Quote Originally Posted by frigginchi View Post
Sometimes when a case is not fully adjudicated filing another case directly related may be considered not a good legal move. Only Fred knows the full details you can ask him, or if you really want to know you can always do a FOIA request. I'll provide the link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/General-...cords-Requests
The more generic form of his question was asked earlier but has never been answered: Why has AFC & PLF decided to go forward with plaintiffs who are simply paranoid about having their rights trampled rather than falconers who have actually had that happen? Since there have been statements to the effect that there is no shortage of falconers who have been the victims of officially sponsored home invasions it would seem that would be illustrating ACTUAL abuses of power rather than hypothetical abuses. The implication of avoiding the question entirely is that the PLF claims that this is a big problem are as inflated as many of their other claims. That may or may not be true but generally speaking when someone posts a "hey look what we are doin' for YOU" item but then
avoids questions things are not quite as seen on TV. Certainly you can see why some of us are somewhat skeptical of their claims.