Eros Project
NEWS

Eros Project Home Page
The Eros Project home page.

Motion to Dismiss
On January 28, 2004 the US Attorney's office in Reno, Nevada filed a Motion to Dismiss in Federal Court in the matter of the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment concerning the "Action at Law" for the Eros Project.

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
The Eros Project finally proceeds into the United States District Court, District of Nevada. On November 6, 2003, Mr. Gregory W. Nemitz filed documents in Federal Court to demand a determination of his Rights in relation to his property claim for Asteroid 433, Eros. A jury will decide the case.

U.S. Department of State Responds
On August 15, 2003 the United States Department of State responds to the Eros Project and its claims. This official action creates a "case in actual controversy" which
gives a Federal Court jurisdiction to hear the case.

NASA Makes its Final Determination
On January 21, 2003 NASA sends its final determination to OrbDev's invoice for Parking and Storage Fees for the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft, permanently parked on Eros.

Eros Project Links

Details of the Project
  Project Overview
 Selected Images

  Parking and Storage Facility
  MetroCircus - A City for Eros
  Eros Facts and Estimated Value
  Space Property Rights Explained
  Legal Affairs and Letters
  Eros in the News


 

 

The Eros Project

"With this toehold, I will climb a mountain in Space."

Appellate Court


On July 20, 2004 Gregory W. Nemitz filed the Appeal Brief for the Eros Project in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, California.

This is the first Space Property Law "Action at Law" before a United States Federal 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."


By denying Nemitz's Motion to Convene an Article III Court, the court tacitly admits that it is not an Article III court, as is provided by the Third Article of the U.S. Constitution. The court's action begs the question, just what type of court is the Ninth Circuit?


Appellant files
"Motion to Convene an Article III Court"

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
by Gregory William Nemitz
In Pro personam; Sui Juris

Appeal Brief, Cover Page.
Cover Page
Appeal Brief, Table of Contents.
Contents
Appeal Brief, Page 1.
Pg.01
Appeal Brief, Page 2.
Pg.02
Appeal Brief, Page 3.
Pg.03
Appeal Brief, Page 4.
Pg.04
Appeal Brief, Page 5.
Pg.05
Appeal Brief, Page 6.
Pg.06
Appeal Brief, Page 7.
Pg.07
Appeal Brief, Page 8.
Pg.08
Appeal Brief, Page 9.
Pg.09
Appeal Brief, Page 10.
Pg.10
Appeal Brief, Page 11.
Pg.11
Appeal Brief, Page 12.
Pg.12
Appeal Brief, Page 13.
Pg.13
Appeal Brief, Page 14.
Pg.14
Appeal Brief, Page 15.
Pg.15
Appeal Brief, Page 16.
Pg.16
Appeal Brief, Page 17.
Pg.17
Appeal Brief, Page 18.
Pg.18
Appeal Brief, Page 19.
Pg.19
Appeal Brief, Page 20.
Pg.20
Appeal Brief, Page 21.
Pg.21
Appeal Brief, Page 22.
Pg.22
Appeal Brief, Page 23.
Pg.23
Appeal Brief, Page 24.
Pg.24
Appeal Brief, Page 25.
Pg.25
Appeal Brief, Page 26.
Pg.26
Appeal Brief, Page 27.
Pg.27
Appeal Brief, Page 28.
Pg.28
Appeal Brief, Page 29.
Pg.29
Appeal Brief, Page 30.
Pg.30
Appeal Brief, Page 31.
Pg.31
Appeal Brief, Page 32.
Pg.32
Appeal Brief, Page 33.
Pg.33
Appeal Brief, Page 34.
Pg.34
Appeal Brief, Page 35.
Pg.35

 

These document scans are formatted to hinder text capture.
No portion may be saved or copied for any purpose whatsoever.
All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2004 by Orbital Development



Response Brief for the Federal Appellees

Brief for the Federal Appellees, Cover Page.
Cover
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Table of Contents, Page 1.
ToC-1
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Table of Contents, Page 2.
ToC-2
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Table of Authorities, Page 1.
ToAuth-1
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Table of Authorities, Page 2.
ToAuth-2
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 2.
Pg.02
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 3.
Pg.03
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 4.
Pg.04
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 5.
Pg.05
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 6.
Pg.06
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 7.
Pg.07
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 8.
Pg.08
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 9.
Pg.09
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 10.
Pg.10
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 11.
Pg.11
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 12.
Pg.12
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 13.
Pg.13
Brief for the Federal Appellees, Page 14.
Pg.14

 

Appellant's Informal Reply Brief
by Gregory William Nemitz
In Pro personam; Sui Juris

Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Cover Page.
Cover
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Table of Contents.
ToC
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 1.
Pg.01
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 2.
Pg.02
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 3.
Pg.03
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 4.
Pg.04
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 5.
Pg.05
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 6.
Pg.06
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 7.
Pg.07
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 8.
Pg.08
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 9.
Pg.09
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 10.
Pg.10
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 11.
Pg.11
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 12.
Pg.12
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 13.
Pg.13
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 14.
Pg.14
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 15.
Pg.15
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 16.
Pg.16
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 17.
Pg.17
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 18.
Pg.18
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 19.
Pg.19
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 20.
Pg.20
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 21.
Pg.21
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 22.
Pg.22
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 23.
Pg.23
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 24.
Pg.24
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 25.
Pg.25
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 26.
Pg.26
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 27.
Pg.27
Appellant's Informal Reply Brief, Page 28.
Pg.28

 

These document scans are formatted to hinder text capture.
No portion may be saved or copied for any purpose whatsoever.
All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2012 by Orbital Development




This site is copyright 2001- 2013 Orbital Development, www.orbdev.com


----- The Eros Project
Orbital Development is at the forefront of the critical issue of "Property Rights in Space." Since March, 2000 the firm has managed the "Eros Project" which is designed to bring the issue into a United States of America Federal Court for a definitive decision on the new legal subject of "Space Property Law."

Company Details are at:
www.OrbDev.com 

The Eros Project is primarily sponsored by Beefjerky.com. You can support this critical legal work in progress by trying some delicious "Final Frontier Jerky" from Beefjerky.com. This is the beef jerky that is selected by Astronauts and has flown to Space three times.


Orbital Development Details:
History
Capabilities
Contact Information