hiflier

San Benardino, Calif. Bigfoot Lawsuit

310 posts in this topic

I started commenting on this in another thread but thought bringing it here would keep the other thread more on its title topic. Did some rephrasing as well:

 

My opinion on the case-

 

All I can say is that any campaign to legitimize the existence of the Sasquatch would be dependent on how real the creature is. Truth is, I worry about the Sasquatch. Some people downplay any concern (which to me is a red flag) for their well being but personally I think the creature is in trouble for many reasons. I think the recent arguments in the lawsuits brought against, first a Canadian province, and then the state of California, should be stronger than they are. It's a start yes, but if the days in court are cut short then someone isn't doing their homework. Or council has rolled over from either a payoff, pressure from losing their careers, OR, they fully realize what the economic damage caused by any ruling against a province or state would mean, and honestly understand just how dangerous it might be to be even representing these plaintiffs.

 

Any of those things could happen UNLESS council is firmly convinced THEMSELVES that the existence of Sasquatch is the truth. There would then be no doubt council will KNOW what a FAVORABLE ruling, at all cost, would mean for the Sasquatch. The people bringing these lawsuits to court are essentially suing for proof. Because ultimately that province and state will HAVE to satisfy the courts by either producing a Sasquatch, thereby admitting they knew about the creature all along, or, in an unprecedented statement beyond the one issued in New York: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-officials-bigfoot-myth-article-1.1205391 flat out deny it's existence.

 

Problem is, if they deny existence in the face of the reports, and the witness's claimed experiences, there will more than likely be an enormous uproar followed by appeals. I'll bet folks are scrambling like no one's business right now trying to figure out just how to play it- this maybe even go all the way up to the U.S. Department of the Interior. Potentially? It could be a real quagmire- and I hope it is- that lasts long enough to get the truth out. Even if the mainstream public doesn't believe the creature exists, they need to at least be somehow aware of just how far something like this could possibly reach. It's pretty danged serious if you want my opinion. The floor is open..........

 

 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, like, WHAT lawsuit?

Wait. Found it. Hmmm.....

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lawsuit is a joke. 

 

The court will treat it accordingly.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know the specifics about Petitions for Writs of Mandate under CA law, and am not admitted in that jurisdiction to practice, but in general these are proceedings to compel a court or a governmental entity to perform an act alleged to be mandated by law. Defenses by the respondent are typically a lack of standing (i.e., no legitimate or immediate threat of harm or interest in the outcome) and/or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I do see the CA statutes do not  permit (as is typical in a suit in equity) a jury trial as a matter of right, but that is in the discretion of the court. My only thought is IF the suit survives the initial challenges and proceeds to trial, whether this will be a bench trial or a jury trial is probably the bigger determinant of the outcome probabilities than anything else.

 

If it is a joke or not is determined by the outcome.  As someone who has on more than one occasion had a writ of mandamus issued on behalf of his client, I can tell you the joke often times falls flat. 

 

Edited by WSA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

The lawsuit is a joke. 

 

The court will treat it accordingly.

 

 

 

Depends on what evidence is brought to the judge, how it is presented, and by whom. The witness? Scientists? Some may consider Bigfoot a joke but lawsuits are not. If one wants to proceed with this then great care must be taken in laying out a logical, linear line of reasoning concerning historical accounts as well as current witness testimony and produce a good solid dialogue on the PGF. I don't Paulides' 411 books would be much help but at the same time one has to wonder if one's credibility is good grounds for a suit. Injury lawsuits awards can be issued just because even if there's no physical injury, psychological and economic damages do count as in mental anguish etc.

 

So how this gets played by the plaintiff's council will be very critical to which side of the fence the suit falls on. I think the sate of California could possibly award damages without admitting Sasqutch exists though. That however depends on, again, how council plays it hand in the arguments. It certainly does look like part of what the plaintiff is shooting for is for the state of California to recognize the Sasquatch as being a real creature?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ How many of those clients were trying to get the court to recognize bigfoot?

 

Seriously, the only group that will benefit from this is bigfoot skeptics.  :)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not how to go about species recognition..... right between a Homicide case and a Fraud case?

 

Biology is the question here....it’s not a civil affair.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Squatchy, there is an old expression in the law..."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary writs". Actually, no, I just made that up, but I sort of like the ring of it, you know?

 

Well.. none of them, but all of them too. To the Judges who were compelled to rule or had their rulings overturned, what my clients were asking was on a level of declaring BF to exist, and it was  being denied just as strongly.   But o.k., yeah, a long-shot, Sure.

 

It still is an intriguing and uncertain thing though.  Like I said, IF it survives the initial challenges there could very well be an evidentiary hearing. You can count on a judge to look for a way to summarily rule as it would preclude having to address the merits of the allegations...the one thing every Judge I've known considered to always be the best of all possible outcomes when confronted with a sticky situation. If it does survive? I've been saying for years around here that there is a legal preponderance of admissible evidence for the existence of BF out there. If that could actually find its way into a courtroom, and a writ is issued for the State of California to recognize the creature it would not be binding on anybody or any government outside of the scope of the Order.  What it would do though is open up a much, much broader conversation about it and force many who don't dwell in this space to lift their heads up and consider it. Personally, I think I know what results when that happens.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, norseman said:

This is not how to go about species recognition..... right between a Homicide case and a Fraud case?

 

Biology is the question here....it’s not a civil affair.

 

Substitute "race relations", "procreation"  and "sexual orientation" for "biology" in that sentence Norseman and you'll have described three landmark US Supreme Court decisions addressing what had previously not been considered to be  civil affairs. I get what you are saying, but what I think you are missing is it possibly could be both.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all well and good, my friends, but it's missing a point. Or I'm missing a point? Would a ruling to not hear the case be tantamount to California's denying Sasquatch's existence? This whole thing therefore may have some rather clever fall out aspects to it. So say on March 19th the court decides to not send this to trial.   Would that be because the witness couldn't show proof of damages? Or would it mean that the court will not open the door to any further deeper look into the Sasquatch existence issue? It may be that a ruling will only address the Human side of the witness's claims of not being able to conduct her business enterprise with the same respect as other similar enterprises? The trick here is to present many pieces of the pie in the arguments in order to gain some kind of settlement that allows for economic business pursuits.

 

As far as the rest goes where the Fish and Wildlife and the other agency is concerned, I can see where they may be some behind the scenes turmoil going on- especially if they KNOW Sasquatch to be a real creature. THAT would be enough to have them squirming in their sets along with the BLM who leases public lands for resource extraction. Just talking the potentially hot side of things should this lawsuit ever get past its preliminary stages about a month from now. If it survives March 19th then I think it will open the floodgates for the more direct Sasquatch habitat protection issues and put the state agencies into a pretty much no-win, danged if you do-danged if you don't situation.

 

The lawsuit seeks reparations involving a persons credibility and ability to conduct a tour business like any other recognized species tour business. But that's a veneer that underneath has a much larger issue that sits squarely on the nature of Sasquatch's existence and if enough evidence can be presented to hold the state agencies accountable for neglect- essentially hiding the truth of existence from the public. The ripples of that will go far and wide up the state and federal ladder as well as into the corporate world of influence and...........well, it just cannot be allowed to get that far. This is the initial quagmire I see currently. The mistake of permitting one after to take root would be a disaster. Tricky stuff IMO.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand the nature of the Writ (Again, not offered as legal advice) in CA, and similar matters I've handled in my jurisdiction, there is ample opportunity for the Court to make a ruling well short of addressing the merits of the case. The most likely is on a failure of the Petitioner to meet her burden as to standing. Think of "standing" as the legal requirement to have skin in the game or do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.  If such a ruling were made, and it was upheld, no...that is in no way a ruling that even remotely comes close to addressing existence, or not. As I said, a Judge will most always look for the narrowest valid ruling that will avoid addressing the merits in a much broader context. "Standing" is one of these, and probably the first hurdle the Petitioner must clear.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case will be dismissed without 'Standing'

 

Those Footers prone to conspiracy theories will claim a hollow victory on account of 'muh bigfoot'  and   'da  guvmnt cover-up'

 

It's a mockery. A talking point.

 

Nothing will happen.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Then we can all go home. Seeing as how we know ALL of the evidence they are going to try and present, and that the evidence is surely weak and therefore not worth anything, and not one single positive thing is forthcoming from this crowd, there is nothing more to see here or discuss. Thread closed.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standing is a very tricky thing, and I don't mean to imply I know the outcome on this point, having only read the CA statute and not researched any case law on point.  It would seem sufficient to show the Petitioner is a resident of CA who would avail herself of the use of public lands in that state. That is, she would be of a class of citizens who would be owed a duty by CA agencies and their employees to be warned of the presence of such wildlife that may endanger her health and welfare. Therein lies the rub, I suppose. She has the dual burden of not only making the initial satisfactory showing of the likelihood of this animal existing, but also,  if it does exist, that it presents a danger to her and other users of public lands.  The burden to show standing would be somewhat of a lower standard of proof than required to be granted the Order of Mandamus, but I think there is some overlap.

 

But no, nothing here is certain at all. I tell my clients, if you talk to any lawyer who tells you he can guarantee the outcome of any matter in litigation, you need to go find yourself another lawyer.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, that's sounding a little better, WSA, Thanks. Here's how I see it. REGARDLESS of whether anyone thinks this is a frivolous exercise and a waste of time and money and will prove nothing there is something that is of some worth. Many of us, me included, suspect malfeasance when it comes to the truth about Sasquatch. So what do I think? I think this is one of the MOST aggressive and courageous moves against that perceived malfeasance to date. So my hat is off to Todd Standing, and Claudia Ackley for taking this kind of action. Period.

 

Who among us has the time, money, guts, apparent evidence, and the willingness to confront any state agency in an attempt to force such a truth like Sasquatch out into the open? I know I don't, in spite of my rants over the years here on this Forum concerning what the states and government MUST know about this creature. And no matter what anyone thinks about these people, professional or otherwise, they deserve our support and encouragements through emails, blogs, websites, and any other public vehicle in order for them to know that they are backed in their efforts. They need POSITIVE encouragement- they do not need to be torn down because anyone thinks they will fail or have already failed right out of the gate. Even if folks think that's true those two people are in there ready to duke it out in court on proponents' behalf.

 

This is incredibly important to not only us but the creature, its welfare, and that of its habitat. There is no downside to this as far as I can see and the media is already aligned to malign them since virtually ALL of them are using the term 'mystical creature' in their articles. One can only hope that the council they have selected fully understands the implications of taking the case to the end result that says the state of California has indeed hidden the Sasquatch from the public. That alone will have such a deep, far reaching effect that it makes me honestly wonder if council has the foresight to fathom the implications of such a disclosure and the courage to stay the course. Because I truly think that, in small steps, disclosure is the true goal in this case. And council, Standing, and Ackley will need voices to help them stay meticulous and focused on the path toward that goal. Because I don't think for a second that this is only about Ackley being able to run her tour business. In truth, it is much bigger than that. I think council knows this, and the state of California knows it too.    

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites