posted 07-11-2011 02:13 AM               

I think it's just the kind of settlement NASA would be happy to force Mitchell to accept, given the lameness of their actions; (I don't think their lawsuit against Mitchell is in good faith).

posted 07-20-2011 01:08 PM               

Former astronaut Edgar Mitchell says a camera he brought back from the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission was given to him by NASA despite the space agency's lawsuit seeking its return, according to court papers filed by Mitchell's attorney.

Mitchell lawyer Donald Jacobson wants the NASA case dismissed, contending that a four-year statute of limitations has long since run and that there are no records to disprove his contention that the camera was a gift.

"Dr. Edgar Mitchell is an American hero," Jacobson wrote in the papers filed late Tuesday. "Dr. Mitchell knows he received the camera as a gift, and all the government can say is that it doesn't know one way or the other."

posted 07-20-2011 02:36 PM               

Dr. Mitchell knows he received the camera as a gift, and all the government can say is that it doesn't know one way or the other.

posted 07-20-2011 04:36 PM               

After the astronauts splashed down, they and all their equipment were quarantined for three weeks. It's not plausible, Jacobson (Mitchell's attorney) wrote, that NASA would have failed to catalog and track the camera along with everything else that went on Apollo 14 during that quarantine period — or that Mitchell could have taken it without NASA consent.

posted 07-21-2011 01:46 AM               

After the astronauts splashed down, they and all their equipment were quarantined for three weeks.

posted 07-21-2011 12:19 PM               

The 1933 $20 gold coins were minted, but then destroyed when Roosevelt confiscated gold (except for jewelry etc.) at the beginning of his term. It is known that some of these $20 pieces did make it out into the public domain (although there is a major question how this occurred, e.g. legally or not), but the US govt. has claimed ownership of them. However, there is one piece that the US Govt. agrees is rightfully owned by a private collector.

posted 10-05-2011 07:06 AM               

Mitchell argued that the government waited too long to get the 16-millimeter data acquisition camera back.

Hurley disagreed. "It is well settled that the United States is not bound by (a four-year) state statutes of limitations," Hurley wrote, quoting an appeals court ruling. Further, he said, if the camera was a gift, as Mitchell claims, he's going to have to prove it.

posted 10-05-2011 07:28 AM               

• Edgar Mitchell: Motion to Dismiss (Filed: July 19, 2011)
  
• Edgar Mitchell: Memorandum of Law (Filed: July 19, 2011)
  
• Edgar Mitchell: Motion for Summary Judgement (Filed: July 25, 2011)
  
• USA: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Filed: Aug. 5, 2011)
  
• Judge: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (Filed: Oct. 3, 2011)

posted 10-05-2011 03:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanh_7:
If the camera was so important then why was it to be left in the Lunar Module? What a waist of time and money.

---

posted 10-06-2011 01:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanh_7:
There is no way Mitchell could have kept that camera without someone [NASA] above knowing.

---

I tend to agree. After all the '14' crew were in quarantine. So where was the camera during this period? It does seem impossible for someone not to have seen it and asked about it.

An afterthought - how does a crew member's PPK bag get returned to him after a flight? All the photos I've seen do not show the crew carrying anything when they first step onto the carrier deck. This infers any personal effects stay in the capsule to be retrieved later. So when and how?

posted 10-06-2011 07:04 AM               

With the exception of material placed in the separte MQF, stowed hardware was sealed in the CM until deactivation, Kitty Hawk was then flown to Houston and subsequently Downey. Inventoried items were removed by North American Rockwell and either held within JSC Bonded Stowage, or if authorized by a separate ASHUR with affiliated Test Preparation Sheet (TPS) retained at NAR to support other objectives (such as determining the reason for an inflight anomaly).

posted 10-06-2011 08:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
So what are the implications regarding the camera?

---

posted 10-06-2011 02:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
...the judge is still insisting the burden of proof is Mitchell's.

---

posted 10-06-2011 03:27 PM               

...the Court finds that resolving whether the camera was converted or was the subject of a gift or abandonment is inappropriate for the purposes of the instant motion. This is a factual determination that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on the record established thus far. At this stage, all Plaintiff must do is make factual allegations that "raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will evidence" in support of the claim and that plausibly suggest relief is appropriate. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). Plaintiff meets that burden in this case by alleging that it once held title to the camera, that it retains such title unless explicitly released, and that it never released title to the camera to Defendant. Defendant's allegations that NASA intended the camera to be destroyed after the mission or that it routinely awarded used mission equipment to astronauts do not preclude as a matter of law Plaintiff's contrary allegation that Defendant impermissibly converted the camera.

posted 10-08-2011 07:16 AM               

1. The motion was out of time. This I acknowledge might be pushing a point. Twenty one days were allowed and Mitchell's motion was filed on the twenty first day.
   
2. The motion to dismiss introduced new points, which as I understand it, were impermissible.
   
3. The motion to dismiss was not barred by the statute of limitation - a ruling on the law.
   
4. It had not been shown that the property in question, i.e. the camera, had been abandoned or consensually transferred. This, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, can only be determined by a hearing.

posted 10-08-2011 12:33 PM               

Unfortunately that didn't happen.

posted 10-28-2011 10:18 AM               

Apollo astronaut surrenders moon camera in lawsuit settlement

Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell has decided to give up the camera he kept as a memento of his 1971 moon mission rather than face a federal lawsuit over its ownership.

In a settlement he reached with the U.S. government filed with the District Court in southern Florida on Thursday, the sixth man to walk on the moon agreed to "relinquish all claims of ownership, legal title, or dominion" over the data acquisition camera that flew with him aboard the Apollo 14 mission...