[meteorite-list] Concerns for Meteorite Dealers, Collectors and the Scientific Community

From: Ken Sliz <ken_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:14:06 -0500
Message-ID: <9BC1D2F84A0D0C4EB2425FD3FEDFFA29363B23C5_at_MBX06.exg5.exghost.com>

Greetings to all in the "Meteorite Community.? I would like to submit the following historical data along with my observations and opinions regarding Mr. Steve Arnold and the most recent revelations made during the civil trial in San Antonio, March 2011.? Why, you should ask do I enter this turbulent arena?? What are my qualifications for such involvement?? The short answer is twofold:

1.? I was involved with the Brenham Meteorite Company before it was legally formed.? Phil Mani offered me a partnership/investor position while he and Steve Arnold were discussing the possibility of reworking the Brenham strewn field.? I have watched the project/partnership from a bird's eye view, observing good and bad proceed from it.

2. Unknown to many folks, I am very involved with meteorites as demonstrated in the financial investment made in my collection.? All specimens are complete slices, complete meteorites or end cuts.? The few experts that have viewed the collection have described it as "one of the finest aesthetic collections around."? I can emphatically say that I am a stakeholder/shareholder in "the meteorite world."

Recent Events:

In my opinion, the most important facts to emerge from the recent legal proceedings between Arnold and Mani can be found in the documents entered into the court record.? Anyone can access the complete documents at the Bexar County Courthouse, as they are in the public record.? ? I will refer to each document by exhibit number.

One of the most revealing documents concerning Arnolds M.O. is exhibit #419.? It is an email from Arnold to Notkin on 2-19-2006.? Please note that at the time of writing, Arnold and his family were receiving money and benefits from the Brenham Meteorite Company.

Exhibit #419 Dated 2-19-2006? From Steve Arnold to Geoff Notkin

"I just read a GREAT book called "Get on TV"? Of course we did quite well getting on TV without reading the book, but I think there might be some other ways I could get onto TV again? if we would make some efforts."....... "I would like to keep this between you and me for the time being.? Darryl is in the mix and I strongly get the feeling that he is not as interested in promoting ME as he is working for a high auction price on the big rock.? Of course I don't want to hurt the value of the big rock, but I really think there is more at stake for me here than just the bottom line on the one specimen."......."I want your honest feedback, but keep it between you and me for the moment, ok?"

Exhibit # 396 Dated 2-21-2006,? From Steve Arnold to Geoff Notkin,? Subject: Confidential

"I understand Phil requested that you attempt to get unused footage of the C&T show for us to use in our marketing efforts."........"I would caution you the be VERY careful in your request."....... "Darryl wanted Phil to ask you to "cash in your chip" he feels you have earned to get the footage, specifically the footage of him being interviewed with Becky.? Now, yes, there MIGHT be something in that footage that would help us sell the big rock.? There also might be something in there that would help Darryl with whatever he might have in mind that might have NOTHING to do with us selling the big rock."......."Anyway, in the event that you do indeed have "a chip you could cash in" for something, possibly getting that footage, I would hate for you to "cash that chip in" for some tape, when it might better be spent by getting us a TV show of our own."

Exhibit #255? Dated 8-8-2009,? From Steve Arnold to Geoff Notkin

"I am choosing to use this crossroads in my life as the time to reevaluate my priorities, and to reexamine my friendships.? We haven't even hit the stage where people start sucking up to us for selfish reasons...oh wait, maybe that email to you from Darryl the other day is the first of many of those that are about to come.? In the past, I think I have been too obsessed with trying to be nice guy and to try to make everyone happy.? Well damn it, we now have a couple of million people to please..." "And for the others:? F--- Mani.? F--- Farmer.? F--- Stimpson.? F--- them all, (abbreviations mine) if the whole meteorite world wants to sit in their sand box puking on each other.? They deserve each other."

The King Case, Cause # 2002-08178 in Harris County Texas, 281st Judicial District.

(This case is filed by the estate of Sharon King, widow of the late Dr. Elbert King.? Dr. King was a geologist at the University of Houston who specialized in meteorites.? He trained Apollo astronauts and was the first curator of the Lunar Sample Laboratory.? He wrote/edited two books and published many scientific papers.)

This excerpt comes from the plaintiffs' third amended original petition.

FACTS? IV.
Sharon Lee Witherow King ("Sharon King"), deceased, was a resident of Houston.......Prior to Sharon King's death, Sharon King entered into two written contracts (the "Contracts") with Arnold for the sale of certain items, including but not limited to, meteorites.? The Contracts stipulated the terms and conditions under which the Contracts would be performed, and Arnold has wholly failed to perform under the terms and conditions, including but not limited to, nonpayment of monthly payments, nonpayment of sales of meteorites, refusal to return meteorites, books, collections, and other conditions.? ....Because of the actions and inaction of Arnold, demand has been timely made on Arnold to pay the delinquent monies, return the King collection and to desist from representing the legacy and collection of Dr. King.

BREACH OF CONTRACT? V.
Sharon King and Arnold entered into an enforceable agreement.? Sharon King has performed all of the Contractual obligations.? Arnold has refused to pay the monies due or return the assets under the contract.? Such breach damaged the Plaintiff's and the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court order Arnold to pay the monies owed under the Contract.

FRAUD? VI.
Arnold has knowingly falsely represented to the Plaintiffs (and their predecessor) that Arnold would pay the monies in a timely fashion.? Arnold intended for the Plaintiffs to rely upon the representations of Arnold, and Arnold never intended to pay the Plaintiffs or their predecessor, Sharon King, as promised.? Arnold's fraudulent representation damaged the Plaintiffs and their predecessor, Sharon King, because the Plaintiffs because Sharon King detrimentally relied upon Arnold's fraudulent representation.? The Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages for the fraudulent conduct.

(In September of 2004, the 281st Judicial District Court found for the Dr. Elbert King Estate.)

AGREED JUDGMENT
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that STEVEN ARNOLD shall pay actual damages in the amount of $100,000.00 to Plaintiffs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that STEVEN ARNOLD shall pay post-judgment interest from the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that STEVEN ARNOLD shall pay Plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $10,000.00.

Anyone can "Google" Dr. Elbert King and note the first link.? There you will find the Perez Iron - Dr. Elbert King's transported Odessa meteorite at? the aerolite web site.

To see other articles about unpaid landowners in Kansas, go to:
http://articles.kwch.com/2011-02-17/meteorite-hunting28553456
and http://www.kwch.com/news/factfinder12/kwch-kaw-meteoritehunter-20110217.0.6151325story

Conclusions:

Over my lengthy business career, I have observed this emerging behavioral pattern many times.? The daily choices we make time stamp us in life, defining who we really are.

The Strewn Field:? Allow me to define a person's life in meteoritic terms:? Each one of us, through his words, actions and choices leaves a strewn field of himself for all to see and evaluate.

Affect on the Meteorite Community:? As a collector/investor, I have serious moral and legal concerns that landowners and estates are not getting paid or must enter into litigation to get paid.? Product is being traded, diced, sliced and sold to unsuspecting individuals and institutions while the "original owners" are not being compensated.? I don't want my collection tainted with such materials.

>From a legal standpoint I pose this question:? Will some specimens be involved in litigation if the "real owners" seek to recover their property?? This often happens in the "art collecting community," which I have personally witnessed.? And so, my first question to anyone seeking to sell or trade me a meteorite is whether or not the original owner has been paid?? Prove it to me.
?
Received on Mon 11 Apr 2011 06:14:06 PM PDT