Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 51   Go Down

Author Topic: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund  (Read 626767 times)

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #270 on: August 27, 2013, 08:46:56 AM »


I would just like to gently point out that neither has anyone else seen the "full extent of the evidence," Mr. Mellon, because you steadfastly refuse to do anything to change that situation. Other than say, "See you in Casper."



Mr. Fowler, I would respectfully remind you that since January 12, 2013, when Ric shut down any thread to do with underwater images, I have not been allowed to post any evidence. I have respected his decision, and have sought alternate avenues to express my opinions.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #271 on: August 27, 2013, 08:56:34 AM »

Tim,

Let's make this simple. If I re-open the thread and promise to leave it open, will you drop your lawsuit?
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #272 on: August 27, 2013, 10:43:32 AM »

I may have lived a sheltered life, but it makes no sense to sue someone because you didn't like the way they ran an event or their business for that matter.  Only if it was a direct service to you, such as an auto repair, paint job, maybe even a medical procedure.  But when you donate to a non profit....that's it.  If you don't like the way it operated, you just don't donate again.  If I don't like the Church, I don't go and give anymore.  If I think the Pastor is misleading his congregation, I don't sue, I just go somewhere else.  Won't he have to prove you purposely deceived him to aquire the donation?  How on an opinion of what you see vs evidence (proof) of what you see.  No chance. 
And Ric, your offer is almost too good (nice).  You take away your right to counter sue.  Which you should unless a full and very public apology is written and printed in all appropriate media.   
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

James G. Stoveken

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #273 on: August 27, 2013, 11:02:49 AM »

Quote from: Tim Mellon
Mr. Fowler, I would respectfully remind you that since January 12, 2013, when Ric shut down any thread to do with underwater images, I have not been allowed to post any evidence. I have respected his decision, and have sought alternate avenues to express my opinions.

So just what/where are these alternate avenues Tim?  Let us all see them.

Jim Stoveken
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #274 on: August 27, 2013, 11:44:03 AM »

Perhaps he's referring to the Skeptoid discussion (http://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/03/20/more-amelia-earhart-nonsense/#comment-35006).  Was going to print it off to entertain myself in the car as I wait for my son, but jeepers! the damn thing is 398 pages long! I'll listen to the radio instead.
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #275 on: August 27, 2013, 12:07:49 PM »

Quote
So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number.
Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive.  Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?
Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission.
After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.
This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.
It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success.
But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

Above may be the clearest personal summation Tim has given as to his personal and public motives in this suit.  That was posted in this panel a few weeks ago by Tim himself in response to the post he quoted above it.


Mr. Mellon is accusing TIGHAR of being incompetent in the analysis of the 2010 data, and the conduct of the 2012 search.  He is essentially saying, "TIGHAR should have seen the wreckage I see in the 2010 video, and organized the search around that data."

The problem as I see it for his case is that TIGHAR cannot be both incompetent at analyzing the data AND ALSO fraudulent in not advising him that the wreckage had been conclusively discovered prior to his donation.  On one hand he says TIGHAR should have, but didn't find the wreckage, and on the other he's saying TIGHAR did find the wreckage but didn't disclose it.

Can't have it both ways.  Being incompetent does not mean being fraudulent.  His own words quoted above undermine his case.

Hopefully, the Judge will be competent, and this will all be over today with a dismissal.

Andrew

Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #276 on: August 27, 2013, 12:15:51 PM »

Any word yet from Ric about this morning's activities?
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #277 on: August 27, 2013, 12:34:37 PM »


Can't have it both ways.  Being incompetent does not mean being fraudulent.  His own words quoted above undermine his case.

Hopefully, the Judge will be competent, and this will all be over today with a dismissal.

Andrew

Agreed, and since it can’t be both, a lawsuit that claims both can’t prove either IMHO.

If the evidence is relying on a different opinion of underwater footage then it is not evidence of fraud or incompetence. It is only a difference of opinion.
3971R
 
Logged

John B. Shattuck

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #278 on: August 27, 2013, 01:10:54 PM »

Quote
Quote from: Andrew M McKenna on Today at 12:07:49 PM


Can't have it both ways.  Being incompetent does not mean being fraudulent.  His own words quoted above undermine his case.

Hopefully, the Judge will be competent, and this will all be over today with a dismissal.

Andrew




Agreed, and since it can’t be both, a lawsuit that claims both can’t prove either IMHO.

If the evidence is relying on a different opinion of underwater footage then it is not evidence of fraud or incompetence. It is only a difference of opinion.

I think it is important to remember that Mr. Mellon's suit also accuses Ric of racketeering; a criminal offense with potential jail time.  While I admire the civil discourse with which we, as a forum community, have entreated Mr. Mellon; there is more here than a simple difference in interpretation of video.  Mr. Mellon is accusing Ric of knowingly and deliberately presenting false information to deceive him for the purpose of gaining funds for a fraudulent purpose.  In short, he is calling Ric a liar and a fraud.  I for one have decided, after reading the case file kindly provided by Richie, not to read nor respond to any more of Mr. Mellon's posts; I'm siding with Tighar.  My decision for myself, others may of course make their own decisions.  While I admire and appreciate our spirit of informed debate, and tolerance for alternate and diverse opinion; this is not a case of point/counterpoint debate over an interpretation of a clue toward the resolution of the Earhart mystery.  Personally I'm amazed that Mr. Mellon is present in the forum at all, considering what he is accusing Tighar of doing.

Respectully,

JB
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • member #4155
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #280 on: August 27, 2013, 02:40:55 PM »

"........the recovery group also could have been negligent in failing to recognize the wreckage of Earhart's aircraft in underwater video it took on the 2010 expedition." 

So which is it, are they liars, or just not very good at what they do?  You can't have it both ways....as Andrew said so well. 

In fact, the case is neither.  TIGHAR does the best it can with what it has to work with, and there is NO proof that ANY artifact or 'vision' in any video is anything other than just that...a 'vision'....an opinion....of what something MAY be.  Because no serial number has been read.  No piece has been brought up and identified as from the Electra.  Good grief! 
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

Elisabeth Bennet

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #281 on: August 27, 2013, 04:41:45 PM »

Hello, everyone. I have been lurking on and reading through the TIGHAR Amelia Earhart Project and Forum for a long time and finally felt compelled to register today after following the events in Casper this morning. Since I am brand new, please bear with any inadvertent mistakes I make in posting (there's an awful lot to learn in the "How to post" section of the Forum introduction!).

First, as I have wanted to do any number of times over my months of reading the research, articles, and forum discussion, I just want to thank all here for the incredible knowledge, education, insight, educated theorizing, and attention to detail (that means you, Richie) that everyone contributes -- that is, donates -- to this Research Project and Forum.  I can't tell you how many times I have marveled over the six (and often more) new things I have learned before breakfast in a wide range of topics of which I know nothing, from celestial navigation to radio communications to South Pacific history to sonar radar to the depth and dynamics of bereavement...and more. (Oops, sorry for that run-run-run-on sentence.)  I'm beginning to think that a year of daily study here at TIGHAR and the Amelia Earhart Project could beat any four-year college education, hands down.

Second, speaking of hands, after reading the news today, I'm keeping my fingers crossed re: a speedy end to the lawsuit.

And third... beyond the plaintiff's mutually exclusive accusations, which have already been well elucidated here, it suddenly occurred to me: if Ric and the TIGHAR team allegedly knew in 2010 that they had found the plane, why, after 25 years and millions of dollars of research would they spend a donor's $1M on yet more laborious, tedious, easily thwarted underwater searching and filming and side-scan sonar in 2012?  After all the time, effort, and funds invested in trying to investigate and prove the Nikumaroro landing theory, wouldn't TIGHAR have spent the donor's 2012 donation on technology that could bring the plane, or at least some "smoking gun" evidence of the plane, up from its location as quickly as possible?... to show the world that TIGHAR's hypothesis had been right all along? Hasn't that been the whole point of searching the waters off the reef for the plane... to prove that it's there, and that the TIGHAR theory that Amelia and Fred landed on the reef was in fact the true answer to the mystery?  If the Electra had truly been found, what's the point of using any donations for anything other than recovering it, or at least for protecting it and publicizing the discovery?

Common sense and our delightfully mercenary, fame-seeking, celebrity-fawning culture suggests that if the alleged TIGHAR "dark side" the plaintiff is complaining about knew that they'd found the famous Earhart plane in 2010, they would have "taken" the alleged plaintiff’s money, rented underwater recovery equipment with it, zipped right back to Amelia and Fred's alleged "grave" ASAP (which was 2012), and brought that Electra up lickety-split, claiming all the victory, glory, instant world fame, and gazillions of dollars in book, TV, and movie rights, as well as the title of Principal Investigator Of All Time in the relevant professional journals— with or without including the surprised donor in the glory.   Instead, TIGHAR went back and quietly, patiently, painstakingly mowed the reef water again, graciously, repeatedly thanking the donor for the opportunity to do so. 

It’s not clear yet if TIGHAR got too much more out of Niku VII than a whole lot more very expensive work to do, so how did they “benefit” from an alleged 2010 discovery that they allegedly “withheld” from the allegedly aggrieved Mr. M?

Respectfully wondering, with apologies for making up for all my long-unsaid comments....
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 05:02:46 PM by Elisabeth Bennet »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #282 on: August 27, 2013, 05:03:47 PM »

The hearing went well and lasted for just under an hour. There was no ruling from the bench. We'll probably have a decision within two weeks on our Motion to Dismiss.
Present were:
- Two attorneys for Mellon
- Two attorneys for me and TIGHAR.
- I sat at the Defense table with our attorneys.

In the gallery were The Magnificent Seven:
- TIGHAR board member and expedition veteran Capt. Skeet Gifford
- Expedition veteran Tom Roberts and his wife Maria
- Researcher Karen Hoy
- Forum stalwarts Monty Fowler and Ted Campbell, and Ted's wife Suzanne.

The judge impressed me as intelligent, engaged and fair. He had obviously read the complaint, the motion and the reply to the motion. He asked good questions.

Each side had 15 minutes for oral argument. Our attorney gave an excellent recap of our Motion to Dismiss pointing up the lack of specificity in the complaint and the sheer implausibility of its allegations.
During the plaintiff's attorney's rambling presentation the judge picked up on two key weaknesses in the complaint and asked:
- What does the law say about a donee's obligation to a donor?
- You allege that Mr. Gillespie committed fraud by not telling your client that the Earhart airplane had been found in the 2010 video, but then you claim that Mr. Gillespie was negligent in not finding the airplane in the same video. Which is it?

The lawyer's answers sounded vague and labored to me. I don't think His Honor was buying it.

At the end of the hearing the judge said he had problems with some of the arguments on both sides and wanted to study the complaint before making a ruling. We're cautiously optimistic that he will throw out at least part(s) of the suit.

I want to thank The Magnificent Seven for being there. They were an imposing presence in the court room. They did us all proud. We had a great dinner together last night; a thorough briefing from our attorney this morning before the hearing; and an informative debriefing afterward - after which he took us all to lunch.

We don't know where the case will go from here but we'll go there together.



Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #283 on: August 27, 2013, 06:11:02 PM »

Thanks for the update Ric. Much appreciated. We will probably hold our breath a little in the meantime while our collective thoughts wish for the desired outcome.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Russ Matthews

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #284 on: August 27, 2013, 07:10:09 PM »

Proud of the Magnificent Seven, too (and now can't get that tune out of my head...  8))!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iteRKvRKFA
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 51   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP