Wednesday, May 01, 2013

German Ministry Determines that Ancient Coins are not Archaeological Objects

BUNDESFINANZHOF judgment of 11.12.2012

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjuris.bundesfinanzhof.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Frechtsprechung%2Fdruckvorschau.py%3FGericht%3Dbfh%26Art%3Den%26nr%3D27510

VII R 33, 34/11; VII R 33/11; VII R 34/11
Protection of cultural property may also include individual coins - "archaeological objects" within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 116/2009
 
Guidelines
Archaeological objects as defined in Regulation (EC) on the export of cultural goods (Regulation No. 116/2009) are only those that have a value for archeology, that is man-made or edited objects, able to convey the findings of past cultures , especially about about their customs, the then technical and artistic development, political and social structures, religion and the like. Items that illustrate lessons learned elsewhere about past cultures and therefore possibly for archeology have no meaning, no "archaeological objects" or finds.
 
Ancient coins can be archaeological objects.
Facts
1
I. The plaintiff and defendant in appellant (plaintiff) has on 31 2008 at the customs office (ZA) of the defendant, revision defendant and revision applicant (Principal Customs Office - HZA -) in October issued an export declaration about 32 coins and medals, which - as explained in the plant to export declaration - 1500-2400 Jahre are to be old and worth between 50 EUR and 400 EUR. The ZA has the acceptance of this application is rejected, because it is the sense of Article 1 of Cultural Property, Annex A No. 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods (Official Journal of the European Communities No L 395/1; hereinafter: Regulation No 3911/92) THE EXPRESSION, must be submitted for an export permit.

2
On the charge against that decision before the Tax Court (SC) has dismissed under the same obligation with the remainder in the HZA magazine for Customs and Excise, 2012, Supplement 2, 19 veröffentlichtem judgment to the plaintiff humble again. It is the opinion of export goods if it were indeed cultural goods within the meaning of Regulation No 3911/92 or the extent since 2 March 2009 applicable Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods (Official Journal of the European Union L 39/1, hereinafter 'Regulation No 116/2009), so that the applicant can not require acceptance of the export declaration without an export permit. Article 2 para 2 subpara. 2 However, Regulation No. 116/2009 confers on Member States a discretion to make exceptions to the general export authorization. This discretion has not been exercised, the HZA.

3
Against this judgment addressed in the revisions of the plaintiff and the HZA, which allege breach of substantive law.

4
According to the applicant - together - that Regulation No 116/2009 only determine the framework within which Member States could determine cultural goods. To protect against German cultural migration (KultgSchG) would in Germany according to § 1 of the Act lists drawn up and published nationally valuable cultural property. In addition, only cultural assets would be protected by that law, are illegitimate, arrives at German customs territory. Along with the return of cultural property law (Federal Law Gazette I 2007, 757, 2547) had been created so far a closed monitoring and retrieval system.

5
Individual coins stood not under the protection of Regulation No 116/2009, Annex IA as their No. 13 Buchst. b show, the only collections of coins are mentioned as protected object. Even ancient coins are generally no archaeological objects, but listed in a large number of commercially prominent bulk and in numerous catalogs with price, they are certainly not a national treasure that - and not the interest in archaeological activity and research - to protect the Union could only take a competence to complete. From the HZA and held by the FG for the correct interpretation of Regulation No 116/2009 would bring the rest of the coin dealers with customers in a Third Country incompatible with the free movement of goods way to a standstill. The authorities would be overwhelmed if they had to meet to grant an export authorization or as required by the FG discretionary decision for each coin.

6
Furthermore, the applicant believes is Article 2 subparagraph. 2 Regulation No 116/2009 applies - unlike the HZA says - immediately and required no implementation by a national instrument. That is clear from the wording in which makes no reference to the fact that the authorization was implemented through legal proposition. Would be the implementation to the discretion of Member States, it would also be a non-compatible with Article 36 sentence 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union discrimination of coin dealers. For the protection of archaeological objects and limited scientific value, it is also devoid of a union legal competence. The principle of proportionality areas to exclude such objects from protection, for they could not by definition belong to the cultural heritage of a Member State.

7
The HZA submits that Article 2 para 2 subpara. 2 Regulation No 116/2009 contains only a general authority for the Member States to create an exemption through legislation. This must be carried out in Germany by law. Such a law giving it just as a related administrative action or exercise. In Germany, therefore, currently there is no option to export cultural goods without authorization. This is also not objectionable under Union law.

Reasons


8
II The revision of the plaintiff is justified and leads to the corresponding obligation of the HZA head of claim (§ 126 Section 3 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Tax Court Rules - FGO -). As far as the judgment of the FG has the HZA committed to the exercise of discretion and the HZA hand turns with his revision, leads aforementioned, on the obligation to re-discretionary out walking and this displacing statement to execute the relevant applicant's request and the revision of the HZA.

9
The judgment of the FG violated federal law (§ 118 para 1 FGO).

10
Under Article 2, Section 1 of the already applied this Regulation No. 116/2009, which corresponds to the relevant provisions with the provisions of Regulation No 3911/92 shall cultural goods from the customs territory of the Community (now Union) will be executed only if an export license is present. As cultural goods, the goods listed in Annex I, therefore, under Article 1 of the Regulation in more than 100 years old archaeological objects from excavations and finds on land or under water, archaeological sites and archaeological collections. Is not submitted by the declarant such export permit for the objects provided by him, even though they are cultural assets within the meaning of Regulation No 116/2009, it may not require under Article 63, 62, paragraph 2 of the Code, that the HZA takes its declaration.

11
The view of the FG that Article 2, Section 1 of Regulation No 116/2009 grab in case of dispute, however, violated federal law. Because the FG is assumed to be the incorrect term "archaeological object" or "archaeological find".

12
1 However, this Panel can not - to share opinion of an export permit BOTH COMMUNITY only for items that are included in the list nationally valuable cultural property in accordance with § 1 KultgSchG, only those - at the hearing not even alleged by the plaintiff So objects are treasures within the meaning of the aforementioned Regulation and Union for such items, the Union could ever take the competency claim to require a special permit their export. Such a narrow interpretation of the scope of the regulation would be inconsistent with the purpose to establish a uniform procedure rules for protection within the EU export from one of the Member States as worthy of protection prestigious items. It is obvious that the office usually can not judge whether you asked for clearance subject of one of the Member States has been placed under protection as a cultural asset. To check this one for it by the Member State in question to be determined competent authority, in cooperation with the appropriate authorities of the other Member States (see Article 6 of Regulation No 116/2009) must therefore, as required by the Regulation, be left and the result of examination to be expressed in the export permit. Has been made that an article by a Member State under its laws under protection, so is not a requirement for the requirement of an export authorization for exports from the customs territory of the Union, but after the second subparagraph of Article 2, Section 2. 3 Regulation No 116/2009 scale for issuing the export authorization.

13
Whether objects "archaeological objects" within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions can, however, unlike the FG apparently thinks, not solely on the basis of their age and (from FG just assumed as probable respected or because of questionable evidence prima facie) origin judge from finds or digs. An archaeological object is rather only one which has a value for archeology, so a man-created or edited the subject who is able to convey knowledge about past cultures, especially about about their customs, the then technical and artistic development, political and social structures, religion and the like. Items that illustrate lessons learned elsewhere about past cultures and therefore possibly for archeology have no meaning, no "archaeological objects" or finds the meaning of Annex I of Regulation No 116/2009. This corresponds to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes relating to heading 9705 to which the aforesaid Annex refers, and also to the park "archaeological interest", which they attach well adapted to the study of earlier generations articles, in which exemplary enumeration of them by the way coins and not to mention medals. Which it corresponds also to objects that do not have (knowledge) value for archeology, can not be made by a Member State pursuant to a protected archaeological interest. However, the Regulation No. 116/2009 is as stated serve only the enforcement of such protection measures of a Member State, namely to ensure that these observed at the external borders of the Union and is incompatible with them export as a national cultural heritage vulnerable objects is prevented.

14
However, contrary to the view of the plaintiff neither the explicit designation of "collections of numismatic value ..." in Annex IA No. 13 Buchst. b Regulation No. 116/2009, the reverse conclusion be drawn, single coins not stood under the protection Regulation nor the Senate can ensure from the outset that individual coins or medals may get an archaeological value under certain circumstances, they can appear as an "archaeological object" within the meaning of Regulation No 116/2009.

15
Rightly, however, the applicant accordingly submitted that the coins that come from the so-called Ancient, usually have no such archaeological value and therefore there are no archaeological objects, especially if they exist in large numbers and they - which, as the Badische Landesmuseum has been stressed in the HZA submitted at the hearing opinion - not (any longer) can be assigned to a particular locality.

16
The archaeological interest in a subject is to be evaluated in this context by the HZA and the trial judge on the circumstances of each case, taking as key assessment criteria are, in particular, how the object in question is rated in the market and whether the same or similar items to a greater extent involving trade are, on the non-archaeologists and archaeological institutions and collections, but collectors attend who do not acquire such coins from an "archaeological" interest, but out of a passion for collecting, because of the aesthetic value of the objects or other interests.

17
2 The FG has - made no findings as to whether the disputed coins and medals for some special reasons would have a meaning and some value for archeology - of its incorrect legal starting point. Also, the HZA has contributed nothing. To it by the Württemberg State Museum under the 28 April 2009 has provided information would not be a proper basis for a finding, especially since it is inconsistent, when on the one hand, mutatis mutandis, to grant an export permit is declared to be necessary, on the other hand, leaves open the state museum, whether it is at all to "archaeological Good" is.

18
However, the applicant has stated without being contradicted, if it were "mass produced" as they are often located in general trade. Of which this Panel may proceed in his decision, since there is nothing visible that the FG, but the principle is responsible for the actual reconnaissance and evaluation of such conditions, at a remand of the case pursuant to § 126 Section 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 in FGO a second set of proceedings may come to different findings.

19
Since the FG has viewed the objects made for export by the plaintiff, after all, wrongly as archaeological objects, his judgment must be set aside. The matter is ripe for decision. The plaintiff is entitled to adopt its export declaration, without having it must submit an export permit.



***********************************
COMMENTARY
***********************************
 



This decision determines that the ancient coin trade is no longer obligated to apply for export permits in order to export ancient coins from Germany.
















Monday, March 25, 2013

Supreme Court Declines ACCG Petition

Supreme Court Denies Cert.

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2013/03/supreme-court-denies-cert.html  

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.  

...



****************
COMMENTARY
****************
 
As Tompa observes, denial of this petition is disappointing, but is not the end of this case. The forfeiture action remains to be tried and  that venue will provide an opportunity to contest the validity of the State Department's unreasonable and arbitrary regulations restricting importation of ancient coins.



****************

Sunday, March 17, 2013

A Petition to Suppress Fraud

A group of concerned collectors and antiquities dealers has originated an online petition requesting an investigation of allegations that Sadigh Gallery has for 30 years been selling fake artifacts, represented as genuine, to novice collectors who lack the expertise to judge their authenticity.

The petition website is:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/837/263/752/sadigh-gallery-ancient-art-inc-a-matter-of-great-concern-longstanding-art-fraud/

An extensive discussion of this issue and the petition has been carried on in the AncientArtifacts group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts

The discussion has now moved to the Unidroit-L group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L

Readers are invited to join both groups, read their message lists and then decide whether they have an interest in participating in this petition.


****************
COMMENTARY
****************

Defrauding of novice collectors by unscrupulous sellers of fakes is a very serious problem  in the antiquities trade. It discourages the victims from continuing their interest in collecting, and gives a bad name to honest, reputable dealers and expert collectors who participate in the trade.

This case, which is only one of many similar examples, presents convincing evidence that the only effective approach to preventing novice collectors from being defrauded is criminal prosecution of fraudulent sellers.

A thorough investigation of this gallery by responsible authorities would determine whether Sadigh has actually sold fake antiquities to collectors, with false certificates of authenticity, knowing the items in question to be modern reproductions.

Such an investigation would also identify any other associated sellers of fake artifacts, such as Forumantica, International Reliquary and World Wide Store are alleged to be.

An investigation such as the petition requests is not a "witch hunt" and is not unfair to those being investigated. It is the only responsible and appropriate method for determining whether sellers of objects whose value depends upon authenticity are defrauding the public.

****************

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Newcastle Redux

On March 13-14, 2010 during a two-day conference organized by the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) and the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies (ICCHS) Wayne Sayles presented a comprehensive review of the conflict between collecting and archaeology in a 61-page paper, “Coin Collectors and Cultural Property Nationalism:”

 Newcastle Paper (PDF)

This dissertation was recently summarized and has now been published in CBA's online journal, Internet Archaeology:

http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue33/sayles.cfm

Readers interested in the intersection between collecting and archaeology would find this summary worth reading, and if further exploration is desired, could consult the original paper (co-authored y this observer). The commentary below emphasizes the importance of this conflict.



***************
COMMENTARY
***************

The 1970 UNESCO Convention has been used by radical archaeologists and their supporters in cultural bureaus and ministries as a vehicle to limit and suppress private collecting of antiquities, via import restrictions. The most significant restrictions have been issued by the US State Department.

The US Supreme Court will consider the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild's petition for a writ of certiorari at its March 22, 2013 conference.  This would compel judicial review of State Department actions in managing US implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has sought this review for years, believing that the State Department's repressive actions have been biased and unjustified. Lower courts have previously declined to hear the complex case on technical grounds.

This observer cannot understand  how continued judicial inaction in this matter can possibly be justified, given the many serious abuses of power involved, and the very dangerous implications of setting a precedent that the actions of State Department bureaucrats are "above the law," and will receive neither effective Congressional oversight nor judicial review.


***************

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Defending a Legitimate, Respectable Industry

Defending a No-Questions-Asked Industry

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2013/03/defending-no-questions-asked-industry.html
by Paul Barford (Warsaw translator and former British archaeologist)

There is a website attempting to gain signatures (target 1000) on a public "petition" created by some

"Very Concerned Collectors"

(sic) addressed to "Any agency which could take up the matter and remedy this problem" (sic!) about a New York dealer who sells antiquities online. There's a whole lot of fluff about it on the collectors' forums and I'm not going to link to it here - but the reader can find it easily I am sure. Neither am I going to mention the dealer [Sadigh Gallery] by name here (ditto). These people accuse said dealer of selling a large proportion of fake artefacts, with a few probably genuine ones thrown in for good measure. They say 95% of the things he sells from his Manhattan store (though much of his trade seems to be done online through three separate outlets - listed in the petition) are fakes, tourist souvenir type fakes in particular. The dealer has been in business over 30 years, and his items cost between $50 and $90,000. This dealer, if the authenticity of an artefact he has sold is challenged, will immediately return the money, no questions asked. The petitioners label their site "a matter of great concern, longstanding art fraud" though as far as I can see, many of the products offered by this particular dealer are far from being "art". The petitioners assert:

We speak for a large number of collectors who are very concerned about this. What do you think about this? What should be done? We feel that this matter should be taken up by the relevant authorities. Please leave a comment in the box when you sign. Thank you!

So far on the second day of the petition, there are about sixty signatures. Number one (Mar 05, 12:12) was: Mr. Carlos Regueira, FL (RIVAL DEALER - Minerva Ancient Art)

...

only six of these people (mostly Americans) had actually bought something from, and then felt cheated by this dealer (note also an interesting number of people from the Low Countries signing - why?). Quite why the others are concerned is less clear. Why are these people signing their names under this petition? One wonders if they are not all no-questions-asked artefact collectors. From their comments it seems many of them are unaware this is a petition and to whom it addressed, others make clear that they are unlikely to have been fooled by any of the products sold. I fail to see where this is "fraud" if one collector says in his comments:
I'm (sic) a serious collector of Greek and Egyptian antiquities for over 15 years, and I can tell with certainty that his his artifacts are not genuine.
Caveat emptor. Perhaps the buyer sees what he wants to see. Surely the idea when buying art is not look at the money (or 'investment') but "buy what you like, buy what you are comfortable with". (and all antiquity collecting forums say "buy the book first"). Caveat emptor.

Perhaps the clue to this conundrum is the number (six so far) of dealers signing. As one of them,  Edgar Owen, NJ, notes in his comment:
I agree there needs to be a full investigation by the press and relevant law enforcement agencies. Large scale sale of fakes as genuine antiquities harms the business of all legitimate dealers.

Also lacking in logic is the whole idea of addressing a vaguely-written  "petition" to "to whomsoever this may concern" as a means of fighting what is stated to be fraud. If somebody has been the victim of fraud, there surely is in the United States of America a way for the victim to get law enforcement agencies to investigate, put a stop to the scam and if necessary prosecute. Where is the problem?

...

It is not clear what these "Very Concerned Collectors" actually want done.

...

Anyway, anything that weakens buyers' confidence in the no-questions-asked manner of buying antiquities is to be welcomed.

...

If dealers in all dugups had to have proper answers to these questions, selling freshly-surfaced looted material as "legitimate" would be made much, much more difficulty. THAT is why these dealers want the market to be cleared of fake sellers as they create an atmosphere when 'a-nod's-as-good-as-a-wink-trust' between buyer and seller is not going to be enough to attain a sale.



***************
COMMENTARY
***************

As usual Mr. Barford has managed to present his tiresome moralizing in the most offensive manner possible, replete with archaology-centric terminology such as "dealers in dugups" and a general implication that being a dealer in any sort of antiquity that might once have been buried is nearly as bad as being a convicted felon.

I won't regurgitate all of the misleading, unfair things he has said here, however there are some that do deserve comment:

 > Also lacking in logic is the whole idea of addressing a vaguely-written  "petition" to "to whomsoever this may concern" as a means of fighting what is stated to be fraud. If somebody has been the victim of fraud, there surely is in the United States of America a way for the victim to get law enforcement agencies to investigate, put a stop to the scam and if necessary prosecute. Where is the problem?

There indeed is in the United States of America a way for the victim to get law enforcement agencies to investigate, put a stop to the scam and if necessary prosecute. That way is to present to the responsible authorities a request (i.e. petition) asking that an investigation be conducted, leading to a prosecution if warranted.

The real victims in this case are legitimate, honorable antiquities dealers whose trade is being discredited by sellers of fakes.

Thus, Mr. Carlos Regueira in initiating this petition is actually doing exactly what Mr. Barford thinks should be done, in devising a way to voice public concern about fake antiquities to the authorities.

> Anyway, anything that weakens buyers' confidence in the no-questions-asked manner of buying antiquities is to be welcomed.

Here Mr. Barford overtly welcomes criminal misrepresentation, false advertising and fraud on the grounds that "it weakens buyers' confidence in the no-questions-asked manner of buying antiquities."
 
I do not think anything  yet said reveals the extent of his obsessive, irrational bias against antiquities collecting more clearly than this outrageously irresponsible statement. 

Such a statement could only be made by an ideologue who believes and advocates that "the end justifies the means" -- that even such evils as false advertising and fraud should be welcomed because they tend to advance his private agenda.

It is difficult for this observer to understand how Mr. Barford can expect to be taken seriously when he reveals his utter lack of objectivity and social responsibility in such an overt manner. I do not believe that any responsible archaeologist would publicly support this remark.


***************

Friday, March 01, 2013

Drones to Drachms

Presidential Power


http://mcculloughllc.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/presidential-power/
by Michael McCullough

From Drones to Drachms
By Michael McCullough

From the very beginning of the Republic, Americans have always delighted in accusing their chief magistrate of having totalitarian ambitions. With extraordinary derisiveness, every president since FDR has been called a “fascist” for alleged subversion of the Constitution, even in spite of Orwell’s observation in 1944 that misuse of the term had rendered it “almost entirely meaningless.”

...

Thus, it’s not surprising to find two very different demonstrations of the royal prerogative being criticized in recent weeks: the use of drones to kill Americans and import restrictions on ancient coins. And if you are remotely interested in the proper functioning of our government, each example provides ample opportunity for evaluation and reflection.

It is widely known that the “executive power” of the President enumerated in Article II of the Constitution was meant to create a strong executive. ...  It’s less known that the role of the Federal courts in explicating constitutional law is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Judicial review of executive and legislative actions was created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court itself in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison

....

Recently, the Department of Justice released a “White Paper” on the legality of killing American citizens who are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” Despite the obvious vagueness of terms that leaves one wondering how remote the “association” need be to avoid the breach, the central concern here is use of executive power without some form of judicial review.

...

The “White Paper,” written by government lawyers, makes a pointed but unsubstantiated case for an unconstrained executive, necessary to deal with the security threats of today’s world. This new view sees terrorism and associated threats to Homeland America as qualitatively different from past security threats. As a result, a more flexible kind of “executive power” is required; one that cannot be readily accommodated within the traditional scheme of judicial and legislative oversight.

...

The problem with this new theory of executive power is that neither the nature of structural constitutional interpretation nor the security policy premises on which these claims are based support the case for the kind of expansive executive power found in the “White Paper.”

...

For the purpose of contrast, the President’s imposition of import restrictions on ancient coins provides a more traditional look at “executive power.” Last week, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild filed a Petition of Certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the lower courts’ failure to conduct a “political question” analysis of the President’s actions before dismissing the Guild’s complaint.

Three years ago, the Guild filed its lawsuit alleging that the government failed to comply with specific statutory requirements of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (“CPIA”). The CPIA imposes certain procedural and substantive constraints on the President’s authority to impose import restrictions on cultural objects. Over time, the President’s authority was delegated down to the Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the State Department. Once the State Department authorized import restrictions on coins from Cyprus and China, U.S. Customs and Border Protection published regulations in the Federal Register imposing those import restrictions.

After briefing and oral argument, the district court dismissed the case without allowing any discovery, prompting an appeal. On appeal, the Guild asked the circuit court to rule that the district court had the authority to review the President’s action and that any import restrictions on coins must be written to comply with the plain meaning of the CPIA (N.B., This correspondent represented three coin organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief in support of the Guild). The court of appeals declined the Guild’s request, saying that anything but the most cursory review of the Federal Register “would draw the judicial system too heavily and intimately into negotiations between the Department of State and foreign countries.”

The Guild wishes to address the Supreme Court to argue that the power and duty to decide constitutional disputes was accepted by the judiciary in Marbury v. Madison. Moreover, the Supreme Court decided over a quarter of a century ago, in a case called Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, that “one of the Judiciary’s characteristic roles is to interpret statutes, and [it] cannot shirk this responsibility merely because of the interplay between the statute and the conduct of the Nation’s foreign relations.” And if the Supreme Court agrees, then the Guild will ask the Court to direct the court of appeals to apply the “political question” analysis enunciated in Baker v. Carr, which says that a court can decide to review a presidential decision by applying “a discriminating analysis of the particular question posed, in terms of the history of its management by the political branches, of its susceptibility to judicial handling in light of its nature and posture in a specific case, and the possible consequences of judicial action.”

The “particular question” posed by the Guild is quite narrow: whether the Government promulgated and applied import restrictions on coins in compliance with the CPIA. Courts have ample experience in determining whether a specific grant of power by the legislature is being followed by the President. This matter, argues the Guild, is thus well within the competence of a court to handle. Furthermore, the court of appeals’ dismissal of the Guild’s case because it touched on “foreign policy,” but without performing any further analysis of the particular legal issue actually before the court, places its decision making squarely at odds with that of the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts, which have applied the “political question” analysis found in Baker v. Carr in a “foreign policy” context. Under these circumstances, the Guild asks the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to secure and maintain the applicability of its decisions by bringing the court of appeals and the two other circuits that have not addressed the issue into line with the decisions of the Court.

While I doubt that Mr. Obama is giving this case much thought, it’s equally doubtful that Supreme Court will ever get another case presenting less benign “consequences of judicial action.” Although, I wouldn’t be taking any bets on the Guild’s chances of getting through the golden doors, as the Supreme Court accepts a mere 1-2% of the cases submitted on appeal. However, the odds get considerably better once the doors close behind the Guild; the Supreme Court has reversed or vacated this court of appeals in 61% of past cases.

...


********************
COMMENTARY
********************

 > ... the Supreme Court accepts a mere 1-2% of the cases submitted on appeal.

On is face, that statistic is intimidating. But if ever the circumstances of a case have demanded judicial review, the petition  by the ACCG sets forth that case.

The issue here is not so much the limitations of Presidential power, as whether bureaucrats who are effectively not being overseen by any higher authority can pursue a hidden agenda detrimental to the interests of American citizens through the uncontrolled exercise of authority delegated by the President.

The State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, controlled by archaeologist Maria Kouroupas, has done that in its grossly unfair and biased administration of authority granted to the President by the 1983 Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.

The principle at stake has an importance extending far beyond the interests of the approximately 50,000 US collectors of ancient coins. If unelected and apparently unaccountable bureaucrats can persecute coin collectors in this manner, without any recourse to judicial review of their actions, then what is to prevent other bureaucrats from following that precedent to persecute other US citizens concerned about their Second Amendment rights, freedom of religion and many other issues?

This observer believes that it is vital that this case should be heard by the Supreme Court. No employee of the US Government should be allowed to exercise regulatory power without responsible judicial review. The necessity of that review is so obvious and compelling that no further argument should be necessary.

********************

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Fake Art

Sadigh Gallery accused of passing off fakes as Authenic Ancient Art.

http://sadighgalleryfakes.com/aboutus.html

About Us

The reason for this website is to make collectors aware of the fake tourist items Sadigh Gallery is passing off as Authenic Ancient Art. We want everyone to know what this person is doing just to make an extra dollar. Our main focus is to make as many people aware as possible and maybe get some real exposure concerning this issue. This cannot continue! Please spread the word in Social Media sites like Facebook, Twitter and ask people to pass the post a long. Together we can make a difference, nothing is impossible. Below you will find links to other sites that speak about this heart less crook. Join us in the battle of stopping this person from ripping off other collectors like yourself.

Sadigh Gallery has been in busines for over 30 years selling fake ancient artifacts! A bit to long and it's time to spread the word all over the world!



***************
COMMENTARY
***************


There have been many allegations made over the years that Sadigh Gallery is selling modern reproductions as authentic ancient artifacts.

 http://sadighgalleryfakes.com seeks to expose this practice and to warn collectors against it.

Whether these allegations are true really ought to be adjudicated in a court of law. To date, however,  no responsible authority has attempted to charge Sadigh with selling counterfeit antiquities.

In this observer's opinion, our government's law enforcement priorities regarding antiquities dealers and  collecting are completely irrational and not in the best interests of US citizens. Nothing is being done to protect collectors from the sort of fraud Sadigh is alleged to practice. Conversely, the government is actively campaigning to restrict importation of antiquities into the US from abroad.

It is widely believed amongst those involved in defending the rights of collectors, notably the ACCG, that the long term goal of this campaign is to suppress the antiquities trade and gradually make private collecting of antiquities impossible.

Many archaeologists, whose anticollecting lobbying efforts have resulted in this situation, welcome open and uncontrolled sale of fakes because this tends to destroy confidence in antiquities dealers. It is a sad state of affairs when the ethics of supposedly responsible professionals become so twisted that crime is viewed as being socially beneficial.

***************