Saturday, May 17, 2014
Now he's a lawyer
Archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins, having been questioned on his conclusions as a numismatist, now turns lawyer, claiming instead that the CPIA's requirement that artifacts must be first discovered within and subject to the export control of a specific UNESCO State party has little meaning. In doing so, Elkins relies on a statement of a district court that the Government may restrict the entry of coins with unknown find-spots. But though that is true, the Government must first meet the "first discovery" requirement with scholarly evidence that establishes the coins in question could only have been first discovered within and subject to the export control of a specific, UNESCO State Party, here Egypt, before they are placed on the "designated list." As set forth below, that appears impossible to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dr. Elkins apparently does not understand the Baltimore court case that he so casually makes reference to, especially regarding dicta and non-justiciability. Is there a pattern emerging here?
This is of course the key issue in the forfeiture action. We hope to be able to litigate the "first found" issue in that case. We'll see soon enough if we will be able to do so or if we have to take another appeal.
Post a Comment