Cryptomundo » Kentucky Bigfoot Video Lawsuit: The Aftermath

Kentucky Bigfoot Video Lawsuit: The Aftermath

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 20th, 2007

As I noted here yesterday, the Kentucky Bigfoot video, photo stills, posts and comments concerning them are no longer posted at Cryptomundo.

At the request of NewGrowth Capital Corp., a British Columbia corporation and owner of the alleged Kentucky Bigfoot Video, I removed the LINK to the Kentucky Bigfoot video.

Cryptomundo and I have no intention of violating the rights of others.

But the story doesn’t end there. Until now, I have remained tight-lipped regarding the lawsuits. The article from OnPoint Legal News has been reposted on various and sundry Bigfoot message forums, blogs and elsewhere on the internet.

There has been much speculation, as the parties involved have not commented publicly.

Some of this speculation has bordered on the ridiculous.

Case in point. The following was posted on the Bigfoot Discussions message forum by Jim Flowers.

Does it represent anything that has anything to do with anyone outside of the TBRC or BFRO? No.

Does it look like nothing more than free publicity of a sorts on both sides of the issue by generating a talking point that will be picked up by small town newspapers and maybe the UPI or AP ? Yes.

And that’s exactly what I think it is. Nothing less, nothing more than free publicity. Jim Flowers

I can assure Jim, and everyone else, that this was far from free publicity. I can assure you that hiring an intellectual property attorney is not free.

So far, the only publicity has been on the various venues mentioned above.

The only reason to even think that it had anything to do with the TBRC, was the fact that the opposing complaint tried to position the TBRC as some kind of competitive rival of the BFRO.

So, as I previously stated, I have not publicly commented about the case until now. There have been offers.

Bigfoot in the Legal World

Recently, Craig Woolheater was scheduled to be a guest on Squatchdetective Radio. Unfortunately a legal dispute came about, over the posting on Cryptomundo.com, of the “Kentucky Clip”, forcing him to keep his head low, a smartly so.

It is very interesting to see via some legal documents, the workings of how the BFRO’s Matt Moneymaker thinks and a company owened by a BFRO Investigator (Curator?) Adrian Erickson.

The lawsuit, and counterclaim are the classic battle of “Fair Use” vs. Copyright.Steve Kulls

Let’s back up a bit and recap.

You may remember that Matt Moneymaker posted a “bounty” for anyone with my address and Loren Coleman’s address so we could be served with a complaint for copyright infringement.

Moneymaker then boasted that he had found Hulse Stucki, PLLC, a Texas law firm, to sue me for copyright infringement.

Moneymaker threatened me with a litigation that he claimed would never be settled and would result in the loss of my house, my family and my job. He said the judgment would be $250,000 plus punitive damages.

Moneymaker claimed that I would be financially ruined for life. He claimed that the law firm said that I “…had made the biggest mistake of my life.”

Moneymaker also said that the reason he sought my personal destruction was that I was “not a very bright person” and that I “was taking advice from some not very bright people.”

These claims were posted publicly on internet message forums.

To bring you, the Cryptomundo reader up to speed, I offer the following:

I still have my same residence, family and job. No one sued me for copyright infringement, and the Texas court dismissed the complaint and transferred the case to a California court before we could even deny the allegations. I didn’t pay Moneymaker or NewGrowth Capital a nickel.

I dismissed my lawsuit in California against Moneymaker after learning that he didn’t even own the video of the alleged Kentucky Bigfoot. I also learned that he wasn’t speaking for NewGrowth Capital, Adrian Erickson or anyone but himself. It must be lonely.

Erickson said he paid Moneymaker $20,000 for the Kentucky Bigfoot Video.

What did Moneymaker know about that “Bigfoot” video when he sold it?

Does Erickson want his money back?

Are Moneymaker and Erickson embarrassed by this now public transaction?

Here at Cryptomundo, we will look objectively at the evidence and call them as we see them.

Where possible, we will also let you, the cryptozoologically curious reader of Cryptomundo, see for yourselves so that you can be the judge.

If you would like to contribute to the legal defense fund that exposed Moneymaker and his threats, feel free to click the BIG Support Cryptomundo with Paypal button to the right.

All proceeds will be used to protect your freedom to examine and learn from the results of Cryptomundo’s research and critical review of the evidence for the cryptozoological world.

Clarification

All suits have been settled or dismissed. The mention of legal defense fund assistance is for the fees that have already accrued.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pm and is filed under Bigfoot, Bigfoot Report, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Media Appearances, Sasquatch, Videos. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

20 Responses to “Kentucky Bigfoot Video Lawsuit: The Aftermath”

Kathy Strain responds: April 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Craig - just so I understand, is there still an on-going lawsuit (I’m assuming by Erickson) against you?

I’m also a little bit confused by the $20,000. According to Gregg Clay who worked with the family on the property, Matt was paid $20,000 to GO to Kentucky to get some video…now the claim is that he was paid $20,000 AFTER the video was obtained? So…is that $40,000 total, or did Matt go there to be sure to get something on video?
Fred Facker responds: April 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
That has to be the absolute worst expenditure of $20k in the history of mankind.
Jeremy_Wells responds: April 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Imagine how many camera traps and legitimate outings that $20K could have funded…
Sad.
Morgoth responds: April 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I can’t imagine why the plaintiff would be eager to get this film in front of a judge or jury. If it goes that far, be sure to use the discovery process and take a look at the original uncompressed video. There are no real damages without a real bigfoot.
Craig Woolheater responds: April 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Kathy,

As stated in NEWgrowth Capital Corp. v. Craig Woolheater and Cryptomundo LLC:

On September 13, 2005, all rights, title, and interest in and to the copyright in the Kentucky Clip and ownerships rights to all future footage was sold by Matt Moneymaker to Adrian Erickson for a sum of $20,000. Adrian Erickson is the owner of NEWgrowth Capital Corporation based in British Columbia, Canada. All rights, title, and interest in the Kentucky Clip were subsequently transferred by Adrian Erickson to Plantiff NEWgrowth Capital Corporation.

So your assumption of the total of $40,000 would seem to be correct.
Kathy Strain responds: April 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
$40,000 is a lot of money to spend on that video.

I take it that the lawsuit is on-going as well. Thanks for the update.
Darkwing2006 responds: April 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
$40,000!! Someone sell that man some oceanfront property in Arizona, quick.

Think of the legitimate research that could be done on that kind of money.

And if I remember hearing right, Erickson was supposed to have bought the land where the video was taken at too.
Craig Woolheater responds: April 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Kathy,

No, all of the lawsuits have either been settled or dismissed.
squatchwatcher responds: April 20th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Man, can someone get ahold of this guy. I have a nice bridge in New York to sell him!
Mike Smith responds: April 20th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Craig, so Moneymaker thinks that we are all dumb, am I reading this right?
wildmanmarty responds: April 20th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
This incident changes my viewpoint of the BFRO. How many people have actually jumped ship from that organization, I wonder?
joppa responds: April 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Somebody missed their calling in life. Anyone who can sell a bigfoot eating pancakes for $40,000.00 could sell sand to the Saudis.

Anyone interested in a tape of a Yeti yodeling? How about an Almasty acting all nasty? I won’t even sue if you post it on Cryptomundo.
Kathy Strain responds: April 20th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Craig - that is good news! I’m glad to hear that this has been resolved.

Kathy
Teresa Hall responds: April 20th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Wow, $20,0000 dollars was paid by Adrian Erickson over and above the $20,000 that Matt Moneymaker was paid to buy the video equipment to film the pancake eater? I hope the original high resolution video was better than the footage I saw!

Nice job getting this news out to the public. Another black eye for the BFRO. tsk tsk.
DWA responds: April 21st, 2007 at 8:49 am
The only comment I could possibly see fit to give on this tawdry crap:

Incompetence on the part of the searchers is not evidence against the sasquatch.

Moneymaker [sigh] …he had such a future once….

[OK, that's two comments.]
Patrick Bede responds: April 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I saw where the quote was provided by Woolheater from some obscure individual named “Jim Flowers” (ah what a sweet name) on that obscure message board. I’m not sure why anything that guy says, whoever he is, even matters. I saw there that several of the posters seem to be taunting Woolheater to post on their board. WTF? I wouldn’t waste my time. From spending just a little time reading on that forum, it seems those guys are self-appointed know-it-alls & they love to argue allot & provoke. Whoever they are, they must feel empowered by their ability to post on a forum, hiding behind hundreds of miles, with no consequences. Anyway, they’re insignificant & who cares what some one named “Flowers” thinks anyway. Besides, after reading Woolheater’s writings, I am not sure how having to pay big bucks to a high-powered attorney results in “free” publicity, anyway. I bet both sides spent a bunch of money settling this deal.

This is just another case of some blowhard like this Jim Flowers character trying to blow himself up to be bigger than he is by commenting on something that he knows nothing about. This is par for the course for most of these bigfoot forums.
green lantern responds: April 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Same old story. Too many chiefs, not enough braves. Clash of egos amongst the experts.
The_Carrot responds: April 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Who would have thought that all we’d need to do in order to prove the existence of Sasquatch is lay out a pile of pancakes?

Expensive pancakes, apparently…

Yeesh.
scotto responds: April 21st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I’m glad this has been resolved, Craig.

I can’t believe anyone would pay $40 bucks for that crappy film, let alone $40,000. Good grief.
Ole Bub responds: April 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Good morning Cryptos….

The only phenomena stranger than sasquatch are the politics of sasquatchery…JMHO

What a waste of time and money…no bucks…no bigfoot.

It’s about them not us…JMHO

live and let live…

ole bub and the dawgs

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Kentucky Bigfoot Video Lawsuit: The Aftermath

Spread the Word!

20 Responses to “Kentucky Bigfoot Video Lawsuit: The Aftermath”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra