Slashdot Mirror
Moon Rock Winds Up In Court
Lothar+0 writes "In United States v. Lucite ball containing lunar material (an actual case, I'm not making this up, folks), the feds are suing to get back a moon rock from an American who brought it back from Honduras. They're alleging that this rock from the Apollo 17 mission is stolen property; ironic considering that NASA took something that wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction."
Furthermore, the rock, if stolen, should be returned. The United States can do a lot more with it (scientific research, etc) than some Honduras collector.
Actually, the US wants it returned to Honduras. The US government presented it as "a goodwill gift", but the moon rock was somehow misappropriated. Even if the then reigning dictator gave it to the "colonel" who sold it to Alan Rosen, that initial transfer was illicit-- since it belongs to the "Honduran people".
The fact that it was used as a diplomatic gift might be an indication of samples's lack of diplomatic value. Or it might be an indication of NASA's subordination of science to politics...
Federal and many state forfeiture laws empower overnments to take people's private property without ever charging a crime. Legally, the property is accused of a crime, not the owner. Lawyers call that in rem -- Latin for "against the thing.
This is why forfeiture cases often have peculiar titles such as "U.S. v. 1960 bags of coffee," U.S. vs. $2,452, "U.S. vs. 9.6 acres of land and lake," or "U.S. vs. 667 bottles of wine." And since the Bill of Rights recognizes the rights only of citizens and state governments, not the rights of chunks of land or bottles of wine, there are almost no due process restrictions on government's attacks on property.
Between 1985 and 1995, the federal government through the Departments of Justice and Treasury, has seized over $4,000,000,000.00 (4 billion) from U.S. citizens, many of whom have never even been charged with a crime. In a single year, fiscal year 1994, the DEA alone made 13,631 seizures with a total value of $646,786,850.00.
How long until we are required to show chain of custody documetns & receipts for every single object we own, lest the government sieze them as stolen?
Happens that way with real property all the time. Why do you think so much is involved in buying a house, including buying insurance to protect the deed's validity?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
First, there wasn't a single Reagan or Bush appointee who made the decisions on the basic cases. It was, instead, a Supreme Court ruling in Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, in 1877, 104 years before Reagan was President, that established the precedent. It was followed up, reconfirmed, and expanded in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. in 1974, seven years before Reagan took the oath of office.
Now, of course, that didn't become a major issue until the Democratic Congress and Ronald Reagan jointly put through the 1988 Drug Act. But, at the height of Reagan-Bush influence on the Court, in four cases in 1993, the Supreme Court began to recognize the harm done by civil forfeiture laws and acted to curtail some of the government's most obvious abuses.".
Now, true, in 1996 the Court refused to further curtail civil forfeiture, bowing to those century- and decades-old precedents I mentioned above. So who stepped into the breach?
Republican senator Henry Hyde, with the support of Bill Clinton, shepherded the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act through the Republican-controlled Congress, after which it was signed by President Clinton.
In short, it's absolutely, ridiculously dishonest to blame this on Reagan-Bush appointees, when the major precedents predate Reagan, and all the recent laws on the subject were passed when one party controlled the Congress and the other controlled the Presidency.