"Hypothetically" speaking, if you paid someone to go on a group Bigfoot research camping expedition and during the course of the trip the group heard BF vocalizations, found "evidence", or had a Bigfoot sighting or encounter, and then it was later discovered that these vocalizations, evidence, encounters, and/or sightings were hoaxed with the full knowledge or at the direction of the person hosting the trip... could you sue them for fraud?

Very interesting question. Hopefully some of the lawyerly types on here will chime in with their thoughts.

cough*counselor*cough

Fraud:



On another forum the topic of fraud regarding Penn & Teller's charade was brought up.

But they didn't bilk money out of the individuals they deceived. They were financially rewarded by selling advertisement time during a show when they revealed their deception.

short answer is yes. this said it all depends on what if any papers are signed and what they say.

Anybody can sue anybody but in the situation of fraud or hoaxing- its unlikely because the burden of proof
of damage or loss is the Plaintiff's responsiblity and often that can be difficult.

In another famous hoax case (and I hate bringing this up) which involved a man claiming to have hit a
"child-like" alien in the head and placed in his freezer, he could not be investigated by county sheriff's for fraud or hoaxing of selling his story even when he admits to assault and kidnapping because there is no body.
No body, no proof. Its really a buyer's beware and the best you can do is submit a report to the Attorney General as a consumer complaint and hope they investigate.

(Now I believe its illegal in England to hoax Crop Circles.)

It might also depend on the state as well I'm just saying that if your suing in Washington State or Califorinia I think you might have a better chance than say Iowa or Rhode Island of winning.

Wouldn't it kind of depend on proving the animal exists in the first place? I'm not trying to say Bigfoots don't exist, I believe they do, but since they're not formally recognized as "existing" wouldn't it be harder to prove it was real? Such as, if some organization contracted to take you on a trip and would guarantee that you would find "evidence", couldn't you dispute it anyways even if "evidence" was found, hoaxed or not, simply because they're guaranteeing (sp?) evidence of something that doesn't technically exist in the eyes of the law?

Or... I dunno... I think I just typed myself into a hole... :new_weirdsmiley:

It would depend on the exact nature of the agreement. If you paid to go on a trip and your payment was not contingent on having a guaranteed encounter (i.e. "You give us x amount of dollars, we"ll take you looking for BF, maybe you'll see one" versus "You give us x amount of dollars and we guarantee you'll have a bigfoot encounter"), then you wouldn't have have much of a case-you owe the money whether you saw anything or not, fake or not. In the second instance you'd have a much better case, although the defendant could always argue that he guaranteed an encounter, but not that it would be real!

I don't think it would depend on proving if Sasquatch exists. If someone took a group to go out and whale watch and they placed a fake floating device out in the water and said it was a whale and it could be proved there was an intent to defraud, I think that would be admissable in court.
Do charges of fraud depend on the state? I hope not! Fraud is fraud no matter what state or country you live in.

Now let me throw in a monkey wrench. Does a priest have to have proof that a man walked on water to receive money from his congregation?

Wouldn't the defense need to prove it though? If they say it wasn't a hoax, and said it was a bigfoot, then they'd have to prove the bigfoot exists right? They couldn't say it was a coyote or wolf simply because then they would shoot themselves in the foot, so they'd have to prove it was the animal they said it was, no matter what it was. So I'm guessing that in the end, you're right about the intent to defraud from the organization, that would be what was needed. I don't have any experience with law in this matter, as most my experience comes from cops and speeding tickets, but I think that for the 'organization' in question to hold any water in a case such as this, they would have to prove that a bigfoot existed first. Could they hold up current evidence as proof, considering all the dispute over whether or not it's real in the first place, as long as they could convince a judge or jury that it's real?

And I also think that priests don't have to prove anything to get money because what the congregation gives them is essentially a donation, and besides, they're believers already.

LOL as if we could take on a legal defense team that has the amount that our opponent has to represent him muahahhahahhahhaa. :new_lmaosmiley:

That falls into the category of criminal damage, and trespassing (trespassing of course is civil, not criminal though)

But what if the farmer himself did the hoaxing on his own property to cash in on the tourism?




Reporting to your state's Attorney General is free (and online) and frankly your ethical responsibility if you really feel your being defrauded, scammed or ripped-off. If they get enough consumer reports, they investigate. muahahhahahhahhaahahaha :new_lmaosmiley:





I'm not a lawyer also but no, the defense would not have to prove it was a bigfoot lets say if they heard a sound. They could say anything so its up to you as a buyer to weigh the value of your purchase. The issue in court is the issue of purchase not the existance of Sasquatch.

Did someone say "Lawsuit?"

Rams is right - but I would like to add that I think most judges and juries would probably not have very much sympathy on someone who believes in these animals. Imagine how much sympathy a jury would have for someone who actually gives money to a person of Matt's character so you can go on a "Bigfoot expedition."

You know what I mean? :new_whistle:

C

So is Califb actually saying they, specifically, went on a bigfoot trip by a certain "well known purveyor" of bigfoot trips and found out later that evidence was falsified?

Absolutely not, the question was purely hypothetical. Besides (in my opinion) going on an expedition to search for a BF with a large group of people is counter-productive (to say the least) since they appear to avoid human beings whenever possible, so it stands to reason the more people in a group the more likely they are to hear and/or smell you and avoid you.

I would tend to agree with that also. I've had 2 "near" sasquatch experiences that may well have been something else, but both times there were only 2 people present including myself.

Still, I do wonder about the suspicion displayed surrounding MM. Over the past few years I've heard rumblings occasionally about the sincerity and/or validity of evidence during BFRO outings and about MM himself. I keep track of sightings through that and a few other sites and readily admit I'm an armchair researcher at best, but as far as I can surmise there seems to be no obvious deception on their part. Is this a case of sasquatch envy, that MM has actually been able to make a part time living with trips and others got on the boat too late, or consternation that what should be a research effort is being corrupted by profit, or has someone actually discovered evidence of fraud?

Might one not think that the kind of people that have the wherewithal to go on these trips *might* be somewhat more savvy, simply because if they were smart enough to position themselves in life to have the extra cash and free time to participate in what some people would call a frivolous endeavor that they would see through an obvious deception? Might one not also think if there were fraud, it would be trumpeted long and loud with substantiated facts so that there wouldn't be such a demand for continuing participation in these trips?

Hopefully no one will suspect me as a covert supporter for MM. I've never met the guy or gone on one of his trips, but as far as I can tell there's no fraud that I can see. And to falsely accuse him of such without full investigation is akin to those who dismiss sasquatch without bothering to investigate the evidence at hand.

If he does turn out be a fraud however, then hang him from the highest branch...

Couldn't you argue that since the jury is suppose to be made up of your peers, that in this case peers would be those who held the same viewpoint on bigfoot. Which would make it easier to win, IF you could load the jury with those who already felt bigfoot does exist.

Just to make things absolutely clear, as I stated in my original post my question was purely hypothetical, and at no time did I accuse any person or any specific group of people of committing or attempting to commit any civil or criminal offense whatsoever, (nor do I have any information of any). So, in order to keep anyone from getting the wrong idea and to keep any specific names and/or organizations completely out of this conversation lets instead say that a hypothetical organization is charging a significant fee per person to take part in a group scuba diving expedition to look for the lost continent of Atlantis, and during the course of this expedition the group "discovers" what they are told by the group leader to actually be Atlantis. Later on someone within the organization reveals that they were hired or told by a leading member of the organization to go out to the specific area beforehand and build a fake Atlantis or plant false evidence for the group to "discover". Would this be considered fraud?

Fair enough. I didn't specifically say anyone had made an accusation either, but as I said, I had read words to that effect before and I was postulating. So let's move beyond that.

I guess the decision on whether it's fraud might hinge on when "Atlantis" is ever found. It may fall under the "you can't prove a negative" argument. Since "officially" there is no such thing as Atlantis, you can't be sued for not finding it, whether false evidence is planted or not. And that may just fall under caveat emptor. But if Atlantis was actually found, and it turned out that that groups' "evidence" was so far off base that it was obviously nothing like the "real" Atlantis now that its existence was proven, then there may be some sort of legal action that could be taken. I know a lawyer friend (yah I know, isn't lawyer and friend an oxymoron?...) I should ask him. He'd give me a sufficiently legalese response...

Yeah, well, that would be a neat trick! :laugh:

"Jury of your peers" is a great legal concept, but rarely does it make it into actual practice.

Remember the movie, "A Time to Kill" starring Samuel L. Jackson? I love the line he says right after both attorneys pick the jury. He looks at 12 white faces and says to his lawyer, "This is a jury of my peers?"

Counselor - a question,

Wouldnt there be an arguement in the fact that the jury is not there to decide if in fact "Bigfoot" does exist, they are there to decide whether or not the defendant is in fact liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff during an expedition organized by the defendant.

Just curious -- but I really would like your comments on this.

What would you win? Your money back? I think the damage reward would be small, I mean you can't be any more damaged or under anymore of a mental strain than you already are because you were looking for bigfoot so any judge or jury would figure that you are pretty jacked up as it is!

well what i signed seemed to be ironclad and i got enough to make me belive but hell the damn expidetion coulda cost a third or less what we paid for our man to borrow a room from someone and then find out that we had to find the squatch on ourselves but realistically we paid for contacts and damn i need another beer because the volcano is really wanting to erupt on this discussion..........