New Head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities Appointed

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

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/.

Workplace Violence Gains Formal OSHA Investigation Procedures

On September 8, OSHA issued Directive CPL 02-01-052, which for the first time establishes procedures for investigating workplace violence complaints.

Two industry groups get singled out for particular focus:

Healthcare and Social Service Settings

This category covers a broad spectrum of workers who provide healthcare and social services in psychiatric facilities, hospital emergency departments, community mental health clinics, drug abuse treatment clinics, pharmacies, community-care facilities, residential facilities and long-term care facilities. Workers in these fields include physicians, registered nurses, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, physicians’ assistants, nurses’ aides, therapists, technicians, public health nurses,  healthcare workers, social and welfare workers, security personnel, maintenance personnel and emergency medical care personnel.

Late-Night Retail Settings

This includes entities such as convenience stores, liquor stores and gas stations. Factors that put late-night retail employees at risk include the exchange of money, twenty-four hour operation, solo work, isolated worksites, the sale of alcohol and poorly-lit stores and parking areas.

In determining whether to conduct an investigation, OSHA personnel are to take into consideration known risk factors as identified by NIOSH; whether it is in one of the high risk industries identified by OSHA (see above) and whether feasible abatement methods exist to address the hazard(s).

There is no specific violence in the workplace standard, but there is the general duty clause, and the Directive mentions some other standards that might come into play:

• 29 CFR 1904 Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.
• 29 CFR 1910.151 Medical Services and First Aid.
• 29 CFR 1926.23 First Aid and Medical Attention
• 29 CFR 1926.35 Employee Emergency Action Plans

This Directive is a must reading for these two industries and for all those who are on your crises management team . (You do have a crises managment plan and team, don't you?)

ADA Cases Are No Longer Unwelcome in Plaintiff Counsel's Offices

Lynne Seabrook was working as an assistant registrar for Upper Iowa University focusing on its Malaysia campus when she was terminated in February 2009. She felt that the termination was because she had been diagnosed with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety.

Based on several conversations I have had in the last few months with attorneys who regularly represent employees, the most significant aspect of that scenario was that she was not terminated two months earlier. If she had been terminated in December, 2008, before the broad amendments to the Americans with Disabilites Act became effective, she might never have been the happy beneficiary of this headline from last week's WCF Courier,  Former UIU employee awarded $1.1M by civil jury.

Many of those attorneys I have talked with said while they formerly turned away ADA cases because they were such summary judgment targets, they were now giving them a much closer look.

Headlines and jury awards like this, will do nothing to discourage that view.

Suit By EEOC Not Covered Under EPLI Policy

It probably seemed like such a simple proposition. EEOC sues employer for sexual and racial harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge. Employer has an EPLI policy.

Big claims, big settlement -- $2,000,000 plus another $700,000 in legal fees.

No question but that all of the allegations are clearly covered under the policy.

But the definition of covered "claim"?  That was a different story. It read simple enough:

a civil, administrative or arbitration proceeding commenced by the service of a complaint or charge, which is brought by any past, present or prospective ‘employee(s).’

Since the underlying case settled, the law suit was between the employer and the EPLI carrier, who argued that the claim was not covered because it was not brought by a 'past, present or prospective employee.'

You know it is no longer a simple proposition, when the Court summarizes some of the arguments in this way:

In its Response to [the Insurance Company's] Motion,  [the Employer] elaborates that the use of a comma followed by the word “which” means that the qualifying phrase modifies only the subject that immediately precedes the comma – in this case, only to “complaint or charge.”  [The Employer] asserts that if [the Insurance Company] intended to require that the “proceeding” be brought by an employee, the entire phrase “commenced by the service of a complaint or charge” should have been offset with commas. 

Hard to believe, but it gets even worse when the Court goes on to note that what the Employer was really referring to was the grammar principle of the "last antecedent rule."

But the bottom line in the trial court -- no recovery as not covered by the policy. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Cincinatti Insurance Co., 3:07-cv-00303 (M.D. TN 8/11/11).  If you are the employer, that's a big ouch.

Two thoughts:

1. Given the dollar amount and the result, it is likely the 6th Circuit will get to weigh in on this decision;
2. In corporate risk departments right now, EPLI policies are being re-read and calls are being made to brokers making sure that suits brought by governmental entities on behalf of employees are covered.

Life is never as simple as it seems.

ACCG Files Notice of Appeal in Baltimore Coin Case

After having its case dismissed in August, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2011 in the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/11-2012/
A federal district court last month dismissed the ACCG's lawsuit, which challenged protective American import restrictions placed on Chinese and Cypriot ancient coins. The court ruled that the ACCG failed to make out a sufficient case. The ACCG started the test case when the organization brought 23 ancient coins to Baltimore on a transatlantic flight


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.

Khouli +3 Case Update: Search Warrant Affidavit Describes HSI Investigation

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) petitioned for a warrant on July 12, 2011 to search Salem Alshdaifat’s home-based business and seize “antique coins and[/]or other antiquities or any other works of art or cultural antiquities of Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, Islamic, European, Egyptian origin . . .” HSI also requested business records, correspondence, photos of merchandise, bank records, import records, and the like located at the home.

An HSI special agent applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for the warrant to search the home. That is the location where it is reported that Alshdaifat runs the ancient coins business called Holyland Numismatics. The affidavit, now unsealed, reveals further details about the antiquities smuggling investigation into Alshdaifat and three other co-defendants--Mousa Khouli, Ayman Ramadan, and Joseph A. Lewis, II.

It should be noted that a search warrant affidavit is a narrative that a law enforcement official or prosecutor supplies to a judge. It is meant to demonstrate the probable cause to believe that an object or thing is at a specified location and that it is probable evidence of a crime. Information contained in a search warrant affidavit may or may not be admitted as evidence at a trial. That is why an affidavit should not be read to form a conclusion of criminal guilt. Only a jury can decide whether there has been a violation of law, basing its decision only on legally admissible evidence.

In the present case, the federal agent’s affidavit called attention to several observations and actions of interest. For instance, the search warrant petition was filed following a review of Alshdaifat’s Yahoo! email account. Also reported were Alshdaifat’s alleged sale of ancient Egyptian artifacts in 2009 and his alleged importation of ancient coins in Detroit in 2010.

Writing in the July 2011 affidavit, the HSI special agent explained that a March 29, 2010 search warrant probe of “Alshdaifat’s e-mail records . . . confirm[] that he uses e-mail to communicate with sellers, purchasers, dealers and transporters of cultural property including stolen and/or smuggled cultural property.” A January 2009 email exchange was described where Alshdaifat allegedly offered a hoard of coins “[u]ncleaned at $4.5 each.” The email continued: “[T]he hoard came from Egypt and [is] now in Dubai[.] I asked my partner to ship directly from Dubai to you. [T]his hoard came from Banha, I think we bought coins that we sold you befor[e] from Banha, it is very big Roman city. [Y]ou can wire the funds to my bank account.”

The partner referred to is Ayman Ramadan of Nafertiti Eastern Sculptures Trading in Dubai (NEST). Alshdaifat referred to NEST as his Dubai office, and that “Ramadan ships antiquities from the UAE to Alshdaifat’s customers on Alshdaifsat’s behalf,” declared the affidavit.

A second email dated February 22, 2010 from Alshdaifat reportedly said:
“[F]or a hoard from Egypt this is real[l]y a[]lot :) , you got a small group[], we usually don[‘]t see them at all in Egypt, I was told today that they found in the same spot while they are making the hole bigger another group[] around 800 coins, they are still working in the area, I hope it will[] be bigger than what I think. [N]ext week I will get those 800 tog[e]ther with the 2000 coins. [I]t is much easy to sell uncleaned, I notice[e] that they already tried to clean some, but I told them to stop[.]”

The HSI investigating agent, without supplying specific details, added that Alshdaifat’s email account allegedly showed that he “has offered customers hoards of coins taken directly from Petra, Jordan and from Kyrene, Libya.”

Perhaps most directly related to the current federal indictment, the affidavit described allegations that Alshdaifat in May 2009 “offered a New York dealer a set of ancient Egyptian funerary boats and limestone figures for $40,000.” The New York dealer found a customer interested in purchasing these antiquities . . . and resold them to the customer for a higher price. Ramadan shipped the ancient boats and limestone figures to the New York dealer via mail from the UAE.” The shipping label said “antiques.”

On December 20, 2010, Alshdaifat carried coins through the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on his way back from Amman, Jordan, according to the affidavit. Customs reportedly seized the coins because Alshdaifat presented inconsistent sets of invoices during two separate airport inspections. The first invoice presented was from NEST to Holyland Numismatics for Byzantine gold coins and Byzantine gold tremissis coins totaling $234,875. The invoice stated that they originated from Syria, according to the affidavit. Alshdaifat then reportedly offered a second set of invoices listing Byzantine gold coins and Roman-Egyptian billion tetradrachms. When Alshdaifat returned later with two mail packages of similar coins in an attempt to convince federal authorities to release the detained coins, customs officials seized these packages too because they were without entry paperwork, declared the affidavit.

Federal agents staked out Alshdaifat’s home in June 2011. After seeing a “for sale” sign posted, two HSI agents posed as potential buyers of the house and entered the home with a real estate agent. Alshdaifat was at the residence at the time. The agents reportedly observed pictures of coins on Alshdaifat’s computer and as well as books about ancient coins and artifacts.

Based on this information, federal authorities applied for a search warrant of Alshdaifat’s Michigan home. That search warrant preceded the eventual multiple count indictment against Alshdaifat and the three named co-defendants on charges related to antiquities trafficking.

Photo courtesy of ICE.

Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com.