...........And when they dont pay him, he takes NASA to Court...............
Space has many wonders, many of them are beautiful too the human eye, such as the moon and the stars. People love them, and some would do anything in order to possess a little piece of some of them.
Some people have been lucky enough to have something from space to land on their backyard. Most of them use this as an investment, as a way of getting money by trying to sell it to some organization or someone who is willing to offer the right amount of money.
There is a perfect example for explaining this, of Gregory W. Nemitz, a man who in 2000, registered land on the asteroid 433 Eros. The land contained $492 Quinian worth of platinum. And, when NASA landed a probe on a place on the asteroid that he had called 'Parking Space 29', Nemitz sent NASA a $20 parking ticket.
Nemitz officially published his Claim to Asteroid 433, Eros about 11 months prior to NASA landing its "NEAR Shoemaker" spacecraft on the property. The Claim was recorded and published by the "Archimedes Institute", a not-for-profit organization. In addition to this Lawful Claim, he later filed official documents with the California Secretary of State under the Uniform Commercial Code to establish attached Legal and Equitable claims.
Within a few days of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft landing on his property, Nemitz sent a very reasonable invoice to NASA for parking and storage fees. The bill for payment of twenty dollars, was for rent of twenty cents per year, payable in one-century installments. The spacecraft is permanently parked on Eros, it cannot remove itself with its own propulsion system. It will remain there until a human (or his robot) removes it.
Citing their faulty interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, NASA refused to pay the fees required by Nemitz. Several letters were exchanged between Orbital Development and NASA's head lawyer, the office of their General Counsel. In finality, NASA's lawyer stated, "Your individual claim of appropriation of a celestial body (the asteroid 433 Eros) appears to have no foundation in law."
Thus exhausting all possibility of "administrative remedy" at NASA, the path was clear to bring the issue to the United States Department of State for a final opinion from the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Also citing a faulty interpretation of the OST of 1967, the Department of State's official reply was, "... we have concluded that your claim is without legal basis."
This final conclusion by the Executive Branch's offices, established a critical requirement for presenting the matter before a Federal Court. The issue now is inarguably, "a case in actual controversy," between Plaintiff, Gregory W. Nemitz, and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. A Federal Court has gained jurisdiction and venue to hear the case to make its official determination concerning Plaintiff's Rights.
November 06, 2003 -- the case was submitted to the Judiciary for Review and Remedy. A Federal jury trial was demanded by the Plaintiff to decide this matter of Property Rights in Space and to establish a first precedent in "Space Property Law". U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben has been assigned to the action.
December 23, 2003 The US attorney's office in Reno filed a motion to receive a 30-day extension of time to prepare the Response to the Complaint for Declaratory Judgement. The motion cited that the holiday season had made it difficult for the US Attorney to respond before the mandated 60-day response time expired.
December 30, 2003 -- United States District Judge Howard McKibben ordered the extension and that Order was filed with the Clerk of the Court on December 31, 2003, making February 4, 2004 the new deadline for the US Attorney's Response. Due to the holidays, Mr. Nemitz did not actually recieve notification of the pending Motion until after it was Ordered by the Judge.
January 2, 2004 -- Plaintiff's response was sent by fax and US Mail via a letter of "Special Response" indicating that there was no objection to the 30-day time extension.
January 28, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss contending that the Plaintiff had not stated suffcient material facts to support his arguments. See MtD Index for links to the complete filing.
February 11, 2004 -- Nemitz filed his Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (see MtD Index) conceeding that his claim for "breach of implied contract" was insuffcient to be sustained. This means that the US government will not have to pay the Eros Project's parking and storage fee of $20 and the associated late fees totaling nearly $1100. Plaintiff contends in the Response that his demand for a Declaratory Judgement concerning the Rights of individuals to own private proprty in Space vs. the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, remains viable in this Action at Law and must be decided by the Court. An Oral Hearing on the matter of the Motion to Dismiss was requested by Plaintiff.
February 20, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed a Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Reply to Plaintiff's Response. The Motion requested 12 extra days, bringing the total delay required by the US Attorney's office to nearly six weeks. Responding to the US Attorney's email communications, Nemitz objected to the additional delay request, however he did not file any objection with the Court.
March 8, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss (see MtD Index). The matter goes into Judge McKibben's chambers for his study and decision on the requested Oral Hearing, or his decision on the Motion to Dismiss itself.
Space has many wonders, many of them are beautiful too the human eye, such as the moon and the stars. People love them, and some would do anything in order to possess a little piece of some of them.
Some people have been lucky enough to have something from space to land on their backyard. Most of them use this as an investment, as a way of getting money by trying to sell it to some organization or someone who is willing to offer the right amount of money.
There is a perfect example for explaining this, of Gregory W. Nemitz, a man who in 2000, registered land on the asteroid 433 Eros. The land contained $492 Quinian worth of platinum. And, when NASA landed a probe on a place on the asteroid that he had called 'Parking Space 29', Nemitz sent NASA a $20 parking ticket.
Nemitz officially published his Claim to Asteroid 433, Eros about 11 months prior to NASA landing its "NEAR Shoemaker" spacecraft on the property. The Claim was recorded and published by the "Archimedes Institute", a not-for-profit organization. In addition to this Lawful Claim, he later filed official documents with the California Secretary of State under the Uniform Commercial Code to establish attached Legal and Equitable claims.
Within a few days of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft landing on his property, Nemitz sent a very reasonable invoice to NASA for parking and storage fees. The bill for payment of twenty dollars, was for rent of twenty cents per year, payable in one-century installments. The spacecraft is permanently parked on Eros, it cannot remove itself with its own propulsion system. It will remain there until a human (or his robot) removes it.
Citing their faulty interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, NASA refused to pay the fees required by Nemitz. Several letters were exchanged between Orbital Development and NASA's head lawyer, the office of their General Counsel. In finality, NASA's lawyer stated, "Your individual claim of appropriation of a celestial body (the asteroid 433 Eros) appears to have no foundation in law."
Thus exhausting all possibility of "administrative remedy" at NASA, the path was clear to bring the issue to the United States Department of State for a final opinion from the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Also citing a faulty interpretation of the OST of 1967, the Department of State's official reply was, "... we have concluded that your claim is without legal basis."
This final conclusion by the Executive Branch's offices, established a critical requirement for presenting the matter before a Federal Court. The issue now is inarguably, "a case in actual controversy," between Plaintiff, Gregory W. Nemitz, and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. A Federal Court has gained jurisdiction and venue to hear the case to make its official determination concerning Plaintiff's Rights.
November 06, 2003 -- the case was submitted to the Judiciary for Review and Remedy. A Federal jury trial was demanded by the Plaintiff to decide this matter of Property Rights in Space and to establish a first precedent in "Space Property Law". U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben has been assigned to the action.
December 23, 2003 The US attorney's office in Reno filed a motion to receive a 30-day extension of time to prepare the Response to the Complaint for Declaratory Judgement. The motion cited that the holiday season had made it difficult for the US Attorney to respond before the mandated 60-day response time expired.
December 30, 2003 -- United States District Judge Howard McKibben ordered the extension and that Order was filed with the Clerk of the Court on December 31, 2003, making February 4, 2004 the new deadline for the US Attorney's Response. Due to the holidays, Mr. Nemitz did not actually recieve notification of the pending Motion until after it was Ordered by the Judge.
January 2, 2004 -- Plaintiff's response was sent by fax and US Mail via a letter of "Special Response" indicating that there was no objection to the 30-day time extension.
January 28, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss contending that the Plaintiff had not stated suffcient material facts to support his arguments. See MtD Index for links to the complete filing.
February 11, 2004 -- Nemitz filed his Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (see MtD Index) conceeding that his claim for "breach of implied contract" was insuffcient to be sustained. This means that the US government will not have to pay the Eros Project's parking and storage fee of $20 and the associated late fees totaling nearly $1100. Plaintiff contends in the Response that his demand for a Declaratory Judgement concerning the Rights of individuals to own private proprty in Space vs. the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, remains viable in this Action at Law and must be decided by the Court. An Oral Hearing on the matter of the Motion to Dismiss was requested by Plaintiff.
February 20, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed a Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Reply to Plaintiff's Response. The Motion requested 12 extra days, bringing the total delay required by the US Attorney's office to nearly six weeks. Responding to the US Attorney's email communications, Nemitz objected to the additional delay request, however he did not file any objection with the Court.
March 8, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss (see MtD Index). The matter goes into Judge McKibben's chambers for his study and decision on the requested Oral Hearing, or his decision on the Motion to Dismiss itself.
.
Comment