hiflier

San Benardino, Calif. Bigfoot Lawsuit

310 posts in this topic

I just had a thought on this.    When someone brings up footprint evidence we are told that it has no import in scientific proof of existence even though footprint evidence can be used in a court of law.       I wonder what will happen if this gets to court (that is probably a big if because of factors like standing) and the plaintiff calls in Meldrum to look at casts of prints laid down in California.   Certainly he has to be considered an expert witness.   I suppose the State would round up their own witness who disagrees.     There are probably many other things that a court of law would consider like expert witnesses that science does not recognize.   The number of BF witnesses who are in law enforcement,  state biologists,  forest rangers past or present, have to number in the 100's.    Is that what is really going on here?    Someone trying to force a State to recognize something that science refuses to do?  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Put Don Jeffrey Meldrum on the stand.

 

Bob Gimlin too.

 

Let them both answer hardball questions...

 

About Claudia Ackley's claims...

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect the average BF witness to hold up quite well under cross exam IF the petitioner vets them properly. The thing that always intrigued me about the profile of the average witness is there is no average profile....one of the flags of credibility as I often note here. So, given that they come from such a broad segment of the population, there are bound to be some fruit loops in the bunch. It would pay to give them close scrutiny.

 

One thing the rules of evidence won’t allow is any attacks on credibility (I.e. impeachment) on collateral matters, something our opponents hereabouts just love to do. So it’s not going to matter that Gimlin gave contradictory statements as to what color socks he was wearing the day he saw Patty. 

Edited by WSA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WSA said:

One thing I hadn't digested the first time I read it is the allegation the state has impeded the Petitioner's right to a livelihood as other traditional wildlife tour businesses have. This is pretty clever and just might have legs. It touches on both equal protection and due process considerations. It might constitute a "taking" if the state's inaction does result in her not being issued permits, licenses and other imprimatur of sanctioning by the California administrative agencies, and this deficiency translates into a loss of potential income. 

 

It is one of the important points I was trying to show when spoke of any punitive damages that could be awarded. I mentioned that she was suing, among other things, being marginalized and so suffering form having her credibility dismissed as a tour guide. But this point has its own pitfalls for the state which is why I've called the case a potential quagmire and mine field for the state's Responders. The pitfalls being wrapped around the odd conundrum that in order to conduct a Sasquatch tour business there must be a Saquatch 'out there' to look for in the first place! Because if the state cannot say that there IS a Sasquatch then the state will be guilty of collusion in an enterprise that would be fleecing the public by taking payment to find something that doesn't exist.

 

It's things like this, stuff that folds bak on itself, that makes this lawsuit a tricky one to navigate through. By rights the state MUST deny Sasquatch's existence at all cost because to do otherwise opens a very large hole in which other lawsuits could be brought in. Determining just how and where to halt the lawsuit's petitions is not going to be all that easy. They really have no choice but to find a solid reason to throw the case out. If they don't....well.....the state will be either in collusion with a scam at the minimum just for taking tax revenue from the tour business, tax revenue from any bigfoot conferences, , book sales and anything else unless they rule that all of that stuff is only entertainment. The flip side of that would be having to admit Sasquatch exists as the expert witness say it does through the evidence admitted to the court which, by default, would find for the plaintiff and against the state agencies for dereliction of duty- whether the creature is found to be dangerous to the public or not.

 

Even the court saying that it doesn't find the creature dangerous will be nothing short of acknowledging its existence. They cannot mess this up because if they do then the case will be a model for directing new lawsuits against FEDERAL agencies. It makes me wonder something truly huge on both the state and federal levels. What I'm getting at is: Would all resource extraction have to be halted until it could be determined that the creature exists in the areas where resource extraction is currently taking place? And would that investigation be transparent to the public? Would even launching an investigation give Ms. Ackley grounds for winning her case? Once more, tricky stuff. I have a friend who recently lost his aunt who was a high level lawyer in Colorado. He said if she were alive that she would be all over this case. Personally? I don't see how the court in San Bernardino can toss this case without serious repercussions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make no mistake about it Hiflier...the state of CA will look for any means to dismiss the petition short of a hearing on the merits. Without even knowing it, I am willing to bet there is limiting lamguage to define a protected species under both state and federal statutes. First rule of litigation always will be: Never use an atomic bomb when a penknife will do the job just as well. Buried somewhere in the CA or US Code is something like what I am describing. It could even be in the regs of some state agency, enabled by those Codes. Look for that.

 

One intriguing aspect to consider are ordinances purporting to prohibit the harming or killing of a BF. The state might be vulnerable on that point. It can’t be recognized and not recognized at the same time. Tacit agreement by government entities as to existence might be very useful to the Petitioner. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WSA said:

It can’t be recognized and not recognized at the same time.

 

You have stated so succinctly the bottom line that I think this petition is built upon. Put it another way perhaps, can a state, any state, issue a license to operate a business that would be looking for a "fake, mythological creature" that the state KNOWS doesn't exist? If it does issue a license then well......could the public bring forth a class action suit to shut that business down? So it brings things back to your point- the state cannot hold two official viewpoints at the same time. Only one of those viewpoints can be true. As I said before, either "likely" or "unlikely" to exist isn't definitive. There needs to be a hard line drawn on way or another. It's time the Sasquatch steps out of the realm of official ambiguity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what will your reaction be if things go in a different direction?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good question, Sir. And not an easy one to answer. By different direction am I correct is saying you mean the State of California will actually SAY that there isn't a Sasquatch, and never has been a Sasquatch, in the state? Or do you mean the state will rule that M. Ackley can have her tour business like any other tour business- or not- and never even broach the subject of the creature's existence or non-existence? If you would maybe clarify the 'different direction' it that you mean it would be better. If the court will only address the business side of the case and steer clear of the rest of it that's one thing. If the court pursues the creature's existence/non-existence side of the case as it involves the accusations of dereliction of duties regarding the public's safety that's another.

 

So, a 'different direction' leaves too much ambiguity to hang an answer on. I'm not being obtuse or dodging your question but it does need some narrowing down? If the court brings forth its own witnesses in it's defense then should assume they will be expert scientists from within the state's own agencies? Which is fine, but if it gets that far and those witnesses cannot account for the reports people have submitted, including the plaintiff's, beyond just saying it was a bear? I mean how does one go about proving there is no Sasquatch? You should be very familiar with that aspect of such arguments. For example, would that stance show that the sate's agencies have actually made a concerted effort to go out and try to locate a Sasquatch? Might they still be looking? And in the same area the plaintiff stated that she and her daughter saw one?

 

So, my friend, streamline what you mean by 'different direction' and I'll do my best to streamline my answer accordingly.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the state refuses to acknowledge the existence of a mythical creature.

 

It happened in New York.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 6:22 AM, hiflier said:

I do expect people to disagree. That's what a Forum is for. But what Norseman and Squatchy McSquatch wrote was beyond just disagreeing. There was no call for the tone or wording they chose to use. Disagreeing and snarkiness do not have to be synonymous. They of course are welcome to an opinion like me and everyone else but there is nothing that says I need to suffer their condescending slants and slights in silence. I gave as I got.

 

What did I write that went behind disagreeing? How was I being condescending to you?

 

I wrote that while I normally do not agree with what Squatchy posts. (Which I don’t, you can ask him if he agrees) That in this case he was spot on. Meaning that Sasquatch will not become a scientificly recognized animal because of this court case...... Not that I agree with every post Squatchy has ever made.

 

You seem to hitch your caboose to these crackpot approaches for recognizing Sasquatch as a real animal. And then when someone points out that it’s a crack pot approach you take their head off. Has Melba Ketchum proven Sasquatch real? No. Neither will this....a civil court case based on witness testimony. It’s been tried before.

 

You know what will prove this animal real? You wrote a book on it remember? A chunk of the animal itself......that sort of evidence is irrefutable.

 

I for one would NOT sit up and take notice even if the state of California recognized the creature to be real, based on eye witness testimony. This isn’t a foot ball game with a scoreboard. It’s black and white. Does the creature exist or doesn’t it? And if it does? Show me the physical evidence.....a bone, a tooth, a body. 

 

It would be a very hollow victory indeed. And would shake my confidence in the California Justice system more than anything. It’s simply the wrong approach..... physical evidence should be the only marker for the existence of any creature that is currently a cryptid. 

 

IMHO

 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 2:11 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Hiflier would it make you feel better if I hold your hand, rub your back and "worry about sasquatch" with you? 

 

I think you can plainl see my condescension comment was not directed at you, Norseman. My comment came right after the one above.

 

7 hours ago, norseman said:

I for one would NOT sit up and take notice even if the state of California recognized the creature to be real, based on eye witness testimony

 

NO state would do that. It would be very different around this Forum if that were the case don't you think? So Ms. Ackley is a crackpot? That seems to be your inference since I've 'hooked up my caboose' to the case. And you know very well my intent with Ketchum was only to research for malicious INTENT. Didn't find any beyond everyone's innuendo that she set out to deceive.

 

As far as this case goes? The state of California KNOWS it cannot recognize the creature to be real whether based on witness testimony or not. IF the creature exists within the boundaries of the state or any state then someone knows about it and has known about it. With all of the technology for surveillance available to the DFW you had better believe that the creature's existence was either verified to exist or it was verified to not exist. There is an answer to that, Norseman. Whether or not that answer comes forth is what I am most interested in. And I don't care how the case turns out as long as that point gets addressed.

 

And all I've done here is go down the road of what it would mean if the Sate of California gets itself into a corner and has to admit whatever the answer to that question is. If it's "no" then what is it's responsibility to the public for getting hosed by those that make a business out of Sasquatch? If it's "yes" then it opens up the door to...........EVERYTHING.........science, agency and cover up and the state's role in that and eventually beyond to the federal level. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing these kinds of thoughts. It doesn't mean I have hitched my 'caboose' to a crackpot. I simply find the possible dynamic of the case to be rather large no matter which way it goes. That's what this thread is about. That discussion.is what this tread has ALWAYS been about.

 

Thanks for the plug on the book ;) It was written BEFORE this case of course but still stands strongly in my court as well as yours.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh, the pitfalls of binary thinking! (Or as I like to refer to it as: The Number One Crippler of Young Adults). And here it is again.

 

As I've proposed up-thread, the tertiary is a completely satisfactory and possible outcome here.  Obviously, a type specimen leads to an administrative concession of existence (at least in the state or province where the species is found...you could still expect state governments to claim, "Well, it might exist THERE, but there is no proof it exists HERE...) but the door needs to be left open for the possibility that the species could get provisional recognition through civil actions like this and still not have a type specimen G. and s. classification.  I've yet to have anyone clearly explain to me why this is not possible.  Fact is, it is possible. The law is full of those types of conclusions, as I've already mentioned.

 

I hesitate to bring in the whole human caused climate change issue as the debate tends to get pretty out of hand pretty quickly, but there you have one very good example of this. We have at least some scientists claiming this is not a clear and looming threat (granted, they are few, but they seem to have an out-sized influence on policy makers) and local government agencies drawing their own, opposite conclusions.  A measurable scientific phenomena is a measurable scientific phenomena. BF no less than climate change. Both either exist in the realm of the measurable "real", or they do not, yes, but to again avoid the false binary choice, you need to consider that contradictory conclusions can both be legitimately considered at the same time. On climate change science, that translates to a policy that  attempts to deal with the consequences of climate change without conceding it is a man-made phenomena. With BF, similarly, it would be a policy of not needing a conclusive recognition by science before taking some concrete steps towards dealing with the issue now.

 

I'm guessing California is just the kind of jurisdiction that would have little qualms about adopting such a course.  For that reason, I don't consider this outcome to be a foregone conclusion.   If so, both sides would be right, and both sides would be wrong. Stuck in the middle with you. Judges just love those kinds of outcomes as well, word.    

Edited by WSA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WSA said:

 

 

I hesitate to bring in the whole human caused climate change issue as the debate tends to get pretty out of hand pretty quickly, but there you have one very good example of this. We have at least some scientists claiming this is not a clear and looming threat (granted, they are few, but they seem to have an out-sized influence on policy makers) and local government agencies drawing their own, opposite conclusions.  A measurable scientific phenomena is a measurable scientific phenomena. BF no less than climate change. Both either exist in the realm of the measurable "real", or they do not, yes, but to again avoid the false binary choice, you need to consider that contradictory conclusions can both be legitimately considered at the same time. On climate change science, that translates to a policy that  attempts to deal with the consequences of climate change without conceding it is a man-made phenomena. With BF, similarly, it would be a policy of not needing a conclusive recognition by science before taking some concrete steps towards dealing with the issue now.

 

Funny; I've compared and contrasted the "human caused global warming" phenomenon and Bigfoot phenomenon many times.  Primarily because, in my mind, there's more evidence of BF than the former.  Yet, ironically, one gets made fun of if they give BF evidence any credence, and called a "denier" if they DON'T give HCGW evidence credence. 

 

Like WSA, I don't want to get in the political thicket.  I just think the divergent paths of the two phenomena show how public opinion can be molded.   

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus that Bluegrassfoot. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WSA said:

Oh, the pitfalls of binary thinking! (Or as I like to refer to it as: The Number One Crippler of Young Adults). And here it is again.

 

As I've proposed up-thread, the tertiary is a completely satisfactory and possible outcome here.  Obviously, a type specimen leads to an administrative concession of existence (at least in the state or province where the species is found...you could still expect state governments to claim, "Well, it might exist THERE, but there is no proof it exists HERE...) but the door needs to be left open for the possibility that the species could get provisional recognition through civil actions like this and still not have a type specimen G. and s. classification.  I've yet to have anyone clearly explain to me why this is not possible.  Fact is, it is possible. The law is full of those types of conclusions, as I've already mentioned.

 

I hesitate to bring in the whole human caused climate change issue as the debate tends to get pretty out of hand pretty quickly, but there you have one very good example of this. We have at least some scientists claiming this is not a clear and looming threat (granted, they are few, but they seem to have an out-sized influence on policy makers) and local government agencies drawing their own, opposite conclusions.  A measurable scientific phenomena is a measurable scientific phenomena. BF no less than climate change. Both either exist in the realm of the measurable "real", or they do not, yes, but to again avoid the false binary choice, you need to consider that contradictory conclusions can both be legitimately considered at the same time. On climate change science, that translates to a policy that  attempts to deal with the consequences of climate change without conceding it is a man-made phenomena. With BF, similarly, it would be a policy of not needing a conclusive recognition by science before taking some concrete steps towards dealing with the issue now.

 

I'm guessing California is just the kind of jurisdiction that would have little qualms about adopting such a course.  For that reason, I don't consider this outcome to be a foregone conclusion.   If so, both sides would be right, and both sides would be wrong. Stuck in the middle with you. Judges just love those kinds of outcomes as well, word.    

 

How is binary thinking a pitfall in biology? Either Bigfoot exists or it doesn’t. The state of California declaring it to exist without evidence is no different than you an I claiming it exists with no evidence.

7 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I think you can plainl see my condescension comment was not directed at you, Norseman. My comment came right after the one above.

 

 

NO state would do that. It would be very different around this Forum if that were the case don't you think? So Ms. Ackley is a crackpot? That seems to be your inference since I've 'hooked up my caboose' to the case. And you know very well my intent with Ketchum was only to research for malicious INTENT. Didn't find any beyond everyone's innuendo that she set out to deceive.

 

As far as this case goes? The state of California KNOWS it cannot recognize the creature to be real whether based on witness testimony or not. IF the creature exists within the boundaries of the state or any state then someone knows about it and has known about it. With all of the technology for surveillance available to the DFW you had better believe that the creature's existence was either verified to exist or it was verified to not exist. There is an answer to that, Norseman. Whether or not that answer comes forth is what I am most interested in. And I don't care how the case turns out as long as that point gets addressed.

 

And all I've done here is go down the road of what it would mean if the Sate of California gets itself into a corner and has to admit whatever the answer to that question is. If it's "no" then what is it's responsibility to the public for getting hosed by those that make a business out of Sasquatch? If it's "yes" then it opens up the door to...........EVERYTHING.........science, agency and cover up and the state's role in that and eventually beyond to the federal level. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing these kinds of thoughts. It doesn't mean I have hitched my 'caboose' to a crackpot. I simply find the possible dynamic of the case to be rather large no matter which way it goes. That's what this thread is about. That discussion.is what this tread has ALWAYS been about.

 

Thanks for the plug on the book ;) It was written BEFORE this case of course but still stands strongly in my court as well as yours.

 

Don’t take this the wrong way, but lately you seem to be taking up causes and becoming the champion of them. And you take it very personal if people disagree with you. What I find odd is that sometimes these causes are in direct conflict with your book?

 

Either way this California case has no Bigfoot evidence. No matter what they decide...... So why feel so strongly about it?

 

As far as California DFW knowing if the creature exists or doesn’t? We don’t know that either. But if they have physical evidence of the creature? Petition the court to make them release their findings....now that would be an exciting case! 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites