Florida Man Files Lawsuit Against Cryptomundo and Matt Moneymaker For Defamation


A Florida man who attended a 2005 BFRO expedition in the Ocala National Forest just filed a lawsuit against Cryptomundo and BFRO President, Matt Moneymaker. The plaintiff's name is John Johnsen. According to the filing:

On or about June 8, 2011, Defendant Moneymaker published an inaccurate recitation of his interactions with Plaintiff, during a wildlife expedition in the Ocala National Forest. During this characterization of Defendant Moneymaker's interactions with Plaintiff, Defendant Moneymaker defamed Plaintiff by stating that Plaintiff was mentally ill and by accusing Plaintiff of carrying firearms into the Ocala National Forest.

To settle this matter, Johnsen is seeking control of Cryptomundo and wants Loren Coleman to hand over the reins. For defendant, Matt Moneymaker (star of Finding Bigfoot TV series), Johnsen is seeking damages.

Here's what was posted on Cryptomundo by Coleman on June 10th, 2011, according to the lawsuit paper:

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 10th, 2011

Is the truth out there, or is it hidden in the forest known as argumentum ad hominem?

Okay, sometimes it is necessary to read folks' comments straight from their own brains to try to comprehend the basis of their thoughts. Without editing (except for typos), without moderation, and raising them to the level of a blog entry, here are the thinking, moniker-labeling, and debating that is oocurring between the BRFO's Matt Moneymaker vs Grendel Film's John Johnsen.

Stay tuned for next Sunday-Monday, after the next installment of Finding Bigfoot, for more examinations of the series. But in the meantime, take a look at the continuing interactions between these two gentlemen as freely sent for publication to Cryptomundo. But remember, the comments expressed in these exchanges do not reflect the opinions of this blogger, the founder/owner of Cryptomundo, or the management. They are shared here for educational purposes into the thoughts of these individuals.

Here's what Johnsen wrote to Matt Moneymaker:

John Johnsen of Grendel Films writes on June 8th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

Mr. Moneymaker,

I find it hard to sympathize with you over the editing practices of Discovery Communications. It seems that you were once part of another show that started out just fine , then fell victim to "reality tactics" to gather more viewers. That show was Mysterious Encounters on the defunct OLN. Autumn Williams was an original cast member and under the first producer/director the show had promise, in my opinion. But a short time into the first season, you appeared. And, according to my personal phone conversation with you, you were assigned the task of creating friction between you and Williams. That, and the tactics of the new producer, stole every bit of the credibility that show had. You were a part of that, sir, yet now you are playing as a "victim" of editors at Animal Planet. Pardon me if I don't buy that! I had a personal experience with you and the BFRO in the winter of 2005 in Ocala Florida. You invited me there, but although I signed the quasi·Legal forms required, you never asked me for a dime, which, frankly I didn't expect as I was under the impression that the BFRO was a volunteer service organization. Prior to that experience I would have given you the benefit of every doubt. But, after witnessing the mismanagement (in my opinion) of that expedition and listening to several people who confided in me the fact that they felt "ripped Off" it dawned upon me what you and your BFRO were really after. Money, sir, not the truth. I can produce a witness that was told by you on an expedition, after he offered alternate explanations for sights and sounds, that he was "bad for business" and asked to leave. So if you want the people here or anywhere to hold anything you say as the truth, perhaps a soul searching is in order. What goes around comes around, sir. Perhaps the worm has started to turn.

Here's what Moneymaker wrote about Johnsen:

Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO writes on 2011/06/08 at 2:45pm

Bug #2 - John Johnsen - Wildphotographer

The colorful, middle-aged, paranoid schizo from Tampa who calls himself "wildlife photographer" on the GCBRO board, and who recently made a paranoid lunatic film about the "massacre theory" of the Patterson footage ....and who also scared so many attendees at our Florida 2005 BFRO expedition with his bizarre behavior and who later went on the GCBRO message board and confessed his frustration about attending that BFRO expedition because he went there in order to shoot a bigfoot (!!!) but his plans were foiled by our "mismanagement" of the expedition ... mismanaged in the sense that he wasn't kept informed when were heading out from the campground ...

Again, consider the source . .. this is the same fellow who made the absurd amateur conspiracy movie claiming that Patterson actually killed a whole family of bigfoots .. , The evidence: patches of soil in some parts of other footage from that trip look reddish, so they MUST be dried pools of blood ...of course, yeah.

I actually wrote up the whole long version recently for the BFRO describing exactly what Johnsen did on that Florida expedition, and all about his radio troubles, and how I brought everyone around to his camp site when I heard about his complaining. I brought them all to his camp site to prove to him in front of everyone else that his radio wasn't working properly, whereas all the rest of our walkies-talkies could connect just fine .... But even with that purposely humiliating demonstration ... he just turned redfaced and lashed out that there's nothing wrong with his radio and it's brand new, and that problem is with MY radio (the one I just did a test-demonstration with).

Everybody kinda looked at each other after that and said .... whoaa ... this guy is not in the same reality as the rest of us ... perhaps we should leave him to his own devices, which we subsequently learned included
firearms.

Click here to see a copy of the complaint via Cryptomundo.

Cryptomundo has proceeded to set up a legal defense fund. You can read about it here.

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Matt may regret threatening so many with his lawyer tough guy front, especially since it turned out he isn't one at all, never was.
      Animal Planet only claims he attended law school, not even that he graduated. Hoaxing his credentials, along with fleecing the niave and vulnerable, this is priceless.
      On top of that, the vulnerable (or as MM alleges, mentally ill) are subjected to public humiliation on the expedition and later on the internet.
      Total cad IMO Matt.
      Let's hope Animal Planet let's him go. Shame to pull down Barackman, who is actually a stand up guy compared to MM's Bigfoot Bullshit.
      Maybe they can make a show of it, "Bigfooters Busted."

      Delete
  2. Whatever. He is nuckin futs. Stop being a pussy. Just call Matt Moneymaker fat and you'll be even. Why does this lunatic think he even deserves one penny?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because he was defamed. We have laws against that, and people shouldn't get away with it.

      Delete
    2. i'm gonna bet money that the previous comment is from the crybaby himself... wah wah wah!!!

      Delete
  3. Sues Matt individually, the many innocents of the BFRO members dodge a bullet for now. Eventually they will all get drawn in on a mess thanks to Matt or the expedition business, it's a question of when not if.

    The bigfoot karmic wheel is a wild one, five years or so ago Matt was suing Cryptomundo, now they will be sitting at the same table.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For people who do not understand why Loren is involved ... if you provide a forum through which you permit (or in this case, actively participate by posting Matt's message) slander/libel/defamation, you become an accomplice.

    For people who think it's OK to say whatever you want online, or to repost another person's poor judgement, think again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Under your interpretation of slander/libel/defamation, we should close every news organization in the U.S...WAIT! Is this Senator Nancy Pelosi posting on here?

      Delete
    2. Look up the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act of '96, idiot. Website providers aren't liable for defamatory statements posted by users, unless the provider is the one who posted it.

      It doesn't apply here because Coleman posted it, but simply providing a forum where someone posts defamatory statements does not render you liable.

      Delete
  5. For people who do not understand why Loren is involved ... if you provide a forum through which you permit (or in this case, actively participate by posting Matt's message) slander/libel/defamation, you become an accomplice.

    For people who think it's OK to say whatever you want online, or to repost another person's poor judgement, think again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wah wah wah, my feeling are hurt. mommy told me i was special!!!

      Delete
  6. Why is my post explaining the law being repeatedly deleted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bloggers need to understand that if you provide a venue through which people commit slander/libel/defamation, or in this case, actively participate by posting someone else's slander/libel/defamation, you become an accomplice. This is why Loren is involved in this suit. You cannot say whatever you want to online.

      Delete
    2. mommy!!!!! they're picking on me again!!!! waaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

      Delete
  7. I'm not BFRO supporter, but I don't recall MM naming the plaintiff in his report of the event. I don't see how he can claim damages when his identity was kept secret. On top of that, he has to be able to show financial damages caused by said report. I see nothing here that will convince a judge not to chuck it out of court with a quickness.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love how Moneymaker makes fun of the other guy's evidence as:
    "patches of soil in some parts of other footage from that trip look reddish, so they MUST be dried pools of blood ...of course, yeah."...

    its eerily similar to a phrase i say everytime Matt finds 'conclusive' bigfoot evidence on Finding Bigfoot.

    LOLZ!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Huh? What judge would award ownership of Cryptomundo to somebody suing them? I've heard of Specific Performance but this is a bit ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hahaha I have read where MM has threatened to sue people for defamation. Funny as bell now the shoe is on the other foot! MM the bully just got Squatch Slapped! Someone get the baby powder.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A tempest in a teapot. Unless someone is harmed in a substantial, material way then "defamation" is groundless. In this great nation we are free to criticize and express our subjective opinions without fear of reprisal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another fine example of the rampant miss-use of our legal system. What a pussy! Imagine if we all took our slanderers to court. Good luck getting your 'Real' court case heard. Both of these clowns should be forced to pay court fines. Johnson for filing a frivolous lawsuit with no basis and Moneymaker for being a total douchebag! Loren should ban both from Cryptomundo. These people are Pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Who really cares. These asshole could douse themselves with gasoline and light themselves on fire..WHO CARES

    ReplyDelete
  14. gosh everyone wants a buck these days. this dousch will never see a dime for these comments, what a BABY!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Its a well known fact that sasquatch is attracted to fat potheads who run around screaming in the dark.

    I'd kick his fat ass if he said shit about me, by the way. Screw court, go on one more BFRO outing, get in Matts group, if ya know what i mean ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Those quais-legal forms might have been drafted by Matt himself. And since he isn't a lawyer doing so is criminal (even if he actually has a law degree), and giving legal advice is also. In other words MM's hands are very dirty, and the court may help him wash them, I wonder if John knows that?

    Matt writes, " But even with that purposely humiliating demonstration."

    So, a guest member of the expedition can be subjected to a "purposely humiliating demonstration" by the group leader at will.

    That sounds fun.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Once upon a time there was divorce court, now its Bigfoot Court. What will sadder, the original or Judge Squatchy?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Up till recently Dr. Jeff Meldrum presided over all things Bigfoot. But, he has been recused for conflict of interests, stemming from his past involvement with the BFRO and endorsement of Matt in his latest book. The Sierra Kills no body hasn't helped.
    Currently, Robert lindsay is presiding over the Bigfoot Courts, but only for the interim.
    The Honorable Dr. Melba Ketchum is slated to take the bench.
    Imagine Matt is toast.

    ReplyDelete
  19. WAH WAH WAH! All these pathetic and Jealous BFRO haters! Go cry to your freakin mama!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No shit, It's like Matt personally pissed in all thier cheerios. Gee's there is a bunch of lunatics here. You people display more ego in your pathetic demands upon other peoples lives than Does Matt. At least he is actually famous of sorts. I met him and i thought he was great. He has time for 1 thing, where the hell is the BIG GUY at. Very focused.

      Delete
  20. It's more fun to cry here, Bigfooters listen.
    Besides, Cryptomundo is old and done. Like 1990. It's a new generation man... Wha, whah, wah.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Okay, let's be reasonable. IF this happened as stated above... This sounds slightly embarrassing, but I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech and freedom of press and I don't see any legal lines crossed here. Poor taste and bad manners, maybe? But no laws were broken and Cryptomundo, as a reporting site, is just that. A reporter, NOT an accomplice! If someone goes on national news and lies about you, do you ask for FOXNEWS as damages? Get real.
    If legit, this is a scare tactic or revenge and a waste of time and money (some of which is ours). Either that or they hope that we'll all be talking about them...
    David from the PAC/NW
    PS - please, nobody file claims against Shawn for my comments... again, get real. [sigh]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wouldn't be Fox anyway, they actually have Facts and check them.

      Oh I have this feeling running up my leg.

      Delete
  22. Sounds to me as if Moneymaker was yet again, making money on public land without a permit.
    I wonder if the park service or forestry will go back and look at past expeditions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the way it works.
      If you disagree with Moneymaker.
      You're a paranoid schizo

      Delete
  23. Gosh, an awful lot of 'anonymous' comments on the subject here (scared of getting sued?!). One of which says: "To settle this matter, Johnsen is seeking control of Cryptomundo and wants Loren Coleman to hand over the reins." I hate to bring in actual facts to this convo, Gawd forbid, but Loren Coleman's a blogger at Cryptomundo & has had nothing to do with the ownership of the site (that'd be Craig Woolheater) for some time. Aaaaanyway, as to John Johnsen.....

    Matt Moneymaker said some pretty reprehensible things about events involving him from the 'expedition' (for want of a better word) Johnsen attended in 2005. Cryptomundo allowed these comments to stand. And yet if one has the temerity to make a post in CM questioning the veracity or authority of statements made by its bloggers - Loren C, DWA, CW et al - one's comment gets pulled faster than lightning. As CW himself said to me (his definition) - "It's a blog, not a site". Hmmm, yes.

    I really hope Moneymaker somehow gets his arse kicked up & down the forums for this, & hopefully in a court of law, though I don't personally see that happening (CM's disclaimer may save him & them from a judge ruling for JJ). What I think it WILL do, & rightly so IMO, is serve as a warning shot across the boughs to the 'benign dictatorship' that is CM, that they can't just go posting whatever they feel regarding folks & then hypocritically pull posts which then (politely) object to such behaviours.

    And anyone who knows JJ knows that the idea of him carrying a gun as opposed to a VCR is about as likely as Moneymaker finding corroborative evidence of his own brain cells.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Moneymaker is going to make an example of this nutbag Johnsen, and Johnsen is going to lose his shirt on this bogus case. Johnsen will be a lot poorer when all is said and done.

    Moneymaker knows exactly what he's doing. He wouldn't have written that stuff in the first place unless it was true. Johnsen, on the other hand, is totally delusional. If you've read anything he's ever written then you've gotten a taste of it.

    Here's a legal principle that you folks probably aren't aware of: The ultimate defense to a defamation -- the statements in question are all true.

    Everything Moneymaker said is true, but he doesn't have to prove it. In fact Johnsen has to prove that Moneymaker knew it was not true. Fat chance of that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Moneymaker or anyone else using the term schizo sickens me.I dont know how anybody can find that acceptable.I lost a great friend 3 years ago to suicide because of schizophrenia.this mental illness is not something to be made into a comedic insult I watched one of my best friends go from a happy kid who hardly ever even swore much less break a law to being so pilled out of it that he was unable to have a conversation or control his bodily functions.After years of trying new meds and therapy he still walked around like a zombie and was always in trouble with the law,and that was not him at all.Constantly fighting his doctors to try new meds to help the symptoms just wore him out so he overdosed and with a cigarette in his hand and burnt to death in his apartment.Another dead schizo,fuck you moneymaker and anyone else who uses that term.How many people would find it ok to make fun of someone who has cancer or m.s/ hopefully not many.think before you open your mouth Matt. It is a shame you are not as brilliant as you think you are with all of your "facts" about another species when you dont have a goddamn clue about this one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Superbly written article, if only all bloggers oered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place..
    talcum powder ovarian cancer faqs

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia