[meteorite-list] Open Court

From: Jim Wooddell <jimwooddell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:40:33 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zLme4-nYDumd0NpWub=zkcyz0VsiS2=e5TNWO_at_mail.gmail.com>

Speaking of these contracts with property owners, I've been told these
contracts also stop others (amateurs) from hunting same property.
IOW's if you are not named on the contract, you can't hunt that
property???

Any truth to that? Anyone have a copy of one of these contracts???

Today's hunt at Franconia....
#1 0.5g iron
#2 0.5g iron
#3 <0.1g iron
no OC's

Cheers!

Jim Wooddell





On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM, <cdtucson at cox.net> wrote:
> Jason,
> Everything you've said seems correct. I think the problem/ dilemma / predicament Steve and co. are in is that if they return the material now then they have even less control over the retail price. now and in the future. Further they are not contractually required to return the material. so , it has been suggested that they go to plan "B" or back to the original plan and sell the meteorites and forget the peridot dream/ idea. Remember nobody is suing anybody over this peridot deal. Only a past deal.
> Carl
> --
> Carl or Debbie Esparza
> Meteoritemax
>
>
> ---- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Richard, All,
>>
>> While the article may have been vague, and I understand that
>> interviews can be very misleading, the basics of what was laid out on
>> paper seemed apparent, and were confirmed by Steve's statements.
>> These were namely that the profits were to be divided in a 25/75%
>> fashion, with the larger portion going to the meteorite hunters, and
>> secondly, it was apparent was that after a significant period of time
>> following the meteorites' excavation and removal that there was/is
>> little prospect of profit for either party given what we currently
>> know of sales and the prospective market.
>>
>> Which isn't to say that the situation won't change, and I'm not
>> accusing Steve of anything here, but it seems that ?returning 25% of
>> the finds to the landowners would solve the issue of any moral rights
>> or wrongs committed; a mistake is a mistake, and returning 25% would
>> be fair if no profit is being generated. ?At least then they would
>> have 25% of what was recovered, which is, in theory, proportional to
>> 25% of the profit. ?Granted, there are costs associated with recovery
>> and sample preparation, but since the responsibility for selling the
>> meteorites would be placed with the landowners in this hypothetical
>> scenario, and that takes time and effort as well, I would consider it
>> to be a relatively fair compromise.
>>
>> I don't think that anyone here has deemed Steve guilty of anything
>> except not delivering promised profits due to an unfriendly selling
>> environment (not really his fault). ?The trouble is that it *appears*
>> as though the farmers were promised big money for the meteorites found
>> on their land, the meteorites were taken, and they're not seeing any
>> money. ?That would be a mistake, but in that case, the worst thing we
>> could accuse anyone of is of being overly optimistic -- hardly a
>> crime.
>>
>> I've posed my suggestion for what could be done to solve the issue.
>> It wouldn't really cost Steve anything except material that he (if we
>> are to believe his video testimonial) can't sell.
>>
>> - It seems like a good way to make the farmers believe they weren't
>> treated unfairly, even if they were given poor estimations of
>> projected profits. ?It wouldn't even cut into Steve's cut, since he
>> would still have 3/4 of the material to sell!
>>
>> Sounds like win-win to me...and I believe that the worst thing I may
>> have just accused him of was that he may have been over-optimistic
>> about sale prices.
>>
>> Guilty or not guilty, I daresay we've all done that before. ?The
>> trouble is that when most dealers make a poor investment, they merely
>> take a loss, and they're not in a situation where they're
>> contractually obligated to supply shareholders with percentages of the
>> money made, etc.
>>
>> Part of the problem here may well be a lack of documentation; if the
>> farmers were promised a percentage of the "profits," then depending on
>> the expenses allowed to be counted against gross, the landowners may
>> never see any money because the "expenses" could outweigh the total
>> money garnered from selling the finds.
>> This would be especially likely if Steve & Co. included a clause in
>> the contract that suggested that they be compensated for an hourly
>> rate out of the total gross -- an hourly wage that did not count as
>> "profit," but rather as a recovery cost. ?It would likely come to
>> quite a substantial sum. ?Regardless, the farmers should have been
>> provided with detailed expense reports and accounts of what had been
>> sold, so that they could watch as the expenses as yet unaccounted for
>> were covered, and could thus judge when they might see profits in the
>> future. ?If this happened, they probably wouldn't be complaining.
>>
>> What I see in the video is a man who was promised a profit percentage
>> for "extremely valuable" meteorites taken from his land, who was not
>> provided with enough information to know that he wasn't being, for
>> lack of a better word, robbed.
>>
>> As I said before: knowing Steve, I wouldn't accuse him of anything
>> more than *possibly* being over-optimistic with regards to sale
>> prices. ?But there's clearly a miscommunication of some sort going on
>> - or else there wouldn't be a farmer complaining about being cheated
>> on the news.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>> Jason Utas
>> University of California, Berkeley 2012
>> College of Letters and Science
>> Psychology, Geology
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Richard Kowalski <damoclid at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Ok, Judge Judy just ended, Judge Alex is on now, but I'll take a minute to post.
>> >
>> > There are so many interesting threads on this list and one extremely boring one filled with nothing but gossip and opinions. Well like the other thing that everyone else has, I have an opinion too.
>> >
>> > I see one angry framer. OK
>> > I see Steve's response. OK
>> >
>> > Who do I believe?
>> >
>> > I haven't seen the contract.
>> > I haven't seen a transcript of the meeting where they came to an agreement.
>> > I wasn't there.
>> >
>> > The parties involved are in court as I write this. Since I have no involvement in the case and don't have anywhere near all of the facts, I'll sit and wait to see what the court decides. I'm just surprised that the meteorite hunter is automatically considered to be at fault by many in the community.
>> >
>> > Ohh, People's Court is on too!
>> > Gotta go.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Richard Kowalski
>> > Full Moon Photography
>> > IMCA #1081
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________
>> > 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
> ______________________________________________
> 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
>
Received on Tue 22 Feb 2011 08:40:33 PM PST