Greetings to all in the "Meteorite Community".  I would like to submit the 
following historical data along with my observations and opinions regarding Mr. 
Steve Arnold and the most recent revelations made during the civil trial in San 
Antonio, March 2011.  Why, you should ask do I enter this turbulent arena?  
What are my qualifications for such involvement?  The short answer is twofold:

1.  I was involved with the Brenham Meteorite Company before it was legally 
formed.  Phil Mani offered me a partnership/investor position while he and 
Steve Arnold were discussing the possibility of reworking the Brenham strewn 
field.  I have watched the project/partnership from a bird's eye view, 
observing good and bad proceed from it.

2. Unknown to many folks, I am very involved with meteorites as demonstrated in 
the financial investment made in my collection.  All specimens are complete 
slices, complete meteorites or end cuts.  The few experts that have viewed the 
collection have described it as "one of the finest aesthetic collections 
around."  I can emphatically say that I am a stakeholder/shareholder in "the 
meteorite world."

Recent Events:

In my opinion, the most important facts to emerge from the recent legal 
proceedings between Arnold and Mani can be found in the documents entered into 
the court record.  Anyone can access the complete documents at the Bexar County 
Courthouse, as they are in the public record.    I will refer to each document 
by exhibit number.

One of the most revealing documents concerning Arnolds M.O. is exhibit #419.  
It is an email from Arnold to Notkin on 2-19-2006.  Please note that at the 
time of writing, Arnold and his family were receiving money and benefits from 
the Brenham Meteorite Company.

Exhibit #419 Dated 2-19-2006  From Steve Arnold to Geoff Notkin

"I just read a GREAT book called "Get on TV"  Of course we did quite well 
getting on TV without reading the book, but I think there might be some other 
ways I could get onto TV again  if we would make some efforts."....... "I would 
like to keep this between you and me for the time being.  Darryl is in the mix 
and I strongly get the feeling that he is not as interested in promoting ME as 
he is working for a high auction price on the big rock.  Of course I don't want 
to hurt the value of the big rock, but I really think there is more at stake 
for me here than just the bottom line on the one specimen."......."I want your 
honest feedback, but keep it between you and me for the moment, ok?"

Exhibit # 396 Dated 2-21-2006,  From Steve Arnold to Geoff Notkin,  Subject: 
Confidential

"I understand Phil requested that you attempt to get unused footage of the C&T 
show for us to use in our marketing efforts."........"I would caution you the 
be VERY careful in your request."....... "Darryl wanted Phil to ask you to 
"cash in your chip" he feels you have earned to get the footage, specifically 
the footage of him being interviewed with Becky.  Now, yes, there MIGHT be 
something in that footage that would help us sell the big rock.  There also 
might be something in there that would help Darryl with whatever he might have 
in mind that might have NOTHING to do with us selling the big 
rock."......."Anyway, in the event that you do indeed have "a chip you could 
cash in" for something, possibly getting that footage, I would hate for you to 
"cash that chip in" for some tape, when it might better be spent by getting us 
a TV show of our own."

Exhibit #255  Dated 8-8-2009,  From Steve Arnold to Geoff Notkin

"I am choosing to use this crossroads in my life as the time to reevaluate my 
priorities, and to reexamine my friendships.  We haven't even hit the stage 
where people start sucking up to us for selfish reasons...oh wait, maybe that 
email to you from Darryl the other day is the first of many of those that are 
about to come.  In the past, I think I have been too obsessed with trying to be 
nice guy and to try to make everyone happy.  Well damn it, we now have a couple 
of million people to please..." "And for the others:  F--- Mani.  F--- Farmer.  
F--- Stimpson.  F--- them all, (abbreviations mine) if the whole meteorite 
world wants to sit in their sand box puking on each other.  They deserve each 
other."

The King Case, Cause # 2002-08178 in Harris County Texas, 281st Judicial 
District.

(This case is filed by the estate of Sharon King, widow of the late Dr. Elbert 
King.  Dr. King was a geologist at the University of Houston who specialized in 
meteorites.  He trained Apollo astronauts and was the first curator of the 
Lunar Sample Laboratory.  He wrote/edited two books and published many 
scientific papers.)

This excerpt comes from the plaintiffs' third amended original petition.

FACTS  IV.
Sharon Lee Witherow King ("Sharon King"), deceased, was a resident of 
Houston.......Prior to Sharon King's death, Sharon King entered into two 
written contracts (the "Contracts") with Arnold for the sale of certain items, 
including but not limited to, meteorites.  The Contracts stipulated the terms 
and conditions under which the Contracts would be performed, and Arnold has 
wholly failed to perform under the terms and conditions, including but not 
limited to, nonpayment of monthly payments, nonpayment of sales of meteorites, 
refusal to return meteorites, books, collections, and other conditions.  
....Because of the actions and inaction of Arnold, demand has been timely made 
on Arnold to pay the delinquent monies, return the King collection and to 
desist from representing the legacy and collection of Dr. King.

BREACH OF CONTRACT  V.
Sharon King and Arnold entered into an enforceable agreement.  Sharon King has 
performed all of the Contractual obligations.  Arnold has refused to pay the 
monies due or return the assets under the contract.  Such breach damaged the 
Plaintiff's and the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court order Arnold to 
pay the monies owed under the Contract.

FRAUD  VI.
Arnold has knowingly falsely represented to the Plaintiffs (and their 
predecessor) that Arnold would pay the monies in a timely fashion.  Arnold 
intended for the Plaintiffs to rely upon the representations of Arnold, and 
Arnold never intended to pay the Plaintiffs or their predecessor, Sharon King, 
as promised.  Arnold's fraudulent representation damaged the Plaintiffs and 
their predecessor, Sharon King, because the Plaintiffs because Sharon King 
detrimentally relied upon Arnold's fraudulent representation.  The Plaintiffs 
seek an award of punitive damages for the fraudulent conduct.

(In September of 2004, the 281st Judicial District Court found for the Dr. 
Elbert King Estate.)

AGREED JUDGMENT
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that STEVEN ARNOLD shall pay actual damages in the 
amount of $100,000.00 to Plaintiffs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that STEVEN ARNOLD shall pay post-judgment interest 
from the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that STEVEN ARNOLD shall pay Plaintiff's attorney's fees 
and costs in the amount of $10,000.00.

Anyone can "Google" Dr. Elbert King and note the first link.  There you will 
find the Perez Iron - Dr. Elbert King's transported Odessa meteorite at  the 
aerolite web site.

To see other articles about unpaid landowners in Kansas, go to:
http://articles.kwch.com/2011-02-17/meteorite-hunting28553456
and 
http://www.kwch.com/news/factfinder12/kwch-kaw-meteoritehunter-20110217.0.6151325story

Conclusions:

Over my lengthy business career, I have observed this emerging behavioral 
pattern many times.  The daily choices we make time stamp us in life, defining 
who we really are.

The Strewn Field:  Allow me to define a person's life in meteoritic terms:  
Each one of us, through his words, actions and choices leaves a strewn field of 
himself for all to see and evaluate.

Affect on the Meteorite Community:  As a collector/investor, I have serious 
moral and legal concerns that landowners and estates are not getting paid or 
must enter into litigation to get paid.  Product is being traded, diced, sliced 
and sold to unsuspecting individuals and institutions while the "original 
owners" are not being compensated.  I don't want my collection tainted with 
such materials.

>From a legal standpoint I pose this question:  Will some specimens be involved 
>in litigation if the "real owners" seek to recover their property?  This often 
>happens in the "art collecting community," which I have personally witnessed.  
>And so, my first question to anyone seeking to sell or trade me a meteorite is 
>whether or not the original owner has been paid?  Prove it to me.
 
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Reply via email to