The ACCG has filed a claim of interest to a group of coins minted in China and Cyprus that were seized by US Customs back in 2009. By filing this pleading, the ACCG has placed the the government on notice that it intends to contest the forfeiture proceeding in Court. The ACCG now has twenty-one (21) days to respond to the government's forfeiture complaint.
Showing posts with label ACCG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACCG. Show all posts
Supreme Court Denies Cert.
Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly given the some 150 petitions before the Court at its last conference, the Supreme Court has denied the ACCG's petition for certiorari. (The Court granted certiorari in four cases, two of which were summarily sent back to the Second Circuit for consideration of a decision just issued this year.)
The Supreme Court's order has no precedential value, leaving the Fourth Circuit�s decision that the State Department's and U.S. Customs' decision-making is generally only subject to "political" rather than "judicial" review only applicable in that Circuit.
ACCG now plans to contest the forfeiture action the Fourth Circuit anticipates the Government will file against the coins the ACCG imported for purposes of its test case.
The test case is part of the ACCG's continuing effort to educate the public and government decision-makers about the damage overbroad restrictions have done to the ability of American collectors to legally import coins of the sort that remain widely available abroad, including in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and China.
In that regard, the latest post on the Chasing Aphrodite blog provides further discussion about the thinking behind the test case.
Labels:
ACCG,
ancient coins,
Import Restrictions,
State Department,
US Customs
No Joy in Cyprus
Whatever happens at the Supreme Court's conference on the ACCG test case this Friday, there will be no joy in Cyprus. Cypriot bank depositors are paying for the bad lending practices of its big banks, including the Bank of Cyprus. But serious questions have been raised about fairness. The little guy and the foreigner (mostly rich Russians) have been singled out while connected bondholders, sovereign debt holders and depositors in Greek operations in Cypriot banks have apparently gotten off the hook. Doesn't such cronyism and shady dealings "all for a good cause" sound all too familiar?
ACCG Petition for Cert. to be Considered Next Week
The Supreme Court will consider the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild's petition for certiorari at its March 22, 2013 conference. One should not read anything into the Government waiver of its right to respond to the Petition. CPO understands that this is standard operating procedure for the very busy Solicitor General's office.
Rewriting the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act
It's no surprise that Dr. Nathan Elkins-- one of the AIA's chief proponents of import restrictions on common historical coins of the sort collected worldwide-- claims that any coin type that circulated "predominantly" in a given country should be placed on the "designated list" for restrictions when it's easy for him to generalize that coins circulate "predominantly" where they are made.
But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more. Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).
The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.
The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted. The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.
The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market. In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites. That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.
But the governing statute, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, calls for much more. Assuming other statutory criteria are also met, it only authorizes seizure and forfeiture of artifacts "first discovered within and...subject to export control by" a given country. 19 U.S.C. Section 2601(2)(c).
The ACCG has indicated that the Government could comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA in either one or two ways: (1) establishing by undisputed scholarly evidence that the coins placed on the designated lists could only have been discovered in a given country for which import restrictions are granted and, hence, must be subject to their export controls; or (2) demonstrating by documentary evidence that any coins Customs seizes were in fact discovered in that country and, hence must be subject to that country's export controls.
The ACCG and others have offered scholarly evidence to suggest that ancient coins as a general rule circulated far from where they were minted. The fact that some (local bronze coins) typically circulated closer to home than others (precious metal coins and Imperial bronze issues) does not excuse the State Department's and U.S. Customs' efforts to ban coin imports based on place of production rather than s find spot.
The overbroad import bans Elkins and the AIA support threaten to cut off collector access to the vast majority of ancient coins openly available on the international market. In contrast, restrictions squarely linked to find spots are more narrowly tailored to deterring pillage of archaeological sites. That, of course, is the primary goal of the CPIA; not the furthering of nationalistic impulses that lay claim to any unprovenanced coin as the presumptive state property of the AIA's allies in foreign cultural bureaucracies.
Labels:
ACCG,
AIA,
ancient coins,
bureaucracy,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
Nationalism,
State Department,
US Customs
Presidential Power: From Drones to Drachms
What issues link President Obama's drone war with the ACCG's cert petition to the Supreme Court? Find out in Michael McCullough's latest post, Presidential Power: From Drones to Drachms. It's well worth a read.
Law 360: Justices Asked To Hear Imported Coin Seizure Case
Law360, a well-known legal news service published this report on the ACCG case by Helen Christophi :
Law360, Los Angeles (February 15, 2013, 4:40 PM ET) -- The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to reinstate its suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies over the seizure of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins after the Fourth Circuit tossed it over foreign policy concerns.
The guild filed a petition arguing for a reversal of the Fourth Circuit's October decision dismissing its suit claiming ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins couldn't be traced to illicit excavations in either country, saying foreign policy concerns shouldn't undermine the law as it had in the lower court's ruling.
�The ACCG has raised serious questions concerning whether foreign policy concerns trump judicial review where Congress has imposed significant procedural and substantive constraints on executive authority to restrict the ability of American citizens to import common cultural goods widely sold worldwide,� Peter Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, an attorney for the ACCG, said.
The case, originally lodged in Maryland federal court in February 2010, followed the seizure of more than 20 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins the ACCG imported from London in 2009. The guild argued that it should not be assumed that a coin was stolen or illegally shipped because the owner was unable to show a chain of custody beyond a receipt from a reputable source.
But the government countered that no judicial review of the plaintiff's claims was available and that even if it was, the ACCG had not stated a claim for relief.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake granted the government's dismissal bid, and said that actions taken pursuant to delegated presidential authority under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act weren't subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Fourth Circuit in October threw out the ACCG's suit on appeal, saying that anything but the most basic review of the Federal Register and the district court opinion for procedural compliance �would draw the judicial system too heavily and intimately into negotiations between the Department of State and foreign countries,� according to the guild's Tuesday petition.
Congress enacted the CPIA in 1983, authorizing the president to enter agreements with other countries to limit the importation of objects of archaeological interest and cultural significance.
The U.S. signed off on such deals with Cyprus and China in July 2007 and January 2009, respectively, limiting the importation of ancient coins minted in the countries.
In its petition, the ACCG argued that the high court should verify that lower courts must apply a �political question� test when a party attempts to dismiss a case over foreign policy considerations.
�The court should grant the petition because the lower court's ruling ignores this court's test for 'political questions' and is directly at odds with case law in sister circuits,� the petition said.
The ACCG also contended that the court must clarify its own decisions on judicial review regarding the delegation of presidential authority to government agencies, saying that the imposition by Customs, rather than the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, of import restrictions on some coins put into question what the proper standard of review is.
Finally, the group asserted that the various courts' refusal to review import restrictions harms American museums, collectors and small businesses that trade ancient coins.
"The importance of these issues to the continued access of American citizens and institutions to ancient coins and other artifacts as 'hands-on' mediums of cultural exchange and understanding also argue for this court to take this matter up,� the petition said.
Representatives for Customs could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
The ACCG is represented by Peter K. Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.
The case is Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., case number 12-996, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Law360, Los Angeles (February 15, 2013, 4:40 PM ET) -- The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to reinstate its suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other agencies over the seizure of ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins after the Fourth Circuit tossed it over foreign policy concerns.
The guild filed a petition arguing for a reversal of the Fourth Circuit's October decision dismissing its suit claiming ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins couldn't be traced to illicit excavations in either country, saying foreign policy concerns shouldn't undermine the law as it had in the lower court's ruling.
�The ACCG has raised serious questions concerning whether foreign policy concerns trump judicial review where Congress has imposed significant procedural and substantive constraints on executive authority to restrict the ability of American citizens to import common cultural goods widely sold worldwide,� Peter Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, an attorney for the ACCG, said.
The case, originally lodged in Maryland federal court in February 2010, followed the seizure of more than 20 ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins the ACCG imported from London in 2009. The guild argued that it should not be assumed that a coin was stolen or illegally shipped because the owner was unable to show a chain of custody beyond a receipt from a reputable source.
But the government countered that no judicial review of the plaintiff's claims was available and that even if it was, the ACCG had not stated a claim for relief.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake granted the government's dismissal bid, and said that actions taken pursuant to delegated presidential authority under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act weren't subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Fourth Circuit in October threw out the ACCG's suit on appeal, saying that anything but the most basic review of the Federal Register and the district court opinion for procedural compliance �would draw the judicial system too heavily and intimately into negotiations between the Department of State and foreign countries,� according to the guild's Tuesday petition.
Congress enacted the CPIA in 1983, authorizing the president to enter agreements with other countries to limit the importation of objects of archaeological interest and cultural significance.
The U.S. signed off on such deals with Cyprus and China in July 2007 and January 2009, respectively, limiting the importation of ancient coins minted in the countries.
In its petition, the ACCG argued that the high court should verify that lower courts must apply a �political question� test when a party attempts to dismiss a case over foreign policy considerations.
�The court should grant the petition because the lower court's ruling ignores this court's test for 'political questions' and is directly at odds with case law in sister circuits,� the petition said.
The ACCG also contended that the court must clarify its own decisions on judicial review regarding the delegation of presidential authority to government agencies, saying that the imposition by Customs, rather than the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, of import restrictions on some coins put into question what the proper standard of review is.
Finally, the group asserted that the various courts' refusal to review import restrictions harms American museums, collectors and small businesses that trade ancient coins.
"The importance of these issues to the continued access of American citizens and institutions to ancient coins and other artifacts as 'hands-on' mediums of cultural exchange and understanding also argue for this court to take this matter up,� the petition said.
Representatives for Customs could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
The ACCG is represented by Peter K. Tompa of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.
The case is Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., case number 12-996, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
1,000th Post: ACCG Files Petition for Cert.
Somehow it seems fitting. For CPO's 1,000th post, I am linking to the ACCG's press release about its petition for certiorari. The petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts' refusal to engage in judicial review of controversial decisions to impose import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus and China.
Why did the ACCG ask to file such a petition? The first and last paragraphs of the body of the petition say it all:
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (�the Guild� or �ACCG�), a nonprofit advocacy group for collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade, seeks judicial review of administrative decisions which have drastically limited the ability of coin collectors to lawfully import historical coins of the sort widely available abroad. In particular, the Department of State (�State�) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (�CBP�) have restricted the entry of historical coins based on the country of manufacture, whereas Congress explicitly limited restrictions to coins �first discovered� in a particular country, which is completely different. Such overbroad, unfocused restrictions have greatly inhibited ancient coin collecting in the United States.
...
Why did the ACCG ask to file such a petition? The first and last paragraphs of the body of the petition say it all:
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (�the Guild� or �ACCG�), a nonprofit advocacy group for collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade, seeks judicial review of administrative decisions which have drastically limited the ability of coin collectors to lawfully import historical coins of the sort widely available abroad. In particular, the Department of State (�State�) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (�CBP�) have restricted the entry of historical coins based on the country of manufacture, whereas Congress explicitly limited restrictions to coins �first discovered� in a particular country, which is completely different. Such overbroad, unfocused restrictions have greatly inhibited ancient coin collecting in the United States.
...
The lower courts have effectively excused State and CBP from any scrutiny despite well-founded allegations import restrictions on historical coins were imposed without regard for the significant procedural and substantive constraints found in the CPIA. Accordingly, the Guild respectfully requests that the Court grant certiorari, not only to decide important questions of federal law regarding the form and scope of judicial review, but also to ensure that federal regulators themselves are bound by the rule of law.
The entire petition may be read here.
The Supreme Court apparently only accepts 4% of such petitions for further review, but should the Court decide to take the matter up, the Court then reverses the lower court some 76% of the time.
As those lottery commercials say, you "gotta play it to win it!"
ACCG to Petition the Supreme Court
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has decided to petition the U.S. Supreme Court and request reversal of the Fourth Circuit's decision to affirm the dismissal of its test case.
Nanny State Empowered to Regulate Hemingway's Cats
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision allowing the Department of Agriculture to regulate how the Hemingway Museum treats the descendants of Hemingway's cats that live on the property. In so doing, the Court concluded that the Museum met the definition of an an animal exhibitor and that agency regulations and advertisements featuring the cats were enough to provide the necessary nexus to interstate commerce. Now, the DOA can force the Hemingway Museum to cage the cats individually at night, to construct a higher electrified fence or to hire a night watchman, and to build additional cat resting areas. As with coin collecting, even if the Government has the right to regulate something, one can still question its stupidity in doing so. Perhaps the Supreme Court might consider taking both the Hemingway cat case and ACCG coin case. Each would present a good opportunity for the Court to consider Government overreach at its most ridiculous.
ACCG Files Petition for Rehearing
The ACCG has requested the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the dismissal of its case testing regulations imposing import restrictions on historical coins of the sort widely traded worldwide. The ACCG has argued that the panel�s decision ignores Supreme Court precedent, case law in sister circuits, and the �plain meaning� rule. Specifically, the ACCG states that the panel: (1) failed to consider the U.S. Supreme Court�s test for determining if �foreign policy� concerns trump the judiciary�s obligation �to say what the law is;� (2) adopted a version of judicial review far narrower than that afforded in sister federal appellate courts; and (3) wrongly assumed that CPAC approved of the Government�s decision imposing restrictions on coins based on their place of production rather than their find spot despite the sworn statement of Jay Kislak, CPAC former Chairman, that was previously brought to the trial court�s attention.
Labels:
ACCG,
bureacracy,
coins,
CPAC,
Import Restrictions,
State Department,
US Customs
Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Test Case
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed Judge Blake�s decision dismissing ACCG�s test case on Cypriot and Chinese import restrictions on coins. Although the Court conceded that the Guild�s arguments, �are not without a point,� the Court concluded any changes to how the State Department and US Customs administers the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act must emanate from Congress and the Executive Branch and not the Courts. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals indicated that ACCG could still pursue various forfeiture defenses related to the seizure of the specific coins it imported. The ACCG is considering further appellate options afforded under the Court�s rules.
Labels:
ACCG,
coins,
CPAC,
CPIA,
Import Restrictions,
State Department,
US Customs
Ancient Coin Trade Fights Back
The Art Newspaper (Oct. 2012) has published an article by Riah Pryor about the ACCG's test case, currently pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The article correctly notes that one of ACCG's key complaints is that the applicable regulations " muddl[e] up the place a coin was made with the place it was found." If the point of import restrictions is to protect archaeological sites in source countries, why has the Government written restrictions based on a coin's place of production rather than its find spot?
Nathan Elkins, a strident critic of collectors and the coin trade, suggests that the dispute is between "experts and academics on one side and and collectors and dealers on the other," but several more seasoned academics I know have also expressed concern that such over broad restrictions do little but encourage grasping cultural bureaucracies like those of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and China to lay claim to any artifact that may have been produced in those countries millenia ago.
Is this really what protecting archaeological sites should be about?
Nathan Elkins, a strident critic of collectors and the coin trade, suggests that the dispute is between "experts and academics on one side and and collectors and dealers on the other," but several more seasoned academics I know have also expressed concern that such over broad restrictions do little but encourage grasping cultural bureaucracies like those of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and China to lay claim to any artifact that may have been produced in those countries millenia ago.
Is this really what protecting archaeological sites should be about?
The Candidates Agree Small Business Needs Help-- When Will State and CBP Get the Message?
Like many Americans, I watched the Presidential debate last night. The candidates disagreed on many things, but agreed that small business needs help and that "one size fits all" regulations can harm small business without really benefiting the public at large.
When will the State Department and US Customs and Border Protection get the message? Their "one size fits all" import restrictions on cultural goods require the same showing for licit import of a $1 million dollar vase as a $2 coin widely traded abroad. (And let's not forget CBP has gone well beyond what is allowed under law to only allow import of artifacts pictured in auction catalogues.) As I observed during oral argument before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the ACCG test case, that simply makes no sense.
Despite nods of agreement from two of the judges on the panel, the Court may indeed decide to affirm Judge Blake's decision to give State and CBP the green light to crush the small businesses of the numismatic trade with such over regulation, but the question remains does this make sense?
When will the State Department and US Customs and Border Protection get the message? Their "one size fits all" import restrictions on cultural goods require the same showing for licit import of a $1 million dollar vase as a $2 coin widely traded abroad. (And let's not forget CBP has gone well beyond what is allowed under law to only allow import of artifacts pictured in auction catalogues.) As I observed during oral argument before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the ACCG test case, that simply makes no sense.
Despite nods of agreement from two of the judges on the panel, the Court may indeed decide to affirm Judge Blake's decision to give State and CBP the green light to crush the small businesses of the numismatic trade with such over regulation, but the question remains does this make sense?
Oral Argument in ACCG v. U.S. Customs Appeal
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted a somewhat hard to hear audio link of the oral argument in the ACCG v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection appeal that took place on September 19, 2012. The panel included senior Judge Wilkinson, newly appointed Judge Thacker, and U.S. District Court Judge Urbanski, who was sitting by designation. Samantha Chaifetz represented the Government and I represented the ACCG in the appeal.
ACCG Oral Argument Scheduled
The ACCG's appeal of Judge Blake's dismissal of its test case will be heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, on September 19, 2012. The Court will decide whether the ACCG is entitled to judicial review of the State Department's and Customs and Border Protection's controversial decisions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins, and whether it is proper to restrict coins based on their place of production rather than their find spot under the provisions of the applicable law, the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.
Everyone is Entitled to Find Out What the Government is Up To
Scott Hodes, an attorney who devotes his practice to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cases, has commented on the archaeological blogosphere's attack on the efforts of ACCG, IAPN and PNG to seek transparency in how the State Department and US Customs impose import restrictions on cultural goods.
The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to. The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.
The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to. The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.
Labels:
ACCG,
Blogging,
bureacracy,
double standards,
FOIA,
FOIA Lawsuit,
transparency
District Court Again Accepts State Secrecy Claims; But Transparency Needed More than Ever
The same US District Court judge who ruled for the State Department in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case has again ruled for the government on the remaining issues on remand from the D.C. Circuit.
Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever. To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge.
The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.
Archaeologists should also support greater transparency. The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made. Why? Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby? The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.
Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting." Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:
Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question) as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.
Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever. To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge.
The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.
Archaeologists should also support greater transparency. The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made. Why? Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby? The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.
Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting." Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:
Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question) as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.
ACCG: AIA Under Fire on Open Access
Here is a revised press release from the ACCG critical of the AIA on its stand against "open access" to archaeological research: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/05/30/CL14513
At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.
Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims? Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?
At public meetings before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, AIA members have claimed that import restrictions on cultural goods are necessary to promote archaeological research which is then shared with members of the public.
Isn't the AIA's stance against open access to federally funded research inconsistent with such claims? Should the AIA instead provide CPAC with a disclaimer that archaeological research is only made freely available to fellow members of the archaeological trade?
Extralegal Import Restrictions Discussed
A discussion about extralegal import restrictions on coins took place at the recent ACCG gathering conducted during the New York International Coin show. See http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=24783
Import restrictions under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act were meant to be narrowly tailored to protect archaeological sites in specific countries. Unfortunately, due to the extralegal activities of State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological lobby, these restrictions have instead morphed into grossly over broad import bans on whole categories of ancient coins regardless of their find spots.
As such, these extralegal restrictions appear designed to suppress the trade as a whole so that cultural bureaucrats in source countries and their allies in the archaeological lobby can monopolize the study and preservation of even the most common artifacts from the past. That was not the intent of the CPIA. It was instead meant to balance all interests, including those of the trade and collectors.
Import restrictions under the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act were meant to be narrowly tailored to protect archaeological sites in specific countries. Unfortunately, due to the extralegal activities of State Department bureaucrats and their allies in the archaeological lobby, these restrictions have instead morphed into grossly over broad import bans on whole categories of ancient coins regardless of their find spots.
As such, these extralegal restrictions appear designed to suppress the trade as a whole so that cultural bureaucrats in source countries and their allies in the archaeological lobby can monopolize the study and preservation of even the most common artifacts from the past. That was not the intent of the CPIA. It was instead meant to balance all interests, including those of the trade and collectors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)