Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the lawsuit fails, it may be possible to get a proposed investigation question on the ballot.
Remember that almost all Egyptologists once said that there were no more tombs in the Valley of Kings. Then Howard Carter and Lord Carnarvon found King Tot's, the most fabulous.
I dont even know why people file law suits when judges are corrupt to the core. Just do a ballot measure and once you get the signatures its on the ballot, once the people vote it becomes law. Of course .... its up to judges to enforce. Why cant the legislators fire judges who are out of compliance with the law?
I dont even know why people file law suits when judges are corrupt to the core. Just do a ballot measure and once you get the signatures its on the ballot, once the people vote it becomes law. Of course .... its up to judges to enforce. Why cant the legislators fire judges who are out of compliance with the law?
There is so much wrong with this post.
But you say: "once the people vote it becomes law". What is people do not vote FOR it but vote AGAINST it? Either way it does not become "law" but they would not have the funding to do it.
But you say: "once the people vote it becomes law". What is people do not vote FOR it but vote AGAINST it? Either way it does not become "law" but they would not have the funding to do it.
Then thats that, but then its a vote of the people and not some crony judge.
But you say: "once the people vote it becomes law". What is people do not vote FOR it but vote AGAINST it? Either way it does not become "law" but they would not have the funding to do it.
The funding can be specified as to method and amount in the initiative. The problem is that it wouldn't be likely to pass without plenty of publicity. A lawsuit could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity and advertising.
Then thats that, but then its a vote of the people and not some crony judge.
Is your definition of a "crony judge" any judge that does not believe that BF researchers have tangible evidence? Let's pretend that this case gets thrown out of court for lack of evidence. Would you accept that verdict?
I think they could try to throw it out because of lack of evidence, but historically there are many reports in the papers, recordings, witnesses, a few strange DNA analyses, some plaster casts of huge feet. I mean, those casts are almost certainly not humans and can they ALL be hoaxes?
All in all, there is probably enough evidence to do an investigation but it is not an investigation she is asking for but a court case. Whether she has chosen the correct allegation/accusation against the government - that might be the cruncher. Whether there is a viable case there or not. I would hope she has got good lawyers.
Then thats that, but then its a vote of the people and not some crony judge.
You seem to have a problem with judges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
The funding can be specified as to method and amount in the initiative. The problem is that it wouldn't be likely to pass without plenty of publicity. A lawsuit could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity and advertising.
I think this lawsuit is about publicity. It does not bother me that she is doing this but I doubt that many places would pass funding to find Bigfoot when schools are having a hard time getting funding in many locales. Honestly I would rather give teachers a raise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
Is your definition of a "crony judge" any judge that does not believe that BF researchers have tangible evidence? Let's pretend that this case gets thrown out of court for lack of evidence. Would you accept that verdict?
This is a good question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I think they could try to throw it out because of lack of evidence, but historically there are many reports in the papers, recordings, witnesses, a few strange DNA analyses, some plaster casts of huge feet. I mean, those casts are almost certainly not humans and can they ALL be hoaxes?
Yes, they can all be hoaxes or people that are mistaken. Say that 3,000 people a year claim to see Bigfoot. 3,000 people are about 0.001% of the population. That is not a number that statistically has much meaning to me. There are several shows on in the United States about Bigfoot so 0.001% of the population getting caught up in it is not astonishing nor unusual.
As for the evidence the burden of proof is on the lady launching the lawsuit I believe, not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
All in all, there is probably enough evidence to do an investigation
I STRONGLY disagree with this. There are several shows on about Bigfoot, if there was enough information to investigate these shows would put money into it and find a Bigfoot.
IMHO you make it sound more difficult than it really is to match your agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
but it is not an investigation she is asking for but a court case. Whether she has chosen the correct allegation/accusation against the government - that might be the cruncher. Whether there is a viable case there or not. I would hope she has got good lawyers.
I think this lawsuit is about publicity. It does not bother me that she is doing this but I doubt that many places would pass funding to find Bigfoot when schools are having a hard time getting funding in many locales. Honestly I would rather give teachers a raise.
This is a good question.
Yes, they can all be hoaxes or people that are mistaken. Say that 3,000 people a year claim to see Bigfoot. 3,000 people are about 0.001% of the population. That is not a number that statistically has much meaning to me. There are several shows on in the United States about Bigfoot so 0.001% of the population getting caught up in it is not astonishing nor unusual.
As for the evidence the burden of proof is on the lady launching the lawsuit I believe, not the other way around.
I STRONGLY disagree with this. There are several shows on about Bigfoot, if there was enough information to investigate these shows would put money into it and find a Bigfoot.
IMHO you make it sound more difficult than it really is to match your agenda.
Very often judges in my state are in the back pocket of buisness interests, if a monied buisness interest does not like something the legislator (ie the people) pass then they will use all kinds of legal gymnastics to get their way and the people still get screwed.
I was talking to my representitve and there were past efforts to get rid of at-will employment and also introduce state resident hire preference, in both cases the courts shut it down. It would have been a boon for employees and introduced a little more ballance of power between employer and employee but nope courts through their legal gymnasitcs some out tossed out the will of the people.
I am pushing my legislators to pass a constitutional amendment so that judges can be easily fired if they set outside the will of the people. I think Kansas has already done it.
Very often judges in my state are in the back pocket of buisness interests, if a monied buisness interest does not like something the legislator (ie the people) pass then they will use all kinds of legal gymnastics to get their way and the people still get screwed.
That is why we have a complex court system that has checks and balances all the way to the supreme court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
I was talking to my representitve and there were past efforts to get rid of at-will employment
OK, this is a great example. You do not like the result so you accuse them of being corrupt. Not everyone agrees with getting rid of at will employment. What you see as good I, and at least some others, see as bad. If you cannot fire bad employees than it becomes a burden to hire employees at all. It imposes on the FREEDOMS of someone that wishes to start a business and run it the way they wish within the law.
China had a
system called the Iron Rice Bowl which many feel kept it down and workers unproductive as there was no reason to excel at the job or even do it when you would get paid anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_rice_bowl
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
and also introduce state resident hire preference,
This could be problematic as well. Say you are on the border and on one side the majority is white and on the other they are African American. If you are a bigot you could use that as an excuse to discriminate by race. Why do you hate people not like you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
in both cases the courts shut it down. It would have been a boon for employees and introduced a little more ballance of power between employer and employee but nope courts through their legal gymnasitcs some out tossed out the will of the people.
What you see as a boon I see as a reason to move jobs overseas so that nobody gets jobs. I also see it as the state interfering in the freedoms of some people for the benefit of others. There are countries that have what you want, you could emigrate to one of those?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
I am pushing my legislators to pass a constitutional amendment so that judges can be easily fired if they set outside the will of the people. I think Kansas has already done it.
The will of the people is not always legal, fair or the best long term. Basically what you want is mob rule but the US protects (tries to protect?) minorities for a reason. Mob rule would send this country backwards and make it more clannish. What happens when minorities become the majority where you live and kick out all the judges you like and put in their judges? What happens if their judges start ruling against you and you become the victim? You plans IMHO are extremely short sighted.
To bring it into context someone brings a case against your state saying that there is a Bigfoot and that the state needs to protect citizens from it. A judge rule properly that the case is flawed and throws it out. You believe in Bigfoot so time to go judge shopping! You eventually get an (Honest?) Judge in place that rules that Bigfoot exists and that the people must be protected from it. Does this mean there actually is a bigfoot or does it mean you are willing to manipulate the system to get the results you wish? Does this not make you corrupt and crooked?
To me it does not sound like you are looking for justice, you are looking to be the one the persecutes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
