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

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/.

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.

ACCG Files Appellate Brief in Baltimore Coin Case

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/.

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.

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Immigration and E-Verify

A recent article in Businesweek, A Verification System for New Hires Backfires makes clear just how complex the immigration issue is.

The story of one flower grower's attempt to utilize E-Verify, the national registration system that allows an employer to check on worker's eligibility (after they are hired) has made it very difficult to staff his green houses, particularly during the spring growing season. Even accounting for some hyperbole his quote is fairly chilling: "Those who want to work fail to pass E-Verify, and those that pass fail to work."

The system, now utilized by about 5% of America's employers according to the article, would be mandatory if a bill, H.R. 2885 introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (actually my congressman) were to become law. If you want to check out the E-Verify website for yourself, go here.

The bill has been passed by the House Judiciary Committee, and is still pending in the House Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means. See here for Congressional action.

The stop in Ways and Means is not just an idle one, since according to a 2008 Congressional Budget report, a national mandate would cut federal tax revenue by more than 17 billion dollars (that's billion with a B).

Everyone knows that immigration is a major problem that actually needs a solution. And it seems to me to be area where the law of unintended consequences could be particularly relevant.

A hat tip to Kriss Dunn at [the hr capitalist] for his post, 99 Problems: E-Verify Ain't One ...

VOA Report: Afghan Archeologists Race Against Time to Find Treasures

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/.

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.

Savedoff Pleads Guilty to Stealing Historical Documents from Museums and Archives

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.

UPDATE 11/13/12: The court sentenced Savedoff to one year and one day in prison on November 9, 2012.

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

Detectives Working to Save Art and Cultural Heritage

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

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.