Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) WSA: What happened? In your opinion...from a legal POV? Edited March 21, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Beats me. At this stage you’ll find the answers in the CA Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated, and not anywhere else. I am not inclined to look that up but would rather just wait and see. If the Petition does survive the Respondent’s M.T.D., that is when I will be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 https://www.sbsun.com/2018/03/20/california-womans-bigfoot-is-real-lawsuit-has-been-dismissed-for-now/ At least it looks like she now has council and is no longer going pro se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Based on the amount of “enormous” legal work they will have to do I assume this ends up fading into nothing due to lack of funds or some other reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 21, 2018 BFF Patron Share Posted March 21, 2018 Most that have affiliated themselves with Tod Standing ends up regretting it. Seems like vetting is rare in BF alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMort Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, Twist said: Based on the amount of “enormous” legal work they will have to do I assume this ends up fading into nothing due to lack of funds or some other reason. Now that she is lawyered up, I'm sure there will an organized campaign to raise funds for her cause. Lots of $$$'s will be needed to pay for the services of the crack team of brilliant legal minds that she will be retaining. Look for Todd Standing to be the front man on this. Ultimately, its all about attention and cash... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Mssr. Standing is skating very close to practicing law in CA without a license, I'd surmise. He best not have taken anything in exchange for his "advice". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 23, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2018 They ( Gov) do not want these creatures to exist and will prevent it with all cost from existence. They (Gov ) already know that they do not need protection and will shut down who ever gets close to proving them. They are going to make the case for proving their existence as hard as they can so that there is no way of winning for their existance. It is just a fact. The Gov does not need the burden of Governing Federal and State land just for these creatures that they cannot control. So they will keep things the way they are and let the creatures be. Is this my assumption , YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 While what you say might be true ShadowBorn, you probably shouldn't presume a judge to be part of, or serving the needs of, Government. Fortunately for all of us (and this is especially true of CA Courts) there are judges out there who harken to a higher standard than to merely serve in the name of preserving the status quo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said: They ( Gov) do not want these creatures to exist and will prevent it with all cost from existence. They (Gov ) already know that they do not need protection and will shut down who ever gets close to proving them. They are going to make the case for proving their existence as hard as they can so that there is no way of winning for their existance. It is just a fact. The Gov does not need the burden of Governing Federal and State land just for these creatures that they cannot control. So they will keep things the way they are and let the creatures be. Is this my assumption , YES. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMort Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 ^^^ When people talk about the (Gov) and "They" I always wonder who exactly they are referring to. Is it the Executive Branch or Congress, the Justice Department, the DOD, or the "Deep State" perhaps? Who is "They"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 23, 2018 Author Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) I don't know about anyone else but, where Sasquatch is concerned, The "they" I refer to is The DOI. Beneath that? Take your pick, U.S. Forestry Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Park Service...........and on down. And then each state has its own version of a Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Park Service, Forestry Service, and Land Management. Ultimately though all of it is under the DOI's oversight. A spokesperson for the State of New York said that there is no such thing as a Sasquatch anywhere in the world- but he never said how he knows that. The U.S. Government has said after two Petitions that there is no credible evidence for Aliens and that no U.S. citizen has ever been contacted by Aliens but, again, never said how the government actually knows that. In other words, IMHO, there's a whole pile of missing information supporting either official position-Sasquatch OR UFO's- but the 'game' is played exactly the same way. My contention has always been that there are key people in both camps that know the truth and yet neither camp has stepped up to clear the air to everyone's satisfaction regarding Sasquatch or UFO's. How do I know that? Because there are Bigfoot and UFO conferences and authors that have been around for decades without proof of either. So this California lawsuit is important just on that basis. And I find it disturbing that adults don't understand that this is a good, maybe the best, attempt to nail at least the Sasquatch issue to the wall, and that it's occurring in a section of the country that has a long and rich history of Sasquatch sightings and reports. Too many people get caught up in the dismissal/non-dismissal dialogue of this case and completely disregard the important fact that a Sasquatch existence argument is actually going to court. That's what I find to be the most intriguing point of the whole matter. What I also find intriguing is the dearth of discussion outside of the BFF. Even here only a handful of members have had any input and half of them, if not most, seem to only have something negative to say. It's a phenomenon I simply do not understand. I cannot help but think that if it was one of our more esteemed members bringing this to court then more folks would be coming across with support and encouragements. When it comes to Sasquatch and this lawsuit I do not view Claudia Ackley as an outsider. She's a proponent. Many here are also proponents. Would the attitude be different toward her if she was maybe a Premium Member in good standing and a frequent poster here? Would her efforts then be more widely embraced? I wonder......... Edited March 23, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 The lack of discussion on the lawsuit isn’t suprising if one considers the general lack of belief in the existence of sasquatch, along with the many hoaxes that this case is reminiscent of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 24, 2018 Author Share Posted March 24, 2018 I disagree on both points. I know about hoaxes and hoaxers as much as anyone else and do not see this as being that. In fact it would be extremely dangerous for any individual to make any attempt to hoax a high court. And although there are skeptics here there are also many MORE who are believers in addition those that just aren't sure. I am looking forward to seeing what the law team for the Plaintiff comes up with for a rewrite of the Petition. I'm also curious about actually how, and who was responsible, for deciding that the Petition as it stood would be a failure. There is a story there folks along with who the parties are that have decided to take the case. All in all it sounds like the case will be on firmer ground and even more interesting to follow than before. It certainly would seem to be farther away from being viewed as being just a frivolous case. The mere fact that council for the Plaintiff will now have time to view ALL of the evidence and interview the expert witnesses will be an opportunity to strengthen their arguments. Makes me curious too to see exactly what the focus of the lawsuit will be: Existence? Because as Twist said the case was based on that. The pause in the action also gives the Responders more time to assess the seriousness of this lawsuit. So, a question. How many of you thought this case was serious, or that it now has the potential of becoming even more serious? Can a Petition be worded in such a way as to truly force the Responders and the State of California to officially admit that the Sasquatch exists or that it doesn't exist? Or at least force them to go find out? That's of course assuming that they don't already have proof one way or another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 24, 2018 Moderator Share Posted March 24, 2018 Since when have we ever seen a fight in a court of law for the rights of a creatures existence in this nation? Not in my life time and yet we are some how seeing this coming to life before our very eyes with out the body of evidence. And I am talking about an actual body that say these creatures exist. This is what this court is going to be arguing over about with the plaintiff and the Judge is going to have to rule over with the DOI and the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings enough evidence to show their existence this is going to change the way we live with in our forested areas. How will the DOI allow this to take place knowing that there is some thing that they might not have no control of. Is this thinking conspiracy? no, not knowing what I know. This will be a battle for the plaintiff ,all up hill with " They ". I be having a few boiler makers for this fight. It should be good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts