Hondurans Get Their Moonrock Back

From Henry Spencer:
Robert Pearlman wrote:
(There was also a similar presentation of moon rock using a sample
returned by Apollo 11...

Dust, not rock. At the time there was strong feeling that the rocks --
much more scientifically valuable -- should not be used as gifts, not
to anyone.

I'd say that it's a stretch to call *any* of these samples -rocks-.
One advantage to the lucite ball is that it gives the optical illusion
that the tiny chunk is almost as big as a pebble.


~ CT

From Robert Pearlman:
This person I know of was thoroughly convinced in his rock's
authenticity. I did not question him at the time, but I do agree that
there is a chance that his is only a replica.

If it is claimed to come from Apollo, it isn't a replica and it wasn't
purchased from a foreign country in a legal sale, then it was stolen
-- without question. The U.S. never awarded a moon rock to an
individual and no one working for the program was ever authorized to
give one away.

I see at least two other possible explanations:

- NASA did give away some rocks and never told anyone else about it,
or
- NASA transferred possession of these "gifts" without technically
transferring ownership.

snip
Related information:
snip
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-062902a.html

Here's something I find interesting on this page:
____________

March 28 -- Presented in its entirely in PDF format: "Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law usvmoonrock.pdf" for "UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA VS. ONE LUCITE BALL CONTAINING LUNAR MATERIAL (ONE MOON ROCK)
AND ONE TEN INCH BY FOURTEEN INCH WOODEN PLAQUE" as ordered by US
District Judge Adelberto Jordan on March 24.
____________

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law. With "in
rem" attempting to uphold property rights across international
borders, the focus of the ruling from the US court was Honduran law.
I don't see how such legal fiction can stand Constitutional muster.
It is used as a convenient tool for the government to justify taking
whatever it wants (most often, drugs).

Well, I guess we can at least be glad that the US govt didn't sentence
the rock to "life in LRL prison".


What would really be convoluted is to see the rock counter-sue the US
govt on the basis that no one can own it. A point made with previous
lunar rock theft cases is the view that the first "theft" happened on
the Moon (ref http://tinyurl.com/pc83). How strange to think that if
such a point were ever pressed, the US Supreme Court might hold the
entire Moon as the defendant, under "in rem" precedent.


~ CT

From Robert Pearlman:
This person I know of was thoroughly convinced in his rock's
authenticity. I did not question him at the time, but I do agree that
there is a chance that his is only a replica.

If it is claimed to come from Apollo, it isn't a replica and it wasn't
purchased from a foreign country in a legal sale, then it was stolen
-- without question. The U.S. never awarded a moon rock to an
individual and no one working for the program was ever authorized to
give one away.

I see at least two other possible explanations:

- NASA did give away some rocks and never told anyone else about it,
or
- NASA transferred possession of these "gifts" without technically
transferring ownership.

snip
Related information:
snip
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-062902a.html

Here's something I find interesting on this page:
____________

March 28 -- Presented in its entirely in PDF format: "Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law usvmoonrock.pdf" for "UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA VS. ONE LUCITE BALL CONTAINING LUNAR MATERIAL (ONE MOON ROCK)
AND ONE TEN INCH BY FOURTEEN INCH WOODEN PLAQUE" as ordered by US
District Judge Adelberto Jordan on March 24.
____________

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law. With "in
rem" attempting to uphold property rights across international
borders, the focus of the ruling from the US court was Honduran law.
I don't see how such legal fiction can stand Constitutional muster.
It is used as a convenient tool for the government to justify taking
whatever it wants (most often, drugs).

Well, I guess we can at least be glad that the US govt didn't sentence
the rock to "life in LRL prison".


What would really be convoluted is to see the rock counter-sue the US
govt on the basis that no one can own it. A point made with previous
lunar rock theft cases is the view that the first "theft" happened on
the Moon (ref http://tinyurl.com/pc83). How strange to think that if
such a point were ever pressed, the US Supreme Court might hold the
entire Moon as the defendant, under "in rem" precedent.


~ CT

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law. With "in
rem" attempting to uphold property rights across international
borders, the focus of the ruling from the US court was Honduran law.
I don't see how such legal fiction can stand Constitutional muster.
It is used as a convenient tool for the government to justify taking
whatever it wants (most often, drugs).

That's not an accurate summary. In effect, it was a comdemnation of
personal (i.e., not real) property. Such "takings" are very common
practices, subject to the 5th Amendment. As far as U.S. courts applying
Hoduran law, do some research on conflicts of laws before you issue
opinions on the Constitutionality of the court's action.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

In article ,
(Stuf4) wrote:

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law. With "in
rem" attempting to uphold property rights across international
borders, the focus of the ruling from the US court was Honduran law.
I don't see how such legal fiction can stand Constitutional muster.
It is used as a convenient tool for the government to justify taking
whatever it wants (most often, drugs).

That's not an accurate summary. In effect, it was a comdemnation of
personal (i.e., not real) property. Such "takings" are very common
practices, subject to the 5th Amendment. As far as U.S. courts applying
Hoduran law, do some research on conflicts of laws before you issue
opinions on the Constitutionality of the court's action.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
Dust, not rock. At the time there was strong feeling that the rocks --
much more scientifically valuable -- should not be used as gifts, not
to anyone.

While I realize they weren't complete rocks, I don't think its fair to
label the lucite-encased material from Apollo 11 as dust either. I
have seen several of the presentations, and they have three-four
clearly-identifiable fragments (pebbles?) each. Less material than the
A17 Goodwill presentations for sure, but more than a random sprinkling
of dust...

--
Robert Pearlman
editor, collectSPACE
http://www.collectspace.com/

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
Dust, not rock. At the time there was strong feeling that the rocks --
much more scientifically valuable -- should not be used as gifts, not
to anyone.

While I realize they weren't complete rocks, I don't think its fair to
label the lucite-encased material from Apollo 11 as dust either. I
have seen several of the presentations, and they have three-four
clearly-identifiable fragments (pebbles?) each. Less material than the
A17 Goodwill presentations for sure, but more than a random sprinkling
of dust...

--
Robert Pearlman
editor, collectSPACE
http://www.collectspace.com/

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
I see at least two other possible explanations:

- NASA did give away some rocks and never told anyone else about it,

Considering how difficult a secret this would be to keep (what's the
use of a moon rock if you can't show it off?), not to mention that the
agency has explicitly stated that they have never given any such
material away, I find this highly unlikely if not implausible.

- NASA transferred possession of these "gifts" without technically transferring ownership.

In other words, a loan. NASA's lunar material loan program is well
documented -- and well tracked.

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one, but I don't believe this
is a correct statement. My understanding is that forfeiture in rem is
essentially a request for a judge to identify the item's (in this
case, the rock's) rightful owner.

To do that, you would have to trace the path of ownership -- which in
this case broke down in Honduras, hence the citation of Honduran law.

--
Robert Pearlman
editor, collectSPACE
http://www.collectspace.com/

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
I see at least two other possible explanations:

- NASA did give away some rocks and never told anyone else about it,

Considering how difficult a secret this would be to keep (what's the
use of a moon rock if you can't show it off?), not to mention that the
agency has explicitly stated that they have never given any such
material away, I find this highly unlikely if not implausible.

- NASA transferred possession of these "gifts" without technically transferring ownership.

In other words, a loan. NASA's lunar material loan program is well
documented -- and well tracked.

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one, but I don't believe this
is a correct statement. My understanding is that forfeiture in rem is
essentially a request for a judge to identify the item's (in this
case, the rock's) rightful owner.

To do that, you would have to trace the path of ownership -- which in
this case broke down in Honduras, hence the citation of Honduran law.

--
Robert Pearlman
editor, collectSPACE
http://www.collectspace.com/

From Herb Schaltegger:
(Stuf4) wrote:

This case was prosecuted "in rem" (vice "in personam"). What you have
here is a *rock* being found guilty of breaking the law. With "in
rem" attempting to uphold property rights across international
borders, the focus of the ruling from the US court was Honduran law.
I don't see how such legal fiction can stand Constitutional muster.
It is used as a convenient tool for the government to justify taking
whatever it wants (most often, drugs).

That's not an accurate summary. In effect, it was a comdemnation of
personal (i.e., not real) property. Such "takings" are very common
practices, subject to the 5th Amendment. As far as U.S. courts applying
Hoduran law, do some research on conflicts of laws before you issue
opinions on the Constitutionality of the court's action.

I'm not aware of anything in the fifth amendment (or anywhere else in
the US Constitution) that legitimizes a rock standing trial.


~ CT