Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Moon Rock Winds Up In Court 417

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i'll-get-that-pesky-moon-rock-if-its-the-last-thing-I-do dept.
Lothar+0 writes "In United States v. Lucite ball containing lunar material (an actual case, I'm not making this up, folks), the feds are suing to get back a moon rock from an American who brought it back from Honduras. They're alleging that this rock from the Apollo 17 mission is stolen property; ironic considering that NASA took something that wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moon Rock Winds Up In Court More

Moon Rock Winds Up In Court

Comments Filter:
  • I don' think that the moon is really anyone's territory - at least not just yet...

  • When? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DuranDuran ( 252246 )
    When will our North American friends realise that their legal system is completely out of control?

    First it was the Oath of Allegiance, now a specimen of moon rock - litigation should NOT always be the first resort.

    DD

    • Re:When? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Bartab ( 233395 )
      litigation should NOT always be the first resort.

      So how would you solve disagreements between the gov't and citizenry? Forfeiture? Imprisonment? Bills of Attainder?

      I much prefer litigation thanks.
      • So how would you solve disagreements between the gov't and citizenry? Forfeiture? Imprisonment? Bills of Attainder?

        Talking to one another might not be a bad start. Then, say, arbitration. Then, if all else fails and the two positions are still mutually incompatible, with no compromise acceptable to both sides, litigate.
    • When they reduce the number of lawyers per capita to 1:1.
    • First it was the Oath of Allegiance, now a specimen of moon rock - litigation should NOT always be the first resort.

      I'm sure you've already got a better solution to these particular situations. Care to share it with us?
    • DuranDuran... nice. one of these days will get around to bombing the english. now that is the TRUE american first step. now i'm off to sue my landlord, be back later.

    • Re:When? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by g4dget ( 579145 )
      First it was the Oath of Allegiance, now a specimen of moon rock - litigation should NOT always be the first resort.

      • It was the Pledge of Allegiance, not the Oath of Allegiance that was at issue (they are not the same thing).
      • Who says litigation was the "first resort"? Seems like the last resort, after political efforts to convince our sanctimonious and popularity hungry representatives to change laws that blatantly conflict with separation of church and state have failed.
      • The Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit was by a private citizen.

      I'll give you this much, though: I think the government should not spend its money on chasing down Honduran paperweights. They gave it away as a gift--who cares where it ends up?

    • I find it surprising the number of people who act like the words "under God" belong in the pledge. If the words were "under Allah" or "under Zeus", how would you feel about saying them every morning? Just because you believe in God -- and therefore are inspired (or at worst unmoved) by these two words -- doesn't mean that everyone else who does not should be forced to recite them.

      'DuranDuran' is implying that the suit (and even more so, the finding) was frivolous. It was not, and I find the prospect of Senate making the current 45-year-old pledge phrasology into a constitutional amendment enough to make me consider emigration.
      • If the words were "under Allah" or "under Zeus"

        Well, "Allah" is simply the Arabic term meaning "the God". And Zeus is very particular. "God", fully capitalized, has been used by English-speakers to refer to such diverse divinities as the Jewish YHVH, the Christian Trinity, the Islamic al-Lah, the Hindu Brahman, the High God of various tribal religions of the Americas/Africa/Australia, the Chinese Emperor of Heaven, the Unmoved Mover of Aristotelian philosophy, the pantheist and panetheist conceptions of the Divine, and other concepts that are to a greater or lesser degree incopmatible with one another. So the cases are not equivalent.

        In any case, as an atheist, I find it very hard to get worked up over which mythical being is being invoked. Might as well say "under Harry Potter" for all I care. Now, if I were a committed believer in a religion that explicitly denies the existence of a God, believing instead in incompatible mythical beings, I might be able to get worked up. Except that I could just not say the words if I wished because . . .

        [How] would you feel about saying them every morning?

        [It] doesn't mean that everyone else who does not [agree] should be forced to recite them.

        . . . the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to require anyone to recite the Pledge back in 1943.

        The question in this current case was not should anybody be made to utter those two words, but rather whether the reciting of those words can be an administration-scheduled part of the schoolday for those who do agree with them.

        At which point, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but trivial. Two words in a Pledge that you don't have to say? Shall we prohibit recitations of the Declaration of Independence's second paragraph to a school assembly as well? The degree of "establishment" is on the same order. Do we need to amend the Constitution to remove "in the year of our Lord" in favor of "in the year of the Common Era"?

        • The Declaration is a historical document. "We, the People" means the 55 people who signed it. If you recite it, I suppose I might assume that you hold those truths to be self evident, but that's about it.

          The Plege of Allegiance is a pledge. You state right at the beginning that this is what you believe, and also that you will act accordingly. If it isn't, then there's a problem.

          No-one focusses on the words after "under God". I see some pretty deep divisions right here.
  • What about this place?

    http://www.moonshop.com/ [moonshop.com]

    I sure hope that NASA is not taking any of them thar moon rocks from my back 40! I gots the deeds to proves it!
  • If this is the case then where do private collectors get their rocks? Are they stolen as well?
  • ironic considering that NASA took something that wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction

    Not so much. It's the same idea as explorers in the 1600's searching for gold in America. It's no ones jurisdiction, so they can do what they darn well please and claim the land for their own afterwards (or before). Except, in this case, we have that pesky Outer Space Treaty in the way of actually claiming the Land, but I'm not sure about the stuff FOUND on the land. Someone fill me in.

  • Mrs. Ball, In Trouble Again. (Score:5, Funny)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @09:52PM (#3793873) Journal
    "Awww, Ricky! I brought this souvenir back from Honduras and accidentally swallowed it! And now the whole country is suing me! Aaaaaahhhhhhwwwwww! Aaaaahhhhwwww! I should have known there was something suspicious when the souvenir seller in the black suit called me Mrs. Ricardo before I introduced myself! Hoow ddoooo I gett iinn theeese thiinngs! Aaaaaahhhwww!"
  • ironic considering that NASA took something that wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction Oh please. Who paid tens of billions to research and develop the moon landing? Under your definition, no one would own anything, as at some point in history no one owned it. The United States was first to the moon; doesn't historical context give them ownership of the landing area? Furthermore, the rock, if stolen, should be returned. The United States can do a lot more with it (scientific research, etc) than some Honduras collector.

    • Re:Oh, come on... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @10:10PM (#3793951) Journal
      Furthermore, the rock, if stolen, should be returned. The United States can do a lot more with it (scientific research, etc) than some Honduras collector.
      Actually, the US wants it returned to Honduras. The US government presented it as "a goodwill gift", but the moon rock was somehow misappropriated. Even if the then reigning dictator gave it to the "colonel" who sold it to Alan Rosen, that initial transfer was illicit-- since it belongs to the "Honduran people".

      The fact that it was used as a diplomatic gift might be an indication of samples's lack of diplomatic value. Or it might be an indication of NASA's subordination of science to politics...

  • Uhhh... (Score:1, Troll)

    by PhysicsGenius ( 565228 )
    That's very interesting, considering the 1976 case, "Blount vs McIverson" wherein the Fed Gov't claimed that moon rocks were public property in the same way Earth rocks are. In that landmark case it was established that rocks can be bought and sold irrespective of the Apollo program having picked them up originally.

    I'd like to see them weasel out of that one.

    • Blount vs. McIverson? Which one was the Federal Government? I call troll.
      • ROFL. Well, out of PhysicsGenius's last 24 comments, 5 were rated -1 troll, so I think you may be correct.

        On the otherhand, if it is a fake case, I think it shows so much chutzpa that I think people should mod him up to 5. Use Funny lol.

        • Hehe, yeah, this guy (gal) is pretty good. Here's another one: "There is no way to 'fix the spam problem'. Claude Shannon proved decades ago that noise is inevitable in communications. Spam is noise on a data channel. Measurements suggest that the amount of spam we are seeing is slightly higher than the nlog(n) amount that Shannon predicted." Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=4, Funny=1, Overrated=5, Underrated=1

          But of course slashdot moderators don't understand the true meaning of the term "troll" and instead use it to mean "offtopic" or "I disagree with them". Hell, if the moderators would get it right I'd probably set it to +1 for troll posts.

    • Yes, but Blount v McIverson ruling was then contested and overthrown in 1994 by then-President Clinton because of the implications of the Mars rock that contained the ice fractu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevidence of extra-terrestrial life. Because the rock was found in Antarctica by a Swedish team, the US Government had to show that it was US property.

      That's one way to weasel out of it :-)

  • Why hasn't the Lunar Embassy [lunarembassy.com] been contacted about this?
    • If the website tries to lock you out for not using JavaScript just use this link [lunarembassy.com] to bypass it.

      Yet another case of moronic webdesign. As far as I can tell everything works fine without scripting. Not that I checked everything. The site looks like a load of crap to me.

      Yep, if a website doesn't work with JavaScript turned off, or cookies disabled, or because your browser security settings are "too high", or because it doesn't recognize the browser you are using, it's probably not worth veiwing. (Supprize supprize, the Microsoft.com web site is completely broken as far as I can tell.)

      -
  • Since NASA brought the rock back it's theirs. If you want one you're free to go to the moon and get one for yourself.
    • ...until they gave it away.

      "The litigated rock arrived on Earth from the last manned moon mission in 1972, was encased in Lucite, attached to a plaque and presented as a gift by President Nixon to the Honduran government the following year."

      I'd have to say at that point the Government of the United States gave up any claim of ownership we had.

  • Give it back! (Score:3, Funny)

    by xant ( 99438 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @10:01PM (#3793917) Homepage
    To the original owner, that is. If we "stole" it from international territory, then it's forfeit to the original owner, right? Which is to say: the moon. Let's bring that sucker back and put it where we found it.

    Any excuse to fire rockets into space is a good one if you ask me.

  • Legality of Moon Rocks (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think the feds have it right on this one.

    The Applo 17 team was sent as an agent of NASA to collect samples from The Moon. Although there is no title claim to any part of The Moon, the samples taken are technically NASA's(I'm fuzzy but maybe this is precidence stretching back to English Common Law). So the US Government through Nixon gave the rock as a gift to Honduras in the 1970s.

    Flash forward to now: NASA has no claim on the rock since it was given as a gift. However unless the government of Honduras legally sold the rock it should be given back to the government of Honduras There is clear federal juristiction here and Honduras at the moment has a strong case for asking the rock back. Rosen can't claim "I didn't know I couldn't buy this legally". If he can't prove the Honduran governement sold it to him legally then he is out one expensive rock.
    • This is true. Its also true that legitimately owned rocks are accompanied by paperwork proving ownership from Nasa to the final party, including all sales along the way. This isn't that unusual. Most expensive products, no matter how commodity, have such paperwork. Your car has a title. Homes have deeds. Even the less expensive consumer items can at least be confirmed to not be reported stolen. Pawn shops do this all the time.

      And sucky though it might be, the one who ends up with stolen property, while not necessarily guilty of any crime, is not the rightful owner, regardless of how much he paid for it, and the rightful owner is under no obligation to reimburse the new owner to reclaim the property, although a court case is required to force the exchange.

      Pawn shops, upon finding themselves in possession of something stolen, will typically settle with the owner by returning the product for the price the pawn shop paid for it, which is typically a small fraction of what its actually worth. This way, both parties avoid an expensive lawsuit.

      So before you spend multiple thousands of dollars on something, you better damn well be sure you're getting the real deal, and that it's legitimate.

      -Restil
    • However unless the government of Honduras legally sold the rock it should be given back to the government of Honduras

      Did the government of Honduras as the US to do this for them? Is the government of Honduras paying for law enforcement work and legal costs? If not, why are we wasting our money on this? Don't our police and legal system have more important things to worry about than whether the Honduran government gets back an expensive paperweight?

  • The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    by 70%

  • Value of Moon Rocks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dragons_flight ( 515217 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @10:41PM (#3794062) Homepage
    This summer I'm working at Lawrence Berkeley Lab [lbl.gov], and some of the people near where I work have gotten a few grams of lunar material (Apollo 15, IIRC) from NASA for an experiment aiming to figure out the material's age of formation. Now they only need to look at a particular tiny part of the sample and NASA expects to get the rest back.

    Now none of that is unreasonable, but what is unreasonable is the insurance policy they have to take out on the material against theft, accidental lost or destruction. Now insurers naturally want to know the value of what they are insuring. NASA's official and much repeated line is that all lunar material is priceless. This poses a serious problem for insurers, so the next question was what is the cost to replace the sample. No joke, they figured the cost of the policy, and hence the premiums, based on the cost of building a rocket, flying to the moon, collecting a new sample, and bringing it back. Not only that, but two members of the Berkeley physics department are officially down on paper as having volunteered to make the trip should it become neccesary.

    I don't know what they are paying exactly, and being in a secured area of a restricted access research lab probably helps keep down the cost, but still it's not cheap holding on to lunar material that NASA expects to get back.
    • Actually, that does make much more sense than the way the DOJ prices copied software. In this case, the only way to replace the item in question is by launching another lunar mission. In a software case, the replica is already the "evidence" and not real costs were involved to the victim (not advocatig unauthorized copying at all, just making a factual statement).

      In the case in point from the headline, if anybody went on an expensive trip to a pristine land, collected a sample and made it availabe for others to examine, then had that unique sample stolen from them and later discovered the person that now possed the sample, would they expect the stolen property to be returned?

      I certainly would like it back so that others could examine it, rather than it being some Lucite trophy of a thief thrice removed.
    • You used to could check them out from NASA if you were a teacher at an accredited institution--or something like that. You'd get a pebble inside a lucite hockey puck, suitable for viewing under a microscope. I know somebody who checked one out, then slept with it in his bed (he also used it in a space exhibit at a student fair).

      Couldn't find anything at the JSC site about this in a quick search. Maybe they don't do it any more, or maybe their site is hard to find things on.
    • They should have calculated what a robotic mission would cost instead. A rover with a camera can be used to find a rock that looks like the one they were loaned.

    • Re:Value of Moon Rocks (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @11:50AM (#3795707)
      Lemme get this straight.

      There's an insurance company, who, in exchange for premiums, was dum^H^H^Hwilling to fund a NASA lunar sample retrieval mission in the event of theft, accidental loss, or destruction...

      ...and NOBODY from NASA was smart enough to steal the damn rock, pound it into sand, and drop the sand into the sea over the Marianas Trench? :-)

      C'mon, NASA, this isn't rocket science... uh... lemme rephrase that.

  • Interesting article, good coverage of the history of this particular rock and similar cases, but the main reason I read to the end of the thing was to understand how in the hell a ROCK can be the defendant in a court case. No explanation of that wacky concept at all.
    • Interesting article, good coverage of the history of this particular rock and similar cases, but the main reason I read to the end of the thing was to understand how in the hell a ROCK can be the defendant in a court case. No explanation of that wacky concept at all.

      It's a result of the assinine "War on Drugs." Reagan and Bush I appointed Supreme Court Justices that didn't believe in the law, and they were confirmed by Democratic and Republican Senates. Then when the government found arresting people for practicing capitalism was ineffective they decided to pass laws that allow you to arrest and try property. Houses and cars don't have any rights and tend to be mute so they are pretty easy to imprison. This of course hasn't done anything to stop people from using "unsafe" drugs, but has been very effective in financing the whole mess.

      When the law was passed most anyone paying attention knew it violated the rights explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, but the fox is guarding the hen house so there essentially is no constitution, just three branches of government, none with very much representation. I guess the positive on the court is that they don't need to get a corporate sponsorship every few years so if the president accidentally appoints a thinking person they might do something for the people.

      • Re:The Rock is the Defendant?? (Score:4, Informative)

        by SEE ( 7681 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @04:27PM (#3796709) Homepage
        First, there wasn't a single Reagan or Bush appointee who made the decisions on the basic cases. It was, instead, a Supreme Court ruling in Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, in 1877, 104 years before Reagan was President, that established the precedent. It was followed up, reconfirmed, and expanded in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. in 1974, seven years before Reagan took the oath of office.

        Now, of course, that didn't become a major issue until the Democratic Congress and Ronald Reagan jointly put through the 1988 Drug Act. But, at the height of Reagan-Bush influence on the Court, in four cases in 1993, the Supreme Court began to recognize the harm done by civil forfeiture laws and acted to curtail some of the government's most obvious abuses." [independent.org].

        Now, true, in 1996 the Court refused to further curtail civil forfeiture, bowing to those century- and decades-old precedents I mentioned above. So who stepped into the breach?

        Republican senator Henry Hyde, with the support of Bill Clinton, shepherded the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act through the Republican-controlled Congress, after which it was signed by President Clinton.

        In short, it's absolutely, ridiculously dishonest to blame this on Reagan-Bush appointees, when the major precedents predate Reagan, and all the recent laws on the subject were passed when one party controlled the Congress and the other controlled the Presidency.
    • Having an inanimate object may, however, prove to be an interesting precedent.

      In the case of The State of New York vs. Scott Free, counsel for Mr. Free stunned onlookers when he claimed that Mr. Free could not possibly have killed Mr. Innocent Victim because "People don't kill people, GUNS kill people".

      The case was immediately dismissed and a 9mm Beretta known as KG772F93B was taken into custody and arrested for the murder.

    • This is what is known as an "in rem" suit. A party -- here, the government -- seeks to establish that it is the owner of a piece of property. Provided that a court has jurisdiction over the property, it can decide everyone's rights in it -- not just parties to the suit. In contrast, if the government just sues one person for an object and wins, anyone else can still claim to be the rightful owner of the object and (usually) will not be bound by the earlier judgment.

      There are many well-known cases with names like "U.S. v. 40 acres of land," and people love to cite a customs case called something like "U.S. v. 133 boxes of Mrs. Floogle's Delightful Foot Powder." I have been told, but cannot verify, that slaves' suits for freedom were usually done in rem, in order to extinguish all claims, not just the apparent masters', which is why the famous case just before the civil war was known as "Dred Scot v. Sanford" rather than "Scot v. Sanford": "Dred Scot" was not personally the plaintiff, but rather a description of the disputed "res."

      Either that, or the WWF (err, WWE) champ is involved.

  • The worst part... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @10:58PM (#3794119) Journal
    Is that the U.S. Federal government is spending tax money, and personel resources in setting up "stings" to retrieve moon rocks. Seriously... with all the political corruption, coroporate bullying, and other things going on in the country over the last 15 years, would you rate a moon rock sting as a worthy use of your tax dollars? You know the gov can't do anything for less than $200,000 these days. What did this "sting" cost the people? What corporate embezzler, political bribe or corporate espionage was not thwarted because the fed thought it more prudent to search for moon rocks?

  • seems pretty simple to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @11:07PM (#3794145)
    1.NASA retrieves rock from moon. US government now owns moon rock
    2.US government encases rock in lucite ball and gives ball to Honduran government. Honduran government now presumably owns moon rock (unless there was some condition attatched to rock that specifies that US government retains title in which case things are different).
    Honduran dictatorship then appears and rewrites the law giving them rights to all property of the old government, including the rock. Honduran dictatorship now owns rock (presumably).
    Now somehow the rock gets into the possession of the colnel. If the transfer to the colnel was illegal under honduran law (i.e. the colnel stole the rock) then the colnel should be charged with theft and the person who bought the rock from him should, at best, be charged with possession of stolen property (but if you buy stolen propery then you cant be found guilty of possession unless it can be proved that you knew it was stolen when you bought it). If the transfer happened legally under honduran law(because the dictatorship gave it to him) then presumable the colnel now owns the rock and therefore he can legally transfer that which he owns to someone else in exchange for money.

  • It's WORTHLESS!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 )
    I suppose the true value of anything is exactly the price that someone is willing to pay for it. To me, it's worthless. It's a fricken rock!!! It's a rock in a ball no less. I think a freshly minted penny would be more attactive to me.

    But this is a non-story. The US government is simply trying to return property that, so far, appears to have been misappropriated from a foreign government. It's in the US government's best interest to see that it is returned.

    Whether or not we actually own the moon is so incredibly irrelevant I can't even believe the notion was brought up. The rock was a gift from our government to theirs. The rock maintains significant value to collectors and so is perceived to hold some value. It is supposed to be in the posession of the Honduran government and is not in their posession at the moment.

    What I don't know is whether the Honduran government is actively requesting its return. I haven't read where the rock was actually STOLEN from any part of the Honduran government or any of its dictators. I think it's significant that in the absense of an actual claim that it is illegally out of Honduran territory, the rock should remain with its current owner, Alan Rosen.

    I think it's incredibly arrogant for the government to seize property without first hearing a claim that it has been acquired through any illegal means. Okay, so we have an arrogant government... what governmental body ISN'T arrogant?

  • What a rip off!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by RiotXIX ( 230569 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @11:34PM (#3794219) Journal
    $5 million for 1.142-grams of moon rock? In Detroit they "moon rock" and "moon dust" for $10-$40 per gram.

  • Five million! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Comrade Pikachu ( 467844 ) on Saturday June 29, 2002 @11:38PM (#3794231) Homepage
    Maybe NASA can tap this lucrative new source of revenue to fund ambitious missions of exploration. I'm hoping that bits of Mars start showing up on Ebay within the decade!

  • The problem with the statement that.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @12:19AM (#3794339)
    "IN almost all cases, owning lunar material is illegal unless you can show a clear paper trail back to nasa" is kind of scary.

    What they are implying is not that posession of moon rocks is restricted, but that, unless you can show clearly how you got it, it was probably stolen (because if it wasn't, you'd be able to prove how you got it).

    This scares me a bit, though. How long until we are required to show chain of custody documetns & receipts for every single object we own, lest the government sieze them as stolen?

    And whatever happened to posession being 9/10ths of the law?

    • So... (Score:2)

      by sheldon ( 2322 )
      Has anybody but NASA been to the moon lately?

      Personally I think you are easily scared.

      BOO!!!!

      • Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Gumshoe ( 191490 )
        Has anybody but NASA been to the moon lately?

        Actually, yes. The Soviet Union sent many unmanned probes to the moon and retreived moon rocks in the process. This page [nasa.gov] details the Soviet Luna program.

        Notice that the last mission in this series was Luna 24 that returned a "lunar sample" in 1976. Also notice that that last NASA mission to land on the moon (and to bring back samples) was 1972. So the Soviet missions were more recent, although I'm not sure what significance that has.

    • Why is buying a house so hard?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by underwhelm ( 53409 ) <underwhelm@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday June 30, 2002 @04:30AM (#3794848) Homepage Journal
      How long until we are required to show chain of custody documetns & receipts for every single object we own, lest the government sieze them as stolen?

      Happens that way with real property all the time. Why do you think so much is involved in buying a house, including buying insurance to protect the deed's validity?
      • Happens that way with real property all the time. Why do you think so much is involved in buying a house, including buying insurance to protect the deed's validity?

        Uh, no.

        The government doesn't have the authority to seize a property as "stolen" even if you have been foolish enough not to do a proper audit on the property's history or buy insurance to protect the deed's validity.

        Doing so is generally required by your bank, you know, the one who lent you the $300,000 you needed for that nice 5 bedroom ranch with the three car garage and the view across the street of the neighborhood pond.

        While it would be incredibly foolish not to follow this procedure if you as an individual were laying down $300,000 cash for the property, there is nothing requiring you to do so. It is merely a Cover Your Ass strategy to minimize the liklihood of some unknown lein against your property causing you trouble (and a lawsuit), to minimize the probability of lawsuits, and limit your liability if an oversight did occur and you are sued (and lose).

        The presumption of innocence remains, the government cannot seize your land willy nilly even if you haven't done the proper paper trail and gotten the proper insurance ... they still have to take you to court and prove that the land is not yours.

        This is in contrast to the absurd legal nonsense that surrounds lunar material, where the guilt is presumed to begin with. In an age where we've already had two kids build nuclear reactors in their dorm room/garage (both reports linked to here on /. and elsewhere), is it so difficult to imagine that kids in 10 or 20 years won't be sending up unmanned missions to the moon and bringing back rocks for their collections? Hell, the most difficult part of the moon launch was insuring the human cargo inside would not be turned to mush, asphixiated, burned, or frozen in the process. Take away those constraints and the feasability of private individuals or corporations obtaining lunar material on their own, much less competing governments like the Russians (who brought their own samples back), becomes a lot more reasonable.

        When this begins to happen in earnest the entire legal structure around our treatment of lunar material is going to implode, perhaps spectacularly. Perhaps a return to rule of law, and presumption of innocence as it is required by the constitution, would be wise before, rather than after, this happens.
        • Actually, in the U.S. the DEA (or local law enforcement in many states) can sieze your property if you are suspected -- not even charged, mind you -- of being a drug dealer. In California, this is also true for being in a gang or being associated with a gang. You then have to go to court to get your stuff back, even if you're never charged -- and what are you gonna use to pay for that suit? Mm hm.

          So, don't count too heavily on your constitutional protection from unreasonable search and siezure.
    • This scares me a bit, though. How long until we are required to show chain of custody documetns & receipts for every single object we own, lest the government sieze them as stolen?

      And whatever happened to posession being 9/10ths of the law?

      What should be bothering you isn't that possession isn't 9/10ths of the law (it's a clever statement, but is an implication of a degree of lawlessness, not a founding legal principle), its that the presumption of innocence that is a fundamental principle of (American) law is being ignored, turned on its ear, and reversed into a presumption of guilt.

      Whether it is a lunar rock or a piece of candy, it should not be the possessor's responsiblity to prove ownership, it should be the government's responsibility to prove theft.

      What is going to happen once civilian spacecraft start going to the moon? Or when other governments (e.g. China) start going to the moon and handing out moon rocks as party favors at state visits? NASA's little paper trail and presumption of guilt is going to fall to pieces then...are we still going to presume guilt, or return to the rule of law (including the highest law of the land, the constitution) we should have been employing the entire time?
      • Yes, you are presumed innocent when you come into court. But, if the object is sufficiently rare, then posession without evidence of lawful provenance is sufficiently suspect that it itself constitutes evidence of illicit provenance. That's merely the result of common-sense analysis of the current circumstances and standards that have long existed for items of archeological interest, major artworks, and the like.

        Note, too, that this is not a prosecution trying to put the posessor in prison; it is a lawsuit to return the rock to its (presumed) rightful owner. Neither this man's life nor liberty is at stake, and the question of whether it's his property is the entire issue. Standards in such a case are, and always have been, more lenient than in standard criminal cases.

        What happens "when other governments (e.g. China) start going to the moon and handing out moon rocks as party favors at state visits"? Then, since the rarity will have gone down, posession without proven provenance will be less convincing evidence, and it will be harder to win these cases no matter what NASA claims.
      • Whether it is a lunar rock or a piece of candy, it should not be the possessor's responsiblity to prove ownership, it should be the government's responsibility to prove theft.

        Fair enough. But this is VERY easy with Moon rock. Only two nations have launched successful sample-return missions: the US and Russia.

        Therefore, the US government must prove:
        (a) The rock in question is from the Moon.
        (b) The rock is not a meteorite. (Easy - meteorites get all toasty on their way down, which causes chemical changes such as oxidisation)
        (c) The rock is not Russian in origin. (Maybe the Russians keep better track of these things than the Americans do...)

        If you have A, B and C then the rock MUST be from a NASA mission. As NASA has NEVER released ownership of any of those materials, it must also be US Government property.

        NASA's little paper trail and presumption of guilt is going to fall to pieces then...are we still going to presume guilt, or return to the rule of law (including the highest law of the land, the constitution) we should have been employing the entire time?

        Duh. Presume innocence, of course. It's just that right now the burden of proof isn't so burdensome.
    • The same has been true for some time here for "bits and pieces" of endangered species. You have to prove that you got it legally if it is sufficiently new. Such restrictions are likely to be the only reason some of the species are still on the endangered list, rather than the extinct list.

      I don't see any problems with that.
  • Is there any connection between this story and the poll about cheese...?

    RMN
    ~~~
  • The Feds should keep in mind warning 31 from the SNL sketch:
    Don't taunt
    Lucite ball containing lunar material.

  • uh-oh (Score:2, Funny)

    by PicassoJones ( 315767 )
    United States v. Lucite ball containing lunar material (an actual case, I'm not making this up, folks)

    Uh-oh. Lucy's getting sued by the government? Ricky's never gonna let her play with the band now!

  • How do they know it's real? (Score:3, Funny)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Sunday June 30, 2002 @01:16AM (#3794502) Journal
    If it's encased in Lucite, how do they know it's a real moon rock?

    I'm sure there are plenty of people who would take a rock from their backyard, encase it in a Lucite ball and sell it on eBay if they thought people would fall for it. Heck, from the looks of the photo [cnn.net], that could be a piece of dried dog poop.

    Let's take it one step further: Nixon wanted to placate the Honduran dictator without giving him anything of real value, so he had some of Checkers's excrement encased in a futuristic-looking Lucite ball. Deliver it with a plaque and you have a great joke to tell your friends. In fact, I'll bet that's what he was talking about during the famous gap...

    • Nixon wanted to placate the Honduran dictator without giving him anything of real value, so he had some of Checkers's excrement encased in a futuristic-looking Lucite ball.

      How do we know Nixon himself didn't drop anchor and send it as a souvenier (sp) ?
  • That's why NASA wants the rock back. No one can prove it, if they don't have a piece of it! Must cover the tracks of the faked moon landing. All the samples given out were just earthly dirt, with some iron thrown in for good measure. When pushed on this issue in the future, (after the truth of the bogus samples is known) NASA will claim that 'Moon' rock is far too valuable to have given out willy-nilly to governments around the world. The 'moon' rock is fake, the landing is fake, and the lawsuit is to cover it all up.
    • I'm sorry. I have to disagree with you. The reason behind the high prices moon rocks fetch on the open market, the nefarious way NASA is chasing after them, and the 'strange' defendant in the lawsuit is clear. The moon rock is sentient. NASA discovered this after years of experimentation with raido waves and Tesla coils. The rocks talk.

      Somehow, the rocks are able to communicate with each other and the Mother Moon (Luna) herself. This gives the moon rocks amazing powers of observation, wisdom, and intellegence born of eons of space travel.

      This fact is now known to several in NASA and the White House. It has been hidden for one reason. The rocks can predict the future.

      September 11th was predicted by the moon rocks. So was the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the recent war in the Middle East.

      The US government must protect this knowlege at all costs. He who knows the secret of the method of speaking to Luna, could rule the world with her help. That is all I can say.

      • You are both wrong. The govenment is suing the rock for one reason. Lottery winnings. In 1986, the rock won the Illinois State Lottery; a total of 127 million dollars. As this rock was, and is an inanimate object, it paid no taxes on this money.

        The rock escaped the reach of the FBI by chartering a flight to Honduras, where it befriended a high-ranking government official. The rock, now with inside help, rose quickly to the top eschelon of Honduras' government. Behind the scenes, it used the dictator of the period to further its own less than honorable schemes.

        The rock was eventually discovered and removed from power by an old friend, the government officiant the rock met on arrival.

        The rock, fearing for its safety, left Honduras with the help of an American buisnessman. The American brought the rock and hid it in the safety of his local bank. The government, alerted to the rock's presence, sent agents to recover the rock at all costs.

        The rock now resides in a Federal prison as a 'guest' of our country awaiting charges and trial.

        Please get the whole story before you post.

    • Heh. You realize that the evidence that the moon landing was faked included the following:

      * Total ignorance of the proof that was provided that it did happen. (Like the video of the moon lander spraying dust in a perfect parabolic arc, only possible in a vaccuum.)

      * An 'expert' that didn't understand the physics of a flag with a metal rod holding it out. (He mistook the metal rod for wind...)

      * A professional photographer who didn't understand the concept of radiosity. (Plus he didn't understand that in extreme light stars wouldn't be visible...)

      * A mathematician saying that the odds of safely arriving on the moon were uber extreme. (Using similar math, the odds of me returning home safely after work are also uber extreme...)

      * A conspiracy theory where Nasa astronauts were killed by Nasa. (Very exotic way of bumping off somebody, too...)

      ... and so on. In other words, nobody's even come close to disproving the moon landing. Don't believe me? Go to this address:
      http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.htm l

      It debunks the debunking of the moon landing. If any of you caught that show on Fox that claimed to have evidence of a faked moon landing, go to that site. It was very irresponsible of Fox to air this stupid show. I know a couple of photographers that thought Fox should have known better.

      I don't know if the rock is real or not. I don't see how anybody could possibly know if it is. What distinguishes a Moon rock from an Earth rock?

      Whether or not the rock exists, it has 0 bearing on whether or not the moon landing actually happened.
  • What hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread is that the original charges against the guy who brought in the Honduras moon rock were because he didn't declare it properly coming through customs.

    In fact, Neil, Buzz, and Mike did go through all the proper customs paperwork when they brough their moon rocks back. You can see the actual customs declaration here [att.com]

  • The case is fun in several ways. First, of course, there is the question of how ownership of personal property is initially created -- in this case by physically claiming it before anyone else. There are related treaty issues, of course.

    The second, perhaps more interesting question here, is this: "Why is the U.S. suing a rock?" That, as opposed to the question why isn't the US suing the person currently in possession for title to the rock. The answer is one of jurisdiction -- ad personam jurisdiction.

    You can sue property (so called in rem suits) or people (in personam), provided that you have jurisdiction over the relevant party. It is not uncommon at all, particularly in civil seizure scenarios. At any rate, the point of suing the property is to assure that it is within the jurisdiction o fhte court (when the individual in possession may not be), and then take the property after "title" in it is cleared.
  • Estimated cost of 1.142g of lunar material:
    $5million

    amount brought back by EACH mission:
    100kg

    total value of each lunar mission:
    $437 billio

    Any companies interested in that?
    • Estimated cost of 1.142g of lunar material: $5million

      amount brought back by EACH mission: 100kg

      total value of each lunar mission: $437 billio[n]

      Of course, scarcity is the critical factor here. How much is a winning lottery ticket worth? How about a thousand? How much can I get for a 5 carat diamond? How much for 100 pounds of the same diamonds? Now how much for 10,000 pounds? It's funny how the value changes when scarcity is an issue, isn't it? :-)
  • A close friend of my family was ver influential at NASA for all of the FL launches. He gave me a patch that has been to the moon and back. Its was one of the patches that NASA allowed to be given out to the public (mostly senators and the like) but when I was given the patch, the comment was made "its rare now but in twenty years it will be common".

    To me it its a memorial -- not to where man has been but to where man has no ability to return.
  • "...ironic considering that NASA took something that wasn't under U.S. jurisdiction."

    When your country goes to the moon, you can claim your own moon rocks. Until then, suck it up. At least I'm assuming that's what the submitter meant... The context of that comment is so ambiguous as to inspire large quantities of confusion...

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close