[meteorite-list] Fwd: Lorton meteorite should be 'the people's rock'
From: cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 23:40:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20100204234008.X8DGZ.544979.imail_at_fed1rmwml37> Bob, Thank you for the response. That is fair to say but the problem with Federal land is that it is illegal to pick the stuff up without a permit. So, the collection has to be for the government. if you don't pick it up it will rot and then nobody will ever get a chance at it. During the mapping of Gold Basin. Nobody wanted to bother to collect the material on into the federal land because they could not keep it. 100% of the meteorites found on Federal area of the gold basin strewnfield had to be given to the smithsonian museum. If you look at the map it is very much lighter on the federal owned section. Today you will get into big trouble if caught hunting there. But when on state land you are allowed to pick stuff up. that's all I'm saying. Why do they differ? State land meteorites get picked up and preserved. Federal meteorites get to rot. There must still be tons of meteorites yet to be found but never will be due to these stupid laws. Carl -- Carl or Debbie Esparza Meteoritemax ---- Bob Loeffler <bobl at peaktopeak.com> wrote: > Hi Carl, > > > I hate the fact that the Gov. gets to claim treasures found on fed. > > land. The fed. land belongs to all of us. Gold basin material found > > on Fed. land all went to the smithsonian. > > If you don't want the Fed Gov to get the treasures that are found on Fed > land, who should get them? Even you said that the treasures "belong to all > of us", but if you find something and take it home (and either keep it or > sell it), the rest of us don't get to share in the ownership or joy of what > you found. So then that is not fair because it should belong to all of us, > right? So, the Gov puts the treasure in a museum so all of us can see it. > All of the people now have a partial ownership/interest in it, not just one > or two people. > > BTW, I don't work for the Gov. and didn't get paid by anyone to say > anything. :-) This is just what I think this law is trying to do. I could > be wrong. > > Regards, > > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com > [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of > cdtucson at cox.net > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:45 PM > To: Adam; George Blahun Jr > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Fwd: Lorton meteorite should be 'the people's > rock' > > George. > Just one moment here. What if the rightful owner of the glasses never claims > > them? you have no idea who left them. Could have been a visitor asking for > directions. Who owns them? The landlord??? Nobody is not the right answer > here. > Also, Nobody wants your tree but the key is that it is yours! > What if you are leasing the tree in a business that sells the fruit? Who is > responsible then? The owner of the tree or you because you are in legal > control > of it. Just asking. > In the case of the contractor. Well, he did discover the treasure inside the > > wall. What most would have done is haul it off into the truck as he was > contracted to do and never mention it ( haul away the debris) . What he did > do > is tell the home owner and she wanted all of it. This case ended in all of > her > relatives learning of it and the sum was divided many ways between all of > them. > She got greedy and lost more than she gained . I love this case because > greed > did not prevail. Her greed cost her mucho dineros . As a side note the > contractor did the right thing but it came down to. "No good deed goes > unpunished". As much as I hate to say that. > I was an Architect/contractor and I know most of my subs would have simply > hauled away the envelope with the rest of the debris, medicine cabinet and > all. > Plus she was lucky the envelope had her relatives name on it because it > might > have belonged to a previous home owner. all of this played out in court. > which > is why I want to see this in court. > I hate the fact that the Gov. gets to claim treasures found on fed. land. > The > fed. land belongs to all of us. Gold basin material found on Fed. land all > went > to the smithsonian. That is why the strewn field looks so bottom heavy. Take > > care and thank you.. Carl > -- > Carl or Debbie Esparza > Meteoritemax > > -- > Carl or Debbie Esparza > Meteoritemax > > > ---- George Blahun Jr <ks1u at att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Carl: > > Hello and thanks for your comments and point of view. I actually > didn't intend for this to be taken as cut and dry. I do come down on the > side of the land owners, but my reference to the EM Spectrum implies that > there is always another point of view. If you were unfortunate enough to be > hit by a meteorite on someone else's property, I believe you'd be entitled > to damages for your injury and pain and suffering. If you were walking on > my property here in CT and one of my black walnut trees fell on you, you > could (and should) file a claim against my home owners policy, but I don't > think you'd get to keep the black walnut tree which is probably worth about > 10K for the wood. > > In your example of the dollar bill, a fairly insignificant amount if > you can afford to see a doctor, the dollar probably goes to the finder. But > if you drop your Maui Jim sunglasses there, you still have the right to them > and neither the finder nor the doctor nor the landlord owns them. Of course > most communities have a procedure for claiming a lost and found, unlike a > space rock. This series of events changes if the object which hits you is > from a military satellite. They'd deny any responsibility but want it back > anyhow. > > > > There was a court case recently where a contractor was removing a wall > in a house and found a bunch of money which had been hidden in there for > decades. The contractor tried to claim it using the old legal defense of > "finders keepers losers weepers" but the courts said, no. > > I guess we all have a slight bias when interpreting the law and what > constitutes ownership. This no doubt determines which side of this issue we > each come down on. > > > > George > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2664 - Release Date: 02/04/10 > 00:35:00 > > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-listReceived on Thu 04 Feb 2010 11:40:08 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|