Drew

Peter Byrne- Guilty Of Fraud

142 posts in this topic

http://www.justice.gov/usao/or/news/2013/20131205_byrne.html

 

Peter C. Byrne, 88, was sentenced to a three year term of probation and required to pay full restitution by the end of the week. Byrne pleaded guilty in August and admitted that between 1992 and 2012 he concealed from SSA and DHS his travels outside the United States and his compensation, while receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and food stamps. 

 

 

No money in Bigfooting eh?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone who has ever posted here has said there is no money to be made in publishing.  I do recall your campaign to insist that camping in the woods for months at a time is jolly good fun when funded by tax cheating scams. Not sure you ever got any traction there though.  And also: Not as much as there once was. I would think our intrepid author would not have resorted to fraud if he'd be paid anything substantial for his writing, but maybe he was going to be a crook either way. I'm not seeing any accounting of the source of the funds in his off-shore accounts, and possibly all could be attributed to his fraudulent receipts. As a general rule though, I try to not let the criminal acts of random individuals color my perception of any class of persons. This guy just sounds sad and I'm sorry for him and his family.

Edited by WSA
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see where making a living from book sales on any subject is a problem. While it's unfortunate that this individual was admittedly guilty of fraud, why does that mean it's wrong to profit from the Bigfoot phenomenon? If there's an interest in the subject matter, and he authors books on the subject, why is it wrong for him to profit from it?

 

Fraud is wrong whether you're a Bigfoot proponent, a skeptic, a plumber, or an accountant. Would you feel better if he was found to be guilty of fraud without making money on Bigfoot-related topics?

 

He failed to report income while collecting SSI. Does this somehow invalidate what he's written, or does it make it wrong to profit from it?

 

Failing to claim the income correctly is the issue here, not how the money he failed to report was made. Besides, it doesn't seem to me that he profited exceedingly from the topic.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone who has ever posted here has said there is no money to be made in publishing.  I do recall your campaign to insist that camping in the woods for months at a time is jolly good fun when funded by tax cheating scams. Not sure you ever got any traction there though.  And also: Not as much as there once was. I would think our intrepid author would not have resorted to fraud if he'd be paid anything substantial for his writing, but maybe he was going to be a crook either way. I'm not seeing any accounting of the source of the funds in his off-shore accounts, and could possibly all be attributed to his fraudulent receipts. As a general rule though, I try to not let the criminal acts of random individuals color my perception of any class of persons. This guy just sounds sad and I'm sorry for him and his family.

 

I never made any campaign or even a statement about tax cheating scams while camping in the woods.  Please post a link to my campaign before making accusations. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind it does make a difference.  If the gentleman is so strapped that he resorts to not being completely truthful to get by, then, under additional pressure, it is possible that he could well stretch the truth in other ways.  He has impugned his own credibility.

 

It's sad.  Only someone who knows the gentleman well and is confident about where he draws his line regarding the truth on various topics can be fully confident about the information he provides.

 

Some people who feel it is ok to stretch things in some areas would never consider stretching things in others, but only those close to them over the years would know this.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was, and is, that fraud on his part should in no way mean that it's wrong to profit from the Bigfoot phenomenon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saw the part about $85,000 accounts overseas and 30 trips over 45 days in foreign countries?  Which he is required to divulge if he gets SSI?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never made any campaign or even a statement about tax cheating scams while camping in the woods.  Please post a link to my campaign before making accusations. 

Oops, my bad, sorry. I seem to remember your suggesting that on the original NAWAC thread, but I can't find it to search it now. I think I confused that with your "The entire population of N. American mammals was exterminated in the 19th century and all the trees cut down" meme. That is you, right?   I do see the horse of 501© fraud was resurrected by others, not you, recently.  A classic, yes. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  I am the guy who thinks that the Bigfoot would have been hard-pressed to have survived the logging east of the Great Plains.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the money in Bigfooting, sure glad I don't have to stoop to it. 

 


Sorry, but "look at what this guy did...so bigfoot's not real" don't cut it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saw the part about $85,000 accounts overseas and 30 trips over 45 days in foreign countries? Which he is required to divulge if he gets SSI?

85k?? Is nothing......if we are talking about amassing a lifetime of wealth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is wrong for someone to honestly profit from bigfoot either.  It seems that there are plenty of other ways to make a living, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, my bad, sorry. I seem to remember your suggesting that on the original NAWAC thread, but I can't find it to search it now. I think I confused that with your "The entire population of N. American mammals was exterminated in the 19th century and all the trees cut down" meme. That is you, right?   I do see the horse of 501© fraud was resurrected by others, not you, recently.  A classic, yes. 

Sure, one could easily see how the two could get confused.  Couldn't resist the chance to take some sort of shot, could you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding whether it is okay to profit from bigfoot in general, I believe that it is both okay and not okay. If one has a legitimate product to offer, say a book, of course that is fine. Anyone who is doing something legitimately where bigfoot is concerned, whether it be charging people to go bigfoot hunting, selling evidence, selling documentaries, etc., I feel is not doing anything inherently wrong. But, there are people who make money from something like fake evidence, or someone who hypes themselves up with false reports and accounts, and other things that are just wrong. Making money from such acts I believe to be detestable.

 

It basically comes down to honest people versus dishonest people. I have no problem with an honest person trying to make a living from bigfoot, but as soon as they start faking evidence in hopes of selling it or drawing attention to themselves, their dishonesty has tainted their entire persona, and anything and everything they have done or will do. Maybe others will disagree with me. But I don't see how anyone could think it is okay to make money from hoaxes, even if it is just someone trying to make a living. Like I said, it comes down to honesty.

 

I thought this thread was going to reveal something about bigfoot in general, like certain evidence or claims being fabricated, or basically something else that would paint the subject in a negative shade. But that doesn't appear to be the case, fortunately. It seems that the thousands of claims that probably are legitimate, and the evidence that is also probably real, don't really make an impression on outsiders; but let something come up, for instance someone being ousted as a hoaxer, and everyone is paying attention and they will have something negative to say about the bigfoot community, or the idea of bigfoot, in general. Rarely have I seen evidence, eyewitness testimony or visual evidence, actually do anything positive for the subject as a whole. Perhaps I have just overlooked such things though. But I have seen hoaxes do a lot of general damage.

 

I imagine that there will be someone who will try to turn this story around, saying that because the man was dishonest in other aspects, that he must have been dishonest regarding the bigfoot related work he was involved in. That may be the case, as a person who is quite dishonest in one area could very well be dishonest in other areas. But I don't know if he made any personal claims regarding bigfoot, or whether he was just a researcher, or whatever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites