Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
summary_fact_check [2017/01/10 13:40] – [Disinformation] Carlos Pedrazasummary_fact_check [2020/11/03 00:30] (current) – [What Accountant When?] Carlos Pedraza
Line 94: Line 94:
 <wrap em>PARTLY TRUE</wrap> **Accountant's Review**. While it is likely true that an accountant at some point has reviewed Peters' financials, it's not clear who conducted this review, when it was conducted and when a report was completed. The truth is, Peters and his attorney have contradicted one another (and Peters has contradicted himself) about the supposed review of Axanar's financials, as documented in an earlier **AxaMonitor** [[order_fact_check|Fact Check]]: <wrap em>PARTLY TRUE</wrap> **Accountant's Review**. While it is likely true that an accountant at some point has reviewed Peters' financials, it's not clear who conducted this review, when it was conducted and when a report was completed. The truth is, Peters and his attorney have contradicted one another (and Peters has contradicted himself) about the supposed review of Axanar's financials, as documented in an earlier **AxaMonitor** [[order_fact_check|Fact Check]]:
  
-<wrap em>CONTRADICTORY</wrap> **Which Financial Data?** It's unclear precisely which financial information Peters, his attorney and the studios' lawyers are talking about, with each party describeing the records quite differently.+<wrap em>CONTRADICTORY</wrap> **Which Financial Data?** It's unclear precisely which financial information Peters, his attorney and the studios' lawyers are talking about, with each party describing the records quite differently.
  
   * **Financial "Summary"**. In its October 27 [[emergency_motion|emergency (ex parte) motion]], the plaintiffs described the document this way:   * **Financial "Summary"**. In its October 27 [[emergency_motion|emergency (ex parte) motion]], the plaintiffs described the document this way: