Some of the US laws seem to exist solely in order to confuse and discourage us from petitioning or adequately defending against lawsuits. It certainly appears for every law there is, another law can be found repealing, invalidating or disallowing it, under special circumstances.' What becomes evident is that laws, no matter how logical or coherent they are, can be manipulated by the very governing powers that make them.Special rules' regarding the ownership of federal government property are exemplified here, and the entire basis for the lengthy litigation that is the subject of this essay.The legal rules regarding ownership rights to property depend on whether the property is lost, mislaid or abandoned. (Cheeseman, 2005). The problem and substance of this case is, making the determination between the three, cannot be based simply on the rules concerning property, and discussed below. Consideration must be given to who owns the property, which will be evident shortly.
[...] United States of America, it states court explained that the law of salvage is intended to encourage rescue, and that when a ship is in distress and has been deserted by its crew, anyone can attempt salvage without the prior assent of the ship's owner or master.” The plane crashed in 1943. Any ‘reasonable' person would believe a statute of limitation would apply. Even if there were laws pertaining to such actions years later, they certainly would be void. From the time of the crash in July of 1943, the government knowingly did nothing to locate, let alone salvage the wreck, or made any attempts to protect, recover or even find the property. [...]
[...] The US Constitution, Article IV, Section Clause (Property Clause) states that Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice and Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” United States Constitution.] While at first thought we felt the federal government should be subject to the same laws, etc. [...]
[...] The plane would be sitting on the ocean floor because someone carelessly and accidentally discarded it there. If it were intentionally put there and intentionally left there, as disturbing a thought this is, at least some logical purpose could exist. A small group was assigned to interpret this case and while some clearly supported all the above arguments, others brought up several excellent questions. The following is a simple and uncomplicated account of these points: Two main issues were brought up. [...]
[...] “Federal procurement case law provides that a mandatory contract clause that affects fundamental acquisition policy will be read into the contract even where the Government inadvertently omitted (Vacketta, 1999). A typical Government contract may contain 50 to 75 standard FAR clauses. While there are many that resemble counterparts found in commercial or consumer contracts, many government contract clauses have no commercial equivalents. Three of the more prominent clauses unique to standard government contracts are: 1.) the “Termination for Convenience” clause; 2.) the “Changes” clause; and 3.) the “Default” clause. [...]
[...] With some expert assistance, it was determined, while an interesting topic to research the US owns the plane, the court has jurisdiction over it and the fact of where it crashed has no relevance to the case. We were becoming sidetracked and debating a topic that had nothing to do with ownership or jurisdiction, period. (J.L. King, personal communication, January 26, 2006). The other issue discussed, involved some wording that continually appears on the transcript of the case. The document states, “Federal property can only be abandoned by an express, duly authorized action by Congress.” IAR, L.L.C., v. [...]
using our reader.