[meteorite-list] Moon rocks Cases and outcomes

From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:55:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8CEEA08D1B16396-964-2B348_at_webmail-d025.sysops.aol.com>

"so we better pass an all encompassing law against ownership by anyone
other than the US Government et.al. No one in the history of this list
was able to ever find that enactment and I have asked NASA repeatedly"

Hi Elton,

I would conjecture that no such law exists. It would be Draconian or
unconstitutional at best, in the USA. Theft laws are however are
perfectly applicable and established, and are resolved by the
judiciary,. not a self appointed do gooder policeman who thinks he can
say "NASA" "US Government" or "FBI" and scare anyone into a trembling
pile of jelly. American should take pride in the fact that the little
guy can stand up and be heard if he/she wants to. To me, looking for a
precedent is a non-issue, at least in the same sense for looking for
one on whether someone can own a pre-treaty Antarctic meteorite. Each
case must be submitted to the judicial authority competent for its
resolution: case by case, as would any theft law. In the USA, it takes
special legislation to enact emminent domain laws, which to my
knowledge is the only route to depriving any citizen of his priovate
property duly acquired. Any circuimvention of the judicial review
process ... is un-American.

The same applies to meteorites, and outside the national boundary of
origin a different set of laws apply, meaning that if any locally
authority government official, recipient of a moon plaque, e.g., in
Timbucktu sells their plaque, US laws do not apply. It gets murky if
it crosses back into the US, or is abandoned in Antarctica. ;-)

My two centavos
kindest wishes\
Doug



-----Original Message-----
From: MstrEman <mstreman at gmail.com>
To: D Miller <dannyspl at aol.com>
Cc: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2012 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Moon rocks Cases and outcomes


This my recollection about the dust history.
I do not recall the story about accidental exposure but it is as likely
as not.

Other than Bean's claim there were two incidences of dust escaping
government control.
One was the Hasselblad film magazine which was dropped into the dust
and was the one talked about in this story. The other was the dry
cleaner in Coco Beach that had been awarded the contract to clean NASA
space suits.

The magazine was returned under purchase/work order to Hasselblad for
inspection and refurbishment as necessary. The dust was collected with
scotch tape as I recall. The purchase order did not include the
requirement for Hasslblad to return anything other than the hardware.
I do not remember the entire exchange but pretty much like Obama
asking "pretty please give us our drone back" Hasslblads and their
subcontractor said Nicht.

 About this time congress decided ooops the samples could get pilfered
so we better pass an all encompassing law against ownership by anyone
other than the US Government et.al. No one in the history of this list
was able to ever find that enactment and I have asked NASA repeatedly
under Ignored FOIA to cite chapter and verse where private ownership
is disallowed.(sic) I believe the US code or law says title remains
with the Government.

 I believe-- armed with this new law, NASA went back to German court
where the German law regarding retroactive laws was not enforceable
and the contract stood as submitted and was fulfilled by
Hassleblad--OR so I read somewhere in collage in an international law
case study.

The enterprizing dry cleaner realized far ahead of NASA that dust
would be coming back and he could reap a fortune in resales if he got
the dry cleaning contract. He low balled the contract and bidded his
time through all the early Apollo missions doing as contracted:
waiting on 11 and 12 and might have even been into cleaning 14s suits
when NASA got wind and came looking for the dust--which again had not
been addressed in the contract. The dry cleaner lost in Federal
Court. The Government cited the above law/regulations and exceptional
research potential that gave the public overriding interest. ( I did
not know that NASA ever has conducted the impact of moon dust on body
hair, sweat and urine mixtures) but that I understand was what
happened to the dry cleaning dust.

The scotch tape specimens were sold at a foreign auction several years
ago and was snipped into smaller slivers for subsequent sale. I don't
know what became of the slivers but did see a webpage offering them
for sale-- POR: Price on request.

I may (or may not --wink wink) have a sample from a certain Soviet
mission return capsule that went to the surface of the moon and
returned to earth. The ownership of said sample was in limbo owing to
the reorganization of the legal system post Soviet Era and at the time
of purchase, Russian law was silent on former soviet property.
However the provenance was back to the Soviet pilot who the sample was
officially awarded the cloth.

If anyone does find the case law, US Title/chapter or in the CFRs
please share.
It may be that I can't legally own Apollo material but Sterling or
Bernd might have no such restrictions. I think MASA(sic) just
strong-armed Aldrin(?) over the return of his Lunar camera.
Elton
______________________________________________

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 Mon 16 Apr 2012 12:55:10 PM PDT