this toehold, I will climb a mountain in Space."
Development is managing the Eros Project for Mr. Gregory W.
Nemitz, Owner of Asteroid 433, Eros.
entire legal premise of the Eros Project is solidly based upon the
natural inherent rights of man, common law recognition of private
property ownership and Rights protected by the United States of
Nemitz has made a Lawful Claim, with attached legal and equitable
claims. He is the Owner of Asteroid 433, Eros.
officially published his Claim to Asteroid 433, Eros about 11 months
prior to NASA landing
its "NEAR Shoemaker" spacecraft on the property. The Claim
was recorded and published by the "Archimedes
Institute", a not-for-profit organization. In addition
to this Lawful Claim, he later filed official documents with the
California Secretary of State under the Uniform Commercial Code
to establish attached Legal and Equitable claims.
a few days of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft landing on his property,
Nemitz sent a very reasonable invoice
to NASA for parking and storage fees. The bill for payment of twenty
dollars, was for rent of twenty cents per year, payable in one-century
installments. The spacecraft is permanently parked on Eros, it cannot
remove itself with its own propulsion system. It will remain there
until a human (or his robot) removes it.
their faulty interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967, NASA refused to pay the fees required by Nemitz. Several
letters were exchanged between Orbital Development and NASA's head
lawyer, the office of their General Counsel. In finality, NASA's
lawyer stated, "Your individual claim of appropriation of
a celestial body (the asteroid 433 Eros) appears to have no foundation
exhausting all possibility of "administrative remedy"
at NASA, the path was clear to bring the issue to the United States
Department of State for a final opinion from the Executive Branch
of the U.S. Government. Also citing a faulty interpretation of the
of 1967, the Department of State's official reply was, "...
we have concluded that your claim is without legal basis."
final conclusion by the Executive Branch's offices, established
a critical requirement for presenting the matter before a Federal
Court. The issue now is inarguably, "a case in actual controversy,"
between Plaintiff, Gregory W. Nemitz, and the Executive Branch of
the U.S. Government. A Federal Court has gained jurisdiction and
venue to hear the case to make its official determination concerning
06, 2003 -- the case was submitted to the Judiciary for Review
and Remedy. A Federal jury trial was demanded by the Plaintiff to
decide this matter of Property Rights in Space and to establish
a first precedent in "Space Property Law". U.S. District
Judge Howard McKibben has been assigned to the action.
23, 2003 The US attorney's office in Reno filed a motion to
receive a 30-day extension of time to prepare the Response to the
for Declaratory Judgement. The motion cited that the holiday
season had made it difficult for the US Attorney to respond before
the mandated 60-day response time expired.
30, 2003 -- United States District Judge Howard McKibben ordered
the extension and that Order was filed with the Clerk of the Court
on December 31, 2003, making February 4, 2004 the new deadline for
the US Attorney's Response. Due
to the holidays, Mr. Nemitz did not actually recieve notification
of the pending Motion until after it was Ordered by the Judge.
2, 2004 -- Plaintiff's response was sent by fax and US Mail
via a letter of "Special Response" indicating that there
was no objection to the 30-day time extension.
28, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss contending that the Plaintiff had not stated suffcient
material facts to support his arguments. See MtD
Index for links to the complete filing.
11, 2004 -- Nemitz filed his Response to Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss (see MtD
Index) conceeding that his claim for "breach of implied
contract" was insuffcient to be sustained. This means that
the US government will not have to pay the Eros Project's parking
and storage fee of $20 and the associated late fees totaling nearly
$1100. Plaintiff contends in the Response that his demand for a
Declaratory Judgement concerning the Rights of individuals to own
private proprty in Space vs. the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, remains
viable in this Action at Law and must be decided by the Court. An
Oral Hearing on the matter of the Motion to Dismiss was requested
20, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed a Motion to Extend
Time for Filing a Reply to Plaintiff's Response. The Motion requested
12 extra days, bringing the total delay required by the US Attorney's
office to nearly six weeks. Responding to the US Attorney's email
communications, Nemitz objected to the additional delay request,
however he did not file any objection with the Court.
8, 2004 -- The US Attorney's office filed Defendant's Reply
Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss (see MtD
Index). The matter goes into Judge McKibben's chambers for his
study and decision on the requested Oral Hearing, or his decision
on the Motion to Dismiss itself.
the Court officially respects Nemitz's claim to 433 Eros, the U.S.
government will be upholding the very foundation of the purpose
of any government by the consent of the governed.
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.
list of links to see the transmitals:
Owner of the Asteroid Eros, Welcomes
NASA's NEAR Shoemaker Spacecraft's successful landing on Eros.
OrbDev’s Invoice Letter
to NASA for Parking/Storage Fees on 433 Eros.
to OrbDev’s Invoice.
Reply to NASA’s response. OrbDev's reply includes a detailed
rationale of why and how Orbital Development owns 433 Eros and how
OrbDev has the right to invoice NASA for parking/storage fees.
Second Response to OrbDev's invoice.
OrbDev's Reply to
NASA's Second Response.
NASA’s Third Response
to OrbDev's invoice.
OrbDev's Reply to
NASA's Third Response.
NASA’s Fourth Response
to OrbDev's invoice.
US Department of State Response to OrbDev's Claim.
for Declaratory Judgement as filed with the Court.
up a pebble on the beach in front of the Stars,
How can it not be mine?
Just see how many pebbles there are for you.
site is copyright © 2001- 2013 Orbital Development, www.orbdev.com