[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Fight for Truth, Justice & the American Way, in Monahans!

In a message dated 5/29/98 3:11:51 AM Central Daylight Time,
eroberts@ntplx.net writes:

<< you need to
 counter argue if there are any laws that would support the kid's claim
 of ownership. (Assuming it was even on city property to start with.)
 
 > I think it is easier to compare finding an 1895 Silver Dollar in the city
park
 > worth $20,000 to the finding of a meteorite, than fossils or Native
American
 > artifact finds.  Especially since in many cases, those have been
specifically
 > addressed in legislation due to other pressing legal issues (i.e., tribes
 > legal rights to own ancestral artifacts, especially from burial sites.)
 
 The 1895 silver dollar would be lost personal property and subject to
 different laws. Judges don't like to mix apples and oranges. Look for
 cases where natural material found on public property was awarded to the
 finder to justify the kid's claim. >>
------------------

Hello Gene and List,

Thanks for the further clarification and those real good points.  Above, you
mentioned looking for natural material found on public property and I would
guess fossils would be about as close to something being natural without the
threat of someone claiming they "lost it" as Indian tribes might in artifacts.
But there is also gold and other minerals!  That is Texas, what about oil and
natural gas?

We have all been told that the Mining Law of 1872 does not include meteorites
becuase they are not "locatable minerals."  A week or so ago, I talked a
little about that I felt that meteorite ARE VERY LOCATABLE!  If you see one
fall you go pick it up!  You go to the Imilac, Holbrook, Odessa, Gold Basin
and Canyon Diablo sites and meteorites are easy to "locate."   Should that be
approached in arguement, or since a judge already ruled on that, should we
stay away from it?

But this is really different.  If this went to court, could this in fact
establish specific precedence for meteorites falls?  I think this does need to
happen.  Also, if this would go to court, is it proper to argue that it is
important not just for the Monahans case, but all the good that will come out
of the ruling for OTHER meteorite falls in the future, if the judge sides with
the boys?  And show all the bad that will occur (like what has been occurring
over the years), if he would rule that the city owns it?

On a separate issue, if the rock was found on private land, yet also in the
easement, can the city still confiscate the meteorite?  It is my impression
that the City of Monahans thinks that they can.  I suppose we have to look
into that too.

Any suggestions?

Steve
Follow-Ups: