hiflier Posted March 13, 2018 Author Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, WSA said: Thaumaturgy of all kinds is at work, no doubt. Human incomprehension is working even harder though... late nights, weekends and no holidays off! QFT, WSA. One week until the court session, or in whatever initial place and form the Petition gets officially aired. Then we'll get to see whether or not the Sasquatch gets its hearing. And for the record, I'm prepared to have Sasquatch be nowhere in scope of this court's purview. In fact the court would be wise to not even mention the creature if can be avoided. It should reject any discussion that includes it in an effort to stay focused on the licensing issue. That alone will be an interesting item to watch. Edited March 13, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMort Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 ^^^ What licensing issue are you referring to? Here in California a business license is simple to get from the local government. Are you saying that she needs a State License to operate this "business"? If so, Why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 13, 2018 Author Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) Not sure, Old Mort. She's suing four state entities in the Superior Court of the State of California for San Bernardino County: the State of California, the California Natural Resources Agency, John Laird, who is the Secretary of that agency, and the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife. I don't see a local government body mentioned so one has to think it's a state licensing issue since the state will be the one collecting the tax on the enterprise. A local government might only be involved at a property tax level should a business reside within its jurisdiction whether on commercial property or out of a home office. So a local government may only be involved where property tax assessments are estimated according to their local commercial zoning ordinances. Ms. Ackley may have a permit to locate a business and pay taxes on the property but actual permission to operate it may be a state issued condition. A local business can be shut down by a state board of health so there are areas where the state does control local things. Edited March 13, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I thought the aim of this was for California to acknowledge BF so that it can protect its citizens??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 13, 2018 Author Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) I don't understand your post, Twist. It's about both as Ms. Ackley's Petition links the licensure to Bf's existence. That's why I keep saying the Petition has been written in very tricky language. Old Mort's post was only asking about whether the license for her tour business would come from the state or a local government. But here's the thing too, would a tour business be considered an intrusion on habitat or a harassing of animals? Answer: I don't think so otherwise the laws that govern such things would be construed as being hypocritical. In other words they prevent private citizens from having tour type businesses on public state or national forest land, such as paid Bigfoot research expeditions ala BFRO, but allow other businesses far more intrusive such as timber mining to function in those same habitats. It is, in essence, doublethink, where the corporations get to and private citizens don't. Even though it has been ruled that corporations now have the same rights as private citizens. If that's the case then the reverse should also be true- the private citizen should have the same rights as a corporation and therefore be allowed to conduct a business within the same habitat areas. In a perfect world that is- where fairness in the law applies to everything and everyone without selectivity. Edited March 13, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMort Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I re-read the "Petition" earlier today, there is no mention whatsoever of "Licenses." or any claims that one has been denied or is pending. I owned and operated a service business in my town (in California) for over 20 years. Here is what is required for me to operate: 1) I go down to City Hall and pay for my Business License. I renew it once a year. 2) I pay State Income Tax to the State of California once a year or make estimated quarterly payments. 3) That's it, nothing else... There are any number of crystal healers, Reiki practitioners and other assorted woo peddlers in this town who do the same. Unless things have changed, there is no special licensing requirement in the State of California for the type of enterprise that Ms. Ackley would like to operate.. This from 2016: https://engagingplaces.net/2016/02/11/should-tour-guides-be-tested-and-certified/ "At the end of last month, the California Tour Guide Act (AB 836) died in committee in the California State Capitol. If it had passed, it would have established a “tour guide certification program” through the California Travel and Tourism Commission to test and certify persons who “practice tour guiding for compensation” (it would exempt guides who work at museums and amusement parks)." Ms. Ackley states in her Petition: "Petitioner is unable to take people out on wildlife viewing expeditions as a commercial recreational operator to view and interact with Sasquatch in the same way that paid guides take people out to see other wildlife in guided adventure tourism activities in defined operating areas because the public and/or government would conceivably believe that Petitioners' activities would be fraudulent due to Respondent's denial of the existence of Sasquatch, which is an infringement of Petitioner's right to operate such a commercial recreational wildlife viewing enterprise." As far as I can tell Ms.Ackley is free to run her "business" at her own risk. Just like any other enterprise, it will either succeed or fail based on its own merits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 13, 2018 Author Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) Thank you for clearing that up and certainly makes more sense now that the issue isn't refusing her a license to operate. So Twist, it does come down to Sasquatch existence after all and the matter of her credibility in the eyes of the public. The wording does mention her Sasquatch tour business as being seen as fraudulent if it indeed is fraudulent in the eyes of the state. Looks like that is where the Petition would appear to work on the existence issue more strongly? A fraudulent enterprise would not be allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, to operate in any state. Would that point of view therefore disqualify Claudia from gaining her license to operate her business? Again I see this as all inextricably linked to her being able to secure a business license. Because in order to do so and not be seen as running a fraudulent enterprise the state would have to recognize Sasquatch as being a real creature. In order for it to do that would the court have to find a way, or an agency, to determine whether or not her business WOULD be fraudulent? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, TRICKY. This is a Petition fraught with mini traps that the Responders and the court need to be very wary of. If the evidence is strong enough I don't even think they could get away with throwing the case out. And, too, I would be curious to know if any natural resource extraction lobbyists or government people will be in the room when this gets heard. I will also be curious to see what BFF members have to say next Monday or Tuesday after the whatever proceedings come to pass. If the evidence brought in, along with any expert testimony, is insufficient in the eyes of the court the Responders will move for dismissal. And even if it turns out that way it has been interesting to wander down through the arguments of both sides in this issue. Edited March 13, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Her paperwork clearly states that Sasquatch, aka Bigfoot, exists. Calls it a possible threat to citizens. I’d only assume the question of existence is the starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Soon... Very soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 14, 2018 Author Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) And you have an excellent point there But do you think the Responders or the court would be in a position in which they would be able to even address the question of existence without opening themselves up to a hailstorm? The hailstorm being that they would place themselves in the untenable position of either confirming or denying the creature's existence in order for the court to adequately support any ruling the court arrives at. This is the conundrum I saw pretty early on and been trying to explain. It's why I started the thread. There's a certain Catch-22 here that I hope is becoming clearer to everyone and your question brings it sufficiently again to the forefront where it should be. This Petition is words in such a way that the Responders and the state have almost no wiggle room. Even the argument of fraudulence fails as it would again be an argument placing the Responders and the court between a rock and a hard place. Even if the court postpones the case until someone gets into the woods to check for the creature's existence will fail as the court, whether finding a creature or not, will be left to rule as if no one went out looking. It leaves the whole issue of existence squarely in the Responder's laps- which is where it should have always been and they know it. Everyone knows it here on the BFF too. I've always brought up the fact that someone knows the truth and finding that someone and applying pressure to them is the avenue that must be taken. Well this Lady is doing just that- for everyone- which is why she needs our support. She is standing up the agencies and giving the State of California a very tough argument with little room for ambiguity regarding Sasquatch's existence. It has to be either yes or no. No one by now should be underestimating the explosive potential of this case. Guaranteed the Responders and state's council aren't underestimating it. It's really pretty serious. Just think lots of money at stake for starters. LOTS of money. In the billions and billions of dollars which is something else the Responders know all about. I said a while back the ripples from this could reach to the Federal level and even to the DOI itself so the San Bernardino court needs to be VERY careful in how they handle this. Containment at all cost. P.S. There has been virtually NOTHING on the web about this case since the middle of February. No Updates......Nothing. Not one word. Edited March 14, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hiflier said: And you have an excellent point there But do you think the Responders or the court would be in a position in which they would be able to even address the question of existence without opening themselves up to a hailstorm? The hailstorm being that they would place themselves in the untenable position of either confirming or denying the creature's existence in order for the court to adequately support any ruling the court arrives at. This is the conundrum I saw pretty early on and been trying to explain. It's why I started the thread. There's a certain Catch-22 Edited March 14, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 14, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2018 Twist If you look here you will see that she is not just thinking about protecting these creatures but that it is hurting her in such a way that she cannot make an income from these creatures. Here it is where it say what I mean: If you look at line 25 it says right there where how it effects her. At the start she says how dangerous these creatures are but at the same time she want to take people on tours so that they can see these creatures for them selves. Now you tell me on how the State of California is going to look at this when at one point she is stating that they are killers but at another point she is stating that it is effecting her lively hood and placing people in danger. I just do not get it . How will she protect these people from these creatures but at the same time stating that they need protection from us. I do not get it when so far one has yet to be shot and brought in for science to even prove they exist. Now do they really need protection like she say they need or is she just have another motive which is to make money off these creatures. How can the respondents answer to this ? I just do not even see why they should even try. Here is more info on this case: These two statements of facts will let you know how bad it sounds on what she is trying to do and the advice that is being told to her is wrong. You just can not say that these creatures are dangerous in one statement and then say that they are safe in another. While plead that they need protection when they really do not I am not sure if that even make sense. I am all for that they do exist and that they are truly flesh and blood, But protection they do not need. Nor should we use them for an avenue for profit. They do not need us to battle for them since they have done good for themselves all these hundreds of years. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegrassfoot Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 6 hours ago, ShadowBorn said: I am all for that they do exist and that they are truly flesh and blood, But protection they do not need. Nor should we use them for an avenue for profit. They do not need us to battle for them since they have done good for themselves all these hundreds of years. Just my opinion. First, based on sightings and trace evidence, BF appear to have a very small population. Secondly, as large primates they reproduce very slowly. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no evidence that the federal government isn’t more invested in their extermination than their preservation. Granted, BF may be thriving. And, perhaps the federal government is even aiding and protecting the species. But until there is evidence BF is thriving and that there is no ongoing effort to eliminate them, one has to assume their existence is threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 ^^ I have a feeling IF this gets anywhere it would just end up being bad for BF and cause more ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 14, 2018 Author Share Posted March 14, 2018 Yes, Twist you may be right on that. The media will probably cut her any slack on this either. It might also depend on how she conducts herself, what questions she asks, whether or not she can keep her cool, and is fully versed on how to keep her arguments connected to the "either the creature exists or doesn't" in the eyes of the Responders. It is very important that she walks away with a definitive statement on that. And she needs to be firm in her focus. For example, she could always counter a non-existence statement with: "You say they don't exist. Then please tell me how you definitely know that because the evidence I've brought, along with the expert witnesses, says otherwise." followed by "Then why didn't you step forward and inform the public so that many of them wouldn't be wasting their money on fraudulent activities like museums and conferences or even buying authors book? You evidently must have been aware that those activities were fraudulent and yet you, along with the State of California, did nothing to protect the citizens from the fraud. Why not?" Bottom line........the Responders, as I have said, are danged if they do and danged if they don't. They cannot win this case if she is smart, stays brave, and plays her cards correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts