lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)

[Ray Dillinger]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote:
  <quoting someone who is not participating in this discussion>
>"The property in question here is geostationary,"
>said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney
>representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary
>satellites sit above the equator in a fixed
>position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So
>the satellites we're talking about here are not
>movable property."

Since the equator does not pass through California, it 
follows that any property hanging above a point on the 
equator is NOT within the borders of California -- no 
matter how far up you extend them.  So I doubt the 
claim of jurisdiction. Hmmm.  Maybe their theory is that 
because it's not within another nation's border, property 
owned by US citizens is subject to American Taxes.  That 
would be bad.

Or maybe they're attempting to establish a doctrine that 
Americans can be charged property tax on property they 
hold outside the borders of the US regardless of whether 
it's in the borders of another country.  That would be 
worse.  At the very least it would provide substantial 
disincentive to retaining American citizenship.

Now, if Sri Lanka wanted to charge property taxes for 
some prime orbital real estate, it might be able to make 
a better case -- it actually *has* prime orbital real 
estate.

				Bear