bipedalist Posted July 4, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) I think the point is his major investment in the study was thought to be to a tax-deductible entity. He expected a scientific "product" in return........ such as the raw data I guess. Maybe that was specified in advance in a written agreement, maybe not. Either way it now seems implicitly if he was deceived as to the status of his donation that he would expect something now in return for the added costs of his investment...... that is besides the subterfuge of a self-owned, self-published, to date unrefereed journal of questionable import. The raw data genome sequence in it's entirety could be contained only on a very large hard drive apparently. I don't think it is an unreasonable request as long as he does not republish or reattribute it as his own (or somebody else's without proper credit), unless there were advance stipulations that such an outcome could be considered. All of this simply supposition for educational purposes on a BF Forum of course....... should you be in doubt as to legal advice consult your attorney. Edited July 4, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It was my understanding that the genome project was not a nonprofit effort, which seems confused with the protection efforts. She did have Agreements NDA's which established ownership of the data and thus rights to any benefits stemming from it, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) BTW, just to keep you updated. several months ago Wally Hermson requested that he be given files containing the "3 complete genomes" that Ketchum claims to have. Melba demanded a significant amount of money for a "special hard drive" capable of holding those data (as an aside a 4 terrabite drive from seagate is about 170 bucks) Wally provided the money, and has still not recieved the data or anything else he has requested from Melba. All of this after he provided $450,000 dollars to Melba! and got stuck paying tax and penalty on that after it turns out Melbas tax deduxtable organization was not tax deductable at all! This is sad. The poor guy must have thought she discovered Bigfoot DNA and that he's helping a scientific discovery. I now see why Dr. Ketchum bothered self-publishing her paper: it would at least make it look like she tried. Edited July 4, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I'm trying to understand why purchasing a hard drive with data on it would be considered a donation. I doubt Wally would be sweating the tax deduction for a product he's purchasing which costs a few hundred bucks considering the rest of his investment in this. I think you misread that - the reference "on that" was re: the $450,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 BTW, just to keep you updated. several months ago Wally Hermson requested that he be given files containing the "3 complete genomes" that Ketchum claims to have. Melba demanded a significant amount of money for a "special hard drive" capable of holding those data (as an aside a 4 terrabite drive from seagate is about 170 bucks) Wally provided the money, and has still not recieved the data or anything else he has requested from Melba. All of this after he provided $450,000 dollars to Melba! and got stuck paying tax and penalty on that after it turns out Melbas tax deduxtable organization was not tax deductable at all! Thanks for the update - any source on this? first hand from the mouth of the participant! It was my understanding that the genome project was not a nonprofit effort, which seems confused with the protection efforts. She did have Agreements NDA's which established ownership of the data and thus rights to any benefits stemming from it, Wally was told by Melba several times that is was tax deductable. even after he questioned her, she continued to insist it was tax deductable, and would provide him with a tax ID #. At the same time Ramey was questioning Melba on the tax deductable claim, and being told that all Melba needed was a texas document of some sort. No valid tax ID # was ever produced, wallys tax guy had to go back and amend his returns zand pay the taxes and a penalty! check with Wally and sally, i don't expect you to believe me, go to the original source! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I'm trying to understand why purchasing a hard drive with data on it would be considered a donation. I doubt Wally would be sweating the tax deduction for a product he's purchasing which costs a few hundred bucks considering the rest of his investment in this. I think you misread that - the reference "on that" was re: the $450,000. Yep, missed a zero and a decimal. The tax deduction thing would still depend on the agreements signed prior to any research being done. I know that if it read like my NDA did, the data belongs to Melba. Wally might have wanted a tax deduction after the fact on his investment but he should have had that up front before throwing down the cash.if it were going to be an issue. I'm sure that the work done on the genome project probably displaced Melba's normal work she did in her lab which supported her financially. If the agreement was that the work on the genome project was paid for as part of her normal lab work contractually, it could not then be turned into a nonprofit deduction for Wally. Melba would have been paying herself for her time invested in it along with paying for products, supplies etc. plus outsourced work contracted with other labs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It is my understanding an organization has until the end of the tax year to gain it's 501C3 status for a contribution made at anytime of that year to be deductible. But in this case, considering how long this matter has taken to play out, we are probably talking of contributions made in past years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) I'm posting this here because I think it's relevant to the Ketchum report, although it does not directly address bigfoot. The guy whose website is linked below, Eugene M. McCarthy, PhD (Genetics), claims to have spent the last 30 years studying animal and avian hybrids, and among other things has published a book on avian hybrids ("Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World", http://global.oup.com/academic/product/handbook-of-avian-hybrids-of-the-world-9780195183238 ). He argues that many, if not most, of the new species that arose during the history of life on earth were created as a result of hybridization, followed by a process of stabilization. http://www.macroevolution.net/index.html According to McCarthy, most hybrids are not infertile, as commonly believed (although most do have reduced fertility). http://www.macroevolution.net/gametes.html#.UdYpwFLnZxA With respect to the human species, McCarthy hypothesizes that in the distant past, a hybridization incident occurred between the precursor to chimpanzees and bonobos, and a non-primate species, specifically the ancestor to the pig. He prefaces that striking proposal with this statement: For the present, I ask the reader to reserve judgment concerning the plausibility of such a cross. I'm an expert on hybrids and I can assure you that our understanding of hybridization at the molecular level is still far too vague to rule out the idea of a chimpanzee crossing with a nonprimate. Anyone who speaks with certainty on this point speaks from prejudice, not knowledge. No systematic attempts to cross distantly related mammals have been reported. However, in the only animal class (Pisces) where distant crosses have been investigated scientifically, the results have been surprisingly successful. . . . In fact, there seems to be absolutely nothing to support the idea that interordinal crosses (such as a cross between a primate and a nonprimate) are impossible, except what Thomas Huxley termed "the general and natural belief that deliberate and reiterated assertions must have some foundation." Besides, to deny that interordinal mammalian crosses are possible would be to draw, at the outset of our investigation, a definite conclusion concerning the very hypothesis that we have chosen to investigate. Obviously, if humans were the product of such a cross, then such crosses would, in fact, be possible. We cannot tell, simply by supposing, whether such a thing is possible — we have to look at data. http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html#.UdYqk1LnZxA And in fact he has compiled some rather impressive supporting data for the hypothesis. http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.UdYygFLnZxA How is this relevant to Ketchum? Whether or not his chimp-pig hypothesis ultimately goes anywhere, he does have some basis for claiming that many hybrids are not infertile, and that hybridization between fairly divergent species has been documented. His discussion of backcrossing (when earlier generation hybrids mate with the parental species) also may be relevant. None of this says anything directly about Ketchum, of course. Her science and analysis may or may not have merit; time will tell. But if McCarthy is correct, it would at least make Ketchum's hybridization claim somewhat more plausible. In any case, I thought McCarthy's website would be of interest to many here. Edited July 5, 2013 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 It was my understanding that the genome project was not a nonprofit effort, which seems confused with the protection efforts. She did have Agreements NDA's which established ownership of the data and thus rights to any benefits stemming from it, Wally was told by Melba several times that is was tax deductable. even after he questioned her, she continued to insist it was tax deductable, and would provide him with a tax ID #. At the same time Ramey was questioning Melba on the tax deductable claim, and being told that all Melba needed was a texas document of some sort. No valid tax ID # was ever produced, wallys tax guy had to go back and amend his returns zand pay the taxes and a penalty! check with Wally and sally, i don't expect you to believe me, go to the original source! I would expect Wally to have a pro doing his taxes every year. Any word from Wally as to why his tax guy claimed deductions without a Tax ID number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 It was my understanding that the genome project was not a nonprofit effort, which seems confused with the protection efforts. She did have Agreements NDA's which established ownership of the data and thus rights to any benefits stemming from it, Wally was told by Melba several times that is was tax deductable. even after he questioned her, she continued to insist it was tax deductable, and would provide him with a tax ID #. At the same time Ramey was questioning Melba on the tax deductable claim, and being told that all Melba needed was a texas document of some sort. No valid tax ID # was ever produced, wallys tax guy had to go back and amend his returns zand pay the taxes and a penalty! check with Wally and sally, i don't expect you to believe me, go to the original source! I would expect Wally to have a pro doing his taxes every year. Any word from Wally as to why his tax guy claimed deductions without a Tax ID number? you would have to ask wally. All I know is that Ketchum solicited serious amounts of money from wally over 3 years, with him being told it was all tax deductable. I have no idea how his accountant handled it, i just know once they figured out MK was lying about it, they had to go back and amend the treturns for 2 or 3 years, paying back taxes and penalties. And the real question is not to Wallys accountant: It needs to be directed to Ms. Ketchum! and that would be: why were you telling everyone that you had a tax deuctable non profit, when ion fact you had nothing of the sort, and never pursued or intended to pursue government approval of a 501C3? This in not a referendum on wallys accountant, this is about lying for profit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) Wally, Wally, Wally.... has a responsibility IMO to ferret this out legally. Normally, I wouldn't care how fools part with their money....but,in this case his patronage froze up the BF community for several years as MK went on an NDA, whose in and out, rampage. And graced her work with credibility, the rich guy was funding her! So many stuck their necks out in anticipation...to the ridicule we are experiencing now....and flattened BFers... He stood by and perhaps even promoted the Sierra Kills/Justin Smeja, to the tune of a reported book, and continued financial support for Justin and Bart today.... thermals, little gifts.....and showing up at the site to visit with them.... When this "paper" hit the fan, rather than doing that messy, but required step of filing suit, we get instead a bunch of online ...what, defenders of the ultra wealthy eccentric? That couldn't demand mileposts on a five year job...or check up on a tax exempt status claim etc? Or come here and speak for himself...? Slowstepper, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, that your analysis and time in the lab, reflects an objective opinion....but, your detail and apparent personal conversations with Wally destroy that for me... as believing him, at this stage, seems as hazardous as any BFer...or discoverer wannabee..... it's one side of the story... I could get excited about such a law suit...and can envision that it could it be a positive, in the end..... but, I am partial to the truth and a fair hearing.. and people who see that thru when justified... Wally seems to have cut himself loose on that and funnels his efforts as he has in the past...small time costs to a few.... big bucks for others, but all become cheerleaders of the Man's Money.. ... The one I wonder about is Moneymaker...and if his reported $100k/yr salary for a while...from Wally was true...! Just thought I would state the obvious....! And note, most praise his generosity (he does seem so!) and kindness...but I bet he didn't a mass a few hundred million through his charity or altruism... so? Send some money my way Wally, I'll make it transparent! Along with publicly thanking you repeatedly! Edited July 5, 2013 by chelefoot Remove symbols for foul language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I don't know, Apehuman, I can't help but feel Wally was taken advantage of. I think she made promise after promise to him, and he trusted her and he got burned. Maybe he should have checked the situation out more carefully. But he didn't because he trusted her. That was a mistake and he paid dearly for it. Just my opinion, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 5, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted July 5, 2013 For a man of Wally's means to moan and groan seems ironic to me. I don't fall for rumor and innuendo in terms of monetary amounts and how he pushed certain agendas. A grown man spending huge sums of money on BF deserves at least to run it by counsel and CPA prior to watching the eagle fly...... in that respect, I think he had to perform due diligence. Perhaps the red flags were not red enough when they needed to be read for their true colors. In terms of someone being scammed, it can happen to anybody. I rather think there is more to this sordid set of rumored events and countercharges will likely fly. I will say this about Wally, he is dedicated to trying to follow this to a solution and few people out there have the means to that end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) That's my point! And with him the entire community! But for Wally's patronage, we wouldn't have had DeNovo...and the right thing in this case is to see it through rather than leave it pecked out in forums visible only to those still willing to ....post here ! If one gets in a contract, and are taken advantage of...and must decide to walk or sue.... normally one walks...if damages are less than the cost of suit....arguably for BF this is the case.... MK is probably broke/judgement proof.....and the possible profits form anything other than a judgment are presumably non existent..or low....all that is left is principle.. and that is a hard one to judge...b/c law is costly.. mentally/emotionally as well as $$ but, I can't recall any first hand quote (but an old article) from Wally ....and given his intimacy/cause/passion and involvement with BFdom... I would like to see/hear more from the source and for him to take a real leadership role, rather than apparently relying on...what? Can't say..it might be "Autumn of the Patriarch" syndrome..who knows, or poor judgment, or just doesn't care...too much money w/o purpose....but, it does look like he is lacking some key advisors... it doesn't matter to me, b/c the impact to me as a witness/researcher remains...and I am not a party with influence...just opinions!... I figure he has spent at least $1Mil if the reports are true...since meeting Moneymaker....to now? And a $30K suit played out to the end might do more for the state of proof than any number of projects traditionally supported! Edited July 5, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 I don't know, Apehuman, I can't help but feel Wally was taken advantage of. I think she made promise after promise to him, and he trusted her and he got burned. Maybe he should have checked the situation out more carefully. But he didn't because he trusted her. That was a mistake and he paid dearly for it. Just my opinion, of course. I totally agree chelefoot. The way I was raised is that is doesn't matter how much money someone has or how little was taken, stealing or lying to get something is wrong plain and simple. Very little in this world is black and white but I believe this issue is one of those times. If the complete truth isn't told to get money or donations then what was done was wrong. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts