SDS Court case

[SithLord]

But if TE has assisted LFL in attempting to establish that AA does not have the original molds nor was responsible for creating the original designs....

Anything to back that up? LFL didn't have to astablish anything, AA handed it to them on a silver tray, case closed...


Then why is LFL trying now to add to the complaint AFTER it went into default? And why does it deal specifically with AA's contribution to the production and the nature of the molds he created?

it therefore remains to be determined if TE took that initiative to discredit AA's contribution to the production, or whether LFL asked TE to assist them on that initiative.

From a legal stand point TE's "opinion" would have little bearing on these claims he wasn't there in '76 and '77, it would only be "hearsay" and wouldn't hold much water if stated...

Please....you are saying his testimony means nothing to LFL? LFL would not ask him to assist as an expert unless they thought he had something important to contribute to the case.

From my own personal point of view, if LFL has to rely on TE, then they really have nothing themselves to go on.

Wrong, they didn't rely on TE, he gave a testimony based on his "opinons" and first hand knowledge after the case went to judgement, it was over already, what part of that don't you understand?

I understand. But what you seem to be avoiding is the implications of what TE has done here. To say...oh well it doesn't matter what TE did because AA would lose anyway?

The extent of his involvment is VERY minimal at best {{{ Start Speculation}}} more then likely limited to being a third party used for comparison of the SDS helmet to the real deals, and possibly the differences in the two... This is only a guess but he could also testify to what he saw in the archive in regards to possibly molds? {{{ End Speculation }}} Since the case NEVER went to the Discovery stage evidence beyond written testimony was and will never be submitted, thus the need for a third parties testimony if you want to "sneak" in some evidence you could have provided if it did go that far...


It doesn't matter what the exact nature of his involvement was....the fact is that he's testified against AA while being in a blatant conflict of interest. There are laws about that and you know it.

He has no first hand knowledge of what went down in '76 and '77 so anything he said in these regards would be voided by the courts as "hearsay" But, he might very well have first hand knowledge of discrepancies in regards to AA's testimony and claims since he has had one on one contact...

If he's compared AA's helmets to his original and the original(s) in the archives and pointed out the inaccuracies, that's no different, nor any more productive, than what the anti-SDS camp has attempted to do on this forum. And it still won't prove whether or not AA has the original molds (of the helmets...forget the armor as he only made replicas).

And you can jump up and down all day and scream foul, but from a real non-objective point of view HE IS one of the few people around that is anal and has the knowledge to spot the minute differences between helmets, inside and out and has inside knowledge of the real deals that very few do, due to his owing and handling multiple real deals... Like it or not he is one of a few people that the court would deem a real "expert" witnesses in regards to the helmets, since he has a history to back his knowledge...

What history? Selling helmets and armor? I'll grant him that he must know a lot about original helmets having owned two of them, and it would make sense from that point of view for LFL to get his opinion...that's not the point here...the point here is that he did it while being in conflict of interest. Do you understand?

LFL simply wants to secure rights to the imperial helmets that AA created and this is their only recourse.

What? Please...

Then what do you think? Who created them?

Just because the legal system interprets it to be true, doesn't make it true. You know that, Exoray, as well as anyone here. "Taken as being true"....is not the same as "factually true".

Sure I do but this topic is about the SDS legal trial and in that regards they are one in the same, no difference any longer in the Courts eyes...

You are free to believe what you want, but I have yet failed to see any "work in progress" pictures or evidence crediting AA with any design besides his word, all I see is finished or near finished vacuum pulls, and nobody including LFL denies he wasn't involved in the vacuum pulling process...

Neither have I seen any evidence of any "work in progress" from LFL, whereas we all have seen the photos of unfinished helmets/armor at SDS's shop. Trust me, I would love to see photos of the original scupture or original molds as much as you. Although I do have a good idea what they would look like. But then again, there's a lot more to the story than just what AA or LFL have stated....

 

[Lodril]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 07:19 PM) [snapback]1326824[/snapback]</div>

From a legal stand point TE's "opinion" would have little bearing on these claims he wasn't there in '76 and '77, it would only be "hearsay" and wouldn't hold much water if stated...[/b]

No offense, but that is actually a completely incorrect statement regarding the rules of evidence.

If he is, in fact, called as an expert witness, his testimony would be solely based on his opinion as an expert in whatever field he is supposed to be an expert on. So the entire testimony of an expert witness is always only opinion. In this instance, if things are as people seem to think, with TE offering expert testimony on whether the SDS molds are the originals used in the movies, then all he would be offering is his opinion on whether they were or were not those molds, based on whatever evidence LFL could give him (presumably SDS helmets, and whatever they had in their archives). An expert witness would compare these things and then give his opinion on whether they were the same or different.

The rules regarding hearsay are not at all applicable, at least as discussed so far. Those rules come into play when someone sees something, and someone else quotes them to prove what the other person saw. For example, if TE were a factual witness (and not an expert witness), and testified that he heard Harrison Ford say they were not the molds, that would be hearsay.

The bigger question with him as a witness is, as SithLord pointed out, his credibility. The credibility of witnesses, particularly expert witnesses, is always an important part of cross exam at trial. That's why most lawyers recommend not skipping the trial phase. :lol

As an aside on rhetorical structure... my countless observations of Internet controversies have led me to believe that if you adopt the pattern of quote/reply/quote/reply/etc in your reply posts, you've either lost the argument and are in denial, or at the very least have just run out of things to say. Coherent arguments are generally best expressed in solid chunks, rather than as a sort of call and response thing.

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(Lodril @ Sep 26 2006, 03:12 PM) [snapback]1326866[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 07:19 PM) [snapback]1326824[/snapback]

From a legal stand point TE's "opinion" would have little bearing on these claims he wasn't there in '76 and '77, it would only be "hearsay" and wouldn't hold much water if stated...[/b]

No offense, but that is actually a completely incorrect statement regarding the rules of evidence. [/b][/quote]

Read again what that reply was in context to...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

it therefore remains to be determined if TE took that initiative to discredit AA's contribution to the production[/b]

And I stand firm that TE testimony in regards to AA's involvment in the production in '76/'77 would carry little if any bearing...

 

[SithLord]

As an aside on rhetorical structure... my countless observations of Internet controversies have led me to believe that if you adopt the pattern of quote/reply/quote/reply/etc in your reply posts,

I believe this is a more streamlined approach .

you've either lost the argument and are in denial,


I would disagree. :lol

or at the very least have just run out of things to say.

Ok give me a minute and I'll have a reply to that one...... :confused

Coherent arguments are generally best expressed in solid chunks, rather than as a sort of call and response thing.

I rest my case.


Just kidding......hope you don't mind....it's nice to have another point of view...thanks for your input.

 

[Boba Debt]

Here's the part that chaffs my a$$.

TE originally contacted AA to make helmets from Original Molds.

AA decided not to work with him.

TE spent a lot of time and effort to discredit AA

TE testified against AA to prove that he didn't have the original molds.

If TE saw the molds and knew they were not original why would he want to work with AA to distribute "Helmets from the original molds" in the first place.

He either thought they were original and now he's lying.

Or he knew they weren't and was fine with assisting AA in a fraud against the community.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]1326833[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

So basically we're agreeing that TE did stick the knife into AA. But you're saying the damage was already done, so its okay.[/b]

Talk about putting a spin on it...

I have no idea what TE said...

If he said the truth then nope I don't and won't hold it against anyone for telling the truth regardless of how much it might hurt...

If his testimony was nothing short of kicking a down man with false statments then I would object...
[/b][/quote]

I'm glad to hear we can agree on something.

Cheers

Jez

 

[GINO]

I can tell you that while I was in talks with AA about producing stuff, he refused to show pics of anything he had. I took him at his word that he still had the originals, but I wanted to see pics to help identify which version of part he still had, (hero, vs. stunt, vs. sandtrooper, etc...) since there are many incarnations of these similar parts used in the filming. I also wanted to see what he had to identify any missing parts that he didn't have in case anything needed to be fabricated. He said not to worry, whatever pieces were missing, (and he did say some parts were missing but wouldn't say exactly which ones), he had planned to source from JJ.
I also suggested to him that once we take inventory of exactly what he had, that the next step would be to pursue a license solely for helmet replica production.
I never got to see his molds until much later and I also know that TE didn't get to see them until much later if at all.

So as much as I have no love for TE as of recent, I can definitively say that he hadn't planned on some master fraud scheme by being willing to keep AA's secret of not having original molds.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Sep 26 2006, 05:06 PM) [snapback]1326913[/snapback]</div>

I can tell you that while I was in talks with AA about producing stuff, he refused to show pics of anything he had. I took him at his word that he still had the originals, but I wanted to see pics to help identify which version of part he still had, (hero, vs. stunt, vs. sandtrooper, etc...) since there are many incarnations of these similar parts used in the filming. I also wanted to see what he had to identify any missing parts that he didn't have in case anything needed to be fabricated. He said not to worry, whatever pieces were missing, (and he did say some parts were missing but wouldn't say exactly which ones), he had planned to source from JJ.
I also suggested to him that once we take inventory of exactly what he had, that the next step would be to pursue a license solely for helmet replica production. For whatever reason, he wasn't interested.
I never got to see his molds until much later and I also know that TE didn't get to see them until much later if at all.

So as much as I have no love for TE as of recent, I can definitively say that he hadn't planned on some master fraud scheme by being willing to keep AA's secret of not having original molds.
[/b]

Let me see if I have this correct in my mind. You advised AA on the production of helmets, and AA was intending to source missing parts from Jason Joiner. Then you recommended that AA should pursue obtaining a license to produce helmets from LFL. Furthermore, TE was kind enough not to reveal AA's secret, namely, that the molds are not original. And then, both you and TE have seen AA's molds, but only later on. Mysteriously, AA decided to go about making helmets without seeking a license in spite of you encouraging him to do so? Is that how I'm reading this?

Firstly, if you don't mind me asking, I am curious as to the purpose of this post? The only item of relevance is that you say that TE has seen AA's molds and that you tried to advise AA to get a license to produce his helmets. Or is there something more to this?

 

[SithLord]

Please share it with us....

 

[CTF]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 27 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]1326809[/snapback]</div>

No one is saying (at least I think no one is saying) that TE is responsible for the action LFL took against AA. But if TE has assisted LFL in attempting to establish that AA does not have the original molds nor was responsible for creating the original designs....it therefore remains to be determined if TE took that initiative to discredit AA's contribution to the production, or whether LFL asked TE to assist them on that initiative. From my own personal point of view, if LFL has to rely on TE, then they really have nothing themselves to go on. LFL simply wants to secure rights to the imperial helmets that AA created and this is their only recourse.

Where was the front of the TIE fighter pilot helmet in McQuarries designs? Where was the Death Star Gunner helmet? How can McQuarrie's designs be translated into something that can actually be fabricated and worn?
McQuarrie himself said that the stormtrooper onscreen was a characature of his design...ie: not his design. LFL has turned a blind eye to the contribution of AA...those contributions make the Imperial Empire what we see it as today.[/b]

I've got a few things to say on this matter... the first is directed to the above. AA has no right to the helmets at all - original molds or not (I'm guesing the latter). Look at it this way; the Weta Workshop did 7+ years of design on the LOTR trilogy - not to mention all the actual building of the peices. The designs can't be replicated and sold without the permission of New Line (and Saul Z, I think?). Same goes for AA and LFL.

And in regards to TE; that guy has got an ego the size of the Death Star rolleyes). I emailed him about 18 months ago and asked for a 'lil bit of information (general TK info), to which he replied: "I'm not at liberty to answer your question" and signed it TE. What a legend... :thumbsup I asked for a simple peice of information (nothing about buying or who owns molds et al) and he came across like he was a Government agent (which I guess he is now. ). But I expected that kinda reply (as I had been told I would get one like it). Members here helped me with the stuff anyway, pal.

EDIT: The text in bold is mine - I couldn't get the quote tags to work... :unsure

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(CTF @ Sep 26 2006, 09:54 PM) [snapback]1327070[/snapback]</div>

I've got a few things to say on this matter... the first is directed to the above. AA has no right to the helmets at all - original molds or not (I'm guesing the latter). Look at it this way; the Weta Workshop did 7+ years of design on the LOTR trilogy - not to mention all the actual building of the peices. The designs can't be replicated and sold without the permission of New Line (and Saul Z, I think?). Same goes for AA and LFL.

It is different in AA's case, the copyright laws for the UK, and were pre-1988, in which without a contract to sign off rights, the rights automatically go to the artist, not the employer. It's as simple as that. All that LFL has are the McQuarrie paintings copyright 1975, but they are 2D and they are not the same design. By the time ANH was released (published) in May of 1977, AA had already done his work, work that not only required original creative execution, but also the ability to develop the design/fabrication methods to make the helmets, thus there also being an element of utility (falls under patents, not copyright) to what he developed.

 

[Dark One]

I guess I really don't get the point of this anymore. Some like AA, some like TE, plus whoever else makes TK suits nowadays. What saddens me is that more we bitch and moan about who was the original maker, who has real molds or not, my TK is better than your TK, it will make it that much harder for those that WANT screen accuracy in getting screen accurate suits. I know that there are people who have molds or copies of molds and have said they will not make any suits. Their choice. I have TE suits. That was My choice. Heck a couple I may trade or sell but I like them. Those that bought AA I am sure like theirs but the whole badmouthing and the whole "He said this and he said this." is just nuts...... What are we wanting to get from this anyway.... When I joined this site, I used to get very frustrated. I would ask questions and no one would answer me at all. Finally one member said, "Members are just being cautious of new people." Okay fine. Now some of those same members that used to be helpful now are at each others throats or quit or are banned...... We are arguing over fricking pieces of plastic.......... There are two sides to every story, and then the truth. We will never hear it all, so why keep bringing it up? TE always helped me with any questions. As well as many of the other members here who have Screen accurate molds/suits. I thank you for that. In the end if you are just honest, and up front, everything will be cool. Face it, those of us that have Screen accurate suits or any TK suit for that matter, we are all guilty. So what is the point of arguing anyway???? I love this site but in the past year, I have seen it change. Lots of witch hunts and accusations flying everywhere. Once something comes out of your mouth, it's dang near impossible to take it back.

 

[rocketeer25]

Enough.

TE is not a member here. The LFL case did not depend on his involvement. Speculating about what he may or may not have done to contribute to it is a waste of time.

While TE was inserted into the public debate by being mentioned in the court documents, he can't post here to explain himself, so let's not discuss his possible involvement.

I've pulled a couple of threads with TE links and quotes. Please don't post them again.

If this thread is to continue, then the discussion needs to remain civil. The ususal suspects have posted in this thread, and the same old arguements are being hashed out again and again and again.

That's fine, I guess... but please keep it respectful.

Thanks.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(rocketeer25 @ Sep 27 2006, 01:26 AM) [snapback]1327170[/snapback]</div>

Enough.

TE is not a member here. The LFL case did not depend on his involvement. Speculating about what he may or may not have done to contribute to it is a waste of time.
[/b]

Neither is AA a member here. So then one could ask what the SDS vs LFL case has in terms of relevance to this forum or hobby?

TE is now part of the case. Yes the case is not a result of anything he did, but there will be additional information coming out on what his contribution was specifically. The relevance is that he has been and apparently still is a major helmet/armor producer. He might not be part of this forum, but he is still active in the hobby and clearly has many supporters on this forum, many of whom still show and discuss his helmets and armor, past and present. Therefore, it has some significance for the forum and for the hobby in general just in terms of an example of a studio going after a private producer of replicas.

I remember a time when I was naive on this forum and suggested that a recaster be brought to the attention of LFL. There was shock from members here that I even suggested that and I was contacted by the mods of how serious that suggestion or idea was to the hobby and that the mods take it very seriously. So I learned a valuable lesson back then. I would hope that mods take this matter seriously as well. Regardless of how TE got involved...he should not have gotten involved. The same principles that guide this forum in terms of being "discrete" with regard to replica production should have guided his own decision whether or not to participate in the case, namely....conflict of interest....if there was one (and there is), then he should not have signed off as an expert witness. If he stated conflict of interest, then there would have been no questions asked.

 

[exoray]

You can scream conflict of interest all you want, and AA might have had a good challenge to discredit the declaration in question, hell he might have got it tossed out...

AA gave up all his rights to challenge and defend any and all actions done by the other side... How can anyone make it more clear that AA forfeited all his legal rights to defense in this case...

That is the way the courts work, there can not be a conflict of interest unless it's shown, proven and ruled upon by the court...

I don't see why it matters and what you hope to accomplish since the Judge obviously didn't give it much thought in his ruling...

What do you want the RPF to do double ban him for bad prop ethics?

 

[SithLord]

It's a matter of principle. I don't expect anything from the courts or the RPF.

I agree that AA gave up his right to defend. I don't dispute that about where the case is now. But it's merits will be considered by the UK courts. The CA judge, and LFL, obviously didn't know.

Perhaps we should....yet again....wait and see what transpires. I'm not just speaking here on the level of the case by itself, you are...that's why we are butting heads here. I've stated my opinion about the case as it stands at this point. I'll leave it at that....nice as always chatting with you .











<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 27 2006, 02:42 AM) [snapback]1327195[/snapback]</div>

You can scream conflict of interest all you want, and AA might have had a good challenge to discredit the declaration in question, hell he might have got it tossed out...
[/b]

Oh one more thing :lol ....they had to deal with jurisdiction first....when it was unfairly ruled upon...what hope had they of presenting their case in California, home of LFL?

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Sep 26 2006, 09:06 PM) [snapback]1326913[/snapback]</div>

I can tell you that while I was in talks with AA about producing stuff, he refused to show pics of anything he had. I took him at his word that he still had the originals, but I wanted to see pics to help identify which version of part he still had, (hero, vs. stunt, vs. sandtrooper, etc...) since there are many incarnations of these similar parts used in the filming. I also wanted to see what he had to identify any missing parts that he didn't have in case anything needed to be fabricated. He said not to worry, whatever pieces were missing, (and he did say some parts were missing but wouldn't say exactly which ones), he had planned to source from JJ.
I also suggested to him that once we take inventory of exactly what he had, that the next step would be to pursue a license solely for helmet replica production.
I never got to see his molds until much later and I also know that TE didn't get to see them until much later if at all.

So as much as I have no love for TE as of recent, I can definitively say that he hadn't planned on some master fraud scheme by being willing to keep AA's secret of not having original molds.
[/b]

Gino,

You have made a number of points here which concern me greatly as they jar with my understanding of events.

Are you suggesting that you have personally seen the original Stormtrooper helmet moulds?

Are you suggesting that your only interest with AA/SDS was via a licensed relationship with Lucasfilm (which you're saying you proposed to SDS)?

Cheers

Jez

 

[GINO]

Either a licensed relationship with LFL or via SDS but only after they would have confirmed their rights to produce independently. Which at the time was explained to me that being in the UK and the hazy way things were handled contractually with LFL 30 years ago, could possibly create a loophole. Back then it seemed plausible and no one knew for sure. I also suggested being proactive about finding out for sure about these rights before plunging ahead, but obvisously my advise wasn't taken.
I was very interested in looking over his stuff and creating prototypes that would be used later as production models. Had I seen them, at that point, it would have been obvious to me VERY early on that something wasn't right about the pieces themselves.
AT THE VERY LEAST, I would have prevented him from fettling the tumblehome as well as re-educated him about the differences between what was used on screen and what he has available to him now. I can't think of any better "trooper" person to do that than myself. And that's not ego, it's experience and the proof is in the finished pieces I've made.

 

[gavidoc]

<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Sep 26 2006, 08:49 AM) [snapback]1326554[/snapback]</div>

exoray, it is disingenuous to suggest that there can be any comparison between the two issues. Are you suggesting that we shouldnÂ’t mention the fact that Trooper Expert/Matt is assisting Lucasfilm in return for his gaining access into the Lucasfilm archives? And that us talking about this now is somehow comparable with his actions?

Over a year ago TE described his job title as “ LFL consultant” on the Introductions section of the RPB, mentioning his “visit to the archive”. At the time I think most put 2 + 2 together, but now the facts behind this “consultation” role are emerging its leaving a very nasty taste in peoples mouths.


Jez
[/b]

Jez,

Is this pure speculation on your part? Sure does sound like it to me. Where are you getting that he was given access to the archives for his testimony? True proof or smog infested air?

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 26 2006, 05:19 PM) [snapback]1326922[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Sep 26 2006, 05:06 PM) [snapback]1326913[/snapback]

I can tell you that while I was in talks with AA about producing stuff, he refused to show pics of anything he had. I took him at his word that he still had the originals, but I wanted to see pics to help identify which version of part he still had, (hero, vs. stunt, vs. sandtrooper, etc...) since there are many incarnations of these similar parts used in the filming. I also wanted to see what he had to identify any missing parts that he didn't have in case anything needed to be fabricated. He said not to worry, whatever pieces were missing, (and he did say some parts were missing but wouldn't say exactly which ones), he had planned to source from JJ.
I also suggested to him that once we take inventory of exactly what he had, that the next step would be to pursue a license solely for helmet replica production. For whatever reason, he wasn't interested.
I never got to see his molds until much later and I also know that TE didn't get to see them until much later if at all.

So as much as I have no love for TE as of recent, I can definitively say that he hadn't planned on some master fraud scheme by being willing to keep AA's secret of not having original molds.
[/b]

Let me see if I have this correct in my mind. You advised AA on the production of helmets, and AA was intending to source missing parts from Jason Joiner. Then you recommended that AA should pursue obtaining a license to produce helmets from LFL. Furthermore, TE was kind enough not to reveal AA's secret, namely, that the molds are not original. And then, both you and TE have seen AA's molds, but only later on. Mysteriously, AA decided to go about making helmets without seeking a license in spite of you encouraging him to do so? Is that how I'm reading this?

Firstly, if you don't mind me asking, I am curious as to the purpose of this post? The only item of relevance is that you say that TE has seen AA's molds and that you tried to advise AA to get a license to produce his helmets. Or is there something more to this?
[/b][/quote]

Damn dude, you read that completely different then me. As my kid brother would say, "What are you smoking and where can I get some?" The whole "TE was kind enough not to reveal AA's secret part" is what I'm talking about. Where did Gino infer this in his post?

Point it out please. I'd love to see it. What I see is:


<div class='quotetop'></div>

I never got to see his molds until much later and I also know that TE didn't get to see them until much later if at all.

So as much as I have no love for TE as of recent, I can definitively say that he hadn't planned on some master fraud scheme by being willing to keep AA's secret of not having original molds.
[/b]

Plain english translation is:

I asked to see the molds. AA wouldn't show them to me. When he finally said I could, it was AFTER he had cut a deal to work with someone else. So, just based on my experience, I doubt TE ever saw the molds or if he did, it wasn't till AFTER AA worked a deal with someone else. Someone who was willing to partner with him without seeing the molds. So I DOUBT TE was trying some master fraud scheme to screw everyone over.


BTW, I don't know TE, but what I can tell you is that I think he's a melodramatic prima donna who can be quite annoying. How many "I'm taking my toys home and never coming back" threads did he start?

 

[gavidoc]

<div class='quotetop'>(rocketeer25 @ Sep 27 2006, 01:26 AM) [snapback]1327170[/snapback]</div>

I've pulled a couple of threads with TE links and quotes. Please don't post them again.

If this thread is to continue, then the discussion needs to remain civil. The ususal suspects have posted in this thread, and the same old arguements are being hashed out again and again and again.

That's fine, I guess... but please keep it respectful.

Thanks.
[/b]

Where has the thread turned from being civil?

Where has the thread turned from being respectful?

You weren't posting in it so I didn't see any problems....Badah. Dah .Ching. Oooooohhhhh. That smarts.