San Benardino, Calif. Bigfoot Lawsuit

[WSA]

Only one consideration S.Mc.S....What does it pay? 

 

Seriously though, it has a lot of interesting facets to it, don't it? Aside from my bias towards the Petitioner's case, I just love a legal puzzle, so I ping-pong back and forth between the arguments.  There are plenty of lawyers in this world, but the ones who get to try cases to juries regularly are a small sub-set. I've been fortunate enough to learn from some of the best and have been barred in this jurisdiction for 30 years (although I apparently was too good at it...or maybe the opposite...because they kicked me upstairs to management! )  Your wife may have similar experience, and if she does, she will probably also tell you if the judge does grant a jury trial, then all bets are off. I learned long ago that trying to accurately predict the opinions of 12 (or in this case 6) people you just met is a sucker's game, even if you are admitted to practice in CA, which I am not.  I especially don't know what could happen there because I don't know what the law permits on a Petition for mandamus, really.  

 

(Sure looks like a bear to me too) 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by WSA

[hiflier]

16 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Would you take this case?

 

Would you refer this case to a colleague?

 

Coupla good direct questions there WSA. Your response seemed a bit diffuse. Would you take this case if you had a month to explore the arguments presented here? Would the truth about Sasquatch be your point of focus as council for the plaintiff even though you may personally think she saw a bear?

 

(the 'bear' has a pretty cool eye blink........for a bear)

Edited March 9, 2018 by hiflier

[WSA]

So would I take the case if I had a month to find out if it had a basis in law and fact? I'd let you know after I did that, but not before. Not trying to be evasive at all. It would be impossible to give a informed answer now. It would take, you know, getting informed.  Too, what a lawyer would be willing to do depends largely on if the fee is a contingent, billable or flat-fee arrangement.  You guarantee me a fee no matter the outcome and I'll argue the moon is made of green cheese and the center of the earth is made of creamy nougat.

[Twist]

^^ of course you would WSA, those things are already accepted facts....., aren’t they?  

[hiflier]

.........or that there's a Sasquatch roaming in the forests of California?  

[WSA]

Assuming a contingent fee, my hypothetical acceptance of the case would have much less to do with my agreeing with its premise than my prediction of prevailing under the law and facts. Standing here with what little I know now I just can't make that prediction, and rather than chase down all the information I'd need to make that call I believe I'll just wait on the outcome and back-track the law once the court publishes it. I will be as curious as anyone as to what results. 

[hiflier]

 

49 minutes ago, WSA said:

You guarantee me a fee no matter the outcome and I'll argue the moon is made of green cheese and the center of the earth is made of creamy nougat.

 

Hmmm. OK.............but not Sasquatch. Curious, but since the case is current and yet to be heard I can understand your reticence to comment. Probably wise. 12 more days until Monday, March 19th, so we wait.

[WSA]

Not curious at all Hiflier. I think you might be confusing what I profess to know about the topic of Sasquatch existence (or at least what I think I know about it) and what I know about the Rules of Civil Procedure as they pertain to a Petition for mandatory relief in the state of California (of which I know about zip).  Those are two different trains, running on separate tracks. The outcome of this matter is likely to have much less to do with Sasquatch's provability, and much more to do with Motion practice under those Rules.  My advice is don't get twisted around the axle worrying about the first one and forget about the second one. This is not going to be much about Sasquatch in the final analysis, and that is about the extent of any prediction I'd care to make about it.  I hope to be wrong, of course.

[hiflier]

26 minutes ago, WSA said:

The outcome of this matter is likely to have much less to do with Sasquatch's provability, and much more to do with Motion practice under those Rules. 

 

That sounds about right, WSA, but I do think the underlying intent of the Petition is provability? It would seem that the Petitioner is using it as an underpinning for not only her credibility but also as a way to validate her tour business in the eyes of the public. So I really do think the lawsuit is trying to back the Responders into a corner in which they will be forced to defend their position on the Sasquatch existence issue in order to support a non-cover up suit that, while not now an issue, could possibly come later on appeal.

 

Of course this is all speculation but there is fertile ground for discussion both in and out of court so I'm also curious not of just the outcome on the 19th but what happens after that, if anything as well. 

[WSA]

Yup, no doubt that is the intent. Let me just  predict as well that the State's Attorney is not too partial to being put in a corner. I'm sure, they can see that coming three blocks down and two over and be there before it arrives!

[ShadowBorn]

If she plans on using the evidence that she has now to push this through then she does not have a leg to stand on. The Judge I believe is going to rule in favor of the state  since her evidence is so weak. The state will show her credibility is not creditable. The motion will then be carried to not further this in proceedings and will be dismissed.

 

It is a shame that she is taking this to a court proceedings and it should not have. This issue should have stayed out of court and have been best settled with science and amongst peers who can better bring these creatures to light. This is not the way it should be settled and they should not be used as an enterprise as though they are some type of zoo exhibit. I hope that the out come works out in favor for the creatures that roam our National Forest and I am sure that it will.

Hiflier

You seem to be quite advocate for these creatures lately. What changed? 

[hiflier]

Hi, ShadowBorn,

 

21 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

If she plans on using the evidence that she has now to push this through then she does not have a leg to stand on. The Judge I believe is going to rule in favor of the state  since her evidence is so weak

 

I'm not entirely sure if what Ms. Ackley is going to present as evidence is something that we do not yet know about. She may have something that has yet to be publicized.

 

21 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

You seem to be quite advocate for these creatures lately. What changed?

 

Point blank? The subject of Patty's shoulder width that I discussed in the "Patty Is Real" thread. A Human cannot be inside a suit with a 30+inch shoulder span and still be able to have their arms hang down and duplicate the same fluidity of arm motion nor present the same flex at the elbow location. So, yes, I am a new advocate for these creatures. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by hiflier

[Guest]

23 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

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  

 

Thanks for the welcome....whew you've covered a lot of ground. I haven't mastered some of the quote features, so I've bracketed my responses to each of your questions.

Sorry if it's a giant word salad.

 

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:

[I don't really follow this analogy there's really no comparison in my opinion between seeing lights in the sky and a giant apeman within 30'. 

 The whole alien abduction scenario could be analogous to Bigfoot kidnapping or habitation. Of course after reading your post it's obvious your suggesting a conspiracy to keep these two secret or am I misunderstanding your position?]

 

Is it feasible for UFO abductees to sue a state of government for dereliction of duty in providing safety against citizens being abducted?

[ Sure you can sue almost anybody for almost anything you want]

 

 In other words, are abductees telling the truth because there are really Aliens abducting them?

[Sure they could be telling the truth, they just may not be experiencing what they are reporting]

 

 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?

[Nope selling a theory/myth is not illegal, but you bring up an interesting point....what if someone sells something at the symposium/convention that they claim is an alien artifact or footprint cast from Bigfoot]

 

 are ALL UFO conferences running scams or is there really something 'up there'?

[Nope but the UFO conference doesn't make UFOs anything other than what they are....unidentified flying objects]

 

 If there is something 'up there' is the government failing to stop the abductions and keep it's citizens safe?

[Hmmm....thats quite a jump you've made...but I can assure you if we are visited by aliens no one on this planet will be able to keep its 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?

[Sure that would be great just as soon as someone can produce something that will survive some basic scientific scrutiny]

 

 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  [Meh....I really don't think that either subject is part of a nationwide/worldwide civilian and government conspiracy to keep us in the dark.]

[hiflier]

Then why ARE we in the dark? Because greed outweighs someone telling the truth? I would certainly seem then to be the case in both the Bigfoot and the UFO camps. Why shouldn't that be considered conspiring to hide the truth? The formula for generating revenue from either one would seem to be identical. Coincidence? Not in this brain.

 

But people have been being led around for a thousand centuries, ever since some medicine man found out a little flash powder on a fire made people worship him. Nothing has changed. And those who will keep the Human mind in the dark without let up are still with us. And we still do not shrug them off. The magic tricks played on Humans today are more effective, more powerful, and more sophisticated, but they are still magic tricks. Truth. 

[WSA]

Thaumaturgy of all kinds is at work, no doubt. Human incomprehension is working even harder though... late nights, weekends and no holidays off!

Edited March 13, 2018 by WSA