The Sasquatch vs. Government

[hiflier]

This thread is to discuss how one might present a case in court about arriving at the truth of the Sasquatch existence question. Below is the British Columbia judge's ruling in the Todd Standing court case. Todd went at it all wrong and even without knowing what Todd Standing was claiming, one can still see where he went wrong simply by understanding why the judge ruled the way he did. Please read through the ruling and then we can take it from there: https://macleans.ca/news/canada/what-british-columbias-supreme-court-said-about-sasquatch/

 

 

"While the court is clearly without jurisdiction to embark upon an independent investigation of scientific matters, the court is also without jurisdiction to order the government of British Columbia to expend funds to conduct particular scientific investigations of the flora and fauna of the Province.

 

In the case at bar, there is no overt exercise of provincial control over the plaintiff; inaction — in the sense of the Province not recognizing the existence of the sasquatch — is by no means an exertion of control over the plaintiff on the facts of this case. The plaintiff has not been prohibited by the Province from sharing his beliefs regarding the existence of the sasquatch, or from any other action. No facts have been pleaded that amount to “treatment” as described in Rodgriguez (sic), let alone “punishment” that would outrage standards of decency. Rather, bare assertions of a violation are made without reference to any prohibition or act of control.

 

The conclusion that state action has not created a distinction as against the plaintiff is sufficient to be the end of the matter. However, I further do not find “political or other beliefs” as pleaded to constitute analogous grounds of distinction on consideration of the facts of this particular case. … A belief in the existence of the sasquatch is not an immutable personal characteristic. First, there is no political belief at issue here; Mr. Standing’s belief in the sasquatch’s existence is not a political matter. Second, such belief is not akin to “constructively immutable” grounds like religion. Where religion can be an element core to a person’s state of being in all aspects of life, the same cannot be said of a belief in the existence of the sasquatch."

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Right away one can see from the judge's response that Todd had made the case personal by evidently claiming some kind of hardship, or an infringement on his right's, or that he thought government was somehow harming him by not recognizing the Sasquatch as a real creature. If this was what he was presenting to his lawyer as the basis for his lawsuit then the lawyer must've thought how easy the case was going to be because he knew it would get tossed. OR that Todd was initially going to present his case correctly but his lawyer convinced him that in order to succeed it would be better for Todd to claim some kind of personal damages. And again, the lawyer would know that the lawsuit would get tossed. Because either way, according to the judge's wording in the ruling, Todd couldn't prove that there were any damages done.

 

This is kind of important to think about because back in 2018, if you remember, the late (passed away this year at only 56 years old) Claudia Ackley nearly brought a similar case in California after her encounter in the San Bernardino National Forest. Todd Standing had helped her write up her deposition. But the one huge error in her case was that she was filing suit against the State of California and its agencies for an incident that had occurred in a national forest in California, and we all know that a national forest is under federal jurisdiction so she should have been suing the USFS, or the USFW, or at least the overarching Dept of Agriculture.

 

[xspider1]

At this point, suing any Government over the existence of Bigfoot seems destined to be fruitless.  Find a Supreme Court who's constituents are in a majority belief that Bigfoot discovery warrants taxpayer dollars and I'll buy your book that same day.    

[hiflier]

Just now, xspider1 said:

At this point, suing any Government over the existence of Bigfoot seems destined to be fruitless.

 

But it really isn't. Unless one approaches it the way that Todd Standing did.

 

1 minute ago, xspider1 said:

Find a Supreme Court who's constituents are in a majority belief that Bigfoot discovery warrants taxpayer dollars and I'll buy your book that same day. 

 

One doen't need a believing body of justices, or even jurors. Because it's not a belief issue and so a case should never be presented that way. From the judge's ruling it sounded like Todd either made it a belief issue or he allowed the case to enter into that realm. The judge's statements at the end pretty much informs us of that.

 

[xspider1]

Without proof, all things, when presented to others, are belief issues.  You indicated that proof of Bigfoot is in the pages of this very Forum, no?  If so, then it seems like you could convince this relatively sympathetic audience of that very fact.  Have you done that?

Edited September 19, 2023 by xspider1

[hiflier]

It isn't my responsibility to convince anyone of anything. There is proof that identical multiple DNA mutations were found in genomes from widely separate geographical locations which showed that when those mutations were in multiple groups within a single genome that it was a situation that was impossible to be found present in a Human genome. Not a whole lot of wiggle room there.

 

But this thread is about presenting a case that has nothing to do with genomes unless it becomes a scientific fact of argument in the case. Personally, I would not present that in a case's argument because the case's argument would be deploying a different approach altogether that would have nothing to do with genetics. In other words, the case would have nothing to do with proof. The case would be based generally on ethics and social responsibility.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

I know exactly where Todd Standing went wrong….. just as I know exactly where Melba Ketchum went wrong. They are both known hoaxers… I guess not many people found his muppet mask any more convincing than a Chewbacca mask.

 

But evidently the OP isn’t embarrassed about carrying the torch for known hoaxers. He is only embarrassed about the forum talking about pitfall traps.🫤

 

As far as any valid DNA coming to light that proves the existence of Sasquatch? Write a paper and present it to a peer reviewed legit publication. And not some website Melba Ketchum opened herself for 9.99 a month. 
 

Get it published here. https://www.scientificamerican.com
 

And then I will humbly apologize for anything ill I said about the Erickson project or Ketchum’s DNA findings. I will NOT however apologize about their circus stunts with the Chewbacca mask and the 9.99 website. Those are parlor tricks… Shame, shame.

 

Until then? It’s all just hot wind as it has been for years.

[hiflier]

Ethics and social responsibility would only be the guiding principles. Not the points of contention. That's why I said ''based generally on ethics and social responsibility." For example, I see this as a type of question that might be presented to a defendant in a case: "Are you claiming that pursuing Bigfoot is only a recreational activity because your position is that Bigfoot doesn't exist?"  

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, norseman said:

I know exactly where Todd Standing went wrong….. just as I know exactly where Melba Ketchum went wrong. They are both known hoaxers… I guess not many people found his muppet mask any more convincing than a Chewbacca mask.

 

But evidently the OP isn’t embarrassed about carrying the torch for known hoaxers. He is only embarrassed about the forum talking about pitfall traps.🫤

 

As far as any valid DNA coming to light that proves the existence of Sasquatch? Write a paper and present it to a peer reviewed legit publication. And not some website Melba Ketchum opened herself for 9.99 a month. 
 

Get it published here. https://www.scientificamerican.com
 

And then I will humbly apologize for anything ill I said about the Erickson project or Ketchum’s DNA findings. I will NOT however apologize about their circus stunts with the Chewbacca mask and the 9.99 website. Those are parlor tricks… Shame, shame.

 

Until then? It’s all just hot wind as it has been for years.

 

I really hate to say this, Norseman, but nothing in your post has anything pertaining to the topic. Now I do expect folks to go off topic, it happens. But none of your points do a darn thing to detract from, or cast aspersions, onto this thread- outside of trashing people, of course. And that's all it really does. The judge's ruling on Todd's case was straight forward in the legal sense and had ZERO to do with his or anyone else's hoaxing. So to be clear, This is about the LEGAL issue of presenting a case to a court with the aim of finding out the truth behind Sasquatch existence. Why you're bring hoaxers, suspected hoaxers, or people that you personally have it in for, and post stupid muppet faces onto this thread is beyond me. Show me anywhere in the judge's ruling that says, "I'm throwing out your case, Mr. Standing, because you're a hoaxer" LOL.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

11 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I really hate to say this, Norseman, but nothing in your post has anything pertaining to the topic. Now I do expect folks to go off topic, it happens. But none of your points do a darn thing to detract from, or cast aspersions, onto this thread- outside of trashing people, of course. And that's all it really does. The judge's ruling on Todd's case was straight forward in the legal sense and had ZERO to do with his or anyone else's hoaxing. So to be clear, This is about the LEGAL issue of presenting a case to a court with the aim of finding out the truth behind Sasquatch existence. Why you're bring hoaxers, suspected hoaxers, or people that you personally have it in for, and post stupid muppet faces onto this thread is beyond me.

 

You would know about going off topic wouldn’t you?

 

I am not trashing “people” just known hoaxers…. And you don’t think it had ANYTHING to do with Todd Standing’s case? 🤣🤣🤣 You don’t think the Judge looked at Todd Standings “evidence”? 🤦🏻‍♂️ Of course they did!

 

I don’t see a legal case going anywhere. Watching Ufology? About the best your going to get is a Congressional hearing and some witness testimony before Congress that probably will not move the needle one bit.

 

If you have water tight DNA that proves the existence of Bigfoot? None of that is necessary! Simply write a scientific paper showing that evidence and submit it to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Done. Then it won’t matter about public perception or a Judge’s ruling. Facts are facts. 🤷‍♂️

[hiflier]

Hey, way to go! Great ideas

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

You would know about going off topic wouldn’t you?

 

Indeed I WOULD. But then I did say I expected it didn't I. I said "it happens."

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

And you don’t think it had ANYTHING to do with Todd Standing’s case?

 

No, I don't. It wasn't even implied. What was said was this:

 

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

The conclusion that state action has not created a distinction as against the plaintiff is sufficient to be the end of the matter.

 

Todd was claiming some kind of affront by the state. The judge ruled....see underlined.

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

I don’t see a legal case going anywhere.

 

Nope. You don't.

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

Watching Ufology? About the best your going to get is a Congressional hearing and some witness testimony before Congress that probably will not move the needle one bit.

 

Congressional hearing? Witnesses? NAH, none of that

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

If you have water tight DNA that proves the existence of Bigfoot?

 

No genetics necessary. But you've already read the part of this thread where I said that, right?

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

Then it won’t matter about public perception or a Judge’s ruling.

 

It mattered in the Todd Standing case. And this isn't about public perception. Where do you get these ideas? But a judge's ruling would be a nice goal. If it was your case how would you perceive a judge's ruling that would be in your favor? Be careful here because it isn't a court's responsibility to do investigations, nor can they compel a government to do so. When one thinks about it, that doesn't seem to leave much at all in the way a case could succeed does it. But it will. Because it will have nothing to do in the way we conduct out "investigations" on this Forum. And it won't be going down the Todd Standing/late Claudia Ackley's road. So. No genetics, no witnesses, no evidence of any kind......well, heck, how can anyone possibly have a Bigfoot court case without any of that "Exhibit A", "Exhibit B" stuff? Well, sir, THAT'S what this thread is all about. It's for discussing whatever is left that could possibly make a valid case. If people have input on that then the floor is open. Oh where, oh where is WSA when you need him

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Hey, way to go! Great ideas

 

Indeed I WOULD. But then I did say I expected it didn't I. I said "it happens."

 

 

No, I don't. It wasn't even implied. What was said was this:

 

 

Todd was claiming some kind of affront by the state. The judge ruled....see underlined.

 

 

Nope. You don't.

 

 

Congressional hearing? Witnesses? NAH, none of that

 

 

No genetics necessary. But you've already read the part of this thread where I said that, right?

 

 

It mattered in the Todd Standing case. And this isn't about public perception. Where do you get these ideas? But a judge's ruling would be a nice goal. If it was your case how would you perceive a judge's ruling that would be in your favor? Be careful here because it isn't a court's responsibility to do investigations, nor can they compel a government to do so. When one thinks about it, that doesn't seem to leave much at all in the way a case could succeed does it. But it will. Because it will have nothing to do in the way we conduct out "investigations" on this Forum. And it won't be going down the Todd Standing/late Claudia Ackley's road. So. No genetics, no witnesses, no evidence of any kind......well, heck, how can anyone possibly have a Bigfoot court case without any of that "Exhibit A", "Exhibit B" stuff? Well, sir, THAT'S what this thread is all about. It's for discussing whatever is left that could possibly make a valid case. If people have input on that then the floor is open. Oh where, oh where is WSA when you need him

 

🙄 There is NOTHING left that will make a VALID case…. Good luck!👋🏻

[hiflier]

And that's why no one has brought one forward? Of course the case's argument would also have nothing to do with whether or not the Sasquatch exists, even though the truth about that would be the ultimate goal or admission to that one would seek. And that truth would not rely on the creature being real. It would also not rely on the creature NOT being real. And he case's argument would be extremely narrow in scope which would save time and expense. In fact, the narrower it is the better it would be. It could also be a class action suit and not one brought forth only by a single individual.

 

One of several approaches in the argument would to be to present a November 6, 2012 letter from (at the time) the the chief wildlife biologist of the State of New York who was responding (on State Department of Conservation letterhead) to an inquiry at the request of the (at the time) New York State F&W Commissioner. The question to present in a court case might be to ask, whomever the  lawyer that is tasked with representing a particular federal agency, whether or not the their client agrees with ALL of the statements made in the letter. And then ask the follow up question of WHY does their client agree with all statements made in the letter, or WHY does their client not agree with all statements made in the letter. And then pick the letter apart point by point for legal debate:

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Okay, let's talk about a rather subtle technicality as another aspect of a case's arguments. It concerns the "recreational activity" part. A statement about Sasquatch being a recreational activity actually skips over a very major point, probably hoping, and with the intent, of having most everyone who reads it and walk away seeing no way forward. But the way is clear. WHY is it considered to be only a recreational activity? One might conclude that a full statement should be, "Since the creature doesn't exist it is considered to be merely a recreational activity."

 

Think about that.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Continuing that line of argument: If Sasquatch is considered to be only a recreational activity then it follows that the creature will not meet the requirements to be placed under the jurisdiction that all other fish and wildlife are under. Because a claim that the creature is only a recreational activity removes it from the wildlife umbrella of responsibilities and duties for protecting it and its habitat in the same manner afforded to other wildlife. Of course this is disastrous if the creature is real. But NOT disastrous if it isn't. The bottom line of that argument is that goes back to the "therefore" argument which is "the creature doesn't exists, therefore, it is placed under the category of recreational activity."

 

One cannot have it both ways, folks. One cannot have the creature real and not real at the same time. Real and it qualifies for the same considerations and treatment as all other creatures in the wild. Not real then pursuing the creature is said to be recreational. But it also says that it doesn't exist. And the only place to iron that out is in a court of law. Again, no evidence, no reports, no witnesses, or any of the usual things we look at and look for in our own assessments of the truth on this Forum would be required.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by hiflier