Judge Blake has set a briefing schedule for a government motion that seeks to limit the scope of discovery in the forfeiture case against the Cypriot and Chinese coins the ACCG imported for purposes of its test case. The parties' papers and the court's short letter order can be found here.
Despite the predictable spin from the archaeological blogosphere, the key issue-- which should be important to more than just coin collectors-- is whether due process requires discovery into the basis for any forfeiture so a defense can be mounted before the government is allowed to take the Guild's property. But don't just take my word for it. Read the short memorandums of the parties and draw your own conclusions. And why shouldn't the government be required to admit or deny the simple, direct questions appended to the Guild's memorandum? That, at a minimum, is a fair question for any "cultural property observer" to ask.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Court Sets Briefing Schedule in ACCG Forfeiture Case
Posted by Cultural Property Observer at 2:52 PM
Labels: ACCG, Blogging, China MOU, Cyprus MOU, Import Restrictions
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The sad but all too obvious truth is that the government owns the judiciary and rules of law have become secondary to rules of power. Peter Tompa has presented the case of Ancient Coin Collectors with fervor and conviction. His effort cannot be overstated and the facts are undeniable. Court after court has ignored and refused to hear the argument. The end result will, quite frankly, tell us all a lot about the judicial system that has evolved in America.
Peter, in the interests of transparency and public information, could we have please a photo of all of these infamous coins posted online by the ACCG? A confusing variety of (stock?) images have appeared in the past which purport to show these coins; can we please have a set which can be treated as definitive?
I really am not convinced by your arguments. There are four questions, and only four questions, the court has to ask and answer in this case: these are coins of a certain designated type (yes or not?), imported into the USA at a certain time (yes or no?) when certain formalities were stipulated for just such items (yes or no?) and the importer - in collusion with the exporter - failed [nay, refused] to comply with those formalities (yes or no?) making it impossible for them to pass US customs control legally. What is there further to be discussed?
That is not spin. It is logic.
We'll see if the due process both the government and the Court of Appeals promised in order to justify the dismissal of the test case is the sham Mr. Barford describes or not. And for Wayne, yes public trust in government is at an all time low. I'd hope we could expect more from our government than what people have grown to expect from living in places like Cyprus and China, but we will see as well. As for photos, what we have has already been posted. If this matter goes forward through discovery, there will be an opportunity to examine and photograph all the coins.
"As for photos, what we have has already been posted"
Can you give a link please? I think it would be useful in following the case to know precisely what it is that is the subject of the litigation, especially as what was in that package is so important for your case (and I imagine the subsequent appeal which I am sure you have planned).
The only picture ACCG has was posted on the Chasing Aphrodite blog:
I think you have commented on it before. I think it's too early to plan an appeal, even for us.
well, I think if you look at the dates and types of those cash coins, it's obvious what's going to happen - and I think you are planning to use that as the basis for an appeal on the ones that ARE covered by the MOU, are you not? That was surely built into the selection of pieces...
While it's okay for you to speculate as you wish, we really need to litigate this matter in court and not on blogs. Commenting on previously filed things is a bit different; best not to speculate on future events.
Post a Comment