Tweet
Originally posted by AGypsysKiss
View Post
-
Wow! Thanks for all these lives updates. What does that mean? Deny government’s motion? -
I'm happy to go on and talk about it with you if you want. I have 4 pages of notes.Comment
-
-
It means the government does not have a right to intervene in the probate case and they will not be able tgo prevent Jack from disclosing the location. Jack may still not give the location but it wont be becasue of the govt telling him he is not allowed.Originally posted by Ozzy View PostComment
-
in fairness, they can still prevent Jack from disclosing it. They just won't be in the deposition and can't object to the questionOriginally posted by cowlazars View PostComment
-
I sure hope he signed a deal with YNP in August 2020 to not disclose or discuss the location and I hope that deal had exception language for times under oath. That’s a believable scenario IMO.Originally posted by cowlazars View PostComment
-
There could still be a perceive threat or repercussion from YNP to Jack if he reveals. We really don’t know what they may have agreed to on August 2020.Originally posted by bamaman View PostComment
-
-
A contract like an NDA isn't enforceable if it includes a commitment to break the law. Otherwise every drug dealer would have NDAs and a notary public on hand.Originally posted by Ozzy View Post
So if Jack is required by law to answer questions in a deposition, it doesn't matter if he signed a deal in '20. That's why the government needs the protective order even if there was a deal. You could put an "unless required by law" clause in an NDA for clarity, but it's there in principle anyway.Comment
-
I'm not aware of a legal way for anyone except the judge in this case to prevent Jack from disclosing the location in his deposition, if he is asked.
From today's hearing it does not seem like something the judge is open to. He just sent the government packing because they had no business interfering with a deposition he ordered.
He seemed to suggest the one proper way it could be done. Get an injunction from a federal court that forces him to issue a protective order. I didn't get the idea he was expecting that to succeed.
Prior restraint has a very high bar. (the jargon means preventing free speech in advance) They couldn't prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers but they can keep secret a former treasure location within a public park with four million visitors a year in an unrestricted area? when the one who knows it is ordered by a judge to answer truthfully under oath?
Sure they could threaten consequences like SUPRA (but not responsibility for 3rd parties' actions you didn't intentionally incite IMO). That could work after the case is over because who wants trouble? Jack doesn't want to reveal it anyway.
But one arm of the government can't threaten to prosecute you for complying with the law of another arm of the government. The DOI can't threaten to sue Jack if he complies with a judicial order. Not in the American legal system. Gulp if that's no longer true.Comment
-
I think the motion was denied because of the jurisdiction issue. I could see it going either way and, in another court, it may have been granted. The judge alluded to the path the government should have taken. In my opinion, forcing Stuef to answer to something he and Fenn agreed to not disclose is just as ludicrous as the lawsuits.Comment
-
The DOI got their foot in the door and let it ride. No Sarah Davis, keep it simple. We know they were already involved and are now following this case. You would think there must be some big importance
to protect the location. Like the NMH some searchers got Jack nailed too. Cody area and Buffalo Bill related or somewhere over there. No answers here. Why there. The place had to mean so much
to Forrest which includes the West Yellowstone area. Fond memories. Know something about who Forrest was. Find out where the PR dist. guy got his manicure and we can figure this thing out.
It is that messed up for trying to figure this out. I know I would have been arrest by the park if it was where I thought it was. They can live with NMH. Big trouble in my place.
The zoom meeting is easier than having to show up at a courthouse. None of this is really important to me. I would have waited hoping things would die down first or it was found by
someone else. The only way to jump into this would have been to pull Forrest into it if you want to profit off the chest. What big mess will 10 people who cross the Madison leave damage.
to see what. Try to find an old spawning area up the dry creek. Way more than 150 feet up there. The last thing I wanted was to have a few huckleberries and get dragged around by some Grizzy
bear. Six is my lucky number. No it really isn't and I got enough things to do for years to come rather than do something very dangerous on a guess. I though water was in the wood.
I would have stood here and turned around. Fooling myself. Just showing people where it wasn't. That is the dumb thing I would have done but I know better than that and didn't.
Comment
-
What if the government achieved their goal, which was to delay the deposition for a couple weeks so they had time to do what they needed to do.
Regardless, IMO I don't think jack will be giving out the spot. I think Jack's lawyer will be stepping in many times objecting on relevancy of the questions. Jack saying a spot doesn't prove or disprove what harry is saying. Harry needs to prove one, the chest was moved, and two, Fenn is the one who moved it. Good luck with that.Comment
-
If Jack was not served I doubt he even shows for deposition. I know I wouldn't.Originally posted by Mark W View PostComment
-
If Jack doesn't want to reveal where he found the treasure chest (which we all know he has previously stated), who has the power to compel him to do so? If I was Jack, I'd tell everyone to pound sand. And if, by some twisted legal wrangling, I WAS compelled to reveal the location, I'd simply lie. No one alive would be able to prove otherwise.Comment
Comment