Slashdot Mirror
Court to Decide If Man Can Keep His Moon Rock
Joe Gutheinz, a former senior investigator for NASA's Office of Inspector General, has made it his goal to collect all 230 moon rocks presented by the US to governments around the world, and put them in a museum. Deadliest Catch Captain Coleman Anderson wants to keep his little piece of the moon. Anderson says he found the rock in the trash mixed with debris following a fire at an Anchorage museum in 1973. He's kept it as a good luck charm ever since. "Our astronauts and their descendants are not permitted to have an Apollo 11-era moon rock to sell for their own enrichment and neither should a private citizen who acquired one in a less-noble manner," Gutheinz said. An Alaskan judge will now decide who legally owns the rock.
Maybe he should have let the thing go on in the trash, then where would your precious little moon rock be? But that's what you get for trying, sued
The museum wasn't the property owner, but merely a custodian of an item which is owned by NASA and was on loan to them. That they improperly disposed of it, does not terminate NASA's ownership.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I would like to cite the case of 'Finders vs Keepers'
"Our astronauts and their descendants are not permitted to have an Apollo 11-era moon rock to sell for their own enrichment and neither should a private citizen who acquired one in a less-noble manner,"
The way I see it, the guy saved it from being buried in some landfill somewhere. I'm sure none of that matters to the courts, but I can't see trying to slander the guy for wanting to keep what he found. Also, it doesn't sound like he's trying to cash in on it (at least not yet), but is rather fond of his "good luck charm".
we should just go get a bunch more rocks so that they are not valuable. it's a damned rock. but since we're apparently stuck on this one forever, they are worth more than gold.
did you people know the top of the washington monument is made of aluminium? cause that used to be precious too.
let the dude keep his pebble. lets be noble and go back to the moon. we used to be good at it.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Let the guy keep his space-rock.
What he did was an act of salvage, and the Government should be thanking him for saving this artifact. I don't know whether eminent domain applies here, but he's definitely entitled to either keep the rock or be compensated with its fair market value.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Better yet, he should be forced to do the most deadly job in the world!
That's not how I read it. Per the article, "After the museum fire and cleanup, garbage trucks were sent in to haul off the remaining debris, and Anderson claims he was combing through it when he discovered the plaque, which was coated with a thick layer of melted materials."
It's not looting to go through trash.
Coleman -
Give it back - sure you saved it and restored the plaque, but its a moon rock it belongs to the public.
State of Alaska -
Thank him for safe keeping a state treasure,
Display the Rock in a museum, and include the message of thanks to Coleman for keeping what you thought was junk, but was also historically valuable.
make sure you never loose this thing again.
All sides drop all lawsuits.
Everyone move on.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
The best compromise is when both parties are not happy with the result.
It also depends on where the garbage was when it was rummaged through. And what sort of container it was in, since dumpsters are generally property of the hauling company, and putting something into one may be considered transferring ownership to them.
This case is all about ownership of trash, and not at all about what the item is. Since there's no law saying a private citizen can't own a moon rock, that makes it a moot rock.
Sorry, but "finders keepers" is not actually a legal doctrine.
First, NASA could easily argue that the rock was not "disposed of", but "lost". Or even "taken without permission". Obviously, lost or stolen goods do not automatically become the property of the person who possesses them. Even the (legally inaccurate) expression that people like to quote only claims that "possession is 9/10 of the law".
Alternatively, if NASA could show that the rock was given with the understanding that it would be preserved in the museum's collection, the museum's failure to do so could result in ownership reverting to NASA.
Bottom line: there are plenty of legal precedents for situations like this, and they don't always favor the possessor. The court will have to determine which precedent applies to this specific situation.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Buzz Aldrin should fly to Alaska, punch this guy in the nose, and recover the moon rock for the benefit of Mankind. And let a camera crew from the History channel tag along for the lulz.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Except I didn't read anywhere in the article that it is the property of NASA. all I read that it was attached to a plaque but not if it was loaned to Alaska and not given to the state.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Sorry, but "finders keepers" is not actually a legal doctrine.
Not completely true. There's salvage rights, for one example.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Even if he flat out stole the thing, 1973 was almost 40 years ago -- long past any statute of limitations. So where's the justification in trying to force him to return it?
he found it in the trash. He didn't steal it. It was being thrown out and would have been put in a landfill. The museum was negligent; he didn't steal it.
blah blah blah
It's a chain-of-ownership issue here. If NASA loaned the rock to the museum for display, and they accidentally tossed it out, NASA still owns it, all the way to the dump and beyond. Just because you lose track of something doesn't mean you don't own it anymore. You have to give it away, sell it, transfer it, abandon it, or have it confiscated, to lose ownership over it. Valuable things are rarely donated to museums, they are more often put on exhibit on a temporary or permanent basis.
Right now that's looking like the case. But further details could emerge. Maybe NASA gave them 11 rocks along with other stuff, and asked for "all 10 rocks back and you can dispose of the rest of the exhibit", which would transfer ownership of rock #11 to the museum, which threw it out (abandoned it) and then in the trash pile it does become finders-keepers.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I think the part where it was part of trash that was to be hauled away makes this a little complicated
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you've ever watch the crab captains on Deadliest Catch, you would know that there never existed in the universe a more greedy, money-obsessed group of cold sonofabitches than those guys. They LOVE money. They don't hesitate to risk the lives of their own families for money. They think about money from the second they get up to the moment they go to bed.
If this guy was a crab captain, you can bet that he's holding out for more money. All that sentimental value crap is just his way of bargaining. I guarantee you that the only thing that has stopped him from selling it before was his questionable title to it. If he wins this case, he'll be auctioning it off the next day.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's not looting to go through trash.
ooohhhhh, I see how it is! When it's a white guy doing it, it's "finding".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The laws regarding marine salvage are a bit more complex than "finders keepers" (or even AC's slightly longer version).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
In what way is it relevant what NASA chose to give to the astronauts? If NASA didn't give a rock to astronauts, does that also mean that NASA shouldn't keep any of the rocks? Does NASA own the rocks which it gave away to governors and other countries? If it was NASA's rock, what did it do to recover it after the fire? Did NASA think that a rock can't survive a fire?
That's no moon....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
And if it has black & white spots, it's a moo rock?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
No, that is the part that makes it simple. You give up your right to trash when you put it out to be hauled away. That is why the police can go through it without a warrant.
you knoe are courts have gone downhill when they are fighting over a rock and they acully took the case. nasa needs to chill the f out what abought all those little placks they sold with moon rocks on them.
Nice title.
It doesnt matter the state of the garbage. All moon rocks recovered by the United States are legally considered property of the citizens of the United States. He has no claim to it, regardless of where or how it was found. If it is a lunar meteorite, that is another story altogether. If this rock can be proven to have been acquired through NASA, he has no chance.
Good-bye
"Is it theft for me to take the newsprint from your recycle bin to use in my gardening,"
if my newsprint was in my kitchen waste bin and you broke in to take it? YES.
This is what he did. he Tresspassed to get to it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
... but unless the state (or private owner if the property was leased) gave permission for a salvage operation, then this isn't a salvage operation.
By way of comparison, say my house burns down. You come and search through the rubble that used to be my basement and find something I missed. If you take it home, that's not salvage but theft. That the state owned the museum (or leased it) shouldn't make this much different.
But that's the legal perspective. It doesn't necessarily dovetail with what the right thing to do is.
yes, that is theft. Your argument holds no legal water. Taking newsprint from the recycling bin improperly takes material NOT INTENDED FOR YOU. Its not your property, dont fucking touch it. how hard is that? And I call the cops at least once a month to kick the homeless and other low lives out of our community garbage bins taking the bottles and cans. It is theft and trespass. That garbage belongs to our hauling company and us, not any third party. To be clear the main reason we do that is that i get sick of having to shred my mail because the homeless are going through my trash.
Good-bye
But you cant lick the moon. you CAN lick the rock though.
And no it does not taste like cheese...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Better yet, he should be forced to do the most deadly job in the world!
And what would that be? Windows 7 Phone project manager?
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
According to the TFA, the item was "presented to the state of Alaska in 1969 by President Nixon".
If the museum was run by the state, then they tossed it, and he owns it...
There are plenty of laws preventing you from going through and stealing garbage, especially on private property. Designated for trash does not automatically mean its free for all.
Good-bye
I do not believe any party to the suit is willing to admit that the moonrock was intentionally placed in a trash receptacle outside the building and curtilage of the museum and, thereby, abandoned.
And, even if that were the case, that does not mean that a finder has right to title if the object is found. If, as I believe the feds are claiming, the rocks don't actually belong to the museum but to the US government, then it doesn't matter if the museum did abandon the rocks.
That said, it's apparent that the government is being an asshat about the situation. What they should have done is graciously thanked Anderson for saving the rocks, offered to generously reimburse him for his time as steward of the rocks, and offered to put a commemorative plaque with his name on the new display. As it is, they're being petty bullies.
There are probably many moon rocks on earth other than the ones brought back by project Apollo. Just as meteor strikes on Mars sent rocks on a collision course with earth, so did meteor strikes on the moon. The hard part would be in proving that a particular rock came from the moon.
You don't give up your ownership of things in the trash that you did not intend to put there. If you can show that the museum intentionally threw it out, then yes... he has a legitimate claim to it. If it ended up in the trash due to an accident... however negligent it may have been on the museum's part to allow that to have occurred, it was still their property.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Not if you still have it on your property. The police can go through the trash bag on the curb, but not the bin in your back yard. It sounds like this was still on site when he went through it.
.sig withheld by request
Seriously, what's the difference if the museum contains 229 or 230 moon rocks? It sounds like without this guy, the rock would have been lost forever. Really, who is going to be harmed by allowing him to keep the thing?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I'm not defending the trespassing, but one is compelled to ask what are recyclable bottles and cans doing in a garbage bin in the first place? Why aren't they being recycled?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
they should pay the guy compensation - they fucked up, he found it and prevented it from being lost. But instead of owning up, they try to hide their messup by making him look bad
If someone tried this shit on me, i'd probably make a cheap lookalike, and toss the real thing somewhere, or just straight out lose it, just to spite them.
If the guy was as profit oriented as you lot claim he'd have sold it to some private collector long ago anyways.
And if it's funky it's a moog rock.
On the matter of legality, the claim is that the museum staff "meticulously" searched through the debris, salvaging what they deemed valuable, before calling the trash removal company to haul the rest away. Anderson did not dumpster dive to get this, but he did pick it from among the remaining debris.
As far as the rock being a "loaner," I respectfully disagree... it was presented to the museum by President Nixon; many museums display loaned items, either from private collections or as part of an arrangement with other museums, but that doesn't mean they don't "own" any of the items on display, if something is "presented" to them, then one would think they own it. After the fire, they chose not to salvage it.
Let's let the courts decide the legality... it seems like there's a lot of gray area we may not be privy to right now.
On the matter of ethics, or should he return it, I say... no. Why should he? There's over 200 of them, many of them "recovered." So what are they going to do with them? Lock them away? Put them in more museums? They got 70 of them back... isn't that enough for whatever they want to do? It seems like sour grapes to say "well, X can't have one, so why should Y," when it makes little difference in the end to X or anyone else that Y has one.
It would be cool if Anderson would "lend" it to a museum, so other people can see it, too, but I don't see why legal or "moral" ownership requires a prerequisite that others should be able to own the same thing.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
All X owned by the Y is legally considered property of the Y.
Moon-rockiness and Government-controllicity are not a factor.
This is purely a case of pwnership of an item that was discarded that may not have belonged to the person discarding it and how it came to be undiscarded by the person who doubtlessly possesses it now.
Unfortunately, the lesson is that he should have just kept quiet and kept his souvenir. Especially if his account of events is honest and the rock was a gift, not a loan.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'd imagine that depends on the state. Here you go to jail for removing something from a trash receptacle or a land fill if it belonged to the state. (Actually you go to jail either way, because it is the state's property as soon as it gets thrown in the trash.)
He didn't take it out of the trash. His dad was the curator for the museum. His dad likely stole the rocks after the fire.
Of course, the issue here is that the museum didn't own this, so it wasn't theirs to give to the garbage company in the first place. It was a NASA exhibit.
I'd be pretty annoyed if I loaned a labeled collection of some sort to somebody, they had an accident, tossed it out, someone else found it, and nobody told me.
Did NASA claim the insurance money? If not, they probably have a right to it. If they've already claimed for loss however, I don't see how they then have the right to just go back and take it... it's already been compensated for, eminent domain or no.
So, NASA hands out all these presents, and later they change their mind and want them all back. I think people would be better off refusing it.
And maybe if they spent more time getting people up into space and less on chasing down moon rocks, we'd soon get fresh moon rocks from the source.
If it's black, it's a Moor rock.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Why don't we just go and get another, oh yea it all got cancelled... ;)
-Xen
If it works for Apple, it's a moof rock.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
What happened in the past 40 years or so? I am just barely old enough to remember Challenger, but it seems like throughout my life space exploration has stagnated if not outright declined.
Now I understand that from a scientific point of view sending probes to Mars and beyond is cheap, safe (unless you mix up your feet with your hogsheads) and the amount of data gathered is enormous. But sending a human being to another planet is on a completely different level of excitement. Seeing the grainy footage of the astronauts walking on the Moon still sends shivers down my spine, while the highest resolution pictures taken by the Mars rovers leave me unimpressed.
I will venture a guess, but this is one of the reasons the general public does not care that NASA has its budget reduced every year. Recently /. ran a story about a new rover landing on Mars, and I just thought "meh." Now if these missions were part of a larger plan of manned space exploration, then I'd care. But I'm pretty sure it will not get us anywhere, at least not within the rest of my lifetime.
So I ask again, what happened? Where did we go wrong, and how can we, the human race, get back into space?
I have no sympathy for this dude.
"He was a 17-year-old, and the curator of the museum was close, like a father to him," said Seattle attorney Daniel Harris, who is representing Anderson.
After the museum fire and cleanup, garbage trucks were sent in to haul off the remaining debris, and Anderson claims he was combing through it when he discovered the plaque, which was coated with a thick layer of melted materials.
The lawsuit said Anderson left with the plaque in full view of the garbage-removal workers.
Gutheinz also pointed out that the wooden plaque shows no sign of fire damage.
He knew exactly what he was looking at, but decided to be all coy, even if we are to believe his story. I am sure that curators would have taken the rocks if notified, but somehow this never occurred to him. <gollum, gollum> He decided that the state gave up on a moon rock because garbage removal workers missed it in a pile of rabble. He should consider himself lucky for keeping it for so long, but IMHO, he should have returned it to a museum back then, and it's definitely not too late to return it now. On the other hand, it's just a rock, so it really is not a big deal one way or the other.
Anyway, here is your moment of Zen:
Three state governors accidentally took their state's rocks home after leaving office.
How? Did they confuse them with office supplies?
http://www.bobsuniverse.com/bwah/02-adams/18000303a.pdf
Salvage rights apply. Every state in the United States has laws regarding salvage rights. Our deep sea - errr - dumpster diver should read up on this pdf, as well as his own state laws. I think that MAYBE, NASA may retain some claim to that rock, but the museum forfeited all claim, and the greater claim probably belongs to the diver.
So, yeah, "finders keepers" is indeed a legal doctrine.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Sure, but non-dickheads when they see something they know you didn't mean to trash would get it and give it to you.
Of course being a dickhead doesn't mean you are stealing, just that you're a dickhead. And back then moon rocks likely weren't seen to be so special (certainly not worth millions on the "black market", since nobody expected the US to just visit a few times and then forget all about it for decades).
This will be complicated by it not being trash put on the curb but the remains from a fire being cleaned up (so still on the property in question, but soon to be picked up by the disposal folk), and whether it's property of the US Government no matter what in any case.
He says he did it while garbage trucks were there collecting the debris.
No. Whoever is doing it.
As of the present, the only government involved is the state of Alaska which filed a counter-suit to Anderson's pre-emptive lawsuit.
The timeline is basically:
1. Former investigator teaches college course encouraging students to track what happened to various moon rocks.
2. Student finds where the trail ends (at the museum fire) and encourages the state of Alaska to get involved in finding what happened.
3. Anderson sues for the right to keep the rock or have the state recompense him for keeping the rock safe.
4. The state of Alaska counter-sues.
At which of those four steps did the Obama administration, the present administrator of NASA, or anyone else in present federal government become involved?
whoosh
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
IANAL but I don't think intent matters here. Yes the museum may not have intended to discard it but they should have more diligent about what they throw out. It does matter where the trash was when the rock was taken. If it was in a dumpster ready to be discarded then it makes Anderson's claim stronger. It it was in a pile in a trash can still on premises then the museum can still claim it as theirs. I dont remember where Anderson claims to have found it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This rock is at the same time worthless and priceless. But that is neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that the government should buy the rock. So far as I can tell, the government of Alaska has clear title.
What I'm suggesting is that the government recompense Anderson for the time he spent taking care of the rock just as it would paid to have it restored and paid people to curate the display if the state had found the rock in the museum debris.
But as for whether governments can be arbitrary in awarding such monies to people, it can and it does. In most states, the legislature is allowed to vote to spend money however it wants. And, there is a long track record of this starting with money given by the federal legislature to George Washington.
The last people to see the plaque, Henrikson said, were two museum employees who walked through the building after the fire. According to them, the moon rocks were intact, in a glass case. After that, museum staff discussed taking the plaque out of the burned-out area and putting it in a more secure part of the museum. A few days later, a museum employee noticed it wasn't in the case. Instead there was just a clean square in the ash and dust where it had been sitting. She assumed Phil Redden, a museum curator, took it home for safe-keeping. But later, when he was asked, Redden denied it.
a man named Coleman Anderson is listed in the obituary for the transportation museum's last curator, Phil Redden.
Coleman Anderson has the rock. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/157506
Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you have garbage in a public place can't the cops search and confiscate without a warrant because its no longer your property? doesn't the same apply here? what about people that dumpster dive? are they stealing? Maybe they are if you are paying a trash company, and its their trash bin, maybe you are technically trespassing. I just don't know. Anyway, i feel that if a cop can take my garbage than a citizen can take my garbage.
If it doesn't matter it's a moot rock
Is 1563649 a prime number?
"Joe Gutheinz... has made it his goal to collect all 230 moon rocks presented by the US to governments around the world"
A retired guy who now acts like he's on a mission for God re-assembling the old rock group. He does sound like a tool. First he goes on about the astronauts not given rocks to keep. (Me, I wouldn't bet more than $5 that there's an Apollo astronaut with a rock ). Then to make his quest sound even more noble invokes the memory of dead astronauts, the number of which he seems to have pulled out of the air.
My first thought was Bookman on Seinfeld with his dogged quest to find the missing copy of "Tropic of Cancer", though Inspector Javert chasing Jean Valvaljean sounds better than a pop culture reference.
Um...
"To be clear the main reason we do that is that i get sick of having to shred my mail because the homeless are going through my trash."
I don't care if you *don't* have homeless going through your trash, there's no way you should *not* be doing this. You can be sure that someone will get one of your un-shredded bits *sometime*, even if you make sure it gets onto the truck safely.
And when you lose that info, well... it's a big deal.
So, yes, I'm actually thinking those homeless have done you a service, by letting you know that people *do* go through your trash, and you *had better* shred anything important.
NASA (or Nixon or whoever) gave away the rocks. They didn't loan them out. Only now are people asserting that there was some unwritten EULA attached to the rocks that require that they be returned to NASA whenever NASA asks. Because such an agreement didn't exist when they were freely given away.
Learn to love Alaska
"Yes the museum may not have intended to discard it but they should have more diligent about what they throw out. "
Agreed. But what they should have done doesn't affect property law.
The finder's claim, at least, leaves him completely off the hook for having stolen it... but it would still be considered stolen property unless the museum intentionally discarded it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
How does anyone know that he didn't pilfer the museum debris before it was written off as a total loss? Not a lawyer, but I'd assume that the burden of proof is on him. On a personal note, if my house burned down and a guy shows up with grandpa's pocket watch and claims he found it in the dump where the burned remnants were disposed, I think he loses.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"Three state governors accidentally took their state's rocks home after leaving office."
Yeah, right.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
According to Alaska Daily News, the state's side of the story is significantly different. That they aren't alleging outright theft is only because the statute of limitations has run out.
I may need to revise my estimation of the state as acting like a petty bully. If their story holds water, this may be a cut and dried case of looting.
The custodian of the item for the museum was Phil Redden, Coleman Anderson foster father. So you have the custodian of the museum improperly disposing of an item and it winding up with his foster son. Or maybe he just stole it and Anderson inherited it from his dad.
Not actual custodian. Curator.
And these people agree to be on that show for one reason. Money. You actually managed to confirm elrous0's post.
The museum went right over all the debris, took what they wanted, declared the rest trash/unsalvageable, and rescinded ownership of it.
I'm not sure it was ever *owned* by the museum. The museum may have merely been in lawful possession of it for the purposes of public display. NASA may have been the rightful owner and they never rescinded ownership. **IF** so they may have every legal right to its return.
...Joe Gutheinz would like to speak to you...
Interesting that you bring that up. Of all the potentially credible sources whom the author could have picked, why did he select a "professor" from the University of Phoenix? How about Rutgers? Harvard? UC Berkeley? SURELY the author (writing for The Seattle Times: Winner of Eight Pulitzer Prizes as displayed prominently at the headline of the article) could have found a professor at a real, not-for-profit university who would put in his two or three cents. Or even someone from a reputable community college. But a bona fide diploma mill? And before anyone tries to nab me on the guy being an "agent for NASA," who went undercover, I want to see some facts because he more than likely was not employed by NASA. Something really doesn't add up here.
To put it more bluntly: would you rather it be in a private collection or lost completely? Those are your two options.
Well there is a third option: rescued from museum mishandling, returned to NASA, and put on public display.
I don't think this guy did anything wrong, rather he deserves to be thanked. However the museum probably did not have ownership nor did they have the right to throw it out. If you loan something to a museum and they mishandle it don't you still own it?
I dont know, ask my neighbors (i live in a condo complex with community dumpsters)
Good-bye
So basically, anyone who doesn't agree with your point (which so far has been just "lol republicans are evil QED") is automatically a tea party zealot? Is that correct?
Here is a summary of this thread so far, starting from your post. Please speak up if any part of it is incorrect:
1. You said "Well that's what you get when you let Republicans take office" in response to someone saying "they are bullies."
2. One poster raised the point that the democrats don't seem to be working to change the tide here and points out that maybe you are just blaming Republicans for its own sake. No response from you.
3. Another poster demonstrates that the people who are in charge are, in fact, democrats. You don't bother to address that in any rational way but:
4. Someone responds to that post, highlighting how some democrats weren't involved,
5. You boldly proclaim that because some democrats weren't involved, republicans are at fault, and then proceed on a partisan rant that better belongs on your blog.
6. Rest of us think you need to better explain yourself, because one doesn't follow the other.
And you are right to a degree. That doesnt change my ire for the people i see as directly responsible.
Good-bye
Go die in a fire. Seriously. You are a worthless hunk of meat.
Judging by the wording of his statement, sounds like Gutheinz's contingent is going for an unjust enrichment argument: basically that the rock may have been abandoned, but that Capt. Anderson had a legal duty to attempt to return it when he recognized the value.
My guess is it'll come down to whether leaving a high-ticket item in the trash as an oversight is considered an affirmative statement of not wanting it anymore or equivalent to losing it on the street.
I wonder if you would sing the same tune if someone found an RTG from a failed satellite launch/reentry. The United states never relinquished ownership of the rock to anyone, merely loaned it. If I loan you my car and you park it somewhere with the keys in it and someone else finds it, they arent entitled to keep it , even if found in a junk yard.
All moon rocks brought back by the US lunar missions are easily identifiable from lunar meteorites. There is no question of its origin or ownership. It rightfully belongs to the United States, regardless of who possess it now.
Good-bye
It depends on the state. Sometimes the statute of limitations start when they discover you have the property as opposed to when you aquired the property.
Compelling argument...... Im a worthelss hunk of meat for protecting me and my home from those that would do us harm? Bums are desperate and DANGEROUS. They are basically feral humans. (this is in no way implying they are sub-human or due any less rights then any other sentient being, merely pointing out that fact that they are inherently unstable). It got so I couldnt send my kid to take out the trash for fear of some homeless waste of life propositioning him in some way, be it money or other unmentionables. Take your judgement and shove it up your ass.
Good-bye
In most states once you put trash out by the road it ceases to be your private property. That is why, for example, police do not need a warrant to go through your trash. Not sure how that applies to businesses.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
If it changes colors, it's a mood rock.
You steal my rocks and then you fight over them! You stupid Earthlings!
Signed,
The Moon.
It should read, "Someone responds to that post, highlighting how only Alaska state government and private individuals were involved."
At no point have I seen any news source that claims that any member of the Obama administration is involved in any way. Rather, the only government involvement to date is the state of Alaska's counter-suit against Anderson. NASA's alleged involvement consists of a /former/ investigator now working as a professor. So far as I can tell no active member of the federal government has been involved in any way.
If evidence arises to the contrary, I'm more than willing to change my mind on that. I've already changed my mind on whether the government is acting like a petty bully. If the report in Alaska News Daily is correct, this may be a simple case of looting/theft that had no leads until Anderson came forward by launching his suit to keep the rocks. If, as that report alleges, the rocks are presently in China, I find it likely that they have already been sold and the purpose of the suit is entirely to establish clear title to what may be stolen goods.
Imagine my house burns down. Imagine that I take everything I can find of value from the rubble and then call in garbage trucks. If you go rooting around through the rubble /before/ it is loaded on the trucks, it's theft of my property regardless of whether or not it looks like all the remaining rubble is going to get thrown away. If you want to lay claim to anything I missed from going through the rubble, you have to ask my permission.
I don't think things change just because the state of Alaska was the owner rather than a private citizen.
Moreover, Alaska Daily News gives the state's version of events alongside Anderson's narrative. It isn't clear that Anderson's story is the correct one.
"But in this case I dislike looters who go into a burned down structure and steal your property before you get a chance to return and get it."
Where is any evidence he did any such thing?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I would argue that the state of Alaska has no standing. Since it was thrown out in the trash they lost ownership of it. Now if the federal government or NASA wants to say it was on loan to the museum then they would have standing to deal with the lawsuit.
Do we even know for a fact this is a moon rock other than this guy says it is?
If you threw out an antique, you have no claim when someone picks it from the trash. But if you lose it, and the finder knows that the antique is yours, they're obligated to return it.
The museum didn't say "oh, it's a moon rock, we don't need that any more" and put in the trash deliberately. They lost it. It still belongs to the museum.
And that's assuming it was even lost. It's very suspicious that the guy's foster father was a curator and he just happened to be the one to find the rock. He probably stole it and said "I found it" as an excuse.
I'm pretty sure that any you dispose of in a trash can and placed in public is no longer considered as your property. That's why the location of where the rock was is important. Anything you put on the street curb in a trash bin is fair game for anyone. Some property owners loathe it when vagrants forage through their trash but technically they are allowed to do so. Police are allowed to seize the contents of trash bins without a warrant as long as the bins are on the street.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You own what you can keep and control. If you can't keep control over it, it's probably not yours.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
And to will/trust it to others upon his death. Should it be sold, the first time or subsequent times the federal government/state of Alaska should have the option to pay fair market value which would be nothing compared to how much they spent getting it in the first place. If the rocks had any real Significant value Nasa would not have given them away.
It was discarded. He recovered and restored it. It's up to the state to prove how unique and necessary it is as a national treasure. And the truth is it isn't. By the very reasoning the remains of all the astronautics that have been to the moon would be national treasure. This isn't a case of looting or theft.
Actually, if the item was put in the trash by accident, then one is *NOT* presumed to have surrendered ownership of it by placing it there. It is still their property and they have legal entitlement to its recovery, as long as one does not violate any laws to do so. However negligent it may have been of the original owner to have let it get in the trash in the first place is entirely superfluous to actual property law.
However... the finder would not have any reasonable opportunity to realize this... and it is only a crime to be in possession of stolen property if you actually know that it is stolen, so the finder is not actually guilty of any crime. Nevertheless, it is still considered stolen property, and the owner who accidentally discarded it is legally entitled to its return. The possessor, even though he never broke any laws, is not legally entitled to any special compensation for this, regardless of the item's actual or perceived value, beyond what the actual owner may be willing to offer for its return as a gratuity.
IANAL, of course, but I once had an encounter with this sort of issue, and what I've described is more or less how it was explained to me by the representative that I was in contact with.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.
Moon Treaty
If he had rescued a Kitten/Puppy from the trash, would that also be considered less-noble means of acquiring a cat/dog?
Dumpster diving, museum is likely on public property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving#Legal_status
And there's no law against owning moonrocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_meteorite#Private_ownership
Does anyone else thing the moonrock collector guy is whiney? "No fair! if can't keep moonrocks, then you can't either!"
But it wasn't thrown out in the trash. /If/ one takes Anderson's suit at face value, the best one can argue is that it /may have been about/ to be thrown out into the trash. Going into a burnt-out structure to pick up artifacts that the previous crew may have missed is not the same thing as picking through the trash cans after the remaining debris has been tossed.
Moreover, if you look at the state's side of the story, the allegation is that the rocks were accounted for after the fire and went missing from a display case.
Another consideration is that the rocks are designated by federal law as "national treasures." Regardless of chain of custody, it may not be possible to claim private ownership. Depending on the interpretation of what that means, it could be that Anderson is the one who lacks standing to bring suit.
Lastly, and most importantly in my mind, all of the above points are from the legal point of view. They may or may not coincide with "the right thing to do." Before I feel comfortable making that sort of judgment, I would like more clarity on certain questions. For example, whether or not the rocks were really picked out of the rubble or whether they were taken out of a display case.
What's wrong with you buddy? I tried to make sense of your post since this is the first time someone at /. uses the F-word on me but i couldn't....