A new civil petition brought by Claudia Ackley in the California Superior Court, San Bernardino County (Case no. CIVDS1801387) states the following “facts”:
(Prepare yourself—these “facts” involve everything from a fundamental human rights violation (including an assault on Ackley’s human dignity) to threatening public safety because at any moment this beast could attack and kill an innocent citizen.)
Respondents are, or ought to be, aware that the State of California is home to a large wild indigenous mammal, considered to be a giant hairy vertebrate, hominoid or primate, commonly known as Sasquatch.
The Sasquatch, hominoid or primate (Giganto Horridus Hominoid and/or Gigantopithecus) type of species is also commonly known as Bigfoot.
There are knowledge gaps in respect of Sasquatch.
Sasquatch is likely a species at risk, a threatened species, and/or an endangered species that very well may pose a threat to the health and wellbeing of the citizens of the State of California.
Petitioner, who has years of knowledge and access to reputable scientists, has invested substantial financial resources devoted to Sasquatch study and research.
By contrast, Respondents, who have access to the same community of scientists, have done nothing to substantiate, acknowledge, or even investigate the existence of Sasquatch.
Petitioner asserts that Respondents committed an abuse of process by not treating her fairly, which includes Respondents’ not putting any decision or otherwise concerning Sasquatch in writing to her.
CDFW and CNRA have never acknowledged the existence of Sasquatch and consequently have treated Petitioner with an indignity to her fundamental human rights.
Petitioner alleges that Respondents infringed her fundamental human rights, including civil and political rights, on the basis of political or other opinion.
Respondent breached its wildlife stewardship responsibility by not recognizing and/or protecting Sasquatch in its legislation, regulations, or other wildlife management plans.
It is alleged that the Respondents committed a dereliction of duty pertaining to Sasquatch management and in effect was a restraint on individual conduct.
As a result of this dereliction of duty and/or outright denial of the existence of Sasquatch, Petitioner’s livelihood has been damaged, including her public image and credibility, and her work has fallen into the realm of pseudoscience and/or paranormal; thus, rejected by mainstream broadcast and communications networks.
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.
Petitioner is unable to fully impart information and ideas as to specific locations where Sasquatch sightings have been known to occur on the basis that there are no safeguards in place to protect the species, or indeed the public, from being injured or killed.
By Respondents’ denial of the existence of Sasquatch, Petitioner’s credibility has been diminished, her dignity has been damaged, she is ostracized, subjected to embarrassment and ridicule, and her right to establish a legitimate Sasquatch-based business, has been infringed upon.
Petitioner alleges that Respondents’ denial of the existence of Sasquatch is tantamount to an infringement of Petitioner’s fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, the right to freely impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and the right to be free of cruel and unusual treatment.
Sasquatch populations are put at risk due to Respondents’ dereliction of their legal duty.
———
Well, there’s more, but you get the picture. Free publicity. A similar lawsuit was filed in Canada last year by a Bigfoot hunter by the name of Todd Standing, who did assist Ackley in filing her petition. Standing similarly asked that the government recognize and protect the hairy monster.
Standing offers expeditions to go find Sasquatch up in British Columbia at a mere $4800 a pop. According to his website, the suit was “tabled,” but he too received publicity which was noted in local papers as being at the public’s expense. Meanwhile, Standing has a Netflix documentary called “Discovering Bigfoot.” The documentary will be used as “evidence” to further additional court actions:
Discovering Bigfoot is a significant part of the ultimate objective to persuade the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as the Alberta and BC Departments of Fish and Wildlife, to do a wildlife management report of the species. Todd Standing proposes to lead a government representative wildlife biologist into the field for a period of no less than 3 months, at which time he will show the representative a Sasquatch and all associated signs this species exhibits – as he has done before on several other occasions with PhDs, Wildlife biologists and wilderness experts from Canada and the United States.
To all of the Bigfoot enthusiasts ~ do you call yourself a Bigfoot hunter? Would you aim to kill him/one of them if you saw one? I read the post and watched the video but this language caught my eye and made me wonder. Thanks to any who reply.