|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
(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/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
(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/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
(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/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help collimating a "classic" Tasco 11T-R 4.5" reflecting telescope | Fu Manchu | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 12th 04 11:44 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 07:33 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Hondurans Get Their Moonrock Back | James Oberg | History | 72 | October 10th 03 03:03 AM |