted to AXANAR’s ex-techguy that they will NOT be repping Peters on any other legal matters) and for any semi-legit analysis of Carlos stuff, you oughta look at trekbbs, which is both more complete and funnier than the stuff here. If I didn’t despise the politics that plague that site with mods playing favorites, I’d still be posting there.


Re: they will NOT be repping Peters on any other legal matters

Not all that interesting, their expertise is “intellectual property”. Would not make sense for them to represent him in contract disputes, for example. Unless, you are hinting that you know some other copyright litigation heading his way from some other party?

Don’t know of anything, just that based on the wiser wags at trekbbs, it sounds like other litigation SHOULD be coming, for fraud-type stuff, assuming proper parties gets notified and have interest and/or motivation to pursue.

If their expertise is ‘intellectual property’ then I’m really REALLY not seeing their plan or endgame at all (which I suppose could point to real genius on their part that just hasn’t manifested.) The lawyerishness seems more like legalistic flailing in all directions than the considered approach of an expert.

Bingo. If Alec Peters is drawing money from the fund-raiser for his personal benefit, then all bets are off. And btw, you can forget about having AXANAR made. Even if CBS/Paramount were gracious enough to allow Peters to make his project, no actor will touch this thing with a ten-foot pole. Game over.

BTW, it doesn’t take a lot of money to do a sci-fi fan film, especially since there are resources already available for use (including sets from NV and Continues).


Doesn’t fund raising so that one can rebuild his Desilu-accurate sets in a new location allowing a Deslu-lot accurate layout for better filming and then shorlty after closing up shop and re-openning as a ticket selling Museum tour constitute the same thing, i.e. haven’t the funds raised to rebuild the sets at the new location been misappropriated?


If they have it is rendered moot by the granting of a licence. You need to consider that just because they didn’t take action against these productions previously, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t, and it doesn’t mean that Axanar isn’t doing what they accuse it of. Their failure to sue other productions is more likely to reduce awarded damages than lose them the case. IMO, the only thing that will defeat this case outright is a fair use argument, which I personally don’t think will be successful as Axanar borrows from the core elements of Trek and relies on it for it’s appeal.

El Chup,

Re: it is rendered moot by the granting of a licence.

Even thought the tours started unlicensed on the Labor Day weekend of 2015 to the tune of 300+ attendance and were not licensed until July of 2016?

Disinvited, Yes, the granting of a licence renders the unlicensed period moot. They have permission now so they’re not going to be retrospectively sued as the IP holder has, but it’s own choice, decided to grant the licence, and as the IP holder that’s their right, and they’re obviously not going to cut off the resulting income stream for practical reasons. That doesn’t mean such actions authorise any Tom, Dick or Harry to do whatever they want with their IP. Like I say, I think that it may impact recoverable damages, but it’s not a defence in toto in my opinion and if, of anything, a distraction from the core elements of the case, which are whether or not Axanar needed permission and, if they did, whether they mean income from the use of the IP. Plus, consider that those sets, even if built by donor funds, were never originally built with the intention of turning a profit so the situation is not like for like. The idea of set tours has come about, I believe, since New Voyages shut down….and, like I say, the granting of a licence makes a difference. In the case of Axanar there was no licence for their activities, they were advised that none was to be given prior to the litigation and Axanar wasn’t just about building sets, but also a backdoor studio, which the Axanar documents openly show would be used for future (presumably profit making) non-Trek productions. What’s more, Axanar was an… Read more »

El Chup,

Re: I’m really not sure what thoughts you’re having

I definitely understand that the copyright holder can arbitrarily proceed against one and not another in regards to their exclusive economic opportunity.

I’m just pondering what kind of damages is the court liable to levy against Peters if it turns out that he was targeted because he was perceived as an undesirable in regards to a fan film licensing fast track that this site’s owner reported that a CBS contact said they were interested in testing.

El Chup.


To be clear, I am not talking about misappropriating copyrighted works but fan donations that were raised for one purpose, to get films made at the new facility, but instead were used to prep it for historically accurate museum tours.

@ Disinvited

You have a point there, though I suspect that the reason why these other productions have not gotten much attention is that the fund-raising aspect has been specifically done to promote the ‘Trek franchise under the fair-use and non-profit status. I do not think any of these outfits are trying to profit from the franchise, and I do think that these outfits are doing their best to remain on CBS/Paramount’s “good side”. A good case could be made that Peters was trying to use the franchise as a back-door means to create a production studio that has nothing to do with ‘Trek. And personally, AXANAR could have partnered with the other outfits in order to create his fan film. That certainly did not warrant the need to have a $1M budget, if the fund-raiser was designed to cover the basic costs.

dswynne, Re: Peters was trying to use the franchise as a back-door means to create a production studio that has nothing to do with ‘Trek I thought the issue was that the studio would be put to other money charging uses than a fan film. El Chup explained how CBS licensing New Voyages’ Retro Studio for tours gave all the unsanctioned tours prior a pass. However the Trekonderoga site makes clear that Retro Studios was also and IS still being used for unlicensed Trek Conventions where tickets are being sold for the convention activity. Their 2015 convention report indicates it is also being used as a convention center. Some are speculating that this “fan convention” is being operated non-profit. All I know is I attended one of the Trimbles’ conventions back in the day and they made clear, up front and plastered all over, that they were operating non-profit and that all excess funds remaining after meeting expenses would go to a worthy children’s charity. I found no such indications on And you can see for yourself: No such claims are made for the convention or even the ancillary licensed STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES SET TOURs. There are exactly THREE mentions of non-profit or charitable activities and all describe entities other than the conventions or tours themselves: Barbara Luna, Erik Johnson and the Ticonderoga Revitalization Alliance. If I remember correctly going through old court reports, Paramount established that meeting personal out-of-pocket expenses is NOT a legitimate unlicensed… Read more »

Except Richard Hatch, who doesn’t realize the ship has gone down and that whatever happens with his hatch, open or closed, he is with a project that is completely underwater. Here’s to the fate of AXANAR: drowned buried AND cremated!

Guess you should’ve waiting for the Fan Film Factor blog. It was more informative and less biased

You have to be kidding?? Have you even read that blog? Lane writes as if it’s a court room drama movie of the week and demonstrates a complete lack of understand of the litigation process and of the law to anyone with even a little litigation expericne. In comparison Axamonitor is far superior, even if still wrapped up in bias and point scoring. Lane’s blog is just a joke, and if Peters wants a mouthpiece to promote his side of things he could do a lot better than Mr. Lane.

Context is important.
If I understand the situation correctly, Lane has been up front about all his connections, sources of information and the fact that he’s pro-Axanar and the fact that he’s not a legal expert. He said it himself. None of that is in dispute.
I think the problem is that “you” (and others that think like you) possibly have a PRECONCEPTION that he’s writing as a “neutral journalist, who thinks he’s a legal expert” and so that ALLOWS you to come down hard on his writing because of your imagined re-contextualising of his writings. He’s not claiming to be most of the things that people are loudly crying “he’s not !” about. Like being a legal expert. He’s not, he said, so and is just sharing information with people, even if its not in a Legal Professional way.

Well put – and honestly, I find Lanes blog much more interesting and factual then Padrosiz. They are both biased, and knowing so I would choose the one that is more interesting and fun to read and probably factual even better (he is at least conferring with legal people and try to get everythin as objective as he can). But I guess everybody just chooses to read the blog based on his personal bias.

Conferring with legal people? That’s probably a conversation with Peters as DeepThroat!


Peters’ c.v. lists a law degree. I don’t recall that he’s ever passed the bar or argued a case in court, but I suppose you are correct that he counts as “legal people”?


Re: Bar exam

FWIW according to Memory Alpha:

Peters did pass the bar but their only source for it is his PROPWORX bio.

I don’t know why but I lost track of the fact that he created his version of the Garth of Izar character for STAR TREK PHASE II.

Yeah, that’s why I suggested that. He could count as a legal resource for Lane.

Laven. He isn’t claiming it maybe, but Peters is, calling them the only source for accurate reporting, when it’s far from it.

at least closer then Pedrizos… :)

One has to wonder about the aggregate loss of money and time on this nonsense.

If none of us outside the court room know what’s on these emails how do you know they were ” embarrassing ” ? Here’s another article on the same subject.

Because tons of these emails and tweets have been reproduced elsewhere, and they’re damned near all embarrassing. Try wading through the trekbbs reproductions of these postings that have made it out into the mainstream, even though AXANAR can’t seem to find them. If CBS doesn’t grab stuff off trekbbs, then they aren’t playing this game as well as they need to.


Oh he’s embarrassed himself on this site plenty of times and directly in response to me when I pointed he there was no logic to what he was asserting.

But that’s not what the court considers in a protective order barring disclosure. In this case, the judge has to consider whether Peters’ business outside of “STAR TREK” may have a legitimate need to raise funds via kickstarter type sites? If so, to protect whatever acumen he has in such fundraising from competitors that might also be seeking those funds the court would likely slap a highly confidential tag on all his fund-raising.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the plaintiffs don’t get to see it — just that they have to take steps to not disclose it publicly

Geezus, it is no wonder I consider justice and the legal system to be as much apart from one another as personal ethics and the public diluted down version that constitutes general morality — my head AND stomach are hurting after reading that, Dis. And yet I kinda sorta understand the idea behind it, but it still seems like loopholeism in the extreme.

All this does is confirm what I’ve heard about Peters. I actually experienced a bit of it myself when he personally responded to an inquiry (pre-lawsuit) I made regarding how he was spending donors’ money. I was met with animosity, sarcasm, & insults. Peters has to be the rudest individual I’ve dealt with in recent memory.

Wow, you were so interested in Axanar you asked about spending donors money pre-lawsuit? When was that?? Glad to see all these posts aren’t some creepy PR campaign. What part of Axanar had you interested?

I wonder if the real root of the conflict isn’t even Axanar but former PTB upset their Trek bland has been up rooted to appease TOS (and DS9?) fans which in their eyes are unsophisticated war mongers for wanting to see the Enterprise treated as a heavy cruiser and the frontier being filled with dangerous unknowns and cultures that just aren’t just humans in make up, with the Federation greedy for their needed dilithium crystals? I think there is definitely some of that going on here. To paraphrase – “why can’t TOS and DS9 fans just be happy watching holodeck detective stories and some Young and the Restless on the Enterprise.. in the 25th century and in Andromeda where us humans teach the Q ?!? Why must it always be some sort of conflict – man vs nature, Federation vs Klingons, etc.” Seems like they are taking a lot of that frustration personally out on Axanar.

Well, seems plaintifs ex parte motion was mostly denied by the judge. CBS only got what defendants had already agreed upon. What a waste of time for the judge to read through countless pages for nothing…

That isn’t what happened at all. The application overall was denied, but Peters was ordered to sit for another deposition so any crowing from the Axanar side that it was some sort of victory is disingenuous.

El Chup,

What’s up with the judge not granting the plaintiffs requested prior confirmation:

“Plaintiffs are requesting that Mr. Peters and his counsel confirm that he
has produced all relevant emails, documents and social media postings
and, thereafter, sit for a further deposition…”*/0BzmetJxi-p0VcG9IQlJUd3E1ZmM?e=download

The judge ordered that the new deposition has no restriction on questions asked (paragraph 2 of your link), so those questions can presumably be asked during the course of it, thus rendering a separate direction unnecessary.

Of course, if you want a full explanation of his reasoning then you’d have to ask the judge!

El Chup,

Re:those questions can presumably be asked during the course of it

But doesn’t that then mean the 3 additional hours gets eaten away with objections and other challenges to relevancy by the defense as plaintiffs try to introduce new directions to the queries?

Yes, the judge loosened the leash but it hardly seems exactly what the plaintiffs were seeking in this?

Possibly because he is still pushing them so hard towards settlement? By limiting Peters’ exposure, he is limiting how well (or overwell) CBS/Par can prove its case, which seems unfair to me, but if he is really committed to forcing a settlement (which will disappoint the crap out of me and perhaps discourage other parties from reporting or taking action against Peters), this makes a quasi-kinda sense.

I was always angry that Paramount settled with Robert Abel and that they didn’t utterly ruin him in the biz for the condition he left TMP in when they finally ousted him, but that emotion will be nothing compared to the rage I’ll feel if they let Peters skate on this. I’d like to see him spend months in court dealing with with and decades laboring having to pay off those he has exploited. (in a perfect world, yeah, I know … )

Peters had already agreed to another deposition before the Ex Parte was submitted, so any crowing from the other side is disingenuous. The Defendant wanted a two-hour max depo and the plaintiff wanted unlimited time to depose. The Judge said five hours, a compromise.

Wrong Two Cents, Peters offered a two hour restricted deposition. When the judge ordered is quite more than that.

Disinvited – No, of course it isn’t exactly what they wanted. It’s only part of it. Point is that it isn’t really a “victory” for either party. It is an interim application, which the judge has granted only partially. So each party got something out of it.

El Chup, you said I was wrong then corrected me by pretty much saying what I said.

I am betting that both Peters and Burnett are Hillary Clinton fans as they are emulating her e-mail and subpoena practices. This whole thing smacks of impropriety on Peter’s part. As a donor, I would like very much to see how he is spending the money I donated to make a fan film.


The fact that Peters legitimately raised funds to restore the original Desilu STAR TREK set full scale stage mock-up of the Galileo shuttlecraft would seem to make it unlikely this judge will allow the information that you seek to be made public.

Your desire would likely be better realized if you and all the other donors like you, who suspect Peters may have misappropriated your donations, banded together under a class action lawsuit against him.

He’s experienced at going bankrupt so chances of you prevailing and getting your funds returned are likely slim. However, he does seem a sloppy businessman in the Axanar project; if he co-mingled those funds with accounts from his last bankruptcy you might be protected under the fact that he can’t file for bankruptcy again for seven years after.

In seeking further info I discovered this Peters’ post from July 28 of 2014 where he asserts about another kickstarter he ran:

“…([Star Trek: Phase II Kickstarter] which I ran for Phase II)…

I am a producer on Star Trek Phase II.

Phase II productions is a user name. The Production company is “Retro Film Studios”, which is 100% owned by James Cawley, who asked me to do this Kickstarter for him.

While all of the money went to a separate account I own, it was immediately used to pay Phase II bills at the direction of James Cawley, the Executive Producer and owner of Phase II.
…” – Alec Peters

The class-action thing might actually start happening now, trekbbs just reposted some Axanar fan who is calling for others to join in on one. I imagine AP will just spin this as ‘dumb peasant villagers storming Frankenstein’s castle’ but I love the idea of this guy finding no safe haven, despite wherever he may turn. Could be that Christian’s emails get re-used against AP in this kind of action, since the court doesn’t seem to have been able to compel AP and RMB to cough up anywhere near the volume of correspondence they got from somebody who has been out of this whole thing for so long.

I find the coverage of here very biased and lackluster. Actually almost every article I read on the topic here was posted by Carlos Pedraza and seems to be copied from his website axamonitor. I have read the website too and you can see a clear personal grudge and obsession in the coverage. That somebody would create a website and write hundreds of articles over years shows that the author has clear goal for his work.

Please do not republish articles by Mr Pedraza on this topic anymore. His work is not journalism, it’s an opinion heavily influenced by spiteful emotion.


If you are looking for less spin filled reporting on the topic, I recommend GeekNation:

However, Axamontior and Fan Film Factor together make good bookends if you want to see it examined from widely differing perspectives.

Fan Film Factor is done by somebody who acknowledges on a legal doc to be a writer for AXANAR, but hasn’t yet admitted to being a puppet with AP’s hand up his backside. No spin there, right?


Re: No spin there, right?

You are aware that legal docs show that Carlos Pedraza was likewise a writer for the infringing RETRO STUDIOS.

Alec Peters says he ran a kickstarter fundraiser for RETRO STUDIOS’ Phase II.

Pedraza says his path never crossed with Peters.

I find his inability to compare Peters’ fundraising activity for RETRO with what Peters did for Ares, troubling.

Man, the stuff coming out in the last couple of days is reslly damning (check trekbbs or Carlos’ site) … using axanar funds to pay for AAA dues and everything else under the sun … trying to sell it to NETFLIX! Peters and Burnette had to have been more crazy than I imagined to be so delusional with respect to copyright and just plain what is right … I hope the donors go to the law about how their donations got spent, it sounds like propworx never paid a cent for rent to axanar either.


You may want to check out today’s motions. Carlos isn’t that biased. Seems as if the money was all spent on wining, dining, travel, car tires, health insurance, cell phones. Just not a movie. Oh and trying to pitch it to Netflix and Amazon. Unreal.