Leaderboard

Having all of the facts now I conclude that he had no intent, that ignorance of the law is no defense, the prosecution wanted to put a check in the win column as a deterrent to the rest of the public, that Peter made honorable restitution, and that Peter made a sacrifice understanding that the cost of disputing the charges based on lack of intent was just too high.

I don't think the government's actions in this case are political. In fact I think that they're actually trying to avoid a firestorm of public and political demands by maintaining the status quo. There's no upside to disclosing the presence of a dangerous species that is/will be suspected of preying on humans to the public, and which cannot be controlled other than by means that would generally be considered unethical, or at least controversial.

What if it turns out to be hominid? Perhaps with the name "Elusory Hominid" HF - Thanks for starting the topic. Stories like the ones shared here is the primary reason I switched camps from prove they exist to protect them to leave them alone.

My response in red Convicted criminal stated yet again. Why am I not surprised? The man claims to have overlooked a stipulation, but he's a convicted criminal, so we shouldn't believe him. It just had to be intentional because he is a Bigfoot proponent! LOL! I'm not making a claim that he intentionally defrauded anyone, nor am I defending his actions if they were indeed as he claims. Then again, I'm not trying to bolster my position by kicking an elderly man when he's down. Fraud by nature is intentional. You can't accidentally defraud someone. Did you not read the USDOJ posting? They list off several acts that were fraudulent in nature. Nobody claimed he was a saint, but he is human, and as such makes mistakes and, possibly, wrong choices. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.