Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Edgar Dean Mitchell, a lunar module pilot and the sixth person to walk on the surface of the Moon, is being sued by NASA. NASA wants Mitchell to return a camera that went to the Moon on the Apollo 14 mission. A lawsuit filed by the federal government on Thursday in a South Florida federal court claims that the former astronaut tried to sell the camera in an auction.
NASA, reportedly, learned in March that a British auction house “was planning to sell the camera at an upcoming Space History Sale” in May. According to a Boston Globe article, government lawyers contend that Mitchell “is exercising improper dominion and control over a NASA Data Acquisition Camera.’’ The lawyers “are asking US District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley to order Mitchell to return the camera immediately.”
The lawsuit says that the camera had a pre-sale estimate of $60,000 to $80,000—and that “all equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party.”
Mitchell, who is eighty, said, “It’s utter nonsense.” He added that during “the moon mission era” he and other astronauts had gotten permission to take mementos from the space craft. “We have dozens of pieces. All of us who flew to the moon.”
In addition to requesting that the judge declare the camera property of the US government, the lawsuit asks that Mitchell be required “to pay all legal and court fees arising from the case.”
NASA Biographical data on Edgar Dean Mitchell
US sues astronaut for camera’s return (Boston Globe)
NASA sues ex-astronaut Edgar Mitchell seeking return of camera that went to moon on Apollo 14 (Washington Post/AP)
Ex-astronaut tries to sell camera from moon trip: It’s a developing story — NASA sues to get it back after seeing it up for auction (MSNBC/Reuters)
NASA sues ex-astronaut over camera that went to moon: Lawsuit contends Edgar Mitchell tried to sell camera at auction (Orlando Sentinel/AP)
119 thoughts on “NASA Sues Former Apollo 14 Astronaut over Lunar Camera”
Buddha says to Call me a troll all you want. I have a history (and a reputation) that proves otherwise.
Not if you mean a history of civility.
As when you demanded that Turley “man up” and “I’m going to call bullshit…” after he started deleting only the must outrageously vulgar and abusive of your endless tirades, leaving many others to stand to this day like
GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU STUPID BI-POLAR ROAD WHORE.
Followed of course by your failed promise to leave forever.
Yeah. You’ll be blogging here real soon Enlightened one.
@ Buddha admitted- sock-puppet, you can’t stop can you? Are these voices in your head telling you to carry on? There are places that can help you with this disease.
BTW, I’m calling you a troll becasue you are a troll as evidence by you being the first one to start hurling insults.
As ever, one lives to be of service.
Did you say something, Koch sucker? My ears are a little clogged up and I’m not able to understand fluent propaganda troll today. That or it’s your perpetual “I know you are but what am I” that isn’t making any sense. Did I use a puppet to post an update to thread so I wouldn’t have to listen to your inane bullshit? Yes I did. I also admitted to it. And I also did it as a test of our current software under development to detect sock puppets (currently being refined by our very own Slartibartfast).
Yours is not the opinion I value. Call me a troll all you want. I have history (and a reputation) that proves otherwise. I’ll stand on the literal years of posting I’ve done here as evidence and your new comer yet already established reputation as a liar and a propaganda troll to show once again how full of crap you are, Rove-lite.
55 years in August?! Congrats in advance! That is fantastic!
your statute of limitations discussion is spot on. I agree with you and Elaine that NASA is looking to screw the astronauts in an attempt to recover equipment it wrote off years ago.
Back to the topic . . .
Since it appears Edgar Mitchell has resided in Florida and the case was filed in Federal Court in the 11th Circuit which covers Florida, Florida law should control. In re the statute of limitations, Florida law provides (in part):
775.15 Time limitations; general time limitations; exceptions.—
(1) A prosecution for a capital felony, a life felony, or a felony that resulted in a death may be commenced at any time. If the death penalty is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, all crimes designated as capital felonies shall be considered life felonies for the purposes of this section, and prosecution for such crimes may be commenced at any time.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions for other offenses are subject to the following periods of limitation:
(a) A prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within 4 years after it is committed.
(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed.
(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed.
(d) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation must be commenced within 1 year after it is committed.
(3) An offense is committed either when every element has occurred or, if a legislative purpose to prohibit a continuing course of conduct plainly appears, at the time when the course of conduct or the defendant’s complicity therein is terminated. Time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed.
(4)(a) Prosecution on a charge on which the defendant has previously been arrested or served with a summons is commenced by the filing of an indictment, information, or other charging document.
(b) A prosecution on a charge on which the defendant has not previously been arrested or served with a summons is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. In determining what is reasonable, inability to locate the defendant after diligent search or the defendant’s absence from the state shall be considered. The failure to execute process on or extradite a defendant in another state who has been charged by information or indictment with a crime in this state shall not constitute an unreasonable delay.
(c) If, however, an indictment or information has been filed within the time period prescribed in this section and the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside because of a defect in its content or form after the time period has elapsed, the period for commencing prosecution shall be extended 3 months from the time the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside.
(5) The period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state. This provision shall not extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years, but shall not be construed to limit the prosecution of a defendant who has been timely charged by indictment or information or other charging document and who has not been arrested due to his or her absence from this state or has not been extradited for prosecution from another state.
(6) A prosecution for perjury in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony may be commenced at any time.
(7) A prosecution for a felony that resulted in injury to any person, when such felony arises from the use of a “destructive device,” as defined in s. 790.001, may be commenced within 10 years.
(8) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 517 or s. 409.920 must be commenced within 5 years after the violation is committed.
(9) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 403 must be commenced within 5 years after the date of discovery of the violation.
(10) A prosecution for a felony violation of s. 825.102 or s. 825.103 must be commenced within 5 years after it is committed.
(11) A prosecution for a felony violation of ss. 440.105 and 817.234 must be commenced within 5 years after the violation is committed.
(12) If the period prescribed in subsection (2), subsection (8), subsection (9), subsection (10), or subsection (11) has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for:
(a) Any offense, a material element of which is either fraud or a breach of fiduciary obligation, within 1 year after discovery of the offense by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party and who is himself or herself not a party to the offense, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years.
(b) Any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public officer or employee at any time when the defendant is in public office or employment, within 2 years from the time he or she leaves public office or employment, or during any time permitted by any other part of this section, whichever time is greater.
(13)(a) If the victim of a violation of s. 794.011, former s. 794.05, Florida Statutes 1995, s. 800.04, s. 826.04, or s. 847.0135(5) is under the age of 18, the applicable period of limitation, if any, does not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 18 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. If the offense is a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, and the offense is reported within 72 hours after its commission, the prosecution for such offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before December 31, 1984.
(b) If the offense is a first degree felony violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before October 1, 2003.
(14) A prosecution for a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, if the victim is 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense is reported to a law enforcement agency within 72 hours after commission of the offense, may be commenced at any time. If the offense is not reported within 72 hours after the commission of the offense, the prosecution must be commenced within the time periods prescribed in subsection (2).
(15)(a) In addition to the time periods prescribed in this section, a prosecution for any of the following offenses may be commenced within 1 year after the date on which the identity of the accused is established, or should have been established by the exercise of due diligence, through the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, if a sufficient portion of the evidence collected at the time of the original investigation and tested for DNA is preserved and available for testing by the accused:
1. An offense of sexual battery under chapter 794.
2. A lewd or lascivious offense under s. 800.04 or s. 825.1025.
(b) This subsection applies to any offense that is not otherwise barred from prosecution between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2006.
It would seem NASA missed the boat on filing an initial complaint. However, as Elaine brings up to FFLEO, was it theft in the first place? It is well known that the Apollo astronauts got to keep souvenirs out of the mission equipment. That NASA cannot locate a 40 year old receipt for one of these souvenirs strikes me as NASA’s record keeping problem rather than Mitchell’s theft problem.
@Buddah (or his sock puppet)
Actually what you are is a troll, pure and simple. The record is clear on that. That you have like-minded views with the “regulars” is the only reason why they aren’t calling you out on it.
Carry on with your trolling all you want. You’ll be answered with the respect and dignity you deserve. None.
“Not only did you not maintain civility — even in the face of trolls and instigators who seek to trigger personal or juvenile attacks, pursuant to Prof Turley’s request.”
Prof. Turley’s request of guest bloggers.
I am not a guest blogger.
I am a commentator.
That is one of the reasons I am currently not a guest blogger. I do indeed like to expose liars and propagandists more than I like credit for what I write. I may change how I handle your lot in the future if I decide I’d like to guest blog and if I’m invited to do so. Given my non-troll killing contributions and relation with our host, this is not unlikely. However, regarding current events, if you don’t like that I helped expose you for what you are – namely a liar, historical revisionist and propagandist – and that I did so in a way that was insulting to you and amusing to myself and others?
That would be your problem.
Free speech is funny that way. You have the right to say what you want. I have the right to say what I want to make you look foolish when you try to deceive and sell spin. You are entitled to your own opinion, however, you seem to think you are entitled to your own facts as well. That won’t fly with me, Koch head. If you want to continue to lie? I’ll continue to mock you and expose your lies until such a time as I no longer find it amusing to do so. There is nothing you can do to stop me. There is only one person here who can and when he’s asked me to play nice in the past, I have. I’ll stop when I see fit and when it pleases me to do so, not because you’ve got your panties in a bunch. The fact that this pisses you off is in fact part of my amusement.
“Lying is done with words and also with silence.” – Adrienne Rich
I am an anti-propagandist and I choose not to be silent in the face of your lies. I choose to attack your lies with mockery, sarcasm, and dissection of both your lies and the methods you are using to deliver them. This choice has a consequence, however, it comes with certain freedoms. Right now, I enjoy the freedoms of unfettered free speech. Why? “For I seek only the truth, by which no man was ever harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius. Since you apparently find my speech harmful and would seek to silence it, then I think that about sums up what you are all about . . . and it certainly isn’t the truth.
Great. You had nothing of substance to say anyway.
And, just to point out, you were the second one who started in with the insults. And,you’re a guest posted who was asked by Prof Turley to “maintain civility — even in the face of trolls and instigators who seek to trigger personal or juvenile attacks.” So,even if you thought I was a troll or instigator, you were supposed to take the high road and you didn’t in fact. In fact, you yourself acted as an instigator/troll trying to trigger personal and juvenile attacks.
Elaine, it will be 55 years for us in August. We have about decided it is probably going to work out and we need to get used to the idea. 😉
I’m with FFLeo. I think we’ve shown to the satisfacion of everyone that kderosa is the paid equivalent of a turd in the pool. We’ve humored ourselves long enough with this childlike intellect (“I know you are but what am I” as someone said earlier) though it is great fun. I say we give him the replies he richly deserves. From here on out, I will be:
@Buddha — “You omit the very real possibility that the mere presence of lying propagandists are an insult in and of itself.”
That seems to me to be the viewpoint of someone who engages in trolling behavior.And, you, as the record, shows were the first to start hurling insults and never relented the entire thread. Classic troll behavior. Not only did you not maintain civility — even in the face of trolls and instigators who seek to trigger personal or juvenile attacks, pursuant to Prof Turley’s request.You actually attempted to trigger personal or juvenile attacks, like a troll or instigator.Then the rest of the regulars followed suit and also engaged in the same sort of behavior. The record is clear. What part of Free Speech zone don’t you people understand.
@FFLEO, you miss the irony of calling for civility and this name calling statement — “the discussion becomes about the troll.” You’re part of the problem.
Professor Turley wrote:
“Moreover, posters will have to demonstrate that they will maintain civility — even in the face of trolls and instigators who seek to trigger personal or juvenile attacks”
The poster stated that you insulted that person; therefore, why give that person the opportunity. When you or other guest bloggers respond to such persons, your topic post leaves the realm of civility–as requested by Prof. Turley–and the discussion becomes about the troll.
I am through with this thread. My intent is simply to ask for civility from all sides out of respect for Professor Turley and others who come here to contribute and learn.
You omit the very real possibility that the mere presence of lying propagandists are an insult in and of itself.
@Elaine “I’m sorry if the topic of this post was ruined for you by one of our resident trolls. I hope you’ll note that I attempted to bring the discussion back to the topic of this post a number of times.”
As I point out, you started the insults first. After taht I feel no compulsion to treat you civilly anymore.
Moreover, I merely pointed out your hypocrisy in this thread, Elaine. It goes to your credibility. Then you started some gratuitous ad hominems. Then you got back what you were dealing.
Have fun, all, until my return.
“Legally speaking, isn’t there a statute of limitations on this category of ‘theft’”
But WAS it theft?
@buddha the sock puppet is back. How are the new meds working? Not so good it looks. I’ll have to update my research report. I helpfully provided the record you glossed over. Have fun.
@ffleo You should check out the record as well. You appear to be studious avoiding it.
Off for a few hours of fun. Your trolls talk among yourselves.
Professor Turley has asked guest bloggers to remain civil when responding to people who comment at this blog…and to not use profane language. As I recall, we weren’t told not to engage in discussions with trolls. Sometimes I do; sometimes I don’t.
I’m sorry if the topic of this post was ruined for you by one of our resident trolls. I hope you’ll note that I attempted to bring the discussion back to the topic of this post a number of times. Scrolling past certain posters comments is something I’ve done on a number of threads.
Comments are closed.