|
Author
|
Topic: U.S. sues Edgar Mitchell to reclaim lunar camera
|
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-28-2011 10:28 AM
   
Personally, I see the law suit as something that should never have happened and no amount of countercriticism is going to change my mind. An exercise in bad judgement by the government. They didn't want it until he was going to sell it. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-28-2011 11:38 AM
This "settlement" was/is a national disgrace; an American icon and Medal of Freedom winner (whether known to most of the public or not) forced to relinquish an item in his possession for 40+ years because of a government gun to his head and dwindling resources (and/or perhaps stamina) to be able to continue to fight the good fight. I'd expect garbage like this to occur in the old Soviet Union or eastern bloc, not in the United States of America. If I were Mitchell I'd want to auction off my Presidential Medal of Freedom as soon as possible; first to help defray the expenses foisted on me by the same government that awarded me the medal, but more symbolically to offer up a trinket that obviously the government itself considers meaningfully worthless. (Anyone know of another Presidential MOF winner that was federally prosecuted?) (Can't wait to read the plaque describing the acquisition of the DAC by the NASM - "This camera was rescued from destruction on the moon by Edgar Mitchell, 6th Moonwalker [and extracted from him for this exhibit by continued threat of legal harassment and persecution].") |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 10-28-2011 11:57 AM
Am I missing something here?Wasn't the camera supposed to have been left behind? Wouldn't the removal of that camera have altered the weight of the LM at lunar impact? It seems to me that Ed was on fairly shaky ground legally; I assume that's why he has decided not to proceed further. All of us here like Ed; he's one of our heroes. But as the law stands, it seems to me that he doesn't have a case. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-28-2011 02:02 PM
The question is, would the government have sued for the return of the camera had Mitchell not decided to auction it? I can see there being the unofficial stance that "We're not going to bother you about the camera unless you try to sell it. If you try to sell it, we're going to exercise our right to reclaim it." National hero or not, if the government had allowed Mitchell to auction the camera, it might set a precedent for other items that were taken without permission. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-28-2011 02:44 PM
What this may do is stop astronauts from selling any item publicly they thought they had permission to take back in the seventies. There will probably be more private sales than public auctions. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-28-2011 03:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
National hero or not, if the government had allowed Mitchell to auction the camera, it might set a precedent for other items that were taken without permission.
This is of course assuming Mitchell had the camera without any permission or authorization, which is hardly credible.It's pretty obvious the only "public interest" served here was to prevent Mitchell from profiting from the sale of the DAC. That this (preventing the realization of a profit) was viewed as a public interest (in the eyes of those who made the decision to bring this case) is, to me, one of the most repugnant aspects of this case. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 03:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
This is of course assuming Mitchell had the camera without any permission or authorization, which is hardly credible.
Mitchell hasn't publicly offered any evidence to support his claim of legitimate ownership. The camera started life as federal property, so to state the allegation may be without possible merit or is hardly credible would be invalid unless the case was brought to trial and resulted in a judgment. As it stands that will not happen, case closed. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1252
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-28-2011 04:31 PM
I would think the fact that he had the camera for over 40 years, and that he was likely given the camera by someone who cleared Kitty Hawk following the mission since he was in quarantine and that one of his bosses, Al Shepard who was in charge of the Astronaut Office was also in quarantine with him, and had to know he took the camera from Antares may have been factors that could have played on his side.I suspect it reached a point where Ed Mitchell got fed up with the legal fees and handed over the camera rather than face a long legal bill. I am glad the camera is going to the Smithsonian. I just would have liked to have seen it get there in a different manor than it did. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 04:47 PM
Had Deke Slayton and the astronauts not chosen to keep the details of their personal mementos private at the time they were being flown and gifted, situations like this one may not have occurred. As it stands, the historical record is left with a lot of gaping holes. For example, there is a 1973 memo between the Manned Spacecraft Center and NASA Headquarters that lists specifically what types of items the astronauts were proposing to keep, as well as the specific hardware NASA was proposing to give them on long-term loan. The memo lists a lot of different types of items, from hand controllers to hygiene kits but cameras (of any type) are not among them. But that's not to say that cameras weren't later added or were documented on a separate memo. It's just that the archival record for such decisions has not been maintained in a way that it is easily collated and referenced. I don't believe that Mitchell knowingly absconded with federal property, but I can easily see where an item that was intended for long-term loan might have been confused with personal property four decades later. I can just as easily recognize where the lack of institutional knowledge (by design) could lead to NASA being unable to reconcile a significant artifact now in private hands. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 05:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...lists specifically what types of items the astronauts were proposing to keep
Proposed (vice approved?)
|
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-28-2011 05:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
The camera started life as federal property, so to state the allegation may be without possible merit or is hardly credible would be invalid unless the case was brought to trial and resulted in a judgment.
In our legal system, and in a case like this, the judge had all the discretion he needed to dismiss the government's claims/allegations if he believed their arguments, as presented, were likely to be unsuccessful (insofar as becoming a simple matter of "he said, she said").Scott, as you yourself have noted: quote:
...anything removed [from the CM] was only initiated under direction of a government approved ASHUR with the item being retained in bonded storage pending further disposition. At each step of the process (both at MSC and at Downey) a paper trail would have been generated.
The judge should have demanded that these records be furnished for consideration of the case. If NASA didn't keep the "paper trail" they should've, why should their claims to the camera even be entertained? It was the equivalent of somebody claiming I had their color TV, even though it's been sitting in my house for 40 years, and the judge not demanding a shred of proof before allowing their case against me to proceed.And yet under such circumstances I would of course have to consider surrendering the TV just to stop the legal cost meter from running. In my opinion, this was a stunning abrogation of justice. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 05:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...the judge had all the discretion he needed
I would caution against asserting what the law does and does not allow based on a layman's understanding. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 05:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Proposed (vice approved?)
Yes, the memos I was able to find (at least thus far) have only been those originating from the Manned Space Center to NASA Headquarters. It is not clear if the corresponding responses exist or if decisions were expressed through other means (e.g. meetings or phone conversations). |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-28-2011 05:58 PM
Advice noted and appreciated, Robert, but (I like to think) I'm not given to simply tossing mud about in the hope some of it might stick.I'm not an attorney, but have had extensive legal dealings and case preparation experience. Unless I'm badly mistaken, the judge had the discretion I described, and chose not to exercise it. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 06:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
The judge should have demanded that these records be furnished for consideration of the case.
With respect to the summary to dismiss (and not to proceed to trial), the burden was imposed on the defendant to provide evidence of legal ownership. As to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court has reviewed the filings and determined that the motion should be denied. As set out more fully below, Defendant's arguments fail to demonstrate that Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. In particular, Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff's claims are inevitably barred by a statute of limitations, nor has Defendant shown that the property alleged to have been converted must have either abandoned or consensually transferred to Defendant as a gift. Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-28-2011 06:21 PM
Scott, to reiterate (and clarify) somewhat, wording by the judge could have just as easily (and more illustratively) included "to the court's satisfaction" [as in Defendant’s arguments fail to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction]. The judge issued his ruling as he saw fit. It was equally in his power to find just the opposite. And given that the plaintiff has (virtually) unlimited resources to pursue its case, while the defendant does not, I'm contending it would've been fairer to force the government to come back with a stronger case (if indeed they even had one); this would've at least given Mitchell a decent chance and force the government to rethink the "merits" of their little exercise. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-28-2011 06:39 PM
The judge substantiates his ruling later in the decision on the basis of prior case law (to which he would be bound): At this stage, all the 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. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 10-28-2011 06:52 PM
Past precedent has shown that the government will spend literally tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands or millions) of dollars to collect substantially less than it spent.In this case, it could simply be that Mitchell saw mounting legal costs that would exceed the perceived value of the camera – in a way, it may have simply been a wise business decision. Doing battle with the USG, which has virtually unlimited resources courtesy of the US taxpayer, is a very expensive proposition. I suspect Ed Mitchell has put this issue behind him now... perhaps we should consider doing the same. Just a thought... |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-29-2011 02:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
... It was the equivalent of somebody claiming I had their color TV, even though it's been sitting in my house for 40 years, and the judge not demanding a shred of proof before allowing their case against me to proceed.
Not exactly a perfect analogy, since in this case both parties acknowledge that the item in question started out as the property of the government. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 10-29-2011 08:14 AM
If Edgar Mitchell was prepared to face all the dangers of a trip to the moon and back and along the way he brought back a camera then I think he has earned the right to do what he wants with it, especially seeing as though if he hadn't have kept it then it would still have been on the moon. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-29-2011 09:00 AM
There are plenty of people who put their lives on the line every day - firefighters, policemen, soldiers. That still doesn't make them above the law.In fact a better (if unlikely) analogy than Chet's TV might be a WWII veteran who puts a Sherman tank up for auction. The state would have the right to question whether it's really his to sell, even if he claims it was originally abandoned or maybe gifted by someone who's no longer around to confirm it. |
Beau08
Member Posts: 159
From: Peoria, AZ United States
Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 10-29-2011 09:51 AM
Reading this thread shows me clearly how ridiculous government bureaucrats can be. Seriously you want to spend all this time money and energy to recover an "unauthorized" item from an aging American hero. Why? To set precedent so future moonwalkers won't take items to sell? Really! I understand the legal part is clearly against Edgar, but the fact is that exceptions can be made in special situations. If an outgoing president can literally pardon anybody despite what they have done than I also believe they have the power to let the man have this silly camera. They show some good will and let's move on already. It's not like there are multiple cases like this. This country has MUCH bigger fish to fry than this. Just my opinion. |
albatron
Member Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 10-29-2011 11:42 AM
Bottom line: What the Feds are doing may be LEGAL, but, that doesn't make it correct.They had a lot of discretion as to what they were going to do. The same type discretion I had in various cases over the years. There are many factors that come to play that need to be considered. It is NOT black and white. Ed did not deserve to be treated this way, whether it's legal or not. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 10-29-2011 01:27 PM
My concern has always been how this has effected Ed on a personal level. I hope he is not too discouraged by this. If you talk to him, I hope you'll tell him how many of us support him.  |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 10-29-2011 02:32 PM
A despicable way to treat a national hero who has served his country with dignity. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-29-2011 02:55 PM
I would venture a guess that if the decision to let Dr. Mitchell keep the camera was brought to a public opinion vote and all the people who were not aware of what he did were educated on it like we are, the vote would border on unanimous in favor of Dr. Mitchell keeping the camera as a gift from the US people who the US government is supposed to be working for and not against.I'd like to know who the US government was representing in this case. The US people? They certainly were not representing me in this suit. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-29-2011 05:38 PM
Life's too short for this sort of ridiculous hassle.  |
canyon42
Member Posts: 238
From: Ohio
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 10-29-2011 05:45 PM
I would personally agree if he was indeed "keeping" it, but that was apparently not the intent now. The detail of it being regarded as a personal memento by him might not matter at all in a legal sense, but it would make a difference to me. I have to admit, though, that the fact that he was attempting to sell it (for very nearly what I paid for my house, which is admittedly somewhat on the small side) eliminates the personal memento aspect in my mind and makes the whole situation gnaw at me a bit. Just my pair of pennies... |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2011 06:41 PM
I don't think Mitchell's motivation for sale is relevant or really an issue (there is probably a point at which each of us would sell anything we had if there was an urgent and compelling need to do so)..Similarly, it's unreasonable to not extend the benefit of doubt to the U.S. Attorney who may have felt compelled to act in accordance with the law and high ethical standards. Absent all the facts being laid out in court it's imprudent to pass judgement on motivations of either side. |
manilajim
Member Posts: 256
From: Bergenfield, NJ USA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 10-29-2011 07:58 PM
Ed truly got screwed by the unnamed government/NASA representatives with an unlimited budget for lawsuits and nothing more productive to do. He should have been allowed to keep the camera. Sorry Ed. You deserved much better than this. |
turk242
Member Posts: 10
From: Monterey, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 10-29-2011 10:02 PM
Too late to start a petition of and by the people that our government represents? If not, I'll be the first to offer my name. As many have already said, sincere apologies to you Mr. Mitchell. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-29-2011 10:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by canyon42:
the fact that he was attempting to sell it... eliminates the personal memento aspect in my mind.
Why do you believe the sale of an item negates its being a personal memento? When someone sells their home does it mean they necessarily don't still feel some form of attachment? Fact is, astronauts sell personal mementos all the time, knowing, like all of us, we can't hold on to things forever. The fact that such items ARE personal mementos is what makes them so attractive to collectors in the first place. quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
It's unreasonable to not extend the benefit of doubt to the U.S. Attorney who may have felt compelled to act in accordance with the law and high ethical standards.
There is almost certainly nothing in the law that would "compel" the kind of action brought against Mitchell in this case. (Are you suggesting the DA would've been in violation of the law had he NOT brought this case, and can you elaborate on what possible public interest was served by its initiation?) |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2011 11:20 PM
He was alleged to be in possession of federal property - the U.S. Attorney was compelled to act on the basis of NASA initiating the complaint that a statute was violated. The public good is served by pursuing enforcement of the statutes equally, regardless of an individual's position or status in society (otherwise the law is meaningless). |
turk242
Member Posts: 10
From: Monterey, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 10-30-2011 12:15 AM
The most important element I recall from my criminal justice studies was that 1) the law exists, and that 2) those so predisposed, shall uphold the law, in the spirit of the law. Right down the to individual, they have the discretion to ascertain whether or not enacting the law, is as such. We here are not legal counsel, but given the aforementioned, whatever happened to common sense? |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-30-2011 01:49 AM
Whatever happened to common sense, indeed.Scott, complaints are filed all the time; it's hardly the case that a DA must act on all of them, and judgement calls are routinely made as to which cases are pursued. I just don't find it plausible, as you do, that a distraught DA was wringing his hands, searching in vain for ways to avoid bringing this action, but finding his hands tied and compelled by law against all better judgement to prosecute Mitchell. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-30-2011 02:19 AM
Maybe I should point out that I'm certainly not against Mitchell in this case. I'm pretty sure he was 'gifted' this item by those in charge as was common practice at the time. The problem is that the disposition of items like this was not well documented once they came through the ASHUR process, in fact it was probably not documented at all at the time of Apollo 14. The same would likely apply to the flown checklists that the commanders apparently divided out between the crew sometime post-flight. I'd be surprised if there was any written document stating that these were being given to the astronauts. But... Why would NASA/the government decide to act now after all these years? Someone obviously has their eye on these space auctions now, likely after seeing some news item about big ticket flown items coming up for sale. Whoever is behind it they're not doing the reputation of NASA or the government any favors at all. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 10-30-2011 03:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
The problem is that the disposition of items like this was not well documented...
I have to agree with this. NASA seems to have been very slack in keeping records of its artifacts. I have run into this problem with the boilerplate capsules. There are no records in NASA now as to whom and when these were allocated. So what chance a small item like a camera?As an afterthought - I still haven't seen an explanation as to how Mitchell actually took possession of this camera. How did it come into his possession with all the checks and documentation that took place as Kitty Hawk was dismantled after the flight? Surely that is where it had to be as it would be too large to hide in his PPK bag. Anyone with a plausible explanation? |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 10-30-2011 04:47 AM
Can we put personal feelings aside, and ask one simple question:Was it, or was it not, against mission rules to bring this camera back to earth? Surely, the answer is yes! Perhaps the government wasn't too worried about him keeping the camera as a personal momento - but trying to sell it, that's another matter entirely. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 08:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
I just don't find it plausible, as you do, that a distraught DA was wringing his hands, searching in vain for ways to avoid bringing this action, but finding his hands tied and compelled by law against all better judgement to prosecute Mitchell.
Clearly the DA was not "gunning" for Mitchell, it was always about the return of the camera itself rather then prosecution for an act of unlawful appropriation (which the government was also within bounds to pursue). NASA OIG probably approached Mitchell directly to secure its return prior to engaging even engaging the U.S. Attorney as a final (and least desirable) option. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 10-30-2011 08:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
Was it, or was it not, against mission rules to bring this camera back to earth? Surely, the answer is yes!
From a July 20, 2011 Palm Beach Post interview with Mitchell: "It's utter nonsense," he said.During the moon mission era, he said he and other astronauts got permission to take mementos from the space crafts. "We have dozens of pieces. All of us who flew to the moon," he said. Had they not brought them back, they would have been destroyed, he said. After astronauts climbed back into the command module for the roughly 250,000-mile trip home, engineers in Houston blew up the lunar module, he said. "It was government throwaways, government junk," he said of the various items he salvaged. His most prized possession is a hand controller from the Apollo 14 spacecraft. "They were going to throw it away on the lunar surface, so why not?" he asked. Not sure how it would be against mission rules — most crews took parts off the lunar module to keep as mementos prior to casting off the LM.In my mind, this could have been handled in a much more wise and kind way. The only good thing that comes out of it is that the camera was preserved. If Mitchell had returned it to the government at the time, in all likelihood it would have been "disposed of" or misplaced. Since he kept it all these years, and now there is an appreciation for the historical significance of the camera, it will be preserved in the Smithsonian. |
Topic Closed
advertisement