.gif){kind=spacer}
|
Eros
Project |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Eros Project "With this toehold, I will climb a mountain in Space." Appellate Court
Ninth Circuit Issues "Memorandum" Affirming the Lower Court On February 10, 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum in appellate case No. 04-16223, Gregory William Nemitz vs. NASA, et al., affirming the lower court's dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". Circuit judges FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD unanimously found that the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The disposition issued by the court was deemed, "not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3." Below is the complete text of the court's Memorandum: "Gregory Nemitz appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim in his action seeking a declaratory judgment concerning alleged private property on the asteroid 433, "EROS." We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order dismissing the complaint, filed on April 26, 2004. (1) Footnote (1): Nemitz's pending motions to convene an Article III court and to file an amicus brief are denied."
Appellant
files The text of the Motion is here.
Synopsis of the Appeal Issues in the District Court's Order to Dismiss Appellant argues that the District Court's Judgment and Order to Dismiss are in error. Issues
Raised: 1.
Importance of this Action, If the District Court's Order is
allowed to stand, and the Complaint is not adjudicated to nullify
the United States Department of State's Official Determination
in this matter, a major "chilling effect" on the potential
for trillions of dollars of lawful commerce in Space will prevent
or substantially delay human progress at recovering the vast and
valuable resources on celestial bodies. 2.
Ninth & Tenth Amendments, The District Court incorrectly
interprets fundamental law by seeking only a "legal basis"
and by neglecting its duty to be cognizant of the equitable "lawful
basis" of the property claim. 3.
"Lawful" v. "Legal", The District Court
ignores or misapprehends the unrebutted evidence of the cognizable
lawful original basis of the property claim to Asteroid 433, Eros
and solely considers "legal," wherein no enacted legislated
nor adjudicated law exists. Nemitz's Complaint demands equitable
relief. 4.
Property Claim's Basis, The District Court ignores or misapprehends
the unrebutted evidence presented for the cognizable original
basis of the property claim. 5.
Uniform Commercial Code, The District Court misapprehends
the nature and basis of Nemitz's California UCC filings through
which Nemitz has established a cognizable legal claim to Asteroid
433, Eros. 6.
Public Law: The Space Act, The District Court incorrectly
interprets the Congressional declaration of policy and purpose
for NASA, as it applies to Nemitz's property claim and is not
cognizant of the substantive Lawful effect of that legislation. 7.
Treaty, The District Court looks to the Outer Space Treaty
for "created rights", finds none, and ignores or misapprehends
the unrebutted evidence presented that Nemitz's Lawful Rights
do indeed precede and supercede the treaty.
Appellant's
Informal Brief
These
document scans are formatted to hinder text capture. Response Brief for the Federal Appellees
Appellant's
Informal Reply Brief
These
document scans are formatted to hinder text capture.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
site is copyright © 2001- 2009 Orbital Development, 
-----
The Eros Project