1. Paul Jenkins Countersues Alec Peters for Deceptive Trade Practices, Defamation

1. Falsely representing Jenkins' affiliation with the Axanar project for months of fundraising even after the director was "fired" by Peters.
   • Peters only removed Jenkins from the Axanar website this past Saturday.
2. Defamation. Leading up to and following filing his suit against Jenkins (we reported: "Peters, Surrogates Lash Out at Ex-Director Jenkins"), Peters allegedly defamed the well-regarded writer and award-winning multimedia producer, on his YouTube livestreams and multiple Facebook pages, such as:
   • Calling Jenkins a "liar," who is “not smart” and has engaged in “behavior totally unacceptable.”
   • Describing Jenkins as “a wannabe [and] amateur director” who has “never worked in Hollywood,” and that Jenkins failed in his job as director, and is “screwing the fans.”
   • Accusing Jenkins and his production company, META Studios, of “fraudulent attempts … to gain access to Axanar IP [intellectual property].”
3. ‘Vexatious Litigation.’ Jenkins alleges Peters' suit against him is nothing more than an action "brought for delay or harassment," featuring "a complete absence of any … justifiable fact or law."
4. Deceptive trade practices. Jenkins' counterclaim alleges Peters "improper conduct is … unfair and deceptive" under Georgia and federal laws with regard to representing Jenkins' ongoing connection to Axanar while continuing to raise money for the long-delayed fan film. 

• ‘Snarky and defamatory.’ On his September 30 livestream, and on the Axanar website, Peters offered a "Correction, Retraction and Clarification" for why he "fired" Jenkins.
  • In a letter to Peters' attorney, Jenkins' attorney, Andrew Crain, the offered retraction "fail[ed] to actually correct or retract anything," after which Peters went on to further defame Jenkins — "snarky and defamatory statements" that are part of Peters' "calculated efforts to injure [Jenkins'] reputation in this industry."

• No damages for Peters. As we've previously reported, Peters' cannot seek punitive damages against Jenkins because Peters filed suit before the seven days Jenkins was entitled to for correcting or retracting the statements to which Peters objected; he is entitled only to actual damages.

2. Jenkins Answers Allegations in Peters' Lawsuit

3. Peters' Employees Start GoFundMe to Defend Against Lawsuit Over Sale of Enterprise-E Model

• Ares bridge builder. Peters is pursuing Dean Newbury, the man he has publicly praised for substantially constructing Axanar's vaunted bridge set for the U.S.S. Ares.
• Propworx worker. Meanwhile, Jarrod Hunt is at the center of this legal action since he was the one who successfully negotiated the Enterprise-E sale with its owner at the time. Hunt formerly worked for Peters' company, Propworx, but went on to start his own company, Prop Block.

• Wrong defendant. Peters is suing The Prop Block LLC, a Nevada-based company, for its part in the 2017 sale.
• Wrong venue. However, that company didn't exist in Nevada until the following year. The Prop Block at the time of the sale was, and still is, registered as a California  LLC.
  • Further, Newbury is a California resident, not a Nevada resident. And while he is now listed as an LLC member of the Nevada company, that wasn't so at the time of the sale.

• October 2017: Hero Prop began working with Peters when Armstrong told Peters she had a buyer interested in purchasing the Enterprise-E model from its owner, New York collector Adam Schneider.
  • Peters alleged to Armstrong he knew Schneider "very well."
  • However, Peters admits in his current lawsuit that he himself never contacted Schneider, instead turning to Hunt to negotiate the sale, with he and Hunt splitting their share of the commission.
  • Armstrong's suit alleges Peters hadn't informed her he had a very poor relationship with Schneider.
  • Schneider allegedly told Hunt “he did not want to sell the Enterprise-E, "would not do any transaction involving Peters.”
• November 15, 2017: Peters tells Armstrong Schneider was “being an asshole,” and that his efforts had come to nothing.
• Late November 2017: After learning from Armstrong that the prospective buyer was willing to pay more for the model, Hunt, of his own accord, contacted the Enterprise-E’s owner; Hunt had not been a Propworx employee for months. After a few weeks of negotiations, the owner agreed to sell the Enterprise, along with a studio model of the Deep Space 9 space station.
• June 2018: Peters learns of the sale and demands a share of the commission, claiming he was “the seller’s [Schneider's] agent” despite the fact Peters had no contractual agreement with the seller, no communications with the seller, and that Schneider wasn't ever supposed to know Peters was involved at all.
• October 2018: Schneider tells AxaMonitor, “I have not communicated, or been called/emailed, from Alec in the last five years.”

• Answers due soon. Under Nevada law, defendants must respond within 20 days of being served, which is coming up soon. Prop Block and Hunt were served on September 23 (Answer due tomorrow) and Newbury on September 29 (Answer due next October 19).
• Donations so far. At the time of publication, the campaign had raised $1,350 from 18 donors. In a show, perhaps, of solidarity ex-Axanar director Paul Jenkins, also being sued by Peters, donated $100.
• ‘Ridiculous suit.’ Commenters on the campaign page criticized Peters' litigiousness. Carlos Munoz, who donated $50, said, "Wish I could give more, this is a ridiculous suit and only meant to harass you guys and deplete you financially."
  • In their plea, Newbury and Hunt write that facing a lawsuit when the Coronavirus pandemic has deeply hurt them financially:

"Things are very difficult economically for everyone right now, and we know that it is a lot to ask that anyone help us."