Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire

List of Stolen Objects from Olympia Museum in Greece

2012-02-21T20:54:00.000-05:00

David Gill has posted a useful blog entry listing the objects looted from the Archaeological Museum of Olympia in Greece. For background on last week's theft, see the video below.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

©2010-2011 Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC, 20 W. Park St., Ste. 207, Lebanon, NH 03766. Contents are general information only, not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed. Links are not endorsements of web sites’ contents. Others’ opinions are their own. Information presented may be deemed attorney advertising. The attorney is licensed in NH and not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization or by regulators in NY as a "specialist" or "expert."

ACCG Makes Allegations in Baltimore Coin Case Reply Brief

2012-02-13T21:48:00.005-05:00

CBP agents are pictured in this file photo
discussing strategies before airport
passengers arrive. Source: CBP

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) today filed its reply case in the case of ACCG v. US Customs and Border Protection et al. The reply is a response to the brief by federal attorneys last month. The court case first started when the ACCG imported ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins through Baltimore, Maryland without a permit in an effort to challenge import protections put in place by the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). The case is now on appeal in the Fourth Circuit after the ACCG lost in the lower federal district court.

The judiciary possesses the authority to review implementation of import controls over listed Chinese and Cypriot ancient coins coming into the United States. That is what the ACCG contends in its legal brief. The organization summarizes its position in the argument title: "The District Court Possessed Ample Authority to Review the Government's Decision to Impose Import Restrictions on Collectors' Coins."

The group casts the controversy as a contest between "collectors' coins," which are of interest to the organization's small numismatic businesses and hobbyists, versus "serious substantive and procedural irregularities" on the government's part. It complains that "[t]he Government … insists that its efforts to suppress the long-standing trade in common collectors' coins is either a foreign policy matter or one fully committed to agency discretion, leaving the Guild and the small businesses and collectors it represents without recourse." The group challenges authorities who believe they are "empowered to seize any undocumented coin that 'likely' was found in either Cyprus or China, notwithstanding explicit statutory language [in the Cultural Property Implementation Act] to the contrary."

The ACCG's brief levels "serious allegations," claiming that US State Department staff "worked behind-the-scenes with members of the archaeological lobby to orchestrate a change in existing precedent exempting coins from import restrictions ...." and that "staff added coins to the Chinese import restrictions without a formal request from Chinese officials." The ACCG also alleges that an undersecretary of state "ordered [Cypriot] import restrictions … as a 'thank you' to Greek and Cypriot-American advocacy groups which had given him an award" and that an assistant secretary of state "did not recuse herself from approving the 2007 extension of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Cyprus after she had accepted a new position with an international financial institution that likely has business interests with Cyprus …." The group additionally claims that the "State [Department] then misled Congress and the public about CPAC's true recommendations against import restrictions on coins." CPAC is the Cultural Property Advisory Committee that advises the president about adopting import controls over cultural property in jeopardy from pillage.

The ACCG's brief further "alleges that the Government: (1) confused 'cultural significance' with 'archaeological significance' when it comes to objects that exist in multiples, like coins; (2) ignored evidence that Cypriot and Chinese coins circulated widely beyond their place of manufacture such that the 'first discovery requiremen'’ could not be met; (3) ignored or misapplied the CPIA’s requirements that less drastic measures like treasure trove laws or regulation of metal detectors be instituted before imposing restrictions; (4) ignored or misapplied the CPIA's 'concerted international response requirement;' and (5) wrongfully imposed import restrictions on coins without regard to their find spots."

The group argues that "the court has an obligation to ascertain whether coins were properly designated for restriction." That is, in part, because "CBP [Customs and Border Protection] acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal manner under the APA [Administrative Procedures Act] when it allowed [the] State [Department] to assume authority over the preparation of the designated [import control] List."

The ACCG contends that it took action in court, not because it did not follow the rules as federal lawyers assert, but because the federal government failed to file a forfeiture action. The organizations says in its brief that the "Government’s claim that a forfeiture action provided an adequate remedy for the Guild borders on the Kafkaesque."

Note: Citations of authorities contained in the original ACCG brief are omitted from the quotes above.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Ivory Smuggling Case Moves Forward

2012-02-12T00:01:00.003-05:00

Carved African ivory seized by US Fish and Wildlife in the case against Victor Gordon..
Source: USFWS

Plea negotiations continue in the case of United States v. Victor Gordon, according to a recent letter filed in court by Gordon's attorney. The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York has scheduled a status conference in the matter for March 15, 2012.

A federal grand jury indicted Philadelphia art dealer Victor Gordon in July 2011 for unlawfully importing and selling illegal African elephant ivory. Gordon is charged with conspiracy to smuggle elephant ivory, four counts of smuggling, and five Lacey Act violations. Agents arrested him in July. A person indicted is presumed innocent unless prosecutors prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The Lacey Act 16 USC 3371 et seq. protects wildlife and other natural resources. Under the law, it is illegal to import, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase specified wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any law, treaty or regulation of the United States.

The indictment also cites the Endangered Species Act 16 USC 1531 et seq., which makes it illegal to possess or trade illegal African ivory under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Legal import into the United States only occurs when a person obtains an import permit plus a foreign export permit issued by the country of origin or a foreign re-export permit issued by the country of re-export.

The indictment alleges that between 2006 and 2009 Gordon paid a person to travel to Africa on multiple occasions to "purchase raw elephant ivory and have it carved to Gordon's specifications. In advance of each trip, Gordon provided [the person] with photographs or other depictions of ivory carvings to serve as templates. Gordon also directed [the person] to stain or dye the elephant ivory specimens so that the specimens would appear to be old." The ivory was brought through JFK International Airport in New York inside luggage before being sold by Gordon at his store in Philadelphia.

Federal prosecutors seek criminal forfeiture of the items seized. Specifically, they seek cash and objects that include nearly 500 ivory tusks and carvings seized between 2009 and 2010 in Pennsylvania, New York, Missouri, Kansas, Florida, and California.

If convicted, Gordon could face up to 20 years in prison.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

State Department Gives Seizure Immunity to Cultural Objects from Kazakhstan

2012-02-10T10:36:00.000-05:00

The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has granted cultural objects from Kazakhstan immunity from judicial seizure. The protected pieces will be part of a 2012 exhibition called “Nomads and Networks: The Ancient Art and Culture of Kazakhstan.”

The exhibit is to be held at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University from March 6, 2012, to June 3, 2012. The exhibition catalog describes a presentation of cultural objects from the sixth to the first century BC, including saddles, objects from the Berel valley, and gold mortuary ornaments from Shilikty and Kargali.

Under the federal statute known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display (22 USC § 2459), foreign lenders are encouraged by Congress to lend cultural objects to museums without risk that those objects will become targets of litigation while on American soil. The statute protects imported objects determined to be (1) of cultural significance, (2) intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition, and (3) in the national interest.

Museums importing objects for temporary display must apply for this legal protection. The notice of immunity is then published in the Federal Register.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

US Supreme Court Rules Against Odyssey Marine's Request for Stay

2012-02-09T18:56:00.001-05:00

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

The US Supreme Court has denied Odyssey Marine Exploration's application for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari (i.e. a request to have the court review the case). Justice Clarence Thomas ruled on the matter today, docketed at 11A745.

Days ago the eleventh circuit court of appeals ruled in the case of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Kingdom of Spain, et al. that Odyssey could not postpone the return of the so-called Black Swan treasure to Spain while the commercial salvor appealed the case to the nation's highest court. Odyssey took the items from a Spanish galleon--the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes--that sank in 1804 and was discovered in 2007. Spain has contended that the galleon is a Spanish warship subject to protection from salvage.

On February 3, attorneys for Odyssey Marine filed their application to stay the court of appeals' decision. The supreme court's denial followed on February 9.

CONTACT: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/

Barry Landau Pleads Guilty to Theft of Historical Documents

2012-02-08T08:58:00.001-05:00

Barry Landau yesterday pleaded guilty to conspiracy and theft charges related to stealing historical documents from several institutions along the east coast. In December 2011, Landau’s attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence of the crime found by federal agents. But yesterday Landau entered a plea agreement with the Maryland United States Attorney’s Office. Sentencing will be held on May 7, 2012.

Landau admitted in his plea in federal district court to taking historical documents from museums in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut and selling some for financial gain. His accomplice, Jason Savedoff pleaded guilty to the same charges in October 2011.

Documents by Alexander Hamilton
were stolen by Landau and Savedoff.
Library of Congress image.

Institutions targeted by the pair included the Maryland Historical Society, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Connecticut Historical Society, the University of Vermont, the New York Historical Society, and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. They pretended to be researchers and walked away with important papers by hiding them in clothing. According to the US Attorney’s Office, “Landau and Savedoff often took the card catalogue entries and other ‘finding aids,’ making it difficult for the museum to discover that an item was missing. Documents that had been copied on microfilm were often avoided because of the increased possibility the theft would be discovered by the library or repository.”

Items taken included papers by prominent figures in American history, including John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln. The documents’ historical value is priceless. On the open market, some of the papers fetched high sums. For example, four reading copies of speeches by Franklin Roosevelt sold for $35,000.

Both Landau and Savedoff face sentences of up to five years in prison for conspiracy and 10 years for theft.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Egyptian Red List Now Available From ICOM

2012-02-06T22:19:00.006-05:00

Th Emergency Red List of Egyptian Cultural Objects at Risk is now available. You may view it here. Published by the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the Red List illustrates various types of cultural objects that are vulnerable to archaeological site looting and theft.

CONTACT: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/

Motion to Dismiss Filed in Kortlander Case - US Court of Federal Claims Issues Show Cause Order for Party's Failure to Appear

2012-02-05T18:08:00.000-05:00

Little Bighorn River. Courtesy NPS.

Federal lawyers recently filed a motion to dismiss Christopher Kortlander's multimillion dollar claim against the government, while Kortlander's attorney reportedly failed to appear for a January 26 court status conference. The United States Court of Federal Claims therefore issued an order for a show cause hearing, stating: "The court reached defendant’s counsel and agency counsel, but was unable to reach plaintiffs' counsel at the appointed time, although the court attempted to reach plaintiffs' counsel twice. Therefore, on or before Monday, February 13, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel, in writing, in the electronic filing system, shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with the rules of this court ...."

Kortlander, owner of the Custer Battlefield Museum in Montana, was once under federal investigation after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received complaints that he was selling artifacts on eBay that were claimed to have been recovered from the Little Big Horn battlefield. The battlefield is a protected national memorial dedicated to the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry and the Sioux and Cheyenne. It is the site of George Custer's famous "last stand." The investigation of Kortlander led to the execution of search warrants by authorities in 2005 and 2008. But the prosecution in 2009 declined to prosecute.

Since then Kortlander has engaged in litigation, including filing an action against the government in the court of federal claims on September 19, 2011 for $188,500,000 in damages . That action was filed days after a federal district court in Montana dismissed Kortlander's lawsuit against a BLM agent.

Attorneys for the United States filed a motion to dismiss Kortlander's tort, criminal, and constitutional law claims on January 17, 2012. They contend in their pleading that Kortlander's case lacks jurisdiction, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, fails to meet the statute of limitations, and fails to meet certain pleading standards. Some of the arguments the government puts forward in the motion are the following (legal citations in the original have been omitted):

"Plaintiff [Kortlander] appears to allege that Federal agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.... He also alleges throughout his complaint that the search warrants justifying the 2005 and 2008 searches of his property in Garryowen [Montana] were not supported by probable cause.... However, the law is well established in the Court of Federal Claims that the 'Fourth Amendment provides no right to money damages for its breach.'"

"The Court also lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's allegations that Federal agents violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, because the Due Process Clause is not a 'money-mandating provision.'"

"The tort claims of slander and defamation fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court."

"Any effort by plaintiff [Kortlander] to allege a claim of tortious interference with business relationships by the Federal agents does not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, for the same reasons."

"Further, any efforts by plaintiff to allege tortious invasion of privacy, or tortious harassment and intimidation by another person, fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction."

"Mr. Kortlander has failed to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. The majority of his claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations."

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

State Department Grants Seizure Immunity to Mexican Artifacts

2012-02-04T11:09:00.003-05:00

The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs last week granted immunity from judicial seizure to artifacts on loan from Mexico. The pieces will be part of a 2012 exhibition called "Children of the Plumed Serpent: The Legacy of Quetzalcoatl in Ancient Mexico," which will take place at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California and at the Dallas Museum of Art in Texas.

Museums importing objects for temporary display must apply for this legal protection. The notice of immunity is then published in the Federal Register.


Xochicalco temple of the plumed serpent. Photo: Giovani V; CC.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Court Orders Odyssey Marine to Return Black Swan Treasure to Spain

2012-02-02T12:50:00.008-05:00

A Spanish galleon.

The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Odyssey Marine’s motion to stay a decision ordering the commercial salvor to return coins and objects to Spain. The so-called treasures of the "Black Swan" (the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes) were taken from the sunken 19^th century Spanish galleon, discovered by Odyssey in 2007 “lying at a depth of approximately 1100 meters, beyond the territorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation approximately 100 miles west of the Straits of Gibraltar,” according to court records.

The case has persisted since April 9, 2007. That is when Odyssey Marine filed a complaint in federal district court in Tampa, Florida under admiralty and maritime law (known as an admiralty in rem action). The salvor argued that it should either own the shipwrecked vessel under the law of finds (a type of “finders keepers” claim) or it should be entitled to “a liberal salvage award” from the vessel under the law of salvage. Odyssey lost the case, and the case now captioned as Odyssey Marine Exploration v. Kingdom of Spain et al. continues.

Last September, the federal circuit court of appeals upheld the lower district court’s decision that ordered Odyssey “to release the recovered res [i.e. the shipwreck materials] to the custody of Spain.” Odyssey hoped to stay this decision as it appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company argued in its December 2, 2011 petition to the circuit court that once it delivered materials to Spain the objects would not be returned to Odyssey if the salvor ultimately won the case in the highest court in the land. That is because it is "Spain's position that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts ....," according to the motion. Odyssey also cited its belief that there are seven legal errors that remain to be challenged in the case. The appellate court was unpersuaded, writing by hand the word “denied” on its final order issued Tuesday.

At stake for Odyssey is a haul reportedly worth $500 million. For Spain, “[t]his sentence gives Spaniards back what was already theirs,” according to culture minister José Ignacio Wert who was quoted in The Daily Mail.

Hat tip to Gary Nurkin for forwarding The Daily Mail story.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Non-Invasive Testing Uncovers the Composition of Art and Artifacts

2012-01-30T01:15:00.021-05:00

The January 2012 issue of Physics Today has an interesting article by Notre Dame physics professors Philippe Collon and Michael Wiescher. Titled "Accelerated Ion Beams for Art Forensics," it discusses the use of non-invasive nuclear physics to detect forged art and more. For example, the authors write about the ability of PIXE (Particle Induced X-Ray Emission) to analyze the make-up of an object:

"The scope of applications of PIXE in the art world has grown steadily. When applied to a work of art, as shown in the figure, PIXE helps to identify the composition of pigments or other materials; thus it has had a growing impact in the forensic analysis of suspected forgeries. The analysis of ancient coins provides information about the minting process and also leads to deeper insight into economic developments. For example, inflation during the Roman Empire is reflected in a continuous devaluation of the silver denarius coin, as silver was gradually replaced by less valuable metals. In collaboration with others at Notre Dame, we are investigating the unique black-and-white ceramics of the American Southwest to identify whether mineral or organic pigments have been used to generate the paint and to determine the provenance and distribution of the pottery material. We have also joined with our colleagues to explore the frequently shifting 18th-century colonial boundaries in the present US Midwest by studying the composition of regional Native American copper jewelry. With PIXE, copper mined locally in the upper lake region can be distinguished from British or French imported copper."

Read more about PIXE testing and the authors' discussion of accelerator mass spectrometry here.

You may also be interested in learning about the National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) in Italy, which has used PIXE to analyze Galileo's manuscripts.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Red List Announced Covering At-Risk Egyptian Cultural Objects

2012-01-27T16:32:00.003-05:00

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) today announced that it would soon release a Red List for Egypt. [UPDATE 2/6/12: The Red List is now available]. Red Lists describe various types of cultural objects that are considered to be at-risk. Such lists have been created for cultural objects from Afghanistan, Cambodia, Africa, and seven other places.

Regarding Egypt, ICOM's December-January e-newsletter states:

"Following several months of preparation, ICOM is delighted to announce the official launch of a new Red List in the coming weeks. The Emergency Red List of Egyptian Cultural Objects at Risk, the 11^thpublication in ICOM’s Red List series and its third Emergency Red List, is one of the tangible outcomes of ICOM’s involvement in the protection of Egyptian cultural heritage, following the events that shook the country in the past year. The List was drafted in close collaboration with members of ICOM’s International Committee for Egyptology (CIPEG), national and international experts in Egyptian art and antiquities, and the Ministry of Antiquities of Egypt."

"The Emergency Red List was made possible thanks to the generous support of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the US Department of State."

"The official launch of the Emergency Red List of Egyptian Cultural Objects at Risk will take place at the National Museum of Egyptian Civilisation (NMEC) in Cairo, Egypt, in the presence of ICOM Director General Julien Anfruns, members of the Egyptian government and local heritage institutions, national and international experts, police and customs officials, partners of the project and the media. The event will be followed by an awareness-raising and capacity-building workshop on the Red List series and its worldwide usage in fighting illicit traffic in cultural goods."

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Lewis Defense Lawyers File Motion to Dismiss in US v. Khouli et al.

2012-01-24T19:28:00.006-05:00

Even before trial begins and testimony is heard, the case against Joseph Lewis, II must be dismissed because the government cannot prove its case. That is what defense lawyers argue in a motion filed today in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York in the case of US v. Khouli et al. The lengthy memorandum of law contends that the government lacks sufficient evidence to proceed to trial based on the information supplied in discovery materials.

Evidence in US v. Khouli et al.
Source: ICE

A federal grand jury indicted Joseph Lewis, Moussa Khouli, and two others in July 2011 alleging, in part, that Lewis illicitly bought Egyptian antiquities that were illegally imported into the United States through Dubai. The indictment also alleges that the four conspired together and with unidentified “others” in a smuggling operation. (A defendant is presumed innocent unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). The objects involved in the case include a Greco-Roman style Egyptian sarcophagus and a three-part nesting coffin set. See here for background.

Despite being accused of wrongdoing related to the import of ancient Egyptian antiquities, defense lawyers contend that Lewis was not involved with the importation process at all. In fact, the only co-defendant Lewis had contact with at any time was Moussa Khouli, and that contact was after any object was imported into the United States, according to attorneys. This argument is buoyed by defense lawyers' statements asserting that Lewis had neither sent nor received any emails discussing importation of cultural artifacts with Khouli. Therefore, Lewis' lawyers argue that Lewis had no participation in the import process.

Lewis had every reason and motive to want the import process to be legal, the defense attorneys claim. Email exchanges between Khouli and Lewis never hinted at any illegal activity, they say. Lewis, in fact, never had any idea that any pieces were stolen, particularly after having been informed by Khouli in writing at least seven times that the Egyptian pieces were part of Khouli’s father’s collection in Israel during the 1960’s.

Moreover, defense counsel contends that prosecutors cannot prove that the items in questions were stolen. They highlight that there has been no assertion by Egypt that the items are in fact stolen. And if the prosecution argues that the incomplete provenance of the artifacts should have informed Lewis that the objects may have been stolen, defense lawyers cite journal articles to show that lack of provenance is common in the antiquities market and does not demonstrate that a cultural object is in fact stolen.

Lewis’ lawyers conclude that the lack of evidence cannot sustain a conviction, warranting a dismissal of the government's criminal case.

Contact: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Federal Attorneys File Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case

2012-01-18T11:35:00.008-05:00

Attorneys for the United States have filed their brief in the matter of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of State; Assistant Secretary of State, Educational and Cultural Affairs. The United States’ brief rejects the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s (ACCG) interpretation and application of the Cultural Property Act (CPIA), writing that the ACCG “fundamentally misunderstands the CPIA’s statutory scheme.”

Last September the ACCG appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court after a federal district court judge dismissed its test case. The group initially filed the lawsuit hoping to challenge cultural heritage import protections enacted under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). According to the government’s brief, “[o]n April 15, 2009, [the ACCG] transported [Chinese and Cypriot] coins from London to Baltimore with the intention of testing the validity of existing import restrictions. The invoice accompanying the coins identified each by type and indicated that each was minted in China or Cyprus, but provided no indication of when the coins first arrived in London (or any other information regarding the history of the coins).” Customs seized the ancient coins. The district court then struck down the ACCG’s challenge to the seizure after concluding that the group failed to make out a sufficient case to show that the government acted outside its legal authority.

The ACCG filed an appellate brief with the federal circuit court on October 31, 2011, arguing that the enactment and application of the import controls by the State Department and/or Customs and Border Protection (CPB) was unlawful and should be reviewed under the standards of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). (The APA is the law that instructs federal agencies about how they must establish administrative regulations. The Act also outlines the procedures by which administrative decisions are reviewed by the courts.) The ACCG also argued in its brief that the United States government could not issue cultural property import protections on certain ancient coins since China allegedly did not request the import restrictions. The group further explained that the CPIA’s import controls require federal officials to prove an ancient coin’s find spot before it can be seized. The United States’appellate brief, filed on January 13, 2012, counters these claims.

Attorneys for the United States contend in their brief that its agencies followed the rules while the ACCG did not follow the process. The government's lawyers write that the ACCG should have followed the forfeiture process established by Congress. Instead, the ACCG filed a lawsuit. “The CPIA’s provisions regarding seizure and forfeiture, in concert with the pre-existing statutory scheme addressing forfeiture proceedings, set forth a process by which claimants may contest a threatened forfeiture,” the government argues. Federal lawyers state that the “APA authorizes judicial review of agency action only ‘for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’ The circumstances in which extra-statutory review is available are similarly limited. Here, however, Congress has expressly provided for challenges to the seizure and forfeiture of materials under the CPIA through the established mechanism of administrative or judicial forfeiture proceedings.”

At the time of the attempted import of the coins in Baltimore, lawyers for the United States say that “Customs provided [the ACCG] with the opportunity to present a certification of lawful export or other evidence establishing a right to entry . . . . [but the ACCG] disclaimed any ability to present such evidence. On July 20, 2009, Customs seized the coins, and explained that – in light of [the ACCG’s] representations – the items would be subject to summary forfeiture absent a request by plaintiff for judicial proceedings.” Government lawyers say that even though the ACCG requested a judicial forfeiture proceeding in September 2009, “Plaintiff [ACCG] did not await the commencement of judicial forfeiture proceedings by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Rather, on February 11, 2010 – five months after requesting such proceedings – plaintiff commenced this suit to challenge the seizure of its ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins.” The government observes that “Plaintiff [ACCG] has invoked those procedures, but they have not occurred as this litigation has been ongoing. Plaintiff does not explain why its arguments should not be considered in the forum designated by Congress.”

Had the ACCG challenged the seizure of the coins through the congressionally prescribed forfeiture proceeding, it would have confronted a defined standard of proof requiring the ACCG to show that the coins were legal to import. The government’s brief describes the standard of proof that applies in a forfeiture proceeding: “the government must establish that the seized property is material that has been designated as restricted under [the CPIA]. After this initial showing, the burden shifts to the claimant [ACCG] to show that the property is not subject to forfeiture, or to establish an applicable affirmative defense.”

The United States rebukes the ACCG for short-circuiting the judicial forfeiture proceeding, avoiding its burden of proof, and claiming that the government acted beyond its authority (i.e. ultra vires). The government contends that the “Plaintiff [ACCG] cannot properly circumvent the statutory scheme established by Congress by asking a district court to review this seizure under the APA and under the rubric of ultra vires review and . . . to further confound Congress’s intent by asking the court to disregard the burden of proof established by the CPIA.”

Attorneys for the United States further maintain that the ACCG has confused the meaning and requirements of the CPIA. They point out that “[t]o import the coins into the United States, plaintiff [ACCG] needed only to show that the coins had left Cyprus or China before the effective dates of the relevant Designated Lists. Plaintiff declined to offer any declaration to that effect, claiming that it could not offer the evidence required by the statute because it did not know whether the coins had been ‘first found in the ground’ of either China or Cyprus. But the CPIA quite plainly does not require plaintiff to know where the coins were ‘first found in the ground’; all that was required was information as to the whereabouts of the Cypriot coins as of July 16, 2007 and of the Chinese coins as of January 16, 2009.”

The government's lawyers pointedly draw attention to the fact that the President exercises his foreign affairs powers when acting pursuant to the CPIA. The attorneys highlight that “[t]he provisions of the CPIA confirm that Congress recognized that these judgments are imbued with foreign policy concerns.” They describe how “[t]he CPIA provides the President with broad power to apply import restrictions pursuant to MOUs he enters into with foreign States in furtherance of the United States’s obligations under the Convention on Cultural Property and with the goal of ‘promoting U.S. leadership[] in the preservation of cultural treasures.’” The attorneys point out that “Congress recognized that allowing illicitly excavated and trafficked artifacts to enter into the United States, thereby permitting a market in such goods, threatened our relationships with other nations, and that this legislation was thus “‘important to our foreign relations.’” They also explain that “the issues raised by the import of cultural goods are ‘distinct from the normal concerns of the reciprocal trade agreements program or U.S. trade law.’”

The review of American foreign policy decisions by the courts essentially would be improper, suggests the brief, particularly where foreign policy considerations have other avenues of oversight. “Rather than involve the courts in an inquiry into the conduct of foreign affairs, Congress provided for political review by requiring the CPAC [Cultural Property Advisory Committee] to share its reports with Congress, and requiring the President to report actions taken to Congress,” says the government’s brief.

Federal lawyers contend that even if there is court review of the government’s implementation of import restrictions enacted under the CPIA, government agencies acted properly. Their brief asserts that “[i]f the Court concludes that some form of judicial review is nevertheless appropriate in these proceedings, it should affirm the district court’s conclusion that plaintiff has not stated a viable claim.”

In support of this argument, attorneys for the United States point out that the ACCG’s “primary contention is that its 22 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins were unlawfully seized based on their ‘type.’ Plaintiff urges that, although the coins appear on the Designated Lists of restricted materials published by Customs, the coins must be allowed entry to the United States unless the government can prove, on a coin by coin basis, that each was first unearthed in Cyprus or China. The district court correctly concluded that plaintiff’s proposed scheme lacks any basis in the statute.” Therefore, the federal lawyers maintain that “[t]he Assistant Secretary [of State] exercised her judgment and discretion under the CPIA in determining that certain types of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins qualify as the ‘archaeological material of the State Party’ and applying import restrictions to them. As the district court concluded, plaintiff’s approach can not (sic) be reconciled with the plain terms of the Act, is unworkable, and ‘would undermine the core purpose of the CPIA.’”

Attorneys for the United States also address in their brief the ACCG’s request for information. “[The ACCG’s] amended complaint alleged that ‘China never formally requested import restrictions on coins,’ and urged that the government’s restrictions on Chinese coins should thus be deemed invalid. This is unsurprising, since – as the government has previously noted – China’s request did, in fact, address ancient Chinese coins, as noted in the public summary of the request that is posted on the State Department’s website.” That said, federal lawyers declare that “the district court correctly rejected plaintiff’s request for discovery with regard to the precise contents of China’s diplomatic note requesting that the United States impose import restrictions under Article 9 of the Convention on Cultural Property. The United States has met all of its statutory obligations, and is not required to make such information public."

Finally, the government addresses the constitutional issues raised by the ACCG: “Plaintiff asserts that the import restrictions at issue 'impinge on collectors’ access to information materials' in a 'grossly overbroad' manner and are thus 'constitutionally suspect under both the First and Fifth Amendments.' Contrary to plaintiff’s characterization, the CPIA does not ban the sale of ancient coins or prevent individuals from accessing the information they offer. Rather, the [CPIA] allows the importation of the designated coins when particular requirements, which are designed to prevent the illicit trafficking of ancient artifacts that are under threat from pillage or looting, are satisfied. It is contrary to no recognized constitutional interest."

[Note: All quotes are from the government's appellate brief. Citations in the original have been omitted.]

Contact: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Ancient Greek Coins From Italy Reportedly Seized in New York - Arrest Made

2012-01-11T17:29:00.011-05:00

An article appearing in Coin World reports that law enforcement officials on January 3, 2012 seized two ancient Greek coins from Italy before they were sold at a New York International Numismatic Convention event held in Manhattan. The article states that the owner of the coins, Dr. Arnold Peter Weiss, was detained.

New York Criminal Court records reveal that authorities on January 3, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. arrested and charged a man named Arnold Peter C. Weiss, born 1960, with Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (CPSP) valued at over $50,000. The court set bond in the amount of $200,000 and scheduled the next court date for March 21, 2012.

As of this writing, the NY County District Attorney's Office has not released any official statement confirming that this arrest and charge are related to the coin seizures reported by Coin World. However, Chasing Aphrodite is reporting a connection.

A violation of the CPSP statue, New York Penal Law 165.52, is a class “C” felony punishable by up to a maximum of 15 years in prison. The statute states: "A person is guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree when he knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof, and when the value of the property exceeds fifty thousand dollars.” A person charged with a crime is innocent unless proven guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Assuming that New York state law is being used to prosecute a theft of ancient coins from Italy, such a prosecution would be new. At a conference in 2005 and then in a paper in 2007, I argued that state law could be employed in the same way as the federal National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) to tackle international cultural property crime. An excerpt from the 2007 paper, entitled International Antiquities Trafficking: Theft By Another Name, illustrates:

"District and county attorneys can rely on receiving stolen property statutes to target culpable receivers and sellers of antiquities .... Every state has enacted a receiving stolen property statute in some form. These laws prohibit a person from receiving property of another when the person knew the property was stolen. Many of these same statutes also criminalize situations where the person should know, had reason to know, had reason to believe, or simply believed that the property was stolen or probably stolen .... While state receiving stolen property laws are fundamentally similar to the federal NSPA, many provide distinct advantages to prosecutors.

First, several state statutes establish lower mental states. The NSPA requires proof that a person knew the received property was stolen, but several states only require proof that the actor should know, had reason to know, had reason to believe, or simply believed that the property was stolen or probably had been stolen. Thirty six states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws with a lesser mens rea.

Second, almost one quarter of the states possess some form of dealer provision, making it easier to prosecute antiquities traders. Where a dealer takes possession of an item and either (a) does not reasonably gather information about whether the item was lawfully sold or delivered to the dealer, (b) acquires the item for payment far below reasonable value, or (c) purchases or sells the item outside of the regular course of business, these statutes generally declare that the dealer is presumed to have known that the item was stolen. The New York Penal Law serves as an illustration of scenario “a”: 'A … person in the business of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in property who possesses stolen property is presumed to know that such property was stolen if he obtained it without having ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the person from whom he obtained it had a legal right to possess it (§ 165.55(2)).'

Third, state receiving stolen property statutes provide criminal penalties for defendants who possess property of most any value as compared with the NSPA’s $5,000 threshold.

The legal advantages of lower mental states, dealer presumptions, and decreased value thresholds make prosecuting antiquities trafficking under state law an appealing option, particularly when targeting receivers or sellers."

David Gill, Paul Barford, and the Chasing Aphrodite authors are acknowledged for bringing attention to this developing story.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

The Right to Stuff: Preserving Space Heritage

2012-01-09T00:10:00.016-05:00

Apollo 14 Commander Alan Shepard left artifacts on
the lunar surface, including two golf balls
that he drove "miles and miles and miles."
The lunar lander, Antares, appears in the left shadow.
Astronaut Ed Mitchell's shadow is cast (center)
as he takes Shepard's photo. Courtesy NASA.

Materials relating to space heritage consist of natural astromaterials, man-made objects used in space-related activity, and tangible evidence of human activity such as Neil Armstrong’s first lunar boot print. They deserve to be preserved.

While some have begun this conversation already in the context of the Moon Treaty of 1979, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and other legal regimes, the time is ripe to more fully discuss space heritage in earnest as new groups venture beyond the earth's atmosphere. USA Today reports that China has just announced an ambitious plan to build a space station and to send astronauts to the Moon. Meanwhile, Virgin Galactic hopes to shuttle space tourists soon. It is therefore best to get ahead of the issue of heritage protection now rather than to hurriedly catch up at a later date.

Already NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit report critical of the American space agency for not keeping current track of moon rocks, stardust, meteorites, and other astromaterials in the space agency's possession. The December 8, 2011 report makes the following conclusion:

“For over 40 years, NASA has loaned astromaterial samples to researchers and shared lunar and meteorite exhibits with educators and the public. However, the materials remain the property of the U.S. Government and may only be borrowed for approved research, educational pursuits, and public display. Additionally, while loan periods may range from days to years, these transfers are not intended to be permanent, and NASA retains the right to recall its samples and exhibits at any time. Because NASA does not have adequate controls in place, the Agency cannot be sure of the location and security of all of its loaned astromaterials and therefore is at risk of losing these unique and limited resources.”

Astronaut James Lovell.
Courtesy NASA.

It may be no surprise that NASA, perhaps motivated by the release of the OIG report, challenged the authority of an auction house to sell an Apollo program mission artifact. Days ago the Associated Press reported that “NASA is questioning whether Apollo 13 commander James Lovell has the right to sell a 70-page checklist from the flight that includes his handwritten calculations that were crucial in guiding the damaged spacecraft back to Earth. The document was sold by Heritage Auctions in November for more than $388,000....” The Associated Press added that “[a]fter the sale, NASA contacted Heritage to ask whether Lovell had title to the checklist. Greg Rohan, president of Dallas-based Heritage, said Thursday the sale has been suspended pending the outcome of the inquiry,” noting that there is precedent for astronauts to have title to mission materials.

Lawmakers and stakeholders would be prudent to discuss and develop clearer policies now that specifically govern space heritage.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Congratulations to David Gill

2012-01-08T09:02:00.000-05:00

The Archaeological Institute of America on Friday awarded David Gill the Outstanding Public Service Award. His blog, Looting Matters, is an important read for anyone interested in cultural property ethics. Congratulations to you, David!

Professor David Gill
Photo: AIA

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Documentary - "Fighting Illicit Traffic of Cultural Heritage in South Eastern Europe"

2012-01-06T17:02:00.000-05:00

UNESCO has produced the short documentary below titled "Fighting Illicit Traffic of Cultural Heritage in South Eastern Europe." The report is especially relevant as the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) this month considers requests by Bulgaria and Cyprus for cultural property protections under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Court Forfeits Cristo Portacroce After Italy Does Not File A Claim

2012-01-05T19:50:00.010-05:00

The forfeited Cristo Portacroce.
Courtesy ICE

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida has ordered the forfeiture of the painting, the Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Manigoldo. The court issued the default judgment once the previous possessors, Italy and its Brera Art Gallery, failed to make a claim for the return of the artwork.

The court's ruling was brief: "Upon Application of the Plaintiff(s) in the above styled cause and having examined the records and there appearing to be no responsive pleadings filed by the defendant(s), default is hereby entered against the Italian Republic, Ministry of Culture, and the Pinacoteca di Brera, on January 3, 2012."

The painting will likely be handed over to the heirs of Federico Gentili di Giuseppe, who filed a claim on December 14, 2011 arguing that they were the lawful owners. Prosecutors submitted information to the court that the painting was taken from the family by the Nazis during World War II. Click here for details.

Federal officials seized the Cristo Portacroce in November 2011, which the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Florida had on loan. See here for background.

Court papers filed by government lawyers show that the Italian's were aware that the painting's ownership was in dispute. But the records do not explain why the Italy-Brogan loan agreement did not contemplate legal protection from seizure under the federal law known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Comments Submitted to CPAC in Cyprus and Peru MoU Extension Requests

2012-01-04T09:16:00.001-05:00

Kourion, Cyprus. Mosaic from the house of Eustolios.
Source: Lapost. CC.

Comments have been submitted to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) regarding an extension of the cultural property Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between Cyprus and the United States as well as Peru and the United States. The original MoUs authorized by the Cultural Property Implementation Act lasted for five years and placed import restrictions on designated archaeological and ethnological material. There were a total of 336comments electronically submitted to the State Department regarding Cyprus’ request and 23 comments regarding Peru’s request.

A sampling of the comments submitted in support of Peru’s request were published in a prior post. Comments regarding the Cypriot request appear below.

Writing in support of Cyprus’ request for an extension of the MoU, Professor A. Bernard Knapp, Honorary Research Fellow at the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute remarked:

“As a retired archaeologist . . . I am keenly aware of the importance of this MoU, which prevents archaeological objects from categories described in the Designated List from enter the US unless they have an export permit issued by the Government of the Republic Cyprus, or documentation that they left Cyprus prior to the effective date of the restriction. In my view, this MoU represents one of the most important documents protecting a country’s indigenous cultural heritage that the US has ever approved; it is an extremely significant tool in Cyprus’s efforts to prevent and combat the looting of its cultural heritage and the illicit trafficking of Cypriot antiquities to the United States, which has one of largest art markets for such antiquities in the world.”

“Signed originally in 2002, amended in 2006 to include Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials, and renewed in 2007 to include Cypriot coins (end of 6^th century BC to AD 235, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus now requests another amendment, to include Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials representing the post-Byzantine period dating up to AD 1850. They do so in order to assure a coherent legal framework in line with the Cyprus’s Antiquities Law. This request is based on numerous recent cases involving the illicit trafficking of ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological material that dates later than AD 1500.”

Elizabeth Bartman, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, also wrote in support of the MoU renewal:

“The archaeological evidence from such Bronze Age towns as Kourion [in Cyprus] attest to an active trade and a high level of technical production of ceramics, metal, and stone sculpture. Unfortunately, many of these distinctive artifacts are much prized by collectors today; the ravaging of the island after the Turkish invasion in 1974 has long been recognized, but looting continues today with loose controls in the northern zone permitting the export of both archaeological and ecclesiastical material. Because of their random findspots and portability, coins are especially vulnerable to looting and so deserve protection under the Memorandum.”

The comments opposing Cyprus’ request came from the ancient coin collecting community, which does not favor the inclusion of coins in any import protections. For example, Philip Griest wrote:

“Coins and modern paper money have always been fluid currency. The exchange of money for goods and services internally and internationally has exsited since ancient times. To now require that a specific coin be repatriated because of it's artistic worth seems illogical if not illegal. The money belongs to the person that earned it and then, when spent, to the person who traded for it; no matter goods, services or an exchange of currency. To return such items to the nation that minted the coin is to restrict trade and create an illegal market for the coin. What else can be done to these thousands or hundred (sic) of thousands of coins and artifacts. They can't all end up in museums. Has comman (sic) sense ceased to exist in our nation.”

And Glenn Saylor, Jr. wrote:

“I am against import restrictions of Cypriot coins into the United States. There are a large number of collectors of these coins in the United States. We carefully conserve these coins for future generations, and share our knowledge about these coins with not only our fellow collectors, but also the general public. Most of these coins are common, so Cyprus should have little diificulty obtaining needed examples for their museums. Since these coins are so common, it is hard to establish their providence. The net effect is that these common coins will not be allowed import into the United States. All rebutable (sic) coin dealers and collectors are against the looting of archaeological sites. However, I believe other methods can be used to address this issue. For instance in Great Britian (sic), the Government has the first right to buy new coin finds at market price. If this policy was implimented (sic) in Cyprus, their Government would have the first opportunity to purchase any rare coins that were found.”

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Scholars Give First-Hand Accounts of Archaeological Looting in Peru

2011-12-30T15:57:00.000-05:00

Terraces at Choquequirao, Peru
Photo by Harley Calvert. CC

As the January 3 deadline approaches for submitting comments to CPAC (the Cultural Property Advisory Committee) regarding Peru's renewal request for import protections, some scholars have supplied firsthand accounts of the threats to cultural property in that country.

Brian Bauer of the University of Illinois remarks to CPAC:

"I am a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and have conducted archaeological research in Peru for more than 30 years. Looting is a huge problem in Peru and every day the archaeological record of its past civilizations becomes smaller as sites are destroyed. Much of the looting is fueled by the demand for artifacts, in both the art and antiquities market. The current restrictions on the importation of artifacts from Peru into the USA plays an important role in curbing the demand for these artifacts and helps to preserve archaeological sites. I urge you to continue as well as further strengthen these [regulations]."

Dr. Margaret Jackson of the University of New Mexico writes in her public comments to CPAC:

"This message is in support of the proposed extension of the ban on archaeological and cultural properties from Peru. As a scholar specializing in art and cultural materials from the Andean region, I can personally speak about the kinds of damage caused by the illegal traffic in antiquities. I've witnessed it firsthand. When people think of ancient Peruvian culture, they often think of the pristine mountain fastness of sites like Machu Picchu, but unfortunately, the actuality is rather different. To supply a voracious art market, site after site will be chewed up by looters, bones and burials desecrated, architecture obliterated, fragile murals and other remains turned to rubble and cast aside. This happens at sites large and small all over Peru. Placing legal restrictions is the only way to curtail the destruction. I strongly support any measures toward this end."

And Maya Stanfield-Mazzi of the University of Florida describes:

"As a professor of art history at the University of Florida, I request that you renew the MoU with Peru to protect that country's cultural heritage. I have conducted research in Peru for several years and have seen the damaging effects of the theft and destruction of that country's heritage, both Pre-Columbian and Spanish colonial. These losses are damaging to the Peruvian people as a nation and to the Peruvian economy. It is important to the standing of the United States that it not be seen as complicit in the trade of illicit art and artifacts. Please continue to support Peru's efforts to conserve its heritage."

Comments regarding the Peruvian request for a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States that would renew import protections pursuant to the Cultural Property Implemantaion Act (CPIA) may be submitted by clicking here.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Alltop Lists Cultural Heritage Lawyer As Best of the Best - Thank You

2011-12-22T22:25:00.004-05:00

Merry Christmas to all my readers. Courtesy of your interest in and subscriptions to this blog, an early gift arrived today. Alltop placed Cultural Heritage Lawyer on its Top Archaeology News site. This blog is honored to join the ranks of such prestigious publications as Archaeology magazine, ScienceDaily, and Looting Matters on Alltop's list. Thank you to all my readers.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Brogan Museum To Close on January 15

2011-12-20T17:09:00.002-05:00

Brogan Museum
Source: Ebaye

Just a little over a month after authorities seized the Cristo Portacroce from the Brogan Museum in Florida (see here), directors announced that they will close the doors to the museum indefinitely on January 15 because of financial problems. Watch the WCTV report here. It remains to be seen if the museum will reopen.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Landau Files Motion to Suppress in Theft of Major Artwork Prosecution

2011-12-19T22:00:00.003-05:00

Baltimore Division courthouse.
Source: US District Court of Maryland

Lawyers for Barry Landau have filed a motion to suppress the evidence the government obtained from a search of Landau’s home. Landau is charged in Maryland federal district court with conspiracy and theft of major artwork. See here for background.

Landau is scheduled for trial in February and is presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. His co-defendant, Jason Savedoff, entered a guilty plea earlier this year. Find more information at this link.

Federal agents executed a search warrant on July 12, 2011, reportedly seizing historical documents from Landau’s New York City apartment. But Landau claims, through his counsel, that the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause and, therefore, the evidence seized cannot be admitted by the government at trial.

The motion to suppress contends that police observed Savedoff acting suspiciously at the Maryland Historical Society (MHS), and it was Savedoff who was found with historical documents after being arrested. Despite the fact that Landau was not seen to have acted suspiciously and that Landau did not have possession of any historical documents, police unlawfully placed Landau under arrest and acquired a search warrant based on specious facts, the motion argues. The motion to suppress explains:

"The affidavit provided to Judge Katz in support the respective applications for search and seizure warrants failed to establish probable cause to permit the searches authorized. Because there was no evidence recovered from Mr. Landau, and no one observed him stealing any documents or acting inappropriately while at the MHS and prior to his arrest, there was no probable cause to allow a search of his residence and all evidence seized at this apartment pursuant to the search warrant should be suppressed."

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

"Lava Treasure" Prompts INTERPOL Alert to Dealers and Collectors

2011-12-18T15:28:00.004-05:00

INTERPOL (the International Criminal Police Organization) has issued an alert to specialist dealers and coin collectors. The agency seeks to recover gold coins and plates discovered off the coast of Corsica more than 25 years ago. The 1700 year objects are part of the "Lava Treasure."

Authorities have been attempting to reclaim the Roman-era items after identifying divers who made off with the find from French waters and then sold the haul for millions. France prosecuted eight people implicated in the case, and the nation recovered coins and a plate from the treasure last year worth up to nearly three million dollars. Many unrecovered items could still be on the market. Click here for more background on the case.

Anyone with information about gold coins or plates from the Lava Treasure should contact INTERPOL here.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

Peruvian Archaeology, The Costs of Cultural Property Repatriation, and Satellite Imagery to Combat Looting

2011-12-16T08:50:00.004-05:00

While Peru currently pursues its request for an extension of American cultural property import protections under the Cultural Property Implementation Act (see this post for background), PRI’s The World and the BBC reported on yesterday’s repatriation of artifacts to Peru by Yale University. You can listen or read the news item by clicking on the links.

Naturally, the ongoing problem of archaeological site looting was mentioned in the reports by Mattia Cabitza. Two observations bear some attention.

First, it is not often that we hear about the specific monetary costs of repatriation. Blanca Alva of the Peruvian Ministry of Culture is quoted as saying: "The problem is that repatriations are expensive." "They involve a court case, and you need to pay lawyers, transportation, packing, insurance, laboratory tests, etc.” Cabitza informs us that “[i]n 2007, the Peruvian government estimated that it spent $625,000 (£400,000) on the repatriation of some 400 antiquities. Ms Alba believes repatriating antiquities is, in the long term, a price worth paying, but she would prefer it if more was done to fight looting.”

Second, there was a discussion about using satellite imagery to combat clandestine archaeological looting. The idea has been mentioned many times before and bears repeating. Indeed, Cabitza writes that “Nicola Masini of Italy's Institute for Archaeological and Monumental Heritage has been using satellite imagery in Peru since 2007. . . . Mr Masini believes satellites could also be used to combat looting, because they reveal the presence of fresh excavations.”

Satellite monitoring should be used as a tool for detecting site looting around the globe and for collecting evidence in order to both deter clandestine digs and to prosecute illegal antiquities trafficking. Commercial satellite imagery can be expensive, but the technology has shown early results when used to expose war crimes (see the Satellite Sentinel Project). Satellites may be used in a similar fashion to combat crimes affecting cultural heritage. Global Heritage Network (GHN) announced that it started using satellites this year to monitor endangered cultural sites, and Google Earth is being utilized in some places as a cheaper alternative. But there should be more widespread discussion about investing in the higher resolution images that can be provided by a commercial company like DigitalGlobe, which furnishes GHN's images.

Satellite image of the famous site of Macchu Pichu in Peru.

CONTACT: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

Cultural Heritage and War: A Video Report on Libya

2011-12-15T23:30:00.002-05:00

A recent video produced by NATOchannel.tv reports on cultural heritage in Libya in the context of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The short, two part film titled NATO and Libya - Cultural Heritage in Times of Unrest can be viewed below.

One important remark is made by Dr. Joris Kila, Chairman of the International Military Cultural Resources Work Group. He explains that friendly military forces committed to protecting cultural property can deny enemy forces a potential reservoir of military financing. The comment is another reminder that meaningful investigation to uncover the connection between illegal antiquities trafficking and weapons purchases is sorely needed.

Part I

Part II

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

CPAC Will Meet to Consider MoU Extensions with Cyprus and Peru - Public Comments Period Open

2011-12-08T09:02:00.008-05:00

Extensions of the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with Cyprus and Peru will be taken up by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) at their next meeting in Washington, DC. A public session will be held on January 18, 2012 to consider extending the bilateral agreements the United States has with these nations, which implement US import protections covering jeopardized cultural property.

An MoU is enacted pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property). The treaty is implemented in the US by the federal Cultural Property Implemntation Act (CPIA). Import protections granted under the CPIA last for five years and may be renewed.

To attend the public session, reserve your place by calling the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State at (202) 632–6301 by 5 p.m. EST on January 3.

Byzantine bronze cross from Cyprus
subject to US import protections.
Source: US State Dept.

Public comments may be submitted electronically to CPAC. Click here to comment on the Cyprus MoU extension, or here to comment on the Peru MoU extension. Comments are due January 3 by the end of the day. If you encounter any problems, visit the eRulemaking web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Enter docket number DOS-2011-0135 for Cyprus or docket number DOS-2011-0136 for Peru and follow the instructions on the web site. Be aware that the electronic submissions process sometimes can be cumbersome. Comments may also be mailed to:

Cultural Heritage Center (ECA/P/C)

SA-5, Fifth Floor

Department of State

Washington, DC 20522-0505

The comments must address one, some, or all of the four determinations outlined by the CPIA. Quoting 19 USC 2602, the four determinations are:

(A) [whether] the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party;

(B) [whether] the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;

(i) the application of the import restrictions . . . with respect to archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party, if applied in concert with similar restrictions implemented, or to be implemented within a reasonable period of time, by those nations (whether or not State Parties [to the 1970 UNESCO Convention]) individually having a significant import trade in such material, would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage, and

(ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and

(D) [whether] the application of the import restrictions . . . in the particular circumstances is consistent with the general interest of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

European Union Seeks Comments Relating to Cultural Property Protection

2011-12-08T05:00:00.001-05:00

The European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU) says in a November 29, 2011 press release that it is seeking comments on "on ways to improve the safe-keeping of cultural goods and the return between Member States of national treasures unlawfully removed from their territory." The EC consists of a representative group of Commissioners who serve as the executive body of the EU.

The European Commission's public statement adds that it "launched a public consultation on ways to improve the safe-keeping of cultural goods and the return between Member States of national treasures unlawfully removed from their territory. The consultation will provide an insight into the views of public authorities, citizens and other stakeholders on the most effective way to facilitate such return."

Vice President Antonio Tajani

EC Vice President Antonio Tajani is quoted as saying: "Today, the illicit trafficking of cultural property is a major problem, going beyond a significant economic dimension, to affecting the core of our cultural identity. I share the increased concern of citizens and Member States and I am working to improve the situation. Please be a part of this effort and let us have your comments and ideas".

Contact information regarding where to send comments may be found here [Update 1/24/12: this link apparently has been suspended]. The deadline is March 5, 2012.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

MoU Extended With Bolivia - US Customs Issues Final Rule

2011-12-06T08:50:00.002-05:00

Tamucumira Mask.
One of the Bolivian objects subject to
CPIA import regulations.
Photo courtesy US State Dept.

The US government has extended import protections over archaeological and ethnological objects from Bolivia. The two governments entered into a bilateral agreement in 2001 pursuant to the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), which gives force to the 1970 UNESCO Convention (the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property). Import restrictions under the agreement last five years and may be renewed each period.

Bolivia received emergency protection under the CPIA in 1989. A bilateral agreement, or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), was finalized in 2001, and the US government renewed that MoU in 2006. The latest renewal occurred earlier this year. The Federal Register reports:

"On August 26, 2011, after reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, concluding that the cultural heritage of Bolivia continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain archaeological and ethnological materials, made the necessary determination to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years. On November 10, 2011, diplomatic notes were exchanged reflecting the extension of those restrictions for an additional five-year period."

On December 1, 2011, US Customs and Border Protection published its final rule describing the specific import regulations. The rule may be found here.

Thanks go to Gary Nurkin for news of the rule's publication.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

US-Greece MoU Produces Final Cultural Property Import Protection Rule

2011-12-01T23:00:00.004-05:00

United States Customs and Border Protection today issued the final administrative rule covering import restrictions covering archaeological and ethnological material from Greece. The rule follows the July 17, 2011 adoption of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Greece under the Cultural Property Implementation Act in accord with the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The MoU entered into force on November 21, 2011 and can be found here.

Greek mosaic.
Source: Bijan. CC.

Import protections are now in place on Greek archaeological and ethnological cultural items dating from around 20,000 B.C. through the 15th century A.D. These restrictions last for five years and were instituted in order to "control illegal trafficking of such articles in international commerce" and to protect "endangered cultural property," according to the rule.

Ancient objects subject to seizure at the American border include those made of stone, metal, ceramic, bone, ivory, glass, faience, textile, papyrus, paint, mosaic, wood, glass, and parchment. The import restrictions cover sculptures, sarcophagi, reliefs, furniture, vessels, tools, weapons and armor, coins, beads, pottery, musical instruments, documents, paintings, floor mosaics, and more.

Lawful entries of these specified cultural objects are permitted in certain cases. For example, a valid export permit from Greek authorities would allow an archaeological or ethnological cultural object to enter the US border.

The Federal Register has published the rule at 19 CFR Part 12. Click here for the full text.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

Change of Venue Motion Filed in US v. Khouli et al. Previews Possible Defenses in Alleged Antiquities Trafficking Case

2011-11-30T06:00:00.007-05:00

Federal courthouse in Brooklyn, NY.
Photo by Jim Henderson. CC

The latest pleading filed by Salem Alshdaifat’s attorney in the case of US v. Khouli et al. asks for a change of venue. The defense argues that personal and financial hardships faced by Alshdaifat, a Michigan resident, urge a transfer of the case from the federal district court in New York to Detroit.

The motion provides a possible preview into some of the defenses that may be available in the case, including:

a characterization of the charged conduct as “regulatory-based criminal charges,”
a claim that the objects that are the subject of the multi-count indictment are neither stolen nor contraband, and
an argument that Alshdaifat was a middle man who did not possess criminal intent.

A federal grand jury charged Alshdaifat in May 2011 with conspiracy to smuggle, alleging that he directed Mousa Khouli to wire $20,000 to Ayman Ramadan’s UAE bank account and that Alshdaifat received an airway bill from Ramadan showing that “wooden panels” were being shipped by Ramadan’s company in the United Arab Emirates to JFK airport in New York. Moreover, Alshdaifat is charged with money laundering conspiracy. He is also charged with smuggling goods into the country as well as fraudulent importation and transportation of goods. The indictment describes the goods as an Egyptian inner coffin, Egyptian funerary boats and limestone figures, and a portion of an outer lid of a nesting Egyptian coffin set. (A grand jury indictment is a mechanism that initiates a criminal case; it is not a finding of guilt.)

Writing in support of the motion for change of venue, Alshdaifat’s attorney previews the possible defenses in the case. The following are excerpts from the Memorandum of Law dated November 21, 2011:

“The facts surrounding these charged criminal violations of the Customs laws arise out of the importation of rare Egyptian antiquities, including a three-piece set of sarcophagi and other funerary objects. These artifacts were allegedly shipped to the United States in several packages, variously by international air mail and by private air and sea carriers. The government does not claim that the Egyptian artifacts were stolen or were otherwise contraband when they entered the country. Instead, the government's charges rest on a theory that the alleged conspirators willfully falsely or vaguely declared these artifacts in entry documents into the United States because the importer purportedly had insufficient or incomplete documents of origin for the objects and this might have caused them to be detained at a United States port-of-entry if detected.” (emphasis in the original)

“Mr. Alshdaifat was neither the U.S. importer nor the foreign exporter of the subject Egyptian artifacts. Based on the government's own claims, he is alleged to have been the “finder” or middleman that put the alleged foreign source of the artifacts (defendant [Ayman] Ramadan) in contact with the U.S. importer, or interested antiquities dealer (defendant [Mousa] Khouli). Despite being charged with a role that essentially ended prior to the importation process, Mr. Alshdaifat is charged with his co-defendants for knowingly participating in making false or intentionally incomplete statements on shipping labels on various shipments of these Egyptian antiquities. The government's claims against Mr. Alshdaifat, therefore, rely on findings that he knew and intentionally joined a conspiracy to falsely declare the Egyptian artifacts in their shipment to the United States after his role in being a broker to the transactions was already completed.” (emphasis in the original)

“In the Egyptian sarcophagi transactions, however, Mr. Alshdaifat only had a broker's interest and did not deal in the artifacts himself. Somehow, however, he now finds himself charged together with the principals of those transactions for allegedly violating technical Customs laws in the mailing and shipping of the merchandise, a process in which he did not participate.”

“The government’s position in support of criminal liability on the charged air mail shipments is based largely on the claim that Mr. Alshdaifat's co-defendants put these pieces in international mail or on an airplane as air cargo without completing more formal U.S. Customs paperwork with the specific intent to avoid Customs’ detection of these shipments and break U.S. Customs' law. No lay witnesses exist to testify as to whether a defendant's act of putting these parcels in the mail or on an airplane constituted an intentional and clandestine conspiratorial effort to get the charged, legal merchandise into the United States.” (emphasis in the original and footnote omitted)

“In any event, Mr. Alshdaifat is not even implicated in the government's discovery with doing anything – in New York or elsewhere – to assist in the importation of the merchandise. He is charged with putting the alleged source of the Egyptian coffins and artifacts (defendant [Ayman] Ramadan) in contact with the New York antiquities dealer who purchased them (defendant [Mousa] Khouli). The government must concede that Mr. Alshdaifat was neither the importer nor exporter of the charged shipments, and therefore had no role in the actual shipment of the merchandise, i.e., the packaging, labeling and placing of the merchandise in international mail. As such, he never had any contacts with New York.”

“The government does not charge that the Egyptian coffins and funerary objects were stolen property. The objects imported, therefore, are not contraband or unlawful to possess in the United States. The government's claims in this Indictment rest instead on the precarious theory that the method in which the artifacts were shipped into the United States was intentionally fraudulent even though the goods themselves were not banned or prohibited from entry. Indeed, the government does not even claim that the method of importation was intentionally fraudulent to avoid import duties, since antiquities are excluded from any import tax.” (emphasis in the original)

The defense contends that the government’s conduct materially affected Alshdaifat’s business. Alshdaifat writes in a Declaration to the court dated November 21, 2011 that he started dealing in ancient coins in Canada, selling them primarily over the internet and at international trade shows. He describes himself as a specialist in ancient Judean coins who gained admission to many coin auction houses and membership associations. Alshdaifat adds that he was the moderator of the “Judean ancient coin section for the largest numismatic worldwide web community.” Defense counsel’s Memorandum of Law explains:

“Mr. Alshdaifat's circumstances are particularly extraordinary. These include the fact that from his initial arrest, the government stacked the deck against him, making it untenable for him to get his fair day in court. On July 13, 2011, the government arrested Mr. Alshdaifat in his Michigan home and confiscated his entire business inventory of ancient coins, thereby effectively shutting his business down. It did so despite the fact that the criminal charges in the Indictment had nothing to do with Mr. Alshdaifat's coin business. Subsequently, the government returned his coins but not until his business suffered a crushing, and possibly, fatal blow. Mr. Alshdaifat's reputation as an honest coin dealer has been battered; more importantly, he has been removed or suspended from all of the auction houses where he sold his coins. His business is in dire shape.” (emphasis in the original)

Information supplied to the court describes the relationship between Alshdaifat and co-defendant Ayman Ramadan. Court papers remark that “Mr. Alshdaifat has purchased ancient coins before from defendant Ramadan in the United Arab Emirates ("U.A.E.") and has sold coins to defendant Khouli in New York. That is how he knew two of the other parties charged in this Indictment.”

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Egyptian Museum No Longer Accepting Cultural Object Inquiries (For Now)

2011-11-27T13:19:00.005-05:00

The Egyptian Museum, Cairo
Source: Bs0u10e01, Creative Commons

According to an email by the General Director of The Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the museum will not be in a position to respond to inquiries regarding any artifacts until June 2012. This information is important to anyone conducting provenance research relating to Egyptian cultural objects. The email appears below:

To whom it may concern,

Due to the current situation in Egypt, I regret to say that the

Registration, Collections Management and Documentation

Department (RCMDD) and the curatorial staff of the Egyptian

Museum, Cairo will not be accepting any new requests for

object information and images starting from 1 December, 2011

until 30 May, 2012. This is due to the huge backlog that was

created following the events of January 28th, as well as the

renovations that are currently happening in the Museum.

Information on objects from our collection can still be obtained by

accessing the intranet version of the Museum Database on the

computers dedicated to scholars in the RCMDD office, located in

the museum basement. The department is open to scholars from

9:30 am until 2:00 pm, Sunday-Thursday.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tarek El Awady

General Director,

The Egyptian Museum, Cairo

Source: Egyptologists' Electronic Forum, forwarded by Dr. Yasmin El Shazly.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Status Conference Held in Case of US v. Khouli, Alshdaifat, Lewis

2011-11-22T23:57:00.007-05:00

Egyptian coffin seized by ICE
in the case of US v. Khouli et al.
Photo: ICE

The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York held a status conference in the criminal matter of United States v. Khouli et al. on November 17, 2011. The court waived all three of the defendants’ presence at the hearing. The defendants include Mousa “Morris” Khouli, Salem Alshdaifat, and Joseph A. Lewis II. Ayman Ramadan remains a fugitive.

By way of letter dated November 4, 2011 and written by his attorney, Khouli sought leave to attend a coin show in Baltimore, Maryland, reportedly scheduled for November 16 and 20. The short letter explained: “As an antiquities dealer, Mr. Khouli’s livelihood depends on his ability to attend coin shows and other similar events.” The court granted Khouli’s request and extended the ruling, waiving the appearance of the other co-defendants.

Internet records reveal that the Whitman Coin & Collectibles Baltimore Expo was held during this time. Palmyra Heritage, the name of the business owned and operated by Khouli, was listed as occupying booth #1107 while Holyland Numismatics, the name of the business owned and operated by Alshdaifat, was listed as occupying booth #1154 at the event that took place at the Baltimore Convention Center.

Salem Alshdaifat’s attorney filed documents soon after the November 17 status hearing requesting a change of venue in an effort to curtail any hardship to Alshdaifat, who lives in Michigan. Submitted on November 21, the pleadings reveal more information about Alshdaifat’s background and his association with co-defendant Ayman Ramadan. The pleadings also supply a preview of Alshdaifat’s possible legal defenses. These topics are discussed here.

The next court status conference is scheduled for January 27, 2012.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

CPAC Public Session Wrap-Up: Requests by Bulgaria and Belize for Cultural Property MoUs Considered

2011-11-19T15:35:00.023-05:00

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met between November 15 and 17, 2011, holding a public session on November 16. Professor Patty Gerstenblith, newly appointed chair and director of the Center for Art, Museum, & Cultural Heritage Law at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, presided over the meeting.

Bulgaria and Belize both petitioned the United States government for a memorandum of Understanding (MoU) seeking cultural property import protections pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (the UNESCO Convention). The requesting nations’ official public summaries appear here: Bulgaria | Belize. CPAC will ultimately provide advice about the adoption or rejection of these MoU requests.

CPAC received testimony to consider whether the countries’ requests satisfy the four determinations enumerated in the federal Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA). They include:

1. Whether the cultural patrimony of the requesting nation is in jeopardy from pillage;

2. Whether the requesting nation has taken measures to protect the cultural patrimony;

3. Whether import protections would be of substantial benefit to deter serious pillage, and whether there are other less drastic remedies; and

4. Whether the implemtation of import protections is consistent with the global exchange of cultural property for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes.

Roman ruins in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Author: Kyle Taylor
Creative Commons license.

CPAC received 503 online submissions prior to the public session, and seven people presented live testimony regarding the Bulgarian request. Those appearing in person before CPAC were:

• Kevin Clinton, President of the Board of Trustees of the American Research Center in Sofia (ARCS). See his prior written comments here.

• Brian Daniels of the University of Pennsylvania Museum's Cultural Heritage Center.

• Nathan Elkins, a professor of Greek and Roman art and history at Baylor University who focuses on ancient coins.

• Stephen J. Knerly, an attorney who routinely appears before CPAC on behalf of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD). Read his previously submitted written statement here.

• Christina Luke Roosevelt, a lecturer and archaeologist at Boston University who appeared on behalf of the Archaeological Institute of America’s (AIA) Cultural Policy Committee. Read her previously submitted written statement here.

• Peter Tompa, an attorney appearing on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists. He is an officer of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) but did not appear in this capacity. His previously submitted personal comments appear here.

• Kerry Wetterstrom, a governing officer of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild.

Maya archaeological site in Caracol, Belize.
Author: Pgbk87. Creative Commons.

Public comments were also submitted discussing Belize’s MoU request. 153 online submissions were made, and five people appeared in Washington, DC to present live testimony. They were:

• Brian Daniels of the University of Pennsylvania Museum's Cultural Heritage Center.

• Elizabeth Gilgan, an archaeologist who worked in Belize. She serves on the board of directors of Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE). Her previous written submission appears here.

• Stephen J. Knerly, an attorney appearing on behalf of AAMD. Read his previously submitted written statement here.

• Christina Luke Roosevelt, appearing on behalf of the AIA’s Cultural Policy Committee. Read her written statement here. You can also find AIA President Elizabeth Bartman’s online statement here.

• Patricia McAnany, appearing on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology and an archaeologist who has performed research in Belize.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Cultural Heritage Lawyer Awarded Top 25 International and Foreign Law Blog Honors

2011-11-17T14:53:00.007-05:00

Thank you to the readers of Cultural Heritage Lawyer making it become one of the Top 25 international and foreign law blogs. The award correspondence received today says:

"I am pleased to announce that your blog has been selected as one of the LexisNexis Top 25 International & Foreign Law Blogs of 2011!"

"The Top 25 group includes some of the best talent in the blogosphere and creates an invaluable content aggregate for all segments of the International & Foreign Law practice. Most good blogs provide frequent posts on timely topics, but the authors in this year’s collective take their blogs to a different level by providing insightful commentary that demonstrates how blogs can—and do—impact and influence the world of international and foreign law."

You can always click on the Top 25 image at the top right of this web page to make this blog #1!

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Briefing Schedule Set in Appeal of Rubin v. Iran v. Boston MFA and Harvard

2011-11-15T05:00:00.003-05:00

The case of Rubin et al. v. the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University et al. is in full swing at the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court yesterday set a briefing schedule that calls for the appellant’s brief to be filed on December 27 and the appellee’s brief to be filed 30 days thereafter. [Update 1/27/12: The court extended these deadlines.]

In September, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a request by Jenny Rubin and others to gain title to artifacts held by Harvard, the Museum of Fine Arts, and other Boston area cultural institutions. The Massachusetts federal district court ruled that it was presented with no proof that Iran owned the antiquities in the museums; therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to the cultural property. Rubin and the others soon appealed the decision to the circuit court in October.

The Rubin plaintiffs wish to acquire the artifacts in order to satisfy a multi-million dollar court judgment they won against Iran for that government's role in sponsoring a 1997 terrorist bombing in Jerusalem. The suicide attack inflicted injury on the plaintiffs.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Photo credit: Nightryder84, detail of cup found at Marlik, Iran, Creative Commons.

From Sculpture to Scrap: The Theft of America’s Copper Heritage

2011-11-14T00:01:00.003-05:00

Bronze, a mixture of copper and tin,
is found in many statues and plaques,
which are vulnerable to copper thieves.
Frederic Remington, ''The Bronco Buster,"
given to the Lyndon B. Johnson Library.
Public domain image.

Copper theft continues to run rampant throughout the country. Museums, cultural institutions, churches, art galleries, universities, and more have been impacted by the great raid on copper and bronze sculpture and plaques. That is because the price of copper is high, largely driven up by rapid industrial development in China and India.

The recent press report of a sword swiped from a copper statue located at Abraham Lincoln’s tomb site in Springfield, Illinois has become common over the last several years. And thieves may be less interested in the art and more interested in the metal’s melted value.

Many states have laws that regulate scrap metal recyclers so that law enforcement can uncover scrap metal crimes. In New Hampshire, Chapter 322 of the Revised Statutes Annotated mandates junk and scrap metal dealers to be licensed, requires photo identification from person’s turning in metal for scrap, and permits law enforcement access to business records. Maine just announced its intention to stiffen regulations. Last week legislation moved forward in Augusta that would have scrap metal dealers check photo identification and vehicle information for anyone selling scrap metal, place a 72 hour delay on processing the metal, and have payments sent by check to a physical address. Penalties for noncompliance could include a license suspension for scrap metal processors.

Protecting outdoor statuary from copper theft may not be easy, but contacting a security consultant for a site assessment should be a first step for any cultural institution. Security options can then be considered in light of the actual risks and the institution’s budget. Members of the nonprofit International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection may be able to help.

If a theft occurs, it should be reported to the local police immediately. Be sure to tell the police about Scrap Theft Alert, where law enforcement can report a theft to the membership of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

PART II OF II: US Attorney Reveals Legal and Factual Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuit Against Cristo Portacroce – Case Reveals Italy’s Refusal to Turn Painting Over to Gentili di Giuseppe Family

2011-11-10T00:01:00.032-05:00

Portrait of Girolamo Romano,
painter of the disputed artwork known as
Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Mangoldo.

In support of the warrant seizing Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue (Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Manigoldo) from The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science and in support of the civil complaint seeking forfeiture, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Florida supplies important details about the artwork’s asserted history. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent Phillip Reynolds describes facts in an affidavit submitted to the federal district court that permits the construction of the following timeline and details:

June 1914 - Art collector Federico Gentili di Giuseppe, Italian and of Jewish descent and living in Paris, purchased the Cristo Portacroce from the Crespi family collection. The 16th century painting by artist Girolamo Romano, was lawfully exported from Italy.

April 20, 1940 - Just before the Nazi invasion of France, Federico Gentili di Giuseppe died and left his estate to his son and daughter. They fled Paris without their possessions.

March 17, 1941 - The French Vichy government ordered the liquidation of the entire Gentili di Giuseppe estate.

April 23, 1941 - The Cristo Portacroce, and dozens of other paintings once in the Gentili di Giuseppe family’s possession, were auctioned. “Lemar” of Paris reportedly bought the Cristo Portacroce.

1994 - A Girolamo Romani catalog raisonné published by Alessandro Nova listed the Cristo Portacroce as having been owned by Federico Gentili di Giuseppe.

1997 – Descendants of Federico Gentili di Giuseppe sued the Louvre for the return of five paintings sold during the same auction as the Cristo Portacroce.

1998 - The Brera Art Gallery (Pinacoteca di Brera) took possession of the painting, although no details are provided regarding this transfer.

June 2, 1999 – a French court ordered custody of the five paintings at the Louvre to Federico Gentili di Giuseppe’s descendants, acknowledging that the 1941 auction was a “nullity” in that several painting were purchased by Nazis, including Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring. The court also ordered the Louvre to pay 40,000 francs (approximately $8300).

After June 2, 1999 – The Art Institute of Chicago, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and the Art Museum of Princeton University all returned works of art to the Gentili di Giuseppe family heirs. Institutions in Berlin, Cologne, and Lyons did the same.

January 10, 2000 and March 14, 2000 – Lawyer Jean Pierre Sulzer twice contacted the the Brera Art Gallery by mail on behalf of Gentili di Giuseppe’s descendants, receiving no reply.

2001 – The Brera Art Gallery referred the restitution claims of the Gentili di Giuseppe heirs to the Italian Ministry of Culture, and attorneys for the family wrote a letter to the ministry on October 3, 2001 asking for the painting.

June 6, 2002 – The Commission for Art Recovery of the World Jewish Congress, a New York based group that seeks to restitute cultural property taken from Holocaust victims, wrote a letter to Italian President Silvio Berlusconi after the Ministry of Culture reportedly rejected the claims of the Gentili di Giuseppe family. The letter urged the president to reconsider Italy’s position. (The contents of the letter suggest that the Brera made an earlier reply stating that it acquired the painting--and a second painting--in good faith. The Brera's letter is not contained in court documents).

March 14, 2003 – The Italian Ministry of Culture responded to the Commission for Art Recovery’s intervention by saying that it carefully reviewed the matter in light of the Washington Principles and could not find that it could accommodate the request for repatriation. (See the Washington Principles here).

2006 – The Commission on Looted Art in Europe reportedly contacted the Italian government in an effort to have the Christo Portacroce returned.

March 18, 2011 – The Brogan placed the painting on display at its museum in Tallahassee, Florida.

November 4, 2011 – The loan contract between the Brera and the Brogan was due to terminate on November 6, and the painting was to be delivered to Italy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE seized the painting on November 4, 2011 to prevent its return to Milan, and the US Attorney filed its in rem action against the artwork seeking its forfeiture.

The prosecution will seek to prove these alleged facts as it attempts to convince the federal district court that it has the evidence to forfeit the Cristo Portacroce. Time will tell if any party steps forward to contest the claim.

See Part I for a discussion of the US government's asserted legal claims in this case.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

PART I OF II: US Attorney Reveals Legal and Factual Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuit Against Cristo Portacroce – Argues That Painting Loaned to The Brogan by The Brera Was Stolen, Smuggled, and War Material

2011-11-09T00:01:00.020-05:00

"The Brera,"
which once possessed the Romano painting
seized by ICE in Florida on November 4, 2011.
Author: Masi27185. Creative Commons License

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) seized the painting known as Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue pursuant to a court authorized warrant on Friday, November 4, 2011. Judicial records reveal that federal officials chose to seize the painting at that time because the artwork, which was on loan to and openly displayed at The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science, was about to be returned to the Brera Art Gallery (Pinacoteca di Brera) in Milan, Italy. The Brera originally possessed and loaned the artwork, painted by Girolamo Romano around 1543.

The US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida filed a civil forfeiture action in federal district court in Tallahassee the same day as the seizure. Seizure permits the government to take possession of the painting, but a forfeiture order issued by the court would allow the government to gain title of the painting. That is why the US Attorney’s Office filed an in rem (against the thing) lawsuit, naming the artwork as the defendant. The case is captioned and docketed as United States of America v. Painting Known as Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Mangoldo, 4:11-cv-00571-RH-WCS.

Federal prosecutors argue in their civil complaint that forfeiture of the painting is proper under multiple legal theories. They cite the typical ones under the criminal statutes (Title 18 of the United States Code) and the customs statutes (Title 19 of the United States Code). But the government also makes a claim under Title 22, the foreign relations section.

First, prosecutors allege that the painting was smuggled pursuant to 18 USC § 545 and therefore must be forfeited under the terms of this criminal statute.

They also say that the artwork must be forfeited because it was illegally imported in contravention of the customs law at 19 USC § 1595a(c)(1)(A) since the painting was “stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported or introduced” into the United States.

Next, federal attorneys claim that the painting was about to be exported in violation of 19 USC § 1595a(d), a customs law requiring that the painting “shall be seized and forfeited to the United States” because its export would be “contrary to law.”

Federal lawyers also make a claim under the Illegal Exportation of War Materials statute at 22 USC § 401(a), saying that it mandates forfeiture of the painting: “Whenever an attempt is made to export or ship from or take out of the United States any arms or munitions of war or other articles in violation of law, or whenever it is known or there shall be probable cause to believe that any arms or munitions of war or other articles are intended to be or are being or have been exported or removed from the United States in violation of law” then the article may be seized and shall be forfeited.” (Emphasis added by the author).

Finally, the government makes the claim that the painting was stolen under 18 USC § 2314, the National Stolen Property Act, which criminalizes conduct whereby a person “transports, transmits, or transfers in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud.”

The court will decide if prosecutors possess the evidence to prove their case. To date, the information prosecutors possess appears considerable. That material is discussed in Part II.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

Museums at Risk - Results of the 2011 ICCROM-UNESCO International Storage Survey

2011-11-08T00:01:00.008-05:00

Museums are at risk. That is the conclusion of the 2011 ICCROM-UNESCO International Storage Survey conducted between June and September by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The published summary below shows significant deficiencies in museum storage, museum administration, risk management, and loss prevention.

Strategic planning, resource development, and risk preparation are crucial to maintaining first-class cultural institutions. Museums in need of assistance can contact the International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection (IFCPP) http://www.ifcpp.com/, RE-ORG http://www.re-org.info/, or other professionals who support cultural institutions. The public, meanwhile, is encouraged to lend a hand to their local museums, libraries, and historical societies--both financially and by volunteering--so that history, art, science, and culture can be preserved and transmitted. Many volunteer opportunities can be found at http://www.volunteermatch.org/.

A larger version of the report is available here.

CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com

ICE Seizes Stolen Art From Florida's Brogan Museum - Said To Be Taken During WWII

2011-11-05T00:15:00.017-04:00

ICE seizes Romano painting said to be stolen by the Nazis. Photo courtesy of ICE

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in Tallahassee, Florida yesterday served a seizure warrant on "Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rascal." The painting had been held at the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science at the request of the US Attorney's office, northern district of Florida, while prosecutors determined whether the painting by Girolamo Romano’s was unlawfully taken from a Jewish family during World War II. Now the artwork is now in federal custody.

Who will have final title and possession of the artwork ultimately will be determined by a federal district court judge.

[UPDATE: November 9, 2011 - Read more details here.]

Find the complete press release describing the seizure and issued by ICE here. Also, listen to Chucha Barber, the Brogan Museum’s chief executive officer, who provides a short audio sketch of the ownership claims to the painting on PRI's The World.

Thanks go to Gary Nurkin for alerting me to this news.

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

Los Angeles County Judge Orders Getty Museum to Mediate Armenian Zeyt'un Bible Pages Dispute

2011-11-04T09:52:00.009-04:00

The Matenadaran in Yereva, Armenia
where the Zeyt'un Gospel Bible is housed,
minus the seven pages at The Getty in L.A.
Author: TigranMets (Creative Commons)

The Getty Museum and the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church are headed to mediation over the issue of the Zeyt’un Gospel pages. This week Judge Abraham Khan of the Los Angeles County superior court judge told the parties to return next spring if an agreement was not reached, reports the Los Angeles Times.

In June 2010 the Armenian Apostolic Church filed a civil lawsuit against the J. Paul Getty Museum alleging that the museum acquired stolen property. The church seeks the return of seven manuscript pages, parts of an illuminated Bible that was created in 1256 and later lost during the Armenian bloodshed that occurred during the early 20th century. The actual Bible, minus its missing pages, is located in Armenia at The Matenadaran (officially known as the Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts).

The church sued the Getty on four counts:

• Replevin, which is the legal action that a party takes to recover personal property that was taken unlawfully;

• Conversion, which is the legal claim that a party unlawfully used personal property for its own use;

• Treble damages--specifically $105 million--which is a tripling of monetary damages that is permitted by statute, in this case California’s penal law; and

• Quiet title, which is a legal action intended to remove doubt about who owns a certain piece of property.

At issue in the case is the provenance of the biblical pages, which are canon tables or an index. The Getty Museum states on its web site that “[t]he Zeyt'un Gospels, made in the scriptorium at Hromklay for Katholikos Constantine I in 1256, are the earliest signed work of T'oros Roslin, the most accomplished illuminator and scribe in Armenia in the 1200s. These canon tables were separated from the manuscript at some point in the past and eventually acquired by the Getty Museum, while the rest of the manuscript is in a public collection in Armenia.” In a June 2, 2010 press release issued just after the lawsuit was filed, the Getty said that it “legally acquired the Canon Tables in 1994 from a private collection in the United States after a thorough review of their provenance. They have been repeatedly described and reproduced in publications in English, Armenian and French. Indeed, a notable Armenian scholar who also was the primate of the Armenian Church of America acknowledged key details about the Canon Tables' provenance in a 1943 article, including the fact that they were owned by an Armenian family in the United States. The pages have been publicly exhibited throughout the United States, including a well-publicized 1994 exhibition of Armenian art and culture at the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.” The Getty Museum added: “Promptly after acquiring the Canon Tables, the Getty prominently featured them in the J. Paul Getty Museum Journal, Volume 23, including a cover illustration. The Canon Tables have been published and exhibited several times since the Getty acquired them. At no time in the ninety or so years that the Canon Tables have been in the United States has anyone questioned their ownership.”

The Armenian church, meanwhile, writes in its initial legal complaint that “the seven missing stolen pages (canon tablets) of the Zeyt’un Gospel Bible ripped from the full manuscript that became stolen property eventually ended up in a private collection of a family in Watertown, Massachusetts, where they were loaned to the Piermont Morgan Library in 1994 for an exhibition entitled “Treasures From Heaven.” The family’s name remained anonymous at that time. The Catholicosate was never informed by the family or by the Piermont Morgan Library of their possession of the seven missing stolen pages which clearly were part of the entire Zeyt’un Gospel Bible manuscript.” The church adds that it only discovered the missing pages when they were noticed “by chance” at the Getty Museum in 2007.

Also at issue in this case is the statute of limitations. However, the court has saved its assessment of this issue for a later date if the parties cannot reach a mediated settlement.

Sources:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-armenian-bible-20111104,0,4956662.story

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=5929

http://www.getty.edu/news/press/canon_tables/canon_tables.html

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0602_Getty_wm_TMZ.pdf

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

AIA Submits Public Comments to CPAC in Support of Bulgaria's MoU Request

2011-11-03T08:56:00.006-04:00

The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) yesterday submitted public comments supporting Bulgaria's request for a Memorandum of Understanding that would implement US import protections covering cultural artifacts. The comments were made to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee by Peter Herdrich, chief executive officer of the AIA:

"Dear Cultural Property Advisory Council,

I write to you to urge your support for the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Bulgaria in order to help protect the cultural and archaeological heritage of this great and historic country. As Chief Executive Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America, I can assure you that our 235,000 members speak with one voice on this issue, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to create import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material from across Bulgaria’s long history. Our members include professional archaeologists with academic and research interests in Bulgarian material, archaeological enthusiasts with a curiosity about Bulgaria’s past, and students who form the next generation of scholars. All recognize the value of Bulgaria’s unique archaeological patrimony. And that patrimony is under threat. In the January/February 2009 issue of ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, the entire country was listed as one on the world’s most endangered sites and described thus: 'Like its neighbors, Bulgaria is rich in archaeological remains—ancient Greek, Thracian, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman. But rather than draw millions of visitors each year to its ancient sites, this poor Balkan country mainly exports its cultural heritage. The transition from Communism to a free market economy has left Bulgaria exposed to the swirling forces of the global illicit antiquities trade. Desperate poverty means huge numbers of Bulgarians…are involved in the trade.' The members of the Archaeological Institute of America agree that the United States should do whatever we can to stamp out that trade that threatens sites across Bulgaria and to support Bulgarian heritage. Therefore we ask that on November 16, you recommend the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding between our government and the government of the Republic of Bulgaria. Sincerely, Peter Herdrich Archaeological Institute of America"

_______________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

American Research Center in Sofia Comments on Bulgaria MoU Request – CPAC Public Comments Deadline is Today

2011-11-02T09:17:00.005-04:00

A vessel from the Rogozen treasure,
National Historical Museum,
Sofia, Bulgaria.
Author: Nenko Lazarof

Today is the last day to file public comments with the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) regarding Bulgaria’s request for a Memorandum of Understanding. Comments may be filed electronically here.

One noteworthy submission was made by the President of the Board of Trustees of the American Research Center in Sofia (ARCS), Kevin Clinton. ARCS is made up of member institutions that include Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale and many more institutions. (Click here for the full list.) Clinton write on behalf of ARCS:

“I can report that ARCS strongly supports the requested MOU on Bulgarian cultural property. Incorporated in New York in 2004, ARCS . . . is supported by a consortium of approximately 70 institutions of higher learning in North America.

…

We at ARCS were first confronted with the severity of the problem during our first academic session, in the summer of 2006. After a lecture by Professor Lyudmil Vagalinski, currently the Director of the National Institute of Archaeology and Museum of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (NIAM-BAS), he was asked by one of the American students whether illegal trafficking in antiquities was a problem. He responded by saying: “Bulgaria is being systematically raped of its cultural heritage.” To give us an example, he recounted an incident from 1999, when he happened to be at a conference in Frankfurt am Main. Customs at the Frankfurt airport seized a crate, illegally sent from Bulgaria and destined for the US, containing many ancient artifacts (coins, bronze statuettes etc.) illegally excavated in Bulgaria. Officials of the Ministry of Culture of the province of Hessen consulted him at the conference and told him at least two similar shipments had been let pass to the USA via the Frankfurt airport. When Bulgarian officials, after a bureaucratic delay, applied to German authorities to get back the shipment, they were told it was sent on to the US (after a Customs fine was levied) because Bulgaria had no contract on cultural property with the European Union and no MOU with the US. He was profoundly disappointed. He also pointed out to us that he was receiving a steady stream of e-mails from the US asking him to authenticate ancient artifacts that obviously had been illegally exported from Bulgaria (Determination C, 303(a)(1) CPIA)."

"In my travels throughout Bulgaria, I frequently found signs of looting, especially prevalent in the funeral mounds, where one can often still see tunnels dug by modern looters; such activity is noted also in virtually every excavation report. As one who has worked at archaeological sites, I am well aware of the devastation that illegal excavation and exportation cause, not simply by the loss of valuable and unique objects but by stripping sites to such an extent that they lose their historical and cultural identity. Looting of course can greatly hinder or even annul archaeological investigation, since such investigation requires a complete context, including even the most minute objects, for proper evaluation. More importantly, it robs a people of its historical and cultural memory, especially when it takes place on such a grand scale as has been happening in Bulgaria. Loss of historical and cultural memory is corrosive to a nation’s identity and humane development.”

The public submission by ARCS to CPAC can be found here.

_______________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

ACCG Files Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case

2011-10-31T15:51:00.007-04:00

Ancient Chinese Coins
Author mc559, Creative Commons

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) today filed an appellate brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. After setting up and losing a test case in the Maryland federal district court, the ACCG is now asking the appeals court to reverse that decision. The ACCG’s case began when it imported 23 Chinese and Cypriot ancient coins from a London dealer in 2009. The coins were brought to Baltimore in contravention of import protections enacted pursuant to the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).

The ACCG argues in its brief that the district court should have reviewed the decisions of the State Department and/or Customs and Border Protection to implement import protections under the Administrative Procedures Act. The APA is a seminal statute that describes how federal agencies shall establish administrative regulations and that outlines the procedures by which administrative decisions are reviewed by the courts. The ACCG argues that the decision of the Assistant Secretary [of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs] and/or US Customs and Border Protection approving import rules may be reviewed by a court under the Administrative Procedures Act. The lower court essentially argued that the President of the United States conducts foreign policy and that “primary responsibility for imposing cultural property import restrictions [rests] with the President, rather than with an agency.” It follows then that the APA cannot therefore be used to review an executive branch decision that is part of the President’s power to negotiate international agreements rather than part of an administrative decision of an agency. The lower court explained in its decision that “the State Department and Assistant Secretary were acting on behalf of the President, and therefore their actions are not reviewable under the APA. That conclusion is particularly justified here, because the Department and Assistant Secretary were acting in the realm of foreign affairs.”

The ACCG further argues that the district court erred when ruling that the government could issue cultural property import protections on coins without China purportedly requesting the import regulations. The appellate brief states that “[t]he District Court’s conclusion that ‘the CPIA does not require that a state party’s initial request include a detailed accounting of each item eventually covered by an [1970 UNESCO Convention] Article 9 agreement’ ignores the requirement that any request ‘must be accompanied by a written statement of the facts known to the State Party that relates to those matters with respect to which determinations must be made. . . .’” The lower court, in contrast, ruled that China’s request complied with the law, observing that “the CPIA [does not] require that the State Department publish verbatim the list of items requested to be restricted. Rather, it simply requires that a State Party make a ‘request . . . to the United States under article 9 of the [1970 UNESCO] Convention,’ . . . and ‘publish notification of the request . . . in the Federal Register.’ The notice published in the September 3, 2004, Federal Register demonstrates that such a request was made.”

Finally, the ACCG argues that the import regulations require federal authorities to prove that a particular coin was discovered in the modern nations of China or Cyprus before officials may seize the coins as contraband. The ACCG states in its appellate brief that “the CPIA itself only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts ‘first discovered within, and . . . subject to export control by’ the State Party seeking restrictions.” The brief adds that “[t]he Guild argued below that the Government could comply with this critical statutory requirement in either one of two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in Cyprus or China and, hence must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that the coins that CBP seized were in fact first discovered in Cyprus or China and are subject to export control by those countries.”

This argument was originally rejected by the federal district court. The lower court opinion remarked that “the dispute is limited to whether the State Department has authority under the CPIA to prohibit the importation of coins with unknown ‘find spots’ . . . .” The district court judge found that “ACCG’s argument misses the mark, for three principal reasons. First, the subsection imposing the “first discovered” requirement . . . is silent on how the government must establish, in the absence of a documented find spot, whether a particular object ‘was first discovered within, and is subject to export control by, the State Party.’ Moreover, the CPIA anticipates that there may be some archaeological objects without precisely documented provenance and export records and prohibits the importation of those objects. . . . Thus for objects without documentation of where and when they were discovered, the CPIA expressly places the burden on importers to prove that they are importable, and prohibits the importation of those objects if they cannot meet that burden. Second, the CPIA anticipates that some categories of materials will be designated ‘by type or other appropriate classification.’ Congress apparently recognized that sometimes neither the requesting country nor the U.S. government will have enough information to list particular items with greater specificity than its “type.” . . . Third, interpreting the “first discovered in” requirement to preclude the State Department from barring the importation of archaeological objects with unknown find spots would undermine the core purpose of the CPIA, namely to deter looting of cultural property. . . . Looted objects are, presumably, extremely unlikely to carry documentation, or at least accurate documentation, of when and where they were discovered and when they were exported from the country in which they were discovered. Congress is therefore unlikely to have intended to limit import restrictions to objects with a documented find spot.” (Citations omitted).

A link to the brief appears courtesy of Peter Tompa, legal counsel for the ACCG: http://www.accg.us/News/Item/ACCG_Appellant_Brief_filed_in_Cyprus_China_coin_seizure.aspx.

[UPDATE 1/18/12: Federal attorneys have filed their appellate brief.]

_______________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

VOA Report: Afghan Archeologists Race Against Time to Find Treasures

2011-10-30T01:24:00.002-04:00

Voice of America has an interesting report titled "Afghan Archeologists Race Against Time to Find Treasures." Thanks go to the Archaeology News Network for bringing attention to this video.

_______________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

Savedoff Pleads Guilty to Stealing Historical Documents from Museums and Archives

2011-10-28T08:39:00.005-04:00

Jason Savedoff entered a guilty plea this week to charges of conspiracy to commit theft of major artwork and theft of major artwork for his role in the theft of historical documents from museums and archives along the east coast. Savedoff’s co-defendant, Barry Landau, is scheduled for trial. Landau is expected be sentenced to a prison term of 4-12 years in February 2012.

The Washington Post reports: “The pair compiled lists of historical and famous figures, often noting the market value of documents signed by those figures, and Savedoff identified collections with valuable documents that they could target, according to the plea. They used different routines to distract librarians and would stash documents inside sport jackets and overcoats that had been altered to add large hidden pockets.

…

Searches of Landau’s apartment in July turned up thousands of documents. According to Savedoff’s plea, these included documents signed by historical figures from both sides of the Atlantic. They range from American presidents such as George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and John Adams to French leaders such as Marie Antoinette and Napoleon Bonaparte, and German philosopher Karl Marx.”

See the full story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/presidential-historians-assistant-pleads-guilty-in-md-document-theft-conspiracy/2011/10/27/gIQApmojMM_story.html.

Photo: President Lincoln taken on the balcony at the White House, March 6, 1865. Library of Congress, public domain.

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

Detectives Working to Save Art and Cultural Heritage

2011-10-28T06:00:00.002-04:00

Tricia Bishop of the Baltimore Sun has a worthwhile piece titled Art investigators: Saving the country's cultural heritage, one recovered work at a time. Passion drives the overworked and underappreciated. You can read it at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-history-thieves-20111007,0,443863,full.story.

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Public Comments Submitted to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in Support of US-Bulgaria MoU Protecting Cultural Property

2011-10-27T07:00:00.004-04:00

Should the Committee agree that cultural patrimony located within Bulgaria is in jeopardy from pillage and that the CPIA’s other determinations have been meet, the Committee’s support for the MoU with Bulgaria would permit US authorities to more vigorously curb illegal international artifacts trafficking.

Enactment of the MoU would strengthen America's commitment to protect evidence of the past threatened by archaeological site looting and to protect cultural identity undermined by the theft of ethnological materials. The theft of artifacts from the ground permanently erases the archaeological record. Knowledge of history, culture, or identity is often eliminated when on-site scientific study of historical, pre-historical, or ethnographic evidence is marred by looters, smugglers, and unlawful receivers of trafficked antiquities.

Archaeologists, law enforcement officers, and others possessing first-hand experience with cultural objects originating from Bulgaria are in the best position to describe the situation; their observations should be afforded considerable weight. The Committee should be mindful too of the experiences of our international friends. Canada’s recent interdiction of a large volume of smuggled cultural material from Bulgaria is noteworthy.

Americans’ support for the protection of history, heritage, and cultural identity builds on a legacy exemplified by President Reagan’s adoption of the CPIA. More than three in five Americans believe that artifacts should not be removed from another nation without that country's assent. These were the findings of a 2000 Harris Interactive poll, and there is little reason to believe that sentiments have changed.

President Nixon remarked that the 1970 UNESCO Convention “is a significant effort … to help preserve the cultural resources of mankind.” These words resonate today, urging support for the MoU.

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Keeping the Lid on Davy Jones' Locker: The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage from Titanic to Today

2011-10-26T12:59:00.003-04:00

A conference on the protection of underwater cultural heritage will take place on November 3, 2011 at the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Washington, DC. It is titled Keeping the Lid on Davy Jones' Locker. It is sponsored by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, the Penn Cultural Heritage Center, and the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation. Details and registration information can be found at: http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/events?eventId=318316&EventViewMode=EventDetails.

[UPDATE Nov. 15, 2011: The conference was very successful.]

CONTACT INFORMATION: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

State Department Clarifies US-Egypt MoU

2011-10-25T15:35:00.002-04:00

The US State Department released this statement today, quoted in its entirety:

"Potential Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Egypt's Ministry of State for Antiquities

The Department of State's Cultural Heritage Center has become aware that confusion exists concerning a potential MOU between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Egypt's Ministry of State for Antiquities. Such an agreement would differ from the type of MOU made under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention for import restrictions on certain categories of cultural materials. The Department understands that the MOU presently under discussion by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement concerns information exchange and not import restrictions. If the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt requests an agreement pursuant to Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the Department of State would announce receipt of such a request in the Federal Register. This procedure is the only means currently available to a country wishing U.S. import restrictions on its cultural property."

Source: http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Cultural Heritage Looting in Bulgaria

2011-10-25T00:01:00.009-04:00

The Bulgarian governments’ request to secure cultural heritage import protections under the Cultural Property Implementation Act spotlights the ancient history present in that country as well as modern day artifact looting.

A short 2009 documentary, produced by SBS and distributed by Journeyman Pictures, films antiquities looters in action in Bulgaria, follows archaeologists to ancient sites, and interviews some of those involved in collecting and in prosecuting crimes. It is worth watching in anticipation of the upcoming meeting of the Cultural Property Adivsory Committee (CPAC) on November 16. See the documentary in two parts below.

Additional information can be found in Organized Crime in Bulgaria: Markets and Trends (2007) by the Center for the Study of Democracy. The publication describes some of the challenges to cultural heritage protection in Bulgaria. Pertinent information begins at page 177 and can be found at http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=9120.

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Winter is the perfect time to focus on professional development! - Cultural Property Law - Rural Cultural Environment

2011-10-24T05:00:00.003-04:00

Plymouth State University’s winter term graduate-level courses, which can lead to a Certificate in Historic Preservation, are…

CULTURAL PROPERTY LAW – Compact Schedule
Archaeological site looting, transnational antiquities trafficking and armed conflicts threaten global cultural heritage. This course examines the international, national and state legal frameworks for the protection and movement of cultural property. Topics for discussion include the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the ICOM Code of Ethics, the National Stolen Property Act and the Cultural Property Implementation Act. The course also introduces students to important national heritage laws such as the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the rules governing shipwrecks. State statutes and the common law regulating cultural property are also reviewed.
Taught in Concord by Ricardo A. St. Hilaire, Esq. 3 credits.
Friday, December 2: 4 – 10 p.m.
Saturday, December 3: 10 a.m. – 4 p.m.
Friday, December 9: 6 – 9 p.m.
Saturday, December 10: 10 a.m. – 4 p.m.
Friday, December 16: 4 – 10 p.m.
Saturday, December 17: all day (field trip to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)
Friday, December 23: 6 – 9 p.m.

THE RURAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT: ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE – Online Course
This course uses the rural countryside as a laboratory to examine the cultural landscape. It will trace the impact of natural, cultural, economic, and technological forces on the “built” environment. The course studies the evolution of buildings and their settings, with emphasis on settlement and rural industrialization. Subjects to be discussed include the evolution of architectural styles and construction techniques, town planning and land division, the evolution of transportation and the harnessing of water power. Although the course will use specific locales as examples, it is intended to instill general principles by which any human landscape can be examined and interpreted in relationship to natural resources and human culture.
Taught entirely online by Benoni Amsden, PhD, Center for Rural Partnerships, PSU. 3 credits.
Sessions being January 6 and end February 16, 2012. Two self-directed field trips are required.

***

To learn more about PSU’s Certificate in Historic Preservation, visit http://www.plymouth.edu/graduate/siteindex/#h and click on “Historic Preservation Certificate”
or contact Dr. Stacey Yap, program coordinator, at staceyy@plymouth.edu, (603) 535-2333.

**Please feel free to forward this information to your networks**

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Antiquities Trafficking: A US-Egyptian Agreement in the Works?

2011-10-23T08:35:00.002-04:00

Egypt is to sign an agreement with the United States to combat antiquities trafficking, according to a report in Ahram Online today. See the story at http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/24873/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/New-strategy-to-prevent-illegal-trade-in-Egyptian-.aspx.

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.

CPAC Public Comments Start to Pour In on Bulgaria's Request for Cultural Heritage Import Protections under the CPIA

2011-10-21T12:47:00.009-04:00

The public comment period has begun regarding the Bulgarian government's request for cultural property protections by the United States. The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) meets on November 16, 2011 to consider the matter—as well as a similar request by the government of Belize—for import protections pursuant to the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA).

Ancient coin collectors this week actively have been submitting comments to CPAC, appearing to have responded to listserv calls to contact the committee in opposition to the Bulgarian request. Few electronic comments in support have been filed. Most comments thus far are from individuals as opposed to institutions.

As of this writing, 44 total public submissions have been made (UPDATE: 216 submissions as of October 26, 2011; 421 submissions as of midday November 2, 2011; 504 as of November 3, 2011 after the November 2 deadline), largely voicing opposition to protections covering ancient coins. Three sample comments in opposition and one sample comment in support appear below:

“Although assistance should be given to Bulgaria to restrict the import of specific types of antiquities that can only have originated in that country, coins should not be included. . . . There is no way to tell if a coin was found in Bulgaria or some other Mediterranean country, and the claim that all such coins are property of Bulgaria is not supported by law or common sense. . . . Yours sincerely, Jeffrey Spier Fellow, American Numismatic Society.”

“I am very passionate about: collecting Roman Imperial and Greek coins. I am very troubled by restrictions on collecting that would kill my hobby. This is much more than hobby. Yes I collect coins. I am also preserving history and sharing it with school children during classmate presentations. There are billions of pre - 1600 coins. These are not rare pieces. They are found in lots of 1000 . . . .”-David Hunt

“Bulgaria wants to restrict exporting antiquities (such as the coins?) that are already spread around the world and are not very valuable to begin with? Really?! Come on; don't go there! It's just silly...” –Col Dupont, C L Dupont Ancient Coin Jewelry

“I write in full support of Bulgaria's recent request that the US accepts the petition, to help the country protecting its great heritage. It is a mystery to me how one should officially legitimate cases like the one very recent, were (sic) 21,000 objects have left Bulgaria illegally, were shipped half across the world to end up in North America. Thousands of objects would have ended up on the market, sold by those who make private profit with the heritage of another country while not respecting Bulgarian laws as well as not respecting American laws relating to stolen property. In 1992, some 5,000 icons were disappearing in one single year from Bulgaria. Bulgaria's request should get full support. . . .” –Nagel Alexander, Smithsonian Institution

Mr. Alexander’s comment appears to reference the June 2011 return by Canada of 21,000 illegally imported ancient coins, jewelry, and cultural artifacts and seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in November 2008. The Canadian government observed in a June 10, 2011 press release marking the repatriation of the cultural objects: “These objects, many of which were illegally excavated, cover more than 2600 years of the history of Bulgaria. This collection includes more than 18,000 coins, as well as a number of artifacts including bronze eagles, rings, pendants, belt buckles, arrows and spearheads, and bone sewing needles. They represent a mix of Hellenistic, Roman, Macedonian, Byzantine, Bulgarian, and Ottoman cultural heritage.” Access the full press release at http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/infoCntr/cdm-mc/index-eng.cfm?action=doc&DocIDCd=CR110217.

Recently, the Archaeological Institute of America issued a call to action on its web site, posting "Support the preservation of Belizean and Bulgarian archaeological heritage by writing a letter to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee urging them to create bilateral agreements with Belize and Bulgaria!" http://archaeological.org/CPAC

Those wishing to submit public comment can go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=DOS-2011-0115-0001. Comments should address the so-called “four determinations” under the CPIA. Quoting the statute, the four determinations are:

(A) [whether] the cultural patrimony of the State Party is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials of the State Party;

(B) [whether] the State Party has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony;

(ii) remedies less drastic than the application of the restrictions set forth in such section are not available; and

_____________

Photo of Thracian rhtyon used pursuant to Creative Commons permission: The Panagyurishte Treasure, October 2009, author http://www.flickr.com/photos/sitomon/.

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Custer Battlefield Museum Lawsuit Against Federal Agents Dismissed in District Court

2011-10-20T00:01:00.004-04:00

While a September 30, 2011 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may have breathed life into Christopher Kortlander’s challenges to the government (see October 19, 2011 blog entry), the US District Court for the District of Montana closed a door on the Custer Battlefield Museum owner and operator by dismissing his lawsuit against multiple federal agents. Kortlander argued that his rights were violated as a result of law enforcement raids that resulted in no criminal charges against him.

In a September 12, 2011 opinion, Judge Richard Cebull dismissed Kortlander’s claims saying they either violated the statute of limitations, were “implausible,” or “frivolous.” The court entered the dismissal with prejudice, meaning the matter could not be brought forward again. The reason given was “futility alone.”

The federal investigation began into Kortlander and the museum after “the Bureau of Land Management Office of Law Enforcement and Security began receiving complaints that Kortlander was selling artifacts on Ebay that he claimed were recovered from the Little Big Horn battlefield,” according to the district court opinion. The investigation broadened to include potential illegal activity involving eagle parts. Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife took the lead in the investigation, and the agencies gathered information that led to the issuance of two court authorized search warrants in 2005 and 2008. The prosecution decided in 2009 not to pursue indictments.

See the district court’s full opinion at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/montana/mtdce/1:2010cv00155/38767/34/.

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Ninth Circuit Sends Custer Battlefield Museum Case Back to Lower Court - Lawsuit Seeks Unfettered Public Access to Search Warrant Affidavits

2011-10-19T15:00:00.002-04:00

With no charges filed in a case targeting the Custer Battlefield Museum in Montana, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that sealed search warrants and affidavits may be accessible to the public. Law enforcement officers from the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies searched the museum in 2005 and 2008. Court records reveal that the investigation focused on attempts to sell migratory bird parts as well as misrepresentation of provenance surrounding the sale of cultural artifacts.

Christopher Kortlander, owner and operator of the museum, has complained in lawsuits and public statements that the law enforcement raids were excessive and that he was unfairly targeted. As a result, he made seven Freedom of Information Act requests for investigative information regarding himself, Historical Rarities, Inc., Elizabeth Custer Museum and Library, Inc., Custer Battlefield Museum, and local stores. In 2010, Kortlander requested copies of search warrant affidavits. These affidavits normally contain the details of a police investigation.

The US Attorney’s Office in Montana eventually assented to the release of the material, but prosecutors urged the court, as reported in the Ninth Circuit opinion, to “’limit dissemination of the material to Kortlander’s personal review and/or for inclusion in any future court filings,” citing privacy interests of third parties.’ The government said: [C]oncerns have been raised that information collected by Kortlander may be posted on web sites. The Ninth Circuit has explained that ‘the privacy interests of the individuals identified in the warrants and supporting affidavits’ supports the conclusion that warrant-related material not be made available for public dissemination. Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 1989).’” (quoting the government’s legal brief).

The lower court originally sided with the government. The federal district court authorized the release of the documents to Kortlander in particular, but restricted them from further public view. The court of appeals, however, overruled the district court and sent the case back to the district court, ruling: “We hold that the public has a qualified common law right of access to warrant materials after an investigation has been terminated. . . . [T]he matter is remanded to the district court to reapply the common law standard to Kortlander’s request. We decline to decide whether the public has a qualified First Amendment right of access to warrant materials after an investigation has been terminated. In the event that the court denies Kortlander unrestricted access to the warrant materials under the common law, the court should decide in the first instance whether the First Amendment right applies to post-investigation warrant materials and, if so, whether Kortlander is entitled to unrestricted access under the First Amendment . . .”

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/09/30/10-30222.pdf.

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Congressional Recognition of National Archaeology Day

2011-10-18T21:47:00.001-04:00

In anticipation of National Archaeology Day to be held on October 22, 2011, Rep. Michael Capuano entered remarks into the Congressional Record that were received by CEO Peter Herdrich of the Archaeological Institute of America. AIA events celebrating National Archaeology Day can be found at http://www.archaeological.org/NAD/events.

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Recovery of Looted Egyptian Tomb Reliefs Leaves Unanswered Questions

2011-10-16T15:19:00.001-04:00

The ancient Egyptian tomb of Hetepka featured prominently in the widely publicized court cases against Frederick Schultz in the United States and Jonathan Toleley-Parry in Britain as well as in a related criminal case in Egypt. Schultz, Tokeley-Parry, Ali Farag, Toutori Farag, Andrew May, and Mark Parry were all convicted during the late 1990's and early 2000's for their roles in an international antiquities trafficking scheme. That is why Ahram Online’s October 15, 2011 report that two looted limestone reliefs from Hetepka's tomb were “newly recovered” by the Egyptian Tourism and Antiquities Police is noteworthy.

Hetepka served as a royal hairdresser during the pyramid age, and modern-day looters dismembered and destroyed his tomb located at Saqqara. Police eventually found some of the tomb artifacts in Tokeley-Perry’s possession in England, but did not recover all the items that were looted. Ahram Online’s report suggests that the newly recovered reliefs are part of the original cultural objects that went missing from the tomb.

News of the recovery raises many questions:

• On what date and under what circumstances were the reliefs found?

• What information, and from what source(s), led the Egyptian Tourism and Antiquities Police to the reliefs?

• Where exactly were the reliefs found and under what circumstances?

• Whose possession were they in?

• What other items, if any, were also found?

• How are these reliefs related to items that may have been stolen from the tomb recently. Recall that former point-man for Egyptian antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, referenced the Hetepka tomb when discussing his resignation on his blog at http://www.drhawass.com/blog/why-dr-hawass-resigned, saying: “The group now in charge of the protection of these sites is the Tourist Police, but there are no Tourist Police to do this either. Therefore, what happens? Egyptian criminals, thieves (you know, in every revolution bad people always appear…), have begun to destroy tombs. They damaged the tomb of Hetep-ka at Saqqara . . . . They attacked a storage magazine at Saqqara and we do not yet know how many artifacts are missing . . . . People have begun to build houses and to excavate at night, everywhere, putting heritage sites all over the country at risk.”

• Ahram Online reports that the recovered Hetepka reliefs were stolen in 1986. How is this known by the news outlet, especially since prior investigative information revealed that Hetepka’s tomb had been plundered in 1991?

Ahram Online’s report is conspicuously vague. You can read the article at http://english.ahram.org.eg/~/NewsContent/9/40/24162/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/Two-reliefs-stolen-from-Hetepka-tomb-found.aspx.

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

CPAC Will Meet to Review Cultural Property Protection Requests by Bulgaria and Belize

2011-10-14T09:59:00.001-04:00

The Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) will next meet in Washintgon, DC at the US Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street, NW on November 16, 2011 from 9:00 a.m. to noon. CPAC will consider requests by Bulgaria and Belize for American import restrictions on cultural objects pursuant to the Cultural Property Implementation Act. The meeting is open to the public, but a reservation must be made. Anyone wishing to provide public comment must submit a request and a written text by November 2. Contact the Cultural Heritage Center of the Department of State at (202) 632-6301.

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Art on Temporary Loan from Foreign Lenders - Immunity from Seizure and the Brogan Museum

2011-10-13T00:10:00.008-04:00

According to a story published in The New York Times on October 11, 2011, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Florida requested that the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Florida retain a painting on loan from Italy while it is determined whether Girolamo Romano’s “Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue” was unlawfully taken from a Jewish family during World War II. The news article suggests that a federal immunity law might have been used by the museum to protect the artwork from any possible seizure.

Because the information presented by newspaper could be misconstrued—as noted by some members of the American Bar Association’s Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee—it is worth discussing what the federal law is and how it works.

Congress passed a statute in 1965 entitled Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display (22 USC § 2459). Lawmakers wished to promote the importation of fine art for the benefit of Americans by encouraging foreign art lenders to feel confident that their cultural works would not become entangled in litigation once on American soil. The statute protects from judicial seizure imported objects of cultural significance intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition. The law prevents a civil litigant from seizing temporarily imported fine art to satisfy a judgment in a lawsuit, for example.

The immunity protecting an object of cultural significance is not automatic, which is why museums that accept foreign art on temporary loan should always consider applying for it. Any immunity that is granted is specific to the artwork; the immunity does not apply broadly to the museum as the Times article reports.

In order to acquire this immunity for an artwork, a museum should submit an application to the US Department of State at least six weeks prior to its importation. The application should contain ten pieces of information that include a description of the item covered, its provenance, its exhibition location, a description of the object’s cultural significance, and a description of why the temporary exhibition is in the national interest. By Executive Order 12047, the President of the United States has authorized the Director of the US Information Agency “(1) to determine that any work of art or other object to be imported into the United States within the meaning of the Act is of cultural significance, (2) to determine that the temporary exhibition or display of any such work of art or other object in the United States is in the national interest, and (3) to cause public notices of the determinations referred to above to be published in the Federal Register.” The USIA director must consult with the Secretary of State and may consult with others, including the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and the Director of the National Gallery of Art.

For the Brogan Museum to have taken advantage of seizure immunity for the Romano painting, it would have had to apply for it.

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/arts/design/for-florida-museum-dispute-over-romano-painting-is-a-boon.html?_r=1&src=recg

Photo of the Brogan Museum permitted to be used under Creative Commons license.
Description: Tallahassee FL Brogan MOAS01.jpg
Tallahassee, Florida: The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science
Date: 24 May 2011(2011-05-24), 14:10:25
Source: Own work
Author: Ebyabe

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Ancient Egyptian Relief from Abusir Recovered

2011-10-12T10:01:00.001-04:00

A February 1, 2011 post on this blog spoke about the conflicting reports out of Egypt regarding looting at Abusir. The government reported that the area was safe, while other information suggested otherwise. Now there is information from Ahram Online of the following:

"On Tuesday [October 11, 2011], the Egyptian Tourism and Antiquities Police succeeded in recovering an ancient Egyptian limestone relief which had been reported missing during the chaos that followed the January 25 Revolution.

The relief, which was discovered by the Czech archaeological mission in Abusir, was one metre tall and 60 centimetres wide. It depicted four walking geese with a hieroglyphic text.

Atef Abul Dahab, head of the ancient Egyptian department at the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), told Ahram Online that the relief was one amongst those that were looted from the Abusir storage, following the lack of security after the events in January."

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Third Annual National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition

2011-10-11T08:38:00.001-04:00

The following announcement is passed along. Law students are encouraged to participate in this meaningful and challenging competition:

"The DePaul University Moot Court Team and the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation invite you to participate in the Third Annual National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition in Chicago, Illinois. This year’s competition will be held 24-25 February 2012 at the Everett McKinley Dirksen Federal Courthouse, home of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Competition has been a great success in the past and judges have included distinguished academics, practitioners, and active judges. This year we are proud to welcome Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit to our final round judging panel.

Cultural heritage law deals with our most prized possessions and spans beyond national borders; it has become the subject of contentious legal debates and policies. This dynamic and growing legal field deals with the issues that arise as our society comes to appreciate the important symbolic, historical and emotional role that cultural heritage plays in our lives. It encompasses several areas of law: protection of archaeological sites; preservation of historic structures and the built environment; preservation of and respect for both the tangible and intangible indigenous cultural heritage; the international market in art works and antiquities; and recovery of stolen art works.

The 2012 problem will address two issues concerning the Theft of Major Artwork Act (18 U.S.C. § 668). The first focuses on Congress’ Article I, Section 8 authority to regulate interstate commerce and the second on statutory interpretation of the Act.

We would love to see your school participate in the competition this Spring. Registration is now open and applications will be accepted until November 11th.

Additional information about the registration process is available on our website at law.depaul.edu/chmoot, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Competition committee anytime at chmoot@gmail.com."

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Historical Documents Returned to UVM - Documents Linked to Indicted Pair - Library Loss Prevention Recommended

2011-10-06T19:47:00.009-04:00

The University of Vermont (UVM) has recovered historical documents that disappeared from its library. The Burlington Free Press reports on October 4, 2011 that 67 documents were returned to UVM after officials at the National Archives in Washington, DC reported that they had the papers in their possession. “The papers were found after investigators recovered hundreds of items from Barry Landau, 63, who with Jason Savedoff, 24, is accused of conspiring to steal rare documents to sell at a profit, according to government allegations,” the Burlingotn Free Press writes. Source: http://www.blogger.com/www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20111004/NEWS0213/111004005/-1/NEWS/Federal-probe-finds-missing-UVM-documents

A federal grand jury in Maryland handed up a two count indictment on July 28, 2011 against the pair, charging them with Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Major Artwork and Theft of Major Artwork. The indictment alleges that the co-defendants stole from the H. Furlong Baldwin Library at the Maryland Historical Society, the New York Historical Society, and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum in Hyde Park, New York. The indictment also asserts that they took dozens of items in order to sell, including historical documents of FDR, a letter from Benjamin Franklin to John Paul Jones, and a land grant signed by Abraham Lincoln. An indictment is not a finding of guilt.

In order to secure a conviction of Theft of Major Artwork under 18 USC 668, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants “did steal and obtain by fraud from the care, custody, and control of a museum objects of cultural heritage.” An object of “cultural heritage” is defined by law as one that is under 100 years old and valued at $100,000 or more or an object that is over 100 years old and valued at $5000 or more.

The latest development in the case is a petition filed by Landau to sell assets. The motion, filed on September 23, 2011, asks the court for permission to sell antiques, letters, jewelry, art (including two Andy Warhol prints) so that Landau can raise money to pay for day-to-day expenses. Landau is under court order to not to sell assets without judicial authorization. See a further update on this recent filing at http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-07/news/bs-md-landau-asset-sale-20111007_1_barry-h-landau-warhol-print-andy-warhol.

10/25/11 UPDATE: The court granted Landau's motion .

One inexpensive way to help prevent the loss of irreplaceable documents is to maintain historic documents in closed stacks. When a patron requests particular information, a librarian or staff member can obtain the materials in limited quantities (such as three items at a time) and place them at the patron’s table. Some institutions may feel comfortable asking for the patron’s ID, some may not. Regardless, a librarian or staff member should always be visible to the patron and should retrieve the items when the patron is finished, making an inventory of the items. A process like this one can be part of an effective loss-prevention program because it compels a patron to interact with a librarian or staff member directly so that the patron knows he or she has been identified, allows for the librarian or staff member to observe the patron for any signs of suspicion, permits the institution to control the quantity of materials provided to a patron at any one time, and allows for a librarian or staff member to ensure that the materials retrieved are the same ones returned. There are other methods that a certified insitutional risk management consultant can suggest.

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Stolen Art Repatriated to Poland Following Default Judgment in U.S. v. One Julian Falat Painting Entitled “Off to the Hunt” and One Julian Falat Painting Entitled “The Hunt”

2011-10-04T08:41:00.004-04:00

U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York repatriated two Julian Falat paintings on September 22, transferring them to President Bronisław Komorowski of Poland in a ceremony held at the Polish Consulate in New York. American and Polish officials said that the Nazis stole “The Hunt” and “Off to the Hunt” from Warsaw’s Polish National Museum during the era of World War II.

In 2006, the Polish government found the paintings at two auction houses in New York, which removed them from sale when notified. Authorities acquired the paintings this past August after a federal district court in Manhattan entered a default judgment in the U.S. government’s favor. Federal officials then turned the paintings over to Poles.

"No one can ever provide just compensation to the victims of the Nazis' atrocities, but it is very gratifying for our office to play a role in returning the art that they looted during World War II to its rightful owners," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in a statement. "After 60 years, these national treasures will finally be returned to the Polish Government—a repatriation that would not have been possible without their help."

The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed an in rem forfeiture action against the paintings on December 13, 2010 in order to acquire the artworks. (In a court proceeding for civil forfeiture, the defendant is the property, not a person.) In its complaint, the prosecution alleged that there was probable cause for forfeiture. Assistant US Attorney Kan Nawaday specifically described how “Off to the Hunt” was removed from the National Museum without its frame during World War II. A frame for the artwork originally contained an inked inventory mark, the number 345, when the Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts in Warsaw placed it there in 1904. The frame survives. “The Hunt,” meanwhile, was also transferred to the National Museum when the German SS confiscated the painting. A catalog record and photograph of the artwork still exists.

The Polish government published a catalog of looted art in 1951 following the Second World War. It described both paintings. Since 1989, the Polish government continued to post the loss of “Off to the Hunt” and “The Hunt” on the internet. The paintings surfaced when Christie’s and Doyle New York, respectively, offered them for auction.

The federal complaint explained that an HSI agent spoke with the consignor of “Off to the Hunt,” whose name was supplied to the Polish government by Christie’s. The consignor had no purchase records and no import paperwork, according to the complaint. Additionally, HSI’s own search of customs records could not find any information related to the import.

HSI was also in contact with the attorney for the consignor of “The Hunt.” The federal complaint described how HSI “spoke with employees of Doyle . . . who informed them that the consignor . . . had brought the painting in for appraisal unframed and wrapped in an old sheet. Additionally . . . employees advised that [the consignor] had provided conflicting stories about how she came in possession of the painting.” HSI itself could find no importation records relating to the painting, according to court papers.

The federal forfeiture complaint stated that each Falat painting was valued at $50,000.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office argued that the paintings could be lawfully forfeited under four alternative legal theories. First, the works of art could be forfeited under 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C) because they were proceeds arising from a violation(s) of the National Stolen Property Act. Second, they could be forfeited under 19 USC 1497(a)(1) because there was no declaration of entry made on any customs form when imported into the United States. Third, they could be forfeited pursuant to 19 USC 1595a(C)(1)(a) because there was probable cause to believe that they were imported in violation of the federal smuggling law or the National Stolen Property Act. Fourth, the paintings could be forfeited because there was “probable cause to believe that they were brought to the United States contrary to law, the possessors of the Defendant Paintings [were] aware that they were stolen and are attempting to offer the Defendant Paintings for sale . . . .”

The government won its case by default after the paintings’ possessors failed to contest the forfeiture complaint. The court granted judgment on August 3, 2011.

"Those paintings are two magnificent and very important pieces of art," said Bogdan Zdrojewski, minister of culture and national heritage of Poland. "If you think about all the Falat paintings, these two are definitely the most interesting and most valuable ones," the minister was quoted as saying in a September 22, 2011 ICE press release.

But at least one of the paintings is not one that the Nazis looted, according to assertions made in a July 1, 2011 letter and attachments sent to the federal court by the possessor of “Off to the Hunt.” She wrote that “a technical analysis of my painting put[s] into severe doubt that my painting and [the Polish government’s] lost painting were one and the same.” She objected to the “far-from-thorough ICE investigation and . . . U.S. Civil laws designed to trap criminals and not good-faith possessors of disputed objects . . .” She also wrote of her inability to enlist her insurer or an affordable attorney to help defend the court action.

In letters addressed to NY Senator Charles Schumer dated June 23 and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated June 27 (both contained in the public court file) the possessor made a variety of statements, including the following:

• she was the daughter of a Holocaust survivor,

• she inherited “Off to the Hunt” from her father who bought it in Paris before transporting it to the USA in 1948,

• the “lost painting and mine are two originals by the same painter,” and

• it was improper for the government to imply that she and/or her father may have been “bad faith” possessors of the work.

HSI Executive Associate Director James Dinkins, meanwhile, said in a September 2011 press statement that his agency was “deeply gratified to be able to return these cherished paintings that were taken from the people of Poland so long ago.”

Photo courtesy of ICE.

Contact: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

New Head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities Appointed

2011-10-02T09:57:00.001-04:00

Dr. Mustafa Amin has been appointed as Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA). Amin headed the Islamic archaeology department at the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) before replacing Mohammed Abdel Fattah, who resigned last week.

Youm7 English Edition reported that “Abdel Fattah had said that a series of pickets by employees had led to the closure of several of the council's buildings in Cairo and left the institution ‘paralyzed.’” There have been many strikes in the last few months by workers seeking better pay and working conditions.

Ahram Online said that Amin “met with protestors camped in front of the SCA’s Abassiya building for four days,” reporting that “4065 temporary employees will be immediately appointed to be followed by more appointments until the almost 12,000 temporary employees are all made permanent. The protestors were convinced and promised to end their protest.”

"[H]e promises to complete the SCA’s mega projects such as the Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) overlooking the Giza Plateau, the National Museum of Egyptian Civilisation (NMEC), as well as removing all encroachment at Al-Muizz Street and at Sphinxes Avenue in Luxor in order to reopen it soon.”

“Amine said that his first decisions as SCA secretary general were to appoint former secretary general Mohamed Abdel Fatah as the head of the NMEC Supreme Committee, and Adel Abdel Satar to head the Islamic and Coptic Antiquities Department. Amine was formerly head of that department.”

Earlier in the week, Al-Ahram Weekly reported the following:
“In Aswan the situation was worse. Protesters closed the doors of Nubia Museum and Abu Simbel temples and prevented members of World Tourism Day from paying a visit to both sites. Atef Abul-Dahab, head of the Ancient Egyptian Antiquities Department, told Al-Ahram Weekly that upon his arrival to the building, more than 4,000 archaeologists were blocking the entrance, waving placards calling for a bigger budget to meet their demands. Abul-Dahab said that in response to the protest, ‘we called the police and the military police to enable the staff to enter the building and proceed with their work.’ But, he continued, protesters refused to budge without their demands being met, including appointing 14,000 temporary employees whose period of work exceeds eight years.

…

‘They threw me in a bad spot,’ Abdel-Fattah told the Weekly. He said he cannot solve any problem concerning the SCA staff for the time being because it involves the SCA's lack of a budget and little financial resources. ‘How can I appoint the temporary staff and fresh graduates when I don't have enough money?’ Abdel-Fattah asked."

Sources:
http://english.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=345893&SecID=97&IssueID=149
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1066/eg10.htm
http://english.ahram.org.eg/~/NewsContent/9/40/23109/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/New-antiquities-head,-new-plan,-protestors-satisfi.aspx

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.

Massachusetts Court Dismisses Rubin v. Government of Iran v. Boston MFA and Harvard

2011-09-29T18:04:00.003-04:00

A Massachusetts federal court has ruled that the Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University will not lose their collection of ancient Persian objects to eight plaintiffs injured in a 1997 terrorist bombing. The United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, issued a five page opinion on September 15, 2011 denying the plaintiffs’ efforts to gain control over the artifacts to satisfy their multi-million dollar court judgment against the government of Iran.

Jenny Rubin and several other Americans were injured in Jerusalem after Hamas carried out three bombings. Because the terrorist group received backing from Iran, the eight plaintiffs sued the government of Iran in federal district court in Washington, DC, winning a $71.5 million default award after the Iranian government failed to show up to court. Since then, the plaintiffs have sought to recover that judgment.

The government of Iran would not be expected to pay the court award, so the plaintiffs searched for local Iranian assets to seize. One place they looked was Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts, where museums housed artifacts excavated from ancient Iran. The plaintiffs initiated a court action--known as an attachment--against the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Harvard, the Harvard University Art Museums, the Busch-Reisinger Museum, the Fogg Art Museum, the Sackler Museum, the Semitic Museums, and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. But the judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in his recent court order.

District Court Judge George O’Toole ruled that the plaintiffs could pursue their attachment action under the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 so long as they could prove, under Massachusetts state law, that Iran owned the artifacts in the museums. But the plaintiffs could not supply this proof. Judge O’Toole wrote: “In the present case, the plaintiffs have not shown that the ‘goods, effects, or credits’ at issue here are property ‘of the defendant’ Iran." He added that “[d]espite extensive discovery, the plaintiffs are unable to sustain their burden of showing that any particular item held by the Museums is the property of Iran . . . . It is not enough simply to show that antiquities held by the Museums originated from sites within Iran.”

The court highlighted that the plaintiffs failed to prove that an Iranian cultural patrimony law declared ownership of the artifacts. Judge O’Toole wrote: “For example, the so-called ‘1930 Law’ [the plaintiffs’] cite does not automatically vest ownership of excavated antiquities in the government of Iran. In the first place, the 1930 Law does not on its face purport to vest ownership of excavated antiquities in the government. Moreover, the 1930 Law clearly contemplates that antiquities may be owned by private persons. . . . Additionally, other courts have concluded that the 1930 Law permits private ownership and is inconsistent with automatic government ownership of all antiquities originating from Iran.”

The court struck down the plaintiffs’ further argument that an Iranian civil law, Article 26 of its 1928 Civil Code, makes the artifacts government property. The opinion declared that [t]he plaintiffs have not shown that any of the antiquities now held by the Museums were at the time of removal from Iran ‘Government property . . . in use for the service of the public or the profit of the state.’ The necessary conclusion cannot be drawn simply from the fact that the items are the products of archeological explorations that were conducted in Iran . . . .”

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that antiquities from Persepolis were the property of the Iranian government. The court ruled that “[t]he plaintiffs’ specific argument that items taken from the ruins of the ancient city of Persepolis cannot be privately owned is also not persuasive. The legal argument relies heavily on Article 26 which . . . does not support a generalized conclusion that excavated items necessarily belonged to the government of Iran. The plaintiffs point to texts suggesting that foreign excavators unlawfully took items from Persepolis. Even if that is true as an historical matter, it does not get the plaintiffs where they need to go. As a general matter, establishing that a particular item was unlawfully exported or removed from Iran is not equivalent to showing that it now should be regarded as property of Iran subject to levy and execution. And as a particular matter, the plaintiffs simply are unable to establish that any item in the possession of the Museums, whether from Persepolis or elsewhere, is rightly considered to be the property of Iran.”

The case in the Massachusetts district court is now at an end. Any appeal would be filed in the First Circuit federal court.

Contact information may be found at http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.