Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack Lies Again????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Walker View Post

    Meet up with some old friends? That might even explain some of the timing and location differences to the one conference found.
    Friends? That is not what he said. He said he was going a non existent conference or to a conference that was already over. The conferences are not cheap and I doubt the university would pay for a flunking, drop out medical student to attend a conference when they have much better qualified students to send. And I don't think poor Jack would pay for it himself. He lied. Period.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pws111 View Post

      Friends? That is not what he said. He said he was going a non existent conference or to a conference that was already over. The conferences are not cheap and I doubt the university would pay for a flunking, drop out medical student to attend a conference when they have much better qualified students to send. And I don't think poor Jack would pay for it himself. He lied. Period.
      Prove it.... Two can keep a secret if one of them as dead.

      Also consider this, It wasn'tnt a crime, supposedly Jack asked for permission to recover Forrest's property, the only thing Jack failed to do was to notify the Park he had done so. Jack did not need to turn over the treasure to the park since it was released in Jacks care.
      The Zoom meeting was the notification, only the reported spot was a cover up to the real location.
      Last edited by Livinlifebig; 06-22-2022, 01:51 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pws111 View Post

        Friends? That is not what he said. He said he was going a non existent conference or to a conference that was already over. The conferences are not cheap and I doubt the university would pay for a flunking, drop out medical student to attend a conference when they have much better qualified students to send. And I don't think poor Jack would pay for it himself. He lied. Period.
        Well, that's a little strong.
        People skip details all of the time, because it's of no interest to the listener.
        I'm not saying he didn't lie, just pointing out a possibility, but to insist he did lie seems a little bit overdone.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Livinlifebig View Post

          Prove it.... Two can keep a secret if one of them as dead.

          Also consider this, It wasn'tnt a crime, supposedly Jack asked for permission to recover Forrest's property, the only thing Jack failed to do was to notify the Park he had done so. Jack did not need to turn over the treasure to the park since it was released in Jacks care.
          The Zoom meeting was the notification, only the reported spot was a cover up to the real location.
          Unrelated to the topic at hand, but Jack was required by law to turn it into the park. Fenn even said so. It does not require notification, it requires him to hand it over to the park, who will then determine what to do with it. And Fenn had lawyers much more qualified than you determine this fact, as he states in the video below.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECVSQolkkYM&t=544s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pws111 View Post

            Unrelated to the topic at hand, but Jack was required by law to turn it into the park. Fenn even said so. It does not require notification, it requires him to hand it over to the park, who will then determine what to do with it. And Fenn had lawyers much more qualified than you determine this fact, as he states in the video below.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECVSQolkkYM&t=544s
            That was long before Forrest gave permission to retrieve his chest. By releasing his own property Jack did not have to turn in the chest. Only report that Forrest's property was found and recovered with Forest's permission.

            If Jack did not ask permission then yes, he would he be had to turn in the treasure.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pws111 View Post

              Unrelated to the topic at hand, but Jack was required by law to turn it into the park. Fenn even said so. It does not require notification, it requires him to hand it over to the park, who will then determine what to do with it. And Fenn had lawyers much more qualified than you determine this fact, as he states in the video below.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECVSQolkkYM&t=544s
              You're absolutely right, here I am on another thread and the quote gets attached to an unrelated thread.. WTH????

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Livinlifebig View Post

                That was long before Forrest gave permission to retrieve his chest. By releasing his own property Jack did not have to turn in the chest. Only report that Forrest's property was found and recovered with Forest's permission.

                If Jack did not ask permission then yes, he would he be had to turn in the treasure.
                If, and I mean if, it was in a national park anywhere, Fenn violated the law by leaving it there and Jack violated the law by not turning it in. The language is plain and simple and there is no exception for asking permission of the owner.

                § 2.22 Property.

                (a) The following are prohibited:

                (1) Abandoning property.

                (2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, except in locations where longer time periods have been designated or in accordance with conditions established by the superintendent.

                (3) Failing to turn in found property to the superintendent as soon as practicable.
                https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.22

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pws111 View Post

                  If, and I mean if, it was in a national park anywhere, Fenn violated the law by leaving it there and Jack violated the law by not turning it in. The language is plain and simple and there is no exception for asking permission of the owner.



                  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.22
                  I agree on Forrest's part of breaking regulations. The property was not abandoned, If it was abandoned Forrest could not give permission to retrieve said property.
                  So Forrest would have been fined, that's about it. There Is a fine line between property that is a known or and unknown.
                  in this case it was a known and owned by forrest and Im pretty sure Forrest has many contacts to let it slide.

                  This is probably why the Ranger retired after the fact.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Livinlifebig View Post

                    I agree on Forrest's part of breaking regulations. The property was not abandoned, If it was abandoned Forrest could not give permission to retrieve said property.
                    So Forrest would have been fined, that's about it. There Is a fine line between property that is a known or and unknown.
                    in this case it was a known and owned by forrest and Im pretty sure Forrest has many contacts to let it slide.

                    This is probably why the Ranger retired after the fact.
                    This is a silly argument. National parks are not storage facilities for people to leave stuff, abandoned or not. The law is what matters, not what wishful thiniking Jack lovers want the law to be. Here is the entire law. Please show me where there is an exception for storing propety in national parks as long as you say you abandoned it and the finder asks the owner for permission. Go ahead, I'm waiting. LOL

                    § 2.22 Property.

                    (a) The following are prohibited:

                    (1) Abandoning property.

                    (2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, except in locations where longer time periods have been designated or in accordance with conditions established by the superintendent.

                    (3) Failing to turn in found property to the superintendent as soon as practicable.

                    (b) Impoundment of property.

                    (1) Property determined to be left unattended in excess of an allowed period of time may be impounded by the superintendent.

                    (2) Unattended property that interferes with visitor safety, orderly management of the park area, or presents a threat to park resources may be impounded by the superintendent at any time.

                    (3) Found or impounded property shall be inventoried to determine ownership and safeguard personal property.

                    (4) The owner of record is responsible and liable for charges to the person who has removed, stored, or otherwise disposed of property impounded pursuant to this section; or the superintendent may assess the owner reasonable fees for the impoundment and storage of property impounded pursuant to this section.

                    (c) Disposition of property.

                    (1) Unattended property impounded pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be abandoned unless claimed by the owner or an authorized representative thereof within 60 days. The 60-day period shall begin when the rightful owner of the property has been notified, if the owner can be identified, or from the time the property was placed in the superintendent's custody, if the owner cannot be identified.

                    (2) Unclaimed, found property shall be stored for a minimum period of 60 days and, unless claimed by the owner or an authorized representative thereof, may be claimed by the finder, provided that the finder is not an employee of the National Park Service. Found property not claimed by the owner or an authorized representative or the finder shall be deemed abandoned.

                    (3) Abandoned property shall be disposed of in accordance with title 41 Code of Federal Regulations.

                    (4) Property, including real property, located within a park area and owned by a deceased person, shall be disposed of in accordance with the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries the property is located.

                    (d) The regulations contained in paragraphs (a)(2), (b) and (c) of this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pws111 View Post

                      This is a silly argument. National parks are not storage facilities for people to leave stuff, abandoned or not. The law is what matters, not what wishful thiniking Jack lovers want the law to be. Here is the entire law. Please show me where there is an exception for storing propety in national parks as long as you say you abandoned it and the finder asks the owner for permission. Go ahead, I'm waiting. LOL
                      Its not law, its a regulation. But maybe prosecuted with law in court. Forrest was 90 yo man, do you really think they would prosecute to the law.... Nope.
                      Last edited by Livinlifebig; 06-22-2022, 04:12 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by pws111 View Post

                        Unrelated to the topic at hand, but Jack was required by law to turn it into the park. Fenn even said so. It does not require notification, it requires him to hand it over to the park, who will then determine what to do with it. And Fenn had lawyers much more qualified than you determine this fact, as he states in the video below.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECVSQolkkYM&t=544s
                        very very good point i have mentioned this dozens of times and there's no way in hell YNP is just going to sit back, watch and let it happen. Imo the solve is outside the park.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pws111 View Post

                          This is a silly argument. National parks are not storage facilities for people to leave stuff, abandoned or not. The law is what matters, not what wishful thiniking Jack lovers want the law to be. Here is the entire law. Please show me where there is an exception for storing propety in national parks as long as you say you abandoned it and the finder asks the owner for permission. Go ahead, I'm waiting. LOL
                          So actually, a lawyer would have easily been able to beat this one. Per their own regulation:

                          (1) Unattended property impounded pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be abandoned unless claimed by the owner or an authorized representative thereof within 60 days. The 60-day period shall begin when the rightful owner of the property has been notified, if the owner can be identified, or from the time the property was placed in the superintendent's custody, if the owner cannot be identified.

                          So the 60-day period does not begin until it has been impounded and the rightful owner of the property (if they can be identified) has been notified. After that 60-day period it becomes abandoned property. So, the chest isn't technically abandoned property. It is technically unimpounded unattended property. And since Forrest knew where the chest was, it wasn't "found property" since it was never "lost property". So although Forrest's lawyer is correct that the most expedient and legally safest thing to do is to turn in the chest, I feel confident that the loopholes in their own regulations could have been defeated.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Need to get a life. There's probably information you're missing or just not enough research.

                            And say Jack did lie. Didn't know finding the chest means you now have to be Jesus Christ.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bamaman View Post

                              So actually, a lawyer would have easily been able to beat this one. Per their own regulation:

                              (1) Unattended property impounded pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be abandoned unless claimed by the owner or an authorized representative thereof within 60 days. The 60-day period shall begin when the rightful owner of the property has been notified, if the owner can be identified, or from the time the property was placed in the superintendent's custody, if the owner cannot be identified.

                              So the 60-day period does not begin until it has been impounded and the rightful owner of the property (if they can be identified) has been notified. After that 60-day period it becomes abandoned property. So, the chest isn't technically abandoned property. It is technically unimpounded unattended property. And since Forrest knew where the chest was, it wasn't "found property" since it was never "lost property". So although Forrest's lawyer is correct that the most expedient and legally safest thing to do is to turn in the chest, I feel confident that the loopholes in their own regulations could have been defeated.
                              That's right, they could have persecutes but they know they would have lost and I m sure Forrest explained this to them

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                "Was he that despearate to meet Fenn, or could it be something else?"

                                This is just a theory, but watching that presentation it seemed to me that Jack had likely found the chest after his first email to FF saying he wanted to show him what he found. If you follow the emails after that, he continues to take different approaches to trying to set up a meeting with FF without having to actually say "I found the chest" in writing. He starts with kinda 'i have something to show you' then 'We really should meet up' and at the end he tries 'I'm not even a searcher anymore, but I would love to just meet you once'. He's looking for the right wording to get FF to say yes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X