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."
When will our North American friends realise that their legal system is completely out of control?
First it was the Oath of Allegiance, now a specimen of moon rock - litigation should NOT always be the first resort.
DD
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
"Awww, Ricky! I brought this souvenir back from Honduras and accidentally swallowed it! And now the whole country is suing me! Aaaaaahhhhhhwwwwww! Aaaaahhhhwwww! I should have known there was something suspicious when the souvenir seller in the black suit called me Mrs. Ricardo before I introduced myself! Hoow ddoooo I gett iinn theeese thiinngs! Aaaaaahhhwww!"
Your implicit assumption is that there are two states of moon rocks "possessed by the US Gov't" and "Stolen from the US Gov't." Hint: Other countries have reached the moon and returned with rocks. As well, the US Gov't has sold some, a fact that doesn't preclude some being stolen.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
To the original owner, that is. If we "stole" it from international territory, then it's forfeit to the original owner, right? Which is to say: the moon. Let's bring that sucker back and put it where we found it.
Any excuse to fire rockets into space is a good one if you ask me.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
It has the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney.
See? The Miranda Rights even apply to lucite balls containing lunar material!
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Innocent until proven guilty, you have the right to remain silent, and all...
Moon rock, how do you plead? The defendant stands mute.
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...
Somehow, I don't think so.
I think the feds have it right on this one.
The Applo 17 team was sent as an agent of NASA to collect samples from The Moon. Although there is no title claim to any part of The Moon, the samples taken are technically NASA's(I'm fuzzy but maybe this is precidence stretching back to English Common Law). So the US Government through Nixon gave the rock as a gift to Honduras in the 1970s.
Flash forward to now: NASA has no claim on the rock since it was given as a gift. However unless the government of Honduras legally sold the rock it should be given back to the government of Honduras There is clear federal juristiction here and Honduras at the moment has a strong case for asking the rock back. Rosen can't claim "I didn't know I couldn't buy this legally". If he can't prove the Honduran governement sold it to him legally then he is out one expensive rock.
If the website tries to lock you out for not using JavaScript just use this link to bypass it.
Yet another case of moronic webdesign. As far as I can tell everything works fine without scripting. Not that I checked everything. The site looks like a load of crap to me.
Yep, if a website doesn't work with JavaScript turned off, or cookies disabled, or because your browser security settings are "too high", or because it doesn't recognize the browser you are using, it's probably not worth veiwing. (Supprize supprize, the Microsoft.com web site is completely broken as far as I can tell.)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Blount vs. McIverson? Which one was the Federal Government? I call troll.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
by 70%
This summer I'm working at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and some of the people near where I work have gotten a few grams of lunar material (Apollo 15, IIRC) from NASA for an experiment aiming to figure out the material's age of formation. Now they only need to look at a particular tiny part of the sample and NASA expects to get the rest back.
Now none of that is unreasonable, but what is unreasonable is the insurance policy they have to take out on the material against theft, accidental lost or destruction. Now insurers naturally want to know the value of what they are insuring. NASA's official and much repeated line is that all lunar material is priceless. This poses a serious problem for insurers, so the next question was what is the cost to replace the sample. No joke, they figured the cost of the policy, and hence the premiums, based on the cost of building a rocket, flying to the moon, collecting a new sample, and bringing it back. Not only that, but two members of the Berkeley physics department are officially down on paper as having volunteered to make the trip should it become neccesary.
I don't know what they are paying exactly, and being in a secured area of a restricted access research lab probably helps keep down the cost, but still it's not cheap holding on to lunar material that NASA expects to get back.
Interesting article, good coverage of the history of this particular rock and similar cases, but the main reason I read to the end of the thing was to understand how in the hell a ROCK can be the defendant in a court case. No explanation of that wacky concept at all.
The National Gallery of Art is funded and controlled by the US Governments. Suppose that the current president decided to reward the political loyalty of a peon (say, Karl Rove), by expropriating a minor, but still valuable work to give to him as a present. Suppose that Karl Rove subsequently kept that artwork for twenty-five years, and sold it in a financially shady deal to someone in Honduras. A subsequent US government, upon learning that a missing artwork had turned up on the market in Honduras, might very well want it back...
Is that the U.S. Federal government is spending tax money, and personel resources in setting up "stings" to retrieve moon rocks. Seriously... with all the political corruption, coroporate bullying, and other things going on in the country over the last 15 years, would you rate a moon rock sting as a worthy use of your tax dollars? You know the gov can't do anything for less than $200,000 these days. What did this "sting" cost the people? What corporate embezzler, political bribe or corporate espionage was not thwarted because the fed thought it more prudent to search for moon rocks?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
We did push most of the Eastern tribes off into the Western deserts... imagine how hard that would be for people who worshipped nature ("Where the fuck are the trees?")...
"The litigated rock arrived on Earth from the last manned moon mission in 1972, was encased in Lucite, attached to a plaque and presented as a gift by President Nixon to the Honduran government the following year."
I'd have to say at that point the Government of the United States gave up any claim of ownership we had.
unless it speaks... how's it gonna defend itself?
Defendants generally don't need to speak. (Consider the examples of hostile, mute, comatose, or autistic defendants.) I'm pretty sure there will be an attorney arguing the defendant's case.
The bigger question in my mind is how American courts would permit an inanimate object to be the defendant. Or is this just CNN's mistake?
1.NASA retrieves rock from moon. US government now owns moon rock
2.US government encases rock in lucite ball and gives ball to Honduran government. Honduran government now presumably owns moon rock (unless there was some condition attatched to rock that specifies that US government retains title in which case things are different).
Honduran dictatorship then appears and rewrites the law giving them rights to all property of the old government, including the rock. Honduran dictatorship now owns rock (presumably).
Now somehow the rock gets into the possession of the colnel. If the transfer to the colnel was illegal under honduran law (i.e. the colnel stole the rock) then the colnel should be charged with theft and the person who bought the rock from him should, at best, be charged with possession of stolen property (but if you buy stolen propery then you cant be found guilty of possession unless it can be proved that you knew it was stolen when you bought it). If the transfer happened legally under honduran law(because the dictatorship gave it to him) then presumable the colnel now owns the rock and therefore he can legally transfer that which he owns to someone else in exchange for money.
I suppose the true value of anything is exactly the price that someone is willing to pay for it. To me, it's worthless. It's a fricken rock!!! It's a rock in a ball no less. I think a freshly minted penny would be more attactive to me.
But this is a non-story. The US government is simply trying to return property that, so far, appears to have been misappropriated from a foreign government. It's in the US government's best interest to see that it is returned.
Whether or not we actually own the moon is so incredibly irrelevant I can't even believe the notion was brought up. The rock was a gift from our government to theirs. The rock maintains significant value to collectors and so is perceived to hold some value. It is supposed to be in the posession of the Honduran government and is not in their posession at the moment.
What I don't know is whether the Honduran government is actively requesting its return. I haven't read where the rock was actually STOLEN from any part of the Honduran government or any of its dictators. I think it's significant that in the absense of an actual claim that it is illegally out of Honduran territory, the rock should remain with its current owner, Alan Rosen.
I think it's incredibly arrogant for the government to seize property without first hearing a claim that it has been acquired through any illegal means. Okay, so we have an arrogant government... what governmental body ISN'T arrogant?
That's one way to weasel out of it :-)
$5 million for 1.142-grams of moon rock? In Detroit they "moon rock" and "moon dust" for $10-$40 per gram.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
Here's a good example of "in rem" sillyness:
These forfeiture laws are a mockery of the constitution and are a throwback to the days when property used in a crime became property of the Crown.
<sarcasm>But hey, none of us are drug dealers so we have nothing to worry about when the government defecates on the constitution, right?</sarcasm>
Oh well.
Maybe NASA can tap this lucrative new source of revenue to fund ambitious missions of exploration. I'm hoping that bits of Mars start showing up on Ebay within the decade!
Hispanics can be American born (Hispanic-American, whatever, if you wanna nitpick). There's no gender rule, though.
"IN almost all cases, owning lunar material is illegal unless you can show a clear paper trail back to nasa" is kind of scary.
What they are implying is not that posession of moon rocks is restricted, but that, unless you can show clearly how you got it, it was probably stolen (because if it wasn't, you'd be able to prove how you got it).
This scares me a bit, though. 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?
And whatever happened to posession being 9/10ths of the law?
Yes the Miranda Rights do apply, but if the defendant should be called to the witness stand, can it be imprisoned for being in contempt of court when it doesn't answer questions?
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
Is there any connection between this story and the poll about cheese...?
RMN
~~~
What dumbfuck moderated this as offtopic? It was a direct response to:
Also, if the World were American, Bush wouldn't be the President, who was the most people? China? So probably some chinese will be voted in. A close second some indian... you get the picture.
The moon's not under US jurisdiction? I thought that George W & Co had declared that everything everywhere was under US jurisdiction.
The man on the moon is a terrorist, we must apprehend him.
Not in many of the reservations. They got the worst land, lots of desert real estate.
No, I suggest the Janet Reno method. Run in with H&K MP5's and shove a barrel up the defendant's nostril.
Then he'll let the poor moon rock go back to it's father.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
The whold discussion is moot; all the government has to do is declare the lucite ball to be an enemy combatant, and then it has no rights at all.
Finding God in a Dog
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
You used to could check them out from NASA if you were a teacher at an accredited institution--or something like that. You'd get a pebble inside a lucite hockey puck, suitable for viewing under a microscope. I know somebody who checked one out, then slept with it in his bed (he also used it in a space exhibit at a student fair).
Couldn't find anything at the JSC site about this in a quick search. Maybe they don't do it any more, or maybe their site is hard to find things on.
If you'd read the article you'd know that it left Honduras under the tenure of one of their various dictators. They'd like it back.
Why?
United States v. Lucite ball containing lunar material (an actual case, I'm not making this up, folks)
Uh-oh. Lucy's getting sued by the government? Ricky's never gonna let her play with the band now!
Has anybody but NASA been to the moon lately?
Personally I think you are easily scared.
BOO!!!!
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would take a rock from their backyard, encase it in a Lucite ball and sell it on eBay if they thought people would fall for it. Heck, from the looks of the photo, that could be a piece of dried dog poop.
Let's take it one step further: Nixon wanted to placate the Honduran dictator without giving him anything of real value, so he had some of Checkers's excrement encased in a futuristic-looking Lucite ball. Deliver it with a plaque and you have a great joke to tell your friends. In fact, I'll bet that's what he was talking about during the famous gap...
Given our current record on international treaties, our government will probably declare those null and void when it suits them. I suspect it's going to start with US-deployed space-based lasers and space-based nuclear power for weapons systems, then dual-use nuclear technology ("it's a nuclear rocket, but it makes a mighty fine dirty bomb, too"), and eventually all pretenses are going to fall. And the US is going to do whatever it likes on the moon, if we ever find the money to send more missions there.
That's why NASA wants the rock back. No one can prove it, if they don't have a piece of it! Must cover the tracks of the faked moon landing. All the samples given out were just earthly dirt, with some iron thrown in for good measure. When pushed on this issue in the future, (after the truth of the bogus samples is known) NASA will claim that 'Moon' rock is far too valuable to have given out willy-nilly to governments around the world. The 'moon' rock is fake, the landing is fake, and the lawsuit is to cover it all up.
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.
Wow, that rock has more rights than most Muslims in America.
have you never seen "The Mouse on The Moon"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Has anybody but NASA been to the moon lately?
Actually, yes. The Soviet Union sent many unmanned probes to the moon and retreived moon rocks in the process. This page details the Soviet Luna program.
Notice that the last mission in this series was Luna 24 that returned a "lunar sample" in 1976. Also notice that that last NASA mission to land on the moon (and to bring back samples) was 1972. So the Soviet missions were more recent, although I'm not sure what significance that has.
Putting nuclear weapons into space is beneficial to saber rattling US politicians in the short term--that's why they will do it. It isn't beneficial to Americans or the world in the long term. As usual, US politicians take a short-term, politically expedient view. Morality, long-term benefits, and the rest of the world usually don't seem to factor into their considerations.
So wouldn't that mean that Switzerland claims it?
I find it surprising the number of people who act like the words "under God" belong in the pledge. If the words were "under Allah" or "under Zeus", how would you feel about saying them every morning? Just because you believe in God -- and therefore are inspired (or at worst unmoved) by these two words -- doesn't mean that everyone else who does not should be forced to recite them.
'DuranDuran' is implying that the suit (and even more so, the finding) was frivolous. It was not, and I find the prospect of Senate making the current 45-year-old pledge phrasology into a constitutional amendment enough to make me consider emigration.
In fact, Neil, Buzz, and Mike did go through all the proper customs paperwork when they brough their moon rocks back. You can see the actual customs declaration here
This is what is known as an "in rem" suit. A party -- here, the government -- seeks to establish that it is the owner of a piece of property. Provided that a court has jurisdiction over the property, it can decide everyone's rights in it -- not just parties to the suit. In contrast, if the government just sues one person for an object and wins, anyone else can still claim to be the rightful owner of the object and (usually) will not be bound by the earlier judgment.
There are many well-known cases with names like "U.S. v. 40 acres of land," and people love to cite a customs case called something like "U.S. v. 133 boxes of Mrs. Floogle's Delightful Foot Powder." I have been told, but cannot verify, that slaves' suits for freedom were usually done in rem, in order to extinguish all claims, not just the apparent masters', which is why the famous case just before the civil war was known as "Dred Scot v. Sanford" rather than "Scot v. Sanford": "Dred Scot" was not personally the plaintiff, but rather a description of the disputed "res."
Either that, or the WWF (err, WWE) champ is involved.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
The case is fun in several ways. First, of course, there is the question of how ownership of personal property is initially created -- in this case by physically claiming it before anyone else. There are related treaty issues, of course.
The second, perhaps more interesting question here, is this: "Why is the U.S. suing a rock?" That, as opposed to the question why isn't the US suing the person currently in possession for title to the rock. The answer is one of jurisdiction -- ad personam jurisdiction.
You can sue property (so called in rem suits) or people (in personam), provided that you have jurisdiction over the relevant party. It is not uncommon at all, particularly in civil seizure scenarios. At any rate, the point of suing the property is to assure that it is within the jurisdiction o fhte court (when the individual in possession may not be), and then take the property after "title" in it is cleared.
Estimated cost of 1.142g of lunar material:
$5million
amount brought back by EACH mission:
100kg
total value of each lunar mission:
$437 billio
Any companies interested in that?
The same has been true for some time here for "bits and pieces" of endangered species. You have to prove that you got it legally if it is sufficiently new. Such restrictions are likely to be the only reason some of the species are still on the endangered list, rather than the extinct list.
I don't see any problems with that.
A close friend of my family was ver influential at NASA for all of the FL launches. He gave me a patch that has been to the moon and back. Its was one of the patches that NASA allowed to be given out to the public (mostly senators and the like) but when I was given the patch, the comment was made "its rare now but in twenty years it will be common".
To me it its a memorial -- not to where man has been but to where man has no ability to return.
Mod parent up! The linked article is VERY interesting and a must read.
INCONCEIVABLE!
"...ironic considering that NASA took something that wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction."
When your country goes to the moon, you can claim your own moon rocks. Until then, suck it up. At least I'm assuming that's what the submitter meant... The context of that comment is so ambiguous as to inspire large quantities of confusion...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Actually, in the U.S. the DEA (or local law enforcement in many states) can sieze your property if you are suspected -- not even charged, mind you -- of being a drug dealer. In California, this is also true for being in a gang or being associated with a gang. You then have to go to court to get your stuff back, even if you're never charged -- and what are you gonna use to pay for that suit? Mm hm.
So, don't count too heavily on your constitutional protection from unreasonable search and siezure.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
The Declaration is a historical document. "We, the People" means the 55 people who signed it. If you recite it, I suppose I might assume that you hold those truths to be self evident, but that's about it.
The Plege of Allegiance is a pledge. You state right at the beginning that this is what you believe, and also that you will act accordingly. If it isn't, then there's a problem.
No-one focusses on the words after "under God". I see some pretty deep divisions right here.
--
E_NOSIG