WSA Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 I am sure the defense will be quick to point out that there are groups operating "Ghost Tours" almost anywhere you go. They would be sure to emphasize that the Court can't be expected to provide mandamus relief to those entrepreneurs too, should they file a Petition. I'd be interested to hear how anyone thinks the Ackley Petition is viewed to be a different thing by them, for the sake of the discussion. (Without, I hope, launching a full-blown existence debate within a debate!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 59 minutes ago, WSA said: I am sure the defense will be quick to point out that there are groups operating "Ghost Tours" almost anywhere you go. Which would NOT be in their best interest as they would be in effect pointing a finger at the State of California who, again, could then be in hot water for complicity to a scam. Science has neither proved nor disproved ghosts so to even bring the 'tours' up invites any paranormal enterprize to the table. It may actually work in the plaintiff's favor. They would be sure to emphasize that the Court can't be expected to provide mandamus relief to those entrepreneurs too, should they file a Petition. Curious that, in light of this: http://www.businessnameusa.com/Answers/What Kind Of Licence For Paranormal Investigations.aspx I'd be interested to hear how anyone thinks the Ackley Petition is viewed to be a different thing by them, for the sake of the discussion. (Without, I hope, launching a full-blown existence debate within a debate!) The only thing that is different is that Sasquatch is corporeal: a flesh and blood creature. It was filmed in 1967 within the state's boundaries albeit in a National Forest. Even if the PGF was admissible the location of the filming would put it outside of an area under state jurisdiction. Unless the DOI is ready for a fight that door will never be opened at the state level. As far as the existence debate goes, you are right, not for here. But any case ruling may very well hinge on existence. If they issue Claudia Ackley a license for her Sasquatch tour business then 1) it may be interpreted that the creature is real or 2) someone may come along and sue the state for complicity in a scam. In which case the state in defending itself may just have to go out and find that animal. If the petition for a license is denied then 1) it may be interpreted that the creature doesn't exist or 2) other Sasquatch enterprises and maybe even other paranormal businesses will have to cease operations. If there is a way to avoid either outcome I cannot logically see it. Makes me wonder how closely the ghost folks are watching this. Because if they are laughing either at Ms. Ackley or the State of California they definitely shouldn't be. My opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 So a hoaxer and a Matt Moneymaker wannbe are using the court system to promote their agendas.....pretty cheap advertising. This will most likley never make it to trial but it would be hilarious to watch if it did LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) Interesting comments Hiflier, they help me clarify my views on this. Well, as I've said, there are multitudes of outcomes possible here, limited only by our willingness to entertain them. Here's one more hypothetical: Disclaimer Required by CA Code Section, etc...... The granting of a business license to the entity known as Okey Dokey Sasquatch Tours LLC by the State of California is ONLY for the purpose of regulating the health and safety of its agents, employees and customers and to better assure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. The issuance of this license does in no way constitute an endorsement or affirmation by the State of Californai as to the existence of the putative animal commonly described as a "Sasquatch", or "Bigfoot" . The State of California takes no position as to the actual existence, or non-existence of this animal, but in so licensing Okey Dokey Sasquatch Tours Inc, the State grants it an authorization to charge fees for purposes of guiding its customers to locations to attempt to see or otherwise make contact with a Sasquatch, should the species actually exist. The Petitioner better be able to explain why such a Disclaimer, if required, would not cure her predicament just as well as the state declaring Sasquatch as real. Edited March 8, 2018 by WSA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAGuy Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 ^ 32 minutes ago, WSA said: Interesting comments Hiflier, they help me clarify my views on this. Well, as I've said, there are multitudes of outcomes possible here, limited only by our willingness to entertain them. Here's one more hypothetical: Disclaimer Required by CA Code Section, etc...... The granting of a business license to the entity known as Okey Dokey Sasquatch Tours LLC by the State of California is ONLY for the purpose of regulating the health and safety of its agents, employees and customers and to better assure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. The issuance of this license does in no way constitute an endorsement or affirmation by the State of Californai as to the existence of the putative animal commonly described as a "Sasquatch", or "Bigfoot" . The State of California takes no position as to the actual existence, or non-existence of this animal, but in so licensing Okey Dokey Sasquatch Tours Inc, the State grants it an authorization to charge fees for purposes of guiding its customers to locations to attempt to see or otherwise make contact with a Sasquatch, should the species actually exist. The Petitioner better be able to explain why such a Disclaimer, if required, would not cure her predicament just as well as the state declaring Sasquatch as real. Agreed, WSA! That's not only a better solution, it would also be a much narrower solution than the one the Petitioner is currently seeking, which is why they probably don't want that. But it does seem like a good way to resolve this petition. (I'm not a lawyer, so take my reply with a grain of salt.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, WSA said: Disclaimer Required by CA Code Section, etc...... The granting of a business license to the entity known as Okey Dokey Sasquatch Tours LLC by the State of California is ONLY for the purpose of regulating the health and safety of its agents, employees and customers and to better assure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. The issuance of this license does in no way constitute an endorsement or affirmation by the State of Californai as to the existence of the putative animal commonly described as a "Sasquatch", or "Bigfoot" . The State of California takes no position as to the actual existence, or non-existence of this animal, but in so licensing Okey Dokey Sasquatch Tours Inc, the State grants it an authorization to charge fees for purposes of guiding its customers to locations to attempt to see or otherwise make contact with a Sasquatch, should the species actually exist. Thanks, I can see that or something similar. The renewal of existing licenses involving other paranormal pursuits would probably have the disclaimer incorporated as an update to the rules and regs for licensing such businesses? Hi JKDisco- Welcome to the BFF There are a lot of other Matt Moneymaker types out there so why not. But if you think that the Sasquatch is mythical then it might be interesting to hear you opinion on whether states, or the federal government is acting legally when taking revenue from these enterprises. As an analogy using a subject I've sort of avoided: Is it feasible for UFO abductees to sue a state of government for dereliction of duty in providing safety against citizens being abducted? In other words, are abductees telling the truth because there are really Aliens abducting them? It would take to much to see what a nightmare THAT case would conjure up. MUFON has been running it's Symposiums since the early 1960's. Are the symposiums a scam? are ALL UFO conferences running scams or is there really something 'up there'? If there is something 'up there' is the government failing to stop the abductions and keep it's citizens safe? Maybe the government doesn't have to keep citizens safe if it consider U.S. citizens who visit Washington D.C "non-resident aliens". Don't fault me for being a hardliner. I've had these questions going around in my heard for years. This San Bernardino case has just brought matters like this to a head. Sasquatch? Aliens? Time to stop keeping people in the dark about both? In truth, hoaxer or Matt Moneymaker wannabe notwithstanding, There is much larger issue and question at stake if anyone bringing such lawsuit as Ms. Ackley's to court really wanted to push it. But it won't happen because there is, combined with the resource industry's revenues and profits, well over a trillion dollars at stake. And that's a lot of private wealth as well as state and federal budget balancing. Bottom line? Just give the Lady her license and hope to get out of things unscathed Edited March 8, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 hour ago, JKDisco said: So a hoaxer and a Matt Moneymaker wannbe are using the court system to promote their agendas.....pretty cheap advertising. This will most likley never make it to trial but it would be hilarious to watch if it did LOL! Nailed it on your first post. Welcome to the forum. 1 hour ago, WSA said: Well, as I've said, there are multitudes of outcomes possible here, limited only by our willingness to entertain them. WSA you claim to be a lawyer. Would you take this case? Would you refer this case to a colleague? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Share Posted March 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: WSA you claim to be a lawyer. Would you take this case? Would you refer this case to a colleague? ^^ This is good. If it were me then "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) It's an honest question, hiflier. WSA claims to be a lawyer. My wife is a lawyer. I've seen and am satisfied with her credentials She holds no interest in BF but has read over the Ackley submission. She's quite certain it will be an early day on the golf course March 19. Just wondering if WSA may comment in any weight. Edited March 9, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) Squatchy McSquatch, and I answered honestly, no joking. I took your question seriously and even gave you a 'good' on it. Shoulda plussed you- which I just did. If your spouse had read anything in this thread then she would probably agree that as council I would crash and burn big time LOL. I guess I was confused on how a court could make a definitive decision on something that was wrapped around its state's own ambiguity. So I've been trying to get at the heart of the matter which is the state's unequivocal position on Sasquatch's existence which to me has a direct bearing on issuing a license for a fraudulent or non-fraudulent enterprise. The arguments made sense to me anyway though very fine and pointed. I mean just how does a state or government deal with litigating for or against a plaintiff in a paranormal subject.? I mean there's one state where one can't sue the devil. Another has to do with a law about not causing a hex on someone, I think in Louisiana. Some real estate laws say that a seller must disclose if their house is haunted. True stuff. Edited March 9, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegrassfoot Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 A lot boils down to Judge David S. Cohn's beliefs vis a vis Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 9, 2018 Author Share Posted March 9, 2018 It shouldn't, but ya never know if a judge, who is either a hardline skeptic or a hardline proponent, could be unbiased. I think if they are a true to their position they will always consider the law. It is important when making a decision that no existing laws become compromised. If anyone knows the law it's a judge and TBH I don't think any or even most of them ever even think about Bigfoot and so find the TV shows silly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMort Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Here is Ms. Ackley's video evidence of her "face to face encounter." Judge for yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, OldMort said: Here is Ms. Ackley's video evidence of her "face to face encounter." Judge for yourself... What a joke... Not sure why I'm quoting hiflier...and I can't fix it. On 2/24/2018 at 8:26 AM, hiflier said: 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. On 2/20/2018 at 7:51 PM, hiflier said: OK. Then we can all go home. Seeing as how we know ALL of the evidence they are going to try and present, and that the evidence is surely weak and therefore not worth anything, and not ingle positive thing is forthcoming from this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 9, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 9, 2018 That is a Black bear and the federal agents are going to say that this video is taking a video of a black bear in a tree. I pretty sure that she is very mistaken that this is a black bear. I would say that it is 100% sure that that is what it is. It was freaked out by her and her kids and she should be happy that it was not aggressive.. That is not a Bigfoot at all. A shame that she would even consider that it is. Poor judgement on her part . This does hurt those who are searching these creatures for real. What a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts