ShadowBorn Posted March 7, 2018 Moderator Posted March 7, 2018 You are right that she is not suing for the protection but for it to be recognized as a species. And yes our land is their land which come down who's land was it first. Also who is encroaching on who when it comes down to boundaries. When she is trying to make a enterprise out of what she saw. So this law suit is more about her reputation and making some type of a living from what she encountered. This is not going to work and will not be recognized by any entity and will be denied. So in a way I am more on your side as far as what is happening with this law suit. I am also on the side of Norseman when it comes down to recognizing this creature existence. A body has to be present in order for it to exist in any court as far as science goes. But this will never happen since it will be shut down unless no one speaks up if one does get shot and does get studied by science. But silence must be kept at all cost until it has been documented.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 I agree, and I agree it will be shut down. For different reasons but hey!!
hiflier Posted March 7, 2018 Author Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) I think this just bout sums up what Ms. Ackley is focusing on. Guess I wasn't too far off base (my underline): "In addition, Petitioner is unable to take people out on wildlife viewing expeditions as a commercial recreational operator to view and interact with Sasquatch in the same way that paid guides take people out to see other wildlife in guided adventure tourism activities in defined operating areas because the public and/or government would conceivably perceive Petitioner’s activities to be fraudulent due to Respondents’ denial of the existence of Sasquatch, which is an infringement of Petitioner’s right to operate such a commercial recreational wildlife viewing enterprise." Edited March 7, 2018 by hiflier
WSA Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 And there ^^^ is door #3, yes. But.... The Petitioner's burden here will be to show that a failure to acknowledge the existence of Sasquatch is the same thing as a denial of existence. That won't be easy.
hiflier Posted March 7, 2018 Author Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) True. But in either case, denial or failure to acknowledge, would her enterprise be viewed as fraudulent? That question would shift the point of argument back to whether or not Sasquatch exists would it not? Because one cannot run a fraudulent Sasquatch tour business if Sasquatch is real. So if it is ruled that she is allowed to run her business then the burden is on the state to show HOW that business is NOT fraudulent. So would such a ruling indicate that the Responders have either testified under oath that the creature is real or admitted as such in the privacy of the judge's chambers? On the flip side, could denying her request to run her enterprise be the result of the State of California, through testimony of the Responders, taking an official stance that the Sasquatch is indeed a myth. And it would have to follow, just how would the Responders KNOW that the creature doesn't exist? If their answer to that satisfies the court both professionally and scientifically then what I said before stands: Anyone and everyone engaged in profiting from anything involving promoting Sasquatch as being real- or even highly suspected as being real- would see those profits suddenly in jeopardy. For if not, then again, the State of California, by taking revenue from any activity including the sale of any books or trinkets, could find itself in trouble for complacency in a scam. Lawyering is all about the finer points of interpretation and I think this post satisfies those finer points. Submitting court papers claiming the safety of the public due to creatures called Sasquatches running around unchecked in the woods is one thing. Add to, and interweave it with an ability or inability to run a business then the business becomes a pry bar to the rest. Very clever. As said- it's a potential quagmire with pitfalls everywhere for an unwary court with a witness on one side and a Responder on the other. Edited March 7, 2018 by hiflier 1
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Posted March 8, 2018 On 3/6/2018 at 3:21 PM, hiflier said: "Hiflier- that part of the story doesn't come at all and maybe shouldn't have brought it up but a 31" half/hand and forearm was supposedly found by the UFS 4 miles inland from Jenner, Calif. and stowed away within the states vaults. Told to me by a friend who knows the fellow who was on the crew who found it in 1981 but not confirmed; maybe I shouldn't have brought it up." Interesting wouldn't you say? The curious thing is that it's a story but the body part has a definite size mentioned: 31 inches and also that it is an arm with a "half/hand and forearm" which would be enormous in length if for instance it didn't have the upper arm attached? No comments on this quote? Admissible to the court or not, which is my reason for digging it up. It would seem that the "USF" in the quote should read "USFS"? If so, then it would appear to be the property of the federal government and so couldn't be subpoenaed as evidence in a state court?
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) The witness still has to prove her credibility. Have you listened to the podcast? She thinks she gets to choose the judge in her case. Edited March 8, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) Of course I have. But she is suing the state and it's agencies for her being seen as non-credible. Catch-22 as far as I can see. Whether I agree with her or you doesn't matter. Only the arguments in court will matter. It will be up to the court to determine credibility. The point being it may not make a difference whether she is or not because in the court suit her credibility is not only tied to a potential business, it's tied to the existence or non-existence of a creature she claims to have recently witnessed and that she has been researching for 20 years. Her arguments to me are as obvious and clear as.......uh, oh........oh, no.........OH NOOOOOOOOO! This must mean........(Gulp)........I'm.......I'm a........a........A CRACKPOT! AHAHAHAHAHAEEHEEEHEEEHEEEEHEEEEE! I'M A CRACKPOT! BWAAAAHHHAHHAHAHAHHHHAAAAA! Seriously though, whoever dratted her petition did a very good job of wording. Standing? Standing's council? I'm having a LOT of fun with this thread- it makes me think. Edited March 8, 2018 by hiflier
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 "The point being it may not make a difference whether she is or not because in the court suit her credibility is not only tied to a potential business, it's tied to the existence or non-existence of a creature she claims to have recently witnessed and that she has been researching for 20 years."
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) Well, you're right, it's only a claim. If 'claims' aren't worth a hill o' beans in a courtroom then how much of the suit should be considered? The 'claim' of the sighting is only the catalyst for the rest of suit- the rest of the suit being Ms. Ackley not being able to conduct a tour business. Question for you then: We all know you do not think Sasquatch exists so in your opinion would the tour business be viewed by the State of California as being fraudulent? And if so, a follow up question: How would that impact say, the Bigfoot Discovery Museum in Fenton, CA? Another fraudulent enterprise? The BFRO field researchers in the state- part of a national fraudulent enterprise that charges money for expeditions in the state? These are real issues that I see as coming under the shadow of a court ruling against Ms. Ackley. Do you or anyone else, agree? It's why I think this case is a serious one and so should not be treated as a joke. Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet, Rob Lowe's alleged experience in the field with the NAWAC team? What happens to those programs and the advertisers that make a profit on them? Would a ruling against Ms. Ackley reach into their pockets as well as the pockets of book authors and other matters such as conferences? Where would the ripple from such a ruling stop? At the California state line? I think not. Edited March 8, 2018 by hiflier
Twist Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 Simple, disclaimers that it’s all for entertainment purposes. Would that suffice? Why don’t we ask our resident BF tour guide, Bigfoot Hunter? I believe he has stated he does not promise any sightings, curious what the actual verbage is for his tours.
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Posted March 8, 2018 (edited) Of course "for entertainment purposes" would work in the effort to gain a favorable ruling BUT! What would it mean for the success of the tour enterprise if there was going to be NO chance of seeing a Sasquatch? Because even though it would be under the auspices of entertainment I think it would suffer from not having proponents take advantage of the service. And speaking of 'proponents', what about them? They may keep on believing the creature real in spite of what the court says unless the court ORDERS that field work be conducted to support not only the Responders but also the ruling itself in a way that a subsequent appeal to the ruling would be out of the question. What if in the course of events in the courtroom the plaintiff demands that the Responders open up their records in order to look for instances in which the public, or the employees of the two agencies being sued, have reported seeing Sasquatches?? Those reports should they exist, even as email correspondences, might have information on what actions were taken- if any- to investigate, for instance the more credible reports that were submitted by LEO.s, researchers from universities, geologists, rangers or game wardens? I have read in past posts of people that have inquired to official about reported sightings or incidents only to hear that some agencies don't keep records of such events? Does California? It has it's share of missing persons, especially around the Mt. Shasta region. In other words, what may at first appear to be a very narrow scope in the lawsuit may just backfire into the faces of everyone EXCEPT Ms. Ackley if the elements of the petition are allowed to spill over into unexpected areas of the Responders that weren't meant for exploration? In that case, would the judge limit how far the lawsuit can extend? And if so, why? Edited March 8, 2018 by hiflier
OldMort Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 50 minutes ago, Twist said: Simple, disclaimers that it’s all for entertainment purposes. Would that suffice? I don't think that's even necessary. There is already plenty of precedent for "industries" that rely on "unproven" entities or subject matter that is central to their "business". The UFO industry is huge. It has its own organizations, tours, conferences and literature etc. Likewise with the paranormal industry, specifically ghosts and such. How many hundreds of haunted house tours must there be? Are they shut down or discredited as fraud? No. There will always be customers willing to pay... Its all about the mystery. In Ms. Ackley's case, in my opinion, ironically if she wins - she actually loses. 1
hiflier Posted March 8, 2018 Author Posted March 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, OldMort said: Its all about the mystery. Yes, it is. And true for all of the topics of interest that you mentioned. But there is dynamic that is threatening to take place here in this San Bernardino case. The dynamic is that the 'mystery' of the Sasquatch may just have to end.
Recommended Posts