NASA's refusal to pay parking fee could cost us RKBA

[Zundfolge]

Okay, thats a kind of bold statement ... but if you read the following article you'll see where I'm coming from.

The gyst of the article below is that NASA is refusing to recognize the constitutional rights of a US citizen based on their intrepretation of international treaty.

So in other words, if NASA wins this case, they will set the precident that International Treaties can override the Constitution!.

How does this relate to guns? Simple, if the UN ever gets around to passing a resolution calling for the banning of civilian firearms ownership, the US government won't be able to use our own constitution as a way out.

Interesting how completely unrelated legal issues are entertwined.

Source: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzw.html

Orbdev Files Federal Suit Over Asteroid 433 Eros Claim
Carson City - Nov 10, 2003
Orbital Development of Carson City, Nevada announced that legal action was begun in its "Eros Project" against the United States by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in Federal Court today.

Asteroid 433, Eros is lawfully owned by Gregory W. Nemitz since March 3, 2000. Orbital Development is managing the "Eros Project" for Nemitz. The Project was begun to require the US government to officially recognize his ownership of that asteroid. Nemitz estimates his property's value to be more than US$10 trillion.

When NASA permanently landed its NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft on Eros on February 12, 2001, Nemitz sent an invoice to NASA for parking and storage fees of $20, to pay for one full century of rent. Citing its interpretation of the United Nations' Outer Space Treaty of 1967, NASA refused to pay the invoiced amount.

Official Notice was then sent to the United States Department of State informing the agency that NASA had exceeded its authority and had denied Nemitz of his Rights. The Department of State officially responded on August 15, 2003 by also citing its interpretation of the Treaty, that Nemitz's "claim is without legal basis."

Nemitz asserts in the Court filings that "no treaty has ever abrogated, overthrown, or amended constitutional law" The suit is seeking $1,107 in damages, rulings to overturn the NASA and Department of State conclusions, and a ruling that Nemitz's Claim to ownership of the asteroid is a Lawful and valid Claim.

The central issue of the case submitted to the Court is "Treaty vs. the Natural, Inherent Rights of Man" to acquire and own property. The side issue of whether actual possession is required prior recognized ownership, is moot in this regard. US District Judge Howard D. McKibben has been assigned to the action.

When asked why he is taking the United States Government court, Nemitz stated, "As basic principle, the very foundation of all government action resides in the social contract among those governed, which allows their government officials to act towards protecting individual and property rights.

"If any government, or treaty to which a government adheres, rules that private ownership of private property in Space unlawful, they will have lost all their legitimate footing to be a government of, for, and by the People who view Space as a Frontier. We need to know where the US stands on this critical issue."

On November 21, 2003, Nemitz will speak about Property Rights in Space and Space Property Law at the International Lunar Conference in Hawaii. His presentation is titled, "Developing Property Claims and Asteroid Eros".

 

[Jim March]

Color me not worried.

Based on LONGstanding US legal precidents regarding "homesteading" and other examples, ya can't claim ownership of said rock until you set foot on it.

Come to think, I would question whether or not NASA's unmanned robot-critter qualifies.

 

[mtnbkr]

Never mind, Jim beat me to it.

Like they say, posession is 9/10 of the law...

if the UN ever gets around to passing a resolution calling for the banning of civilian firearms ownership, the US government won't be able to use our own constitution as a way out

If and only if we signed it. I think we did sign the outer space treaty. The idea was to keep countries and individuals from doing exactly what this twit is trying to do.


Chris

 

[tiberius]

Interesting.

Asteroid 433, Eros is lawfully owned by Gregory W. Nemitz since March 3, 2000.

How does one "own" an asteroid? I can understand a claim if one were to actually land there and proclaim ownership, but since this is not the case, does he really have a claim here?

 

[geekWithA.45]

If I read this correctly, essentially, the citizen is appealing to a foriegn treaty as the basis of his property rights.

Nasa's position is that the treaty he appeals to doesn't grant him property rights, and that he has no basis for asserting property rights.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't appeal to the treaty, nor is the Constition being invoked by Nasa to deprive him of property.

I don't see the conflict.

And in any event, treaties are subordinate to the Constitution.

Quote:
------------------
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
------------------

the phrase pursuance therof is key: It means made in conformance with. It doesn't mean that you could make a treaty, say, with Brazil to negate the Bill of Rights in CONUS.

That's a tinfoil hattism.

Edited to expand:

The tinfoil hattism that treaties can be used to over ride elements of the Constitution isn't supported by the Constitution itself.

To the extent that it actually happens, well, then, you're talking about Usurpation. When it comes to usurpation, American's show a certain tolerance for it, but ultimately, if you put a sufficiently outrageous usurpation on the table that isn't checked by our system of checks and balances, then sooner or later, guns will be involved, on one side or another.

 

[Navy joe]

So if this thing hits earth we can sue said nitwit for damages right?

What about parking liability? He has ensured that there is adequate micro-asteroid protection at his parking facility and will pay NASA any damages hasn't he?

 

[gun-fucious]

cool!

can the IRS Tax him on the 10 Trillion value of his Space rock property?

 

[cordex]

can the IRS Tax him on the 10 Trillion value of his Space rock property?

I don't think the IRS can tax someone for assets owned outside the borders of the US. But I'm not sure on that.
(You can bet that'd change in a second if commercial space travel became viable)

But I agree with others. I can't just claim to own something and then start charging people for use.

Unless ...
I hereby claim to own the sun. I expect everyone to pay me $1 for each day they use the sun for heating or light. Luxury use will receive an additional charge.

Agree with others. If you want to claim a chunk of rock in the sky, you land your little butt on it. Then you can charge usage fees.

 

[gun-fucious]

actually NASA is "aggressively squatting" on his property

He needs to evict them

in person

 

[whoami]

If I read this correctly, essentially, the citizen is appealing to a foriegn treaty as the basis of his property rights.

Nasa's position is that the treaty he appeals to doesn't grant him property rights, and that he has no basis for asserting property rights.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't appeal to the treaty, nor is the Constition being invoked by Nasa to deprive him of property.

I don't see the conflict.

And in any event, treaties are subordinate to the Constitution

Actually, I think it's the other way around. Citizen has somehow made a (dubious) legal claim of private ownership on said property. By landing the NEAR Shoemaker on said property, the government is making use of the property, and the citizen is attempting to receive monetary compensation for such governmental use.

It is the government that is citing a foreign treaty, the United Nations' Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to escape from providing monetary compensation.

The question, and thus the inference of a constitutional question is this: Let us for the moment assume that he has established a form of legal ownership of said asteriod. The government has rejected said claim to private ownership of the asteroid by invoking a United Nations treaty. Does the government have the ability to deprive a citizen of his property via a UN treaty? Does the UN treaty trump the right to own property?

 

[cordex]

Does the government have the ability to deprive a citizen of his property via a UN treaty?

They've never bothered with citing UN treaties when depriving citizens their property before. Why start now?

 

[TarpleyG]

MOLON LABE, U.N.! Come and get 'em from us!

GT

 

[RustyHammer]

ditto: " MOLON LABE, U.N.! "

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

In this case...

"Go and take it" doesn't have quite the same ring...

(what would that be in greek?)

 

[TrapperReady]

Tax dollars are being spent on this?

What about the children???!!!

This guy, when proven an idiot in court, needs to reimburse every cent he's caused OUR government to waste spending time on this.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

TrapperReady,

I agree 100%. The issue here is not how this case impacts on the 2nd amendment, as there will be no impact.

This case highlights the need in our country for tort reform and curbing of stupid lawsuits.

This man should be tarred and feathered for abusing the system and wasting MY money.

 

[MeekandMild]

Lotta BS involved.

I think the prime legal question should be whether we need to charge this guy rent on our air.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Guys, this has NOTHING to do with the UN. Your needless chest beating is over a cause where the UN has NEVER made a single claim. zundfolge invokes the name of the UN and immediately you have a call to arms for a matter that you don't even remotely understand. Why you want to fight the UN over a matter the UN isn't wanting to fight you over is completely absurd.

Holy cow! That has to be about the most non-relevant linking of concepts that some stupid unrelated event could somehow impact RKBA. Zundfolge, no doubt you will immediately realize that I am a part of the organized conspiracy to down play this event to gun owners so as to allow their RKBA to be eroded away. You see, the case is invalid as NASA has not actually parked anything on said asteroid. They may have "docked with" or landed on said asteroid, but not parked. Sorry, the plaintiff has failed to understand and describe said purported situation in an accurate and relevant manner.

Next, the plaintiff failed to post no-trespassing signs or give notice to NASA in advance that he did not wish for the property he claims to own to be visited by NASA.

If NASA pays the fee, then NASA will be entitled to charge the original plaintiff with improper care for said stored materials. Orignal plaintiff has made no attempt at protecting property belonging to NASA that has billions of $ of value. He is in serious trouble.

NASA did not park and store anything on the asteriod. It was abandoned. As the asteriod is technically not in ANY country, at best it would fall under international law and said NASA property, officially "lost" by NASA, is considered abandoned and NASA no longer has any claims to said property and it is open to salvage at the plaintiff's convenience.

Plaintiff claims asteroid is 'legally' owned by him. To be purchased, it would have to be owned by somebody else. Ownership of said item is in question. If owned and valued as stated by said Plaintiff and if said Plaintiff is a resident of the USA, he is in default of considerable taxes of property value for a property he reports to be worth in the trillions.

 

[Cal4D4]

Nasa should pay him the $20. IRS could charge his earth based profit center on it's revenues and he could depreciate his rock over the attention span of the media. May be the latest tax relief venue.

 

[Dashunde]

Some random thoughts...

Even if he did prove valid ownership, he probably could not be charged any back taxes on the rock - it was never assessed.

Since this space junk was abandonded on his asteroid, could he fine them for "dumping"? I guess NASA didnt see his "No Dumping" sign.

Gotta give him credit for having the shear nerve to send NASA a bill over this... Some of us have too much time on our hands..

Do the math on this one... What are the odds, given that there are trillions of these asteroids, that NASA would go and park on this goofball's rock.

 

[zpo]

Is this the same guy who claims to own the Moon and Mars? That guy is selling land to actors, former presidents, everybody. The UN treaty says governments can't own space stuff, but does not mention individuals, thats the loophole he thinks he is using. So, if this is the same guy, the treaty allows him to own an asteriod, NASA reads it differently, and the Constitution is supposed to back him and the treaty up. Is that what hes saying?

 

[Delmar]

If this fella has asteroids, he should see a doctor. Sounds painful to me

 

[Dashunde]

Another random thought...

It's kinda funny how we humans are so caught-up in "owning" property, when in fact, especially in this asteroid case, our lives are just a blink-of-an-eye when compared to the life-span of an asteroid - or even Earth.

We toil around claiming to own this place or that, never really owning anything - we are all mortal and no law will ever get us around that fact.

The strongest of us only manage to stay alive about 80 years or so. Our coming to terms with how unimportant we really are to the rest of the universe is long overdue.

BTW... I'm a Land Surveyor by profession... go figure.

 

[Azrael256]

"Go and take it" doesn't have quite the same ring...
(what would that be in greek?)

Actually, the same thing. Most verbs that use a direction, like "come" and "go," or "take" and "receive" end up pretty much the same. There are exceptions, as in any language, but suffice it to say that you could mumble it and nobody could tell the vowels apart but they'd know what you mean.

 

[HankB]

"You own the asteroid? Fine. We'll pay parking fees."

"Oh, by the way, we own the asteroid's ORBIT. It's now a TOLL ORBIT. For each mile your asteroid travels, you owe us . . . ."