That might be true if it hadn't been stolen. Knowingly keeping stolen property is a crime.
Missing 32" Enterprise finally found...
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
That might be true if it hadn't been stolen. Knowingly keeping stolen property is a crime.
No, it's not. Not 50 years after the alleged crime.
It wasn't pursued as a crime, though, was it?
Plus there is the statute of limitations, which would have long since run out.
I know of a case in which a guy stole a car, stashed it away in a garage (of a pastor, no less....don't know what he had to use as blackmail), waited 7 years for the statute of limitations to run out, and then had himself a free car.
In any case, I think it is time to give this guy an official name:
Captain Pinesol
It has a Captain Dunsel vibe to it.
It wasn't pursued as a crime, though, was it?
Plus there is the statute of limitations, which would have long since run out.
I know of a case in which a guy stole a car, stashed it away in a garage (of a pastor, no less....don't know what he had to use as blackmail), waited 7 years for the statute of limitations to run out, and then had himself a free car.
In any case, I think it is time to give this guy an official name:
Captain Pinesol
It has a Captain Dunsel vibe to it.
It's waaaayy past the statue of limitations, and even if it wasn't it has to be proven that the person should have known it was stolen when they got it.
Someone who worked there probably took it as a souviner (what's one of the most commonly asked questions in press junkets? "What did you steal from the set?") and this dude inherited it somehow 50 years later and threw it up for sale and is now at the center of a hurricane, and has people like Christopher calling him a criminal.
As I understand it, it hasn't even been an open and shut case when artwork has been stolen by literal Nazis. I would imagine this would be far more nuanced.
I'm not a lawyer. And I don't play one on TV.
Good point, but I can imagine a scenario in which an attorney would contest that it was a piece of studio equipment, or something of that nature....anything to try to squirm out of the "art" designation.
Could go either way.
I wasn't calling anyone a criminal; there is a vast difference between asserting that a given act is illegal in principle and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a given individual is guilty of it in a specific case, and that is a matter to be determined by the justice system, not an Internet discussion thread. I was simply describing my understanding of what the law said, which was clearly incomplete, so I stand corrected.
Regardless, your analysis is quite correct. And I'll add that the statute of limitations point raised in this thread is actually not clear-cut either, as SOLs run from discovery of probable cause that an offense has been committed. However, in a case involving a supposed theft from more than 50 years ago, prosecution (let alone conviction) is unlikely because the SOL, even if technically not a bar, will operate as one on due process grounds (because the defendant will have trouble finding witnesses and mounting a defense).
Last edited:
Yup, that's what we have here: Pine-SOLs.
Oh, good point. And if the charge is receipt of stolen property (speaking strictly in the hypothetical, as a question about the general legal principle), wouldn't the SOL start from the date of receipt, regardless of how long ago the property was stolen? After all, the theft and the receipt are separate acts involving different people. Even if the thief can't be prosecuted anymore, that doesn't mean the property isn't stolen anymore. Does it?
Although as wayoung said, they'd have to know it was stolen when they got it. But what if they didn't know at the time, then find out it was stolen but still decide to keep it? I'd think the decent thing to do if you found out something like that would be to make a good-faith effort to return it to the rightful owners. But that's a different question from whether it would be legal to keep it in that case.
If I understand what is being presented here, the clock started the moment the original owner (Rod R.?) became aware of the location and possessor of the model. It would be nice if any of our lawyer-type posters chimed in.
tl;dr : California in general uses the 'discovery rule' for possession of stolen cultural property and that rule starts the statute of limitations accrual (for civil action?) 'at the time the original owner knows, or should know, the location of the stolen property and the identity of the current possessor'.
tl;dr : California in general uses the 'discovery rule' for possession of stolen cultural property and that rule starts the statute of limitations accrual (for civil action?) 'at the time the original owner knows, or should know, the location of the stolen property and the identity of the current possessor'.
Last edited:
I wrote about this claim that there is a statute of limitations above. There might be a statute of limitations on criminal charges, and on certain civil claims. But there is also a replevin issue that involves recovering personal property. A claimant has to establish that he has a superior right to the property versus the person he is suing. There is no statute of limitations issue here because the act of possessing stolen property is ongoing. A person doesn’t lose ownership simply because their property is out of their hands.
The thing is though. The owner is dead. So could Rod claim it?? I don't know. I have doubts about this. I think the storage unit guy is gonna come out on top on this.
The owner would be the Roddenberry estate
1) When GR loaned it out, was he, at that point, the bonafide owner? I admit to being a bit confused about who owned it when it was used by the studio. Did the studio formally give it to him, or did he just take possession because after TOS was cancelled they didn't care one way or another?
2) To this day, there is still a bit of controversy over whether or not GR "raided" the Paramount storage rooms of film clips, scripts, and other materials that he then sold through Lincoln Enterprises.
3) If the studio didn't pursue him back in the day, over materials involving just another cancelled show, is there any way they could turn around today and say, basically, "Hold on, that was really our property all along"?
2) To this day, there is still a bit of controversy over whether or not GR "raided" the Paramount storage rooms of film clips, scripts, and other materials that he then sold through Lincoln Enterprises.
3) If the studio didn't pursue him back in the day, over materials involving just another cancelled show, is there any way they could turn around today and say, basically, "Hold on, that was really our property all along"?
In the memo aridas posted in comment #42, Roddenberry said "I loaned Paramount a three-foot model... which I had owned since the Desilu days of the television show." "The Desilu days" would have ended when Paramount bought the studio in mid-1967, a couple of years before the show was cancelled. Of course, Roddenberry's assertions often have to be taken with a grain of salt.
To my knowledge there has never been any pushback on Gene's assertion that the studio gave him the model to keep. I think any court would find his ownership in the 1970s to be fact.
This is theoretically possible but extraordinarily unlikely to happen. It's at least 4 corporations down the line at this point anyway.
Well, this is an interesting question... who had the rights/ability to gift anything from a cancelled TV show?
Did Roddenberry have the right to gift the original Enterprise to himself?
Did Jefferies have the right to gift the original Klingon studio model to himself? And did he have the right to gift that model to the Smithsonian?
Did Jefferies have the right to gift the AMT Enterprise used in production to himself?
Did Roddenberry have the right to gift the secondary Klingon studio model to Stephen Poe (Stephen E. Whitfield)?
Did Freiberger have the right to gift a phaser to Nichelle Nichols?
Michael Collins seemed to believe that Frank Yablans had the authority to gift the 11 foot Enterprise to the Smithsonian in 1974 (which was long after the end of the series, but before any thought of a new series).
And is loaning one of these out a good idea? Obviously Roddenberry didn't see the original Enterprise again after loaning it out as a reference. The Smithsonian loaned out the original Klingon model and got it back as a box of broken up pieces. Both Roddenberry and the Smithsonian believed that these artifacts were their's when loaned to Paramount (and those working for them) and that the items should have been returned.
Also, who gifted the Botany Bay to Jein? According to Jefferies, the model disappeared from his office. And now that we know Jein still had the Galileo studio model, does the Smithsonian know that what they have is a replica and not the restored original model?
Did Roddenberry have the right to gift the original Enterprise to himself?
Did Jefferies have the right to gift the original Klingon studio model to himself? And did he have the right to gift that model to the Smithsonian?
Did Jefferies have the right to gift the AMT Enterprise used in production to himself?
Did Roddenberry have the right to gift the secondary Klingon studio model to Stephen Poe (Stephen E. Whitfield)?
Did Freiberger have the right to gift a phaser to Nichelle Nichols?
Michael Collins seemed to believe that Frank Yablans had the authority to gift the 11 foot Enterprise to the Smithsonian in 1974 (which was long after the end of the series, but before any thought of a new series).
And is loaning one of these out a good idea? Obviously Roddenberry didn't see the original Enterprise again after loaning it out as a reference. The Smithsonian loaned out the original Klingon model and got it back as a box of broken up pieces. Both Roddenberry and the Smithsonian believed that these artifacts were their's when loaned to Paramount (and those working for them) and that the items should have been returned.
Also, who gifted the Botany Bay to Jein? According to Jefferies, the model disappeared from his office. And now that we know Jein still had the Galileo studio model, does the Smithsonian know that what they have is a replica and not the restored original model?
Similar threads
