Jump to content
hiflier

San Benardino, Calif. Bigfoot Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

hiflier

Thanks for those thoughts WSA. And yes, we shall see. Many if not all of the points brought up in the papers are reflective of much that gets discussed on this very Forum. I've always viewed any discussion here as being tightly woven with the rest and so even though different subject get talked about they are all inextricably linked together into a general picture. The same overlaps appear in the papers of the lawsuit. Things appear itemized on the surface but each point has the potential of being a primary domino that could cause the other points to become part of the argument. What the court decides to focus on therefore will be interesting to see it has to be very careful in its dialogue not to give any reason to open up wider territory.

 

A sharp council for the plaintiff will know that the court's aim will be to restrict as best it can any opportunities in which the state will be forced to acknowledge Sasquatch as a real creature. If that happens all the points in the entire case will have to be dealt with- starting with the state agencies' dereliction of duty regarding the safety of the public and if that happens the "why's" alone will have to be carefully dealt with by the Responders. Never mind the rest of the entire suit point by point.

 

Even a defense of, "We don't have to answer to any of these allegations because the creature doesn't exist" would be an import step in which I foresee all of the plaintiff's expert witnesses taking the stand to counter the statement, even on appeal.

 

@ Bluegrassfoot-

 

8 minutes ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

In the podcast, she admitted that she might not win, but she's going to do all she can to win.  She said, "at least someone is starting to do something. It's a step in the right direction".  I can't fault her for that.

 

This is my point exactly and why I think she needs everyone's support. If she succeeds in forcing out the fact of Sasquatch's existence then it will affect ALL OF US in the field looking for remains as well as those who would shoot one on sight for science. Does anyone really think, on those grounds, that this case is somehow frivolous, pointless, or unimportant? Not me and this thread exists BECAUSE I don't thing it's frivolous, pointless, or at all unimportant. The papers are well worded and argued and the points being brought up are focused and precise.

 

In the weeks to come the harder the media works to wreck her credibility the more I will see that the truth is getting close. I wish her and her council- and us- the best.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
26 minutes ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

Ackley was interviewed on the most recent Sasquatch Chronicles podcast.  She came across to me as sincere, and emphasized the threat to public safety angle of her case.  In my opinion, that would be the best thing to base her case on.  It certainly gives her standing. 

 

In the podcast, she admitted that she might not win, but she's going to do all she can to win.  She said, "at least someone is starting to do something. It's a step in the right direction".  I can't fault her for that.

 

The issue I see is that there are zero confirmed cases of BF harming a person.  Directly or indirectly.  Hard to argue a threat if ones never been acknowledged to have happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

Twist

There's been a few cases reported  of these creatures harming people. Two I believe happen in Monroe, Michigan. One involved a girl in a barn where the creature grabbed her hair I believe. This case does have merit. The fact that Standing is involved is not to excellent. But his motive is on the same page as recognizing this creature existence. Maybe some good might come out of this since it is bringing attention to this creature to the public and might open the door to others. We must be optimistic about this and let the dice fall where they want to. It's a gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
3 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Twist

There's been a few cases reported  of these creatures harming people. Two I believe happen in Monroe, Michigan. One involved a girl in a barn where the creature grabbed her hair I believe. This case does have merit. The fact that Standing is involved is not to excellent. But his motive is on the same page as recognizing this creature existence. Maybe some good might come out of this since it is bringing attention to this creature to the public and might open the door to others. We must be optimistic about this and let the dice fall where they want to. It's a gamble.

 

I do not discount various accounts of BF harming people.  I’m sure it’s happened.  I specifically used the word “confirmed” in my post for a reason.  I’m guessing hearsay and conjecture are probably not going to fly in this instance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

You are correct in that guess. As a way to maybe lighten things up here (or maybe not, heh-heh ;) ) this report has always been an interesting read. Actually two reports from the same area in Colorado in the winter of 1980- one by a boy followed a few days later by an older man with a dog. Large three-toed prints were found after both incidents. From John Green's Database:

 

"A few days after sighting by boy (1001233) an elderly man living on Engleville Hill went out with gun and flashlight to see why his dog was barking, saw an 8-foot monster standing in his garden, shot at it and ran. The creature screamed and started after him, putting a hairy paw through his door window. The man was found unconscious on the floor, and his German Shepherd had been ripped apart. Large 3-toed footprints were found in the area."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

Anyone seriously interested in following this case can access records at COURT LINK

The actual petition is at the bottom of the article hiflier linked to on the first page of this post.  I think she's already hurt her case by public statements she has made stating 'it could have hurt us if it wanted to.' 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

It is unfortunate (unless the petitioner is a member of the bar of California) that she is proceeding pro se.  This legal stuff looks easy when it's done in a 48 minute TV show and Perry Mason goes in for the kill or Susan Dey (yep - I'm dating myself) looks thoughtfully at the jury, which immediately breaks out in applause, but its not easy in practice.  (As an aside, law professors can be the worst as they seem to have no mind or eye for the practical aspects of the law.)  Anyway, as WSA has noted, there are a myriad of legal issues and rules of court that can result in this matter being summarily dismissed with nary a word said in the order about the existence or lack thereof of Bigfoot.

Share this post


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

It is unfortunate (unless the petitioner is a member of the bar of California) that she is proceeding pro se

 

If I was a lawyer in the state AND was a proponent I would take the case pro bono. It would appear that there isn't one lawyer, or any of these free legal assistant groups (maybe there is a free legal assistant group involved?), in the entire state of California who would take this on? Not one lawyer who thinks Bigfoot exists? Or there is one or more but they won't take the case for whatever reason? Or they are playing it safe and waiting to see what happens on March 19th like the rest of us?

 

What would any of you WANT to have happen? Have the case tossed out? See it go to trial? If any of you would want to see it go to trial what do you think should happen or be done FOR it to go to trial? Is there anything you would have done differently? Other than Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum we don't know who the other 'experts' or scientists are. Do you think Dr. Meldrum would be a strong enough testimony for supporting the plaintiff's case. Would there be anyone better? An LEO officer perhaps? A retired or active employee of the state's Forestry Service? Or Fish and Wildlife? It is their agencies or ex-agencies that are being sued after all.

 

Lot of questions above, so pick out one or all to state your opinion. Might be interesting to see what folks would do to win this case. There has already been opinion given on whether or not the case will be tossed or not;  the above questions, however, are different in that they go beyond just yes, it will get tossed, or no, it won't.

 

Or just take the easy route and say, "I don't need to address any of those other questions because it's going to get tossed". I mean what would someone do to assure that it DOESN'T get tossed? Is there anything that would be stronger than what's already in the court papers? And it's OK to take a couple of days to think it over :) It's important because I don't think that the sate could be sued twice, once now and once later, over the same thing. That said then is this case a make it or break it situation?

 

One thing is certain: It is a milestone case. And even though most on this thread so far don't think the case will get past March 19th, it doesn't diminish the fact that it is an extremely important event in Sasquatch history. Surely I'm not the only one who sees the enormity of this event whether it gets thrown out or not. Both events actually when one counts Canada's case.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bluegrassfoot

While I do think Claudia Ackley's lawsuit is a justified "step in the right direction", and I do think Ackley is sincere in her motives, I wish she wasn't in the "woo" crowd.   Ackley claims she was a "witness" to the supposed cloaking bigfoot "found" in the video shot by Barb Shupe.  And most people, including myself, aren't going to find you credible if you claim to see translucent animals, or animals that literally vanish into thin air.  And frankly, it's a lot easier to convince the general population that there is a simple, flesh and blood ape out in the woods, than it is to convince them that there is something out there with novel superpowers.   Going in, you know the odds of even reaching a trial aren't good, so you have to approach it as much as a PR campaign as a lawsuit, and a more grounded plaintiff, like Jeff Meldrum or Derek Randall, would help the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

How the evidentiary burden can be met by the Petitioner is fairly easily predicted, and  sworn testimony is essential to do that. The list of witnesses would be pretty extensive: Any individual who would be willing to give testimony under oath about an eyewitness encounter within the boundaries of California,  and subject to cross-examination. First-hand testimony regarding track ways observed, especially if contemporaneous to the sighting would also be relevant.  Photographic or video evidence would also be probative if offered to support the truth of the sighting narratives in or around the event. The PG Film would of course be pertinent to the issue of the presence of BF in CA, but only at that time. It is now, unfortunately, too remote in time to have much probative value tending to prove the present existence of BF .  Forensic evidence with the requisite chain of custody foundation presented by qualified experts as well. Evidentiary rulings are made by trial courts under an "abuse of discretion" standard of review by appellate courts.  Whatever the court's ruling on admissibility my be, overturning the decision based on that ruling alone is usually difficult, at least in my jurisdiction.  

 

The basis of the Petition should be emphasized though, it seeks acknowledgment of the species for purposes of public welfare and safety, so evidence of the proclivities of the putative species is key. That evidence might be harder to come by, or in lesser amounts. On that point, perhaps the PGF actually harms the Petitioner's case. Patty, while certainly imposing, exhibited no aggressive proclivities and appeared completely non-threatening.  The evidence could lead to a rather bizarre outcome. The court could rule that the preponderance of evidence is that BF likely exists, but there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that it presents a threat to CA residents. How strange would that be?      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Thank you once again, WSA. Your knowledge is so very valuable in this discussion and you need to know how much I appreciate it. Bring in the PGF, pertinent to the case or not would be a mistake IMO as the whole ball of wax regarding a debate about it showing a real creature would only in a large ball and chain bogging down any court ruling. And I agree, Patty showed no aggression- anything but!

 

1 hour ago, WSA said:

The court could rule that the preponderance of evidence is that BF likely exists, but there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that it presents a threat to CA residents. How strange would that be?

 

I see you are quite capable of asking you own complex questions :) Answer: Highly strange, and I might involve my self in exploring that more a little later on. On that note, a return question: If things ever received that kind of court opinion where do you think it would leave things in the area of the state scientists- or any scientist for that matter- mainstream or not and the university departments that study wildlife and the ecology? These and many other things are what crossed my mind during the first few hours after initially reading about this lawsuit- including cover up by state officials. All they have said is they don't recognize the species; they haven't said it doesn't exist. Saying 'likely' or 'unlikely' to exist is in no way definitive one way or the other as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not much came to the surface with Todd Standing's suit in Canada but a lot sure did with this San Bernardino one. I've also not seen any in-depth discussion anywhere else on the web except for here on this thread. It's a good place, maybe the only place, that supports a serious discussion and for folks to get their thoughts out and bring up any questions that pop up.

 

To repeat a point: ANY favorable public decisions made by the court, no matter how seemingly small, regarding the existence of Sasquatch in California will directly impact researchers in the field. It will also impact discussions on many other websites both scientific and otherwise. And again, I also see that such a move by the court WOULD eventually find its way to the federal level as more and more pressure comes to bear from researchers and the public. I have not at underestimated the importance of this case and, IMHO no one else should either.      

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Here is the entire court filing. I apologize for the quality, but had to save it page by page as .jpg files rather than text.

 

 

1-2037975276.jpg

 

 2-7ade77bed5.jpg

 

3-410162e367.jpg

 

  4-8e289d92de.jpg

 

5-2a4504ff2f.jpg

 

  6-ae0bdb5662.jpg

 

7-2f13621aec.jpg

Edited by Airdale
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

Reading this thoroughly it sounds like she is trying to turn her self into a guide service. In a way she wants to make income from these creatures but at the same time wants to offer protection for them. She is saying that they are safe in one statement but saying that they are killers in another statement. The way I see it these creatures do not need our protection since not one of us who are shooters have been able to bring in a body for research.  So if no one has been able to shoot one in all the times that we have found evidence of them then why do they need protection. The other thing is that she was out with her kids and yet they did not pose a threat or she would not have come out of those woods alive. So why is she fighting for their protection if no one has been able to bring in a dead body to study.

 

Sure I would like to see this creature recognized of it's existence. But even if she brings experts I just do not see it happening.  It would have to take a body of a creature that was shot in self defense. Maybe I am wrong about this case but I just do not see this case moving forward and if it does I see people she takes out in the field being set back with no hope. No hope of her showing them a creature and her being sued for not full filling her obligation as a bigfoot guide.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×