Los Angeles County Judge Orders Getty Museum to Mediate Armenian Zeyt'un Bible Pages Dispute

The Matenadaran in Yereva, Armenia
where the Zeyt'un Gospel Bible is housed,
minus the seven pages at The Getty in L.A.
Author: TigranMets (Creative Commons)

The Getty Museum and the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church are headed to mediation over the issue of the Zeyt’un Gospel pages. This week Judge Abraham Khan of the Los Angeles County superior court told the parties to return next spring if an agreement was not reached, reports the Los Angeles Times.

In June 2010 the Armenian Apostolic Church filed a civil lawsuit against the J. Paul Getty Museum alleging that the museum acquired stolen property. The church seeks the return of seven manuscript pages, parts of an illuminated Bible that was created in 1256 and later lost during the Armenian bloodshed that occurred during the early 20th century. The actual Bible, minus its missing pages, is located in Armenia at The Matenadaran (officially known as the Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts).

The church sued the Getty on four counts:

• Replevin, which is the legal action that a party takes to recover personal property that was taken unlawfully;

• Conversion, which is the legal claim that a party unlawfully used personal property for its own use;

• Treble damages--specifically $105 million--which is a tripling of monetary damages that is permitted by statute, in this case California’s penal law; and

• Quiet title, which is a legal action intended to remove doubt about who owns a certain piece of property.

At issue in the case is the provenance of the biblical pages, which are canon tables or an index. The Getty Museum states on its web site that “[t]he Zeyt'un Gospels, made in the scriptorium at Hromklay for Katholikos Constantine I in 1256, are the earliest signed work of T'oros Roslin, the most accomplished illuminator and scribe in Armenia in the 1200s. These canon tables were separated from the manuscript at some point in the past and eventually acquired by the Getty Museum, while the rest of the manuscript is in a public collection in Armenia.” In a June 2, 2010 press release issued just after the lawsuit was filed, the Getty said that it “legally acquired the Canon Tables in 1994 from a private collection in the United States after a thorough review of their provenance. They have been repeatedly described and reproduced in publications in English, Armenian and French. Indeed, a notable Armenian scholar who also was the primate of the Armenian Church of America acknowledged key details about the Canon Tables' provenance in a 1943 article, including the fact that they were owned by an Armenian family in the United States. The pages have been publicly exhibited throughout the United States, including a well-publicized 1994 exhibition of Armenian art and culture at the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.” The Getty Museum added: “Promptly after acquiring the Canon Tables, the Getty prominently featured them in the J. Paul Getty Museum Journal, Volume 23, including a cover illustration. The Canon Tables have been published and exhibited several times since the Getty acquired them. At no time in the ninety or so years that the Canon Tables have been in the United States has anyone questioned their ownership.”

The Armenian church, meanwhile, writes in its initial legal complaint that “the seven missing stolen pages (canon tablets) of the Zeyt’un Gospel Bible ripped from the full manuscript that became stolen property eventually ended up in a private collection of a family in Watertown, Massachusetts, where they were loaned to the Piermont Morgan Library in 1994 for an exhibition entitled “Treasures From Heaven.” The family’s name remained anonymous at that time. The Catholicosate was never informed by the family or by the Piermont Morgan Library of their possession of the seven missing stolen pages which clearly were part of the entire Zeyt’un Gospel Bible manuscript.” The church adds that it only discovered the missing pages when they were noticed “by chance” at the Getty Museum in 2007.

Also at issue in this case is the statute of limitations. However, the court has saved its assessment of this issue for a later date if the parties cannot reach a mediated settlement.

References:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-armenian-bible-20111104,0,4956662.story

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=5929

http://www.getty.edu/news/press/canon_tables/canon_tables.html

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0602_Getty_wm_TMZ.pdf

CONTACT INFORMATION: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.

AIA Submits Public Comments to CPAC in Support of Bulgaria's MoU Request

The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) yesterday submitted public comments supporting Bulgaria's request for a Memorandum of Understanding that would implement US import protections covering cultural artifacts.  The comments were made to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee by Peter Herdrich, chief executive officer of the AIA:

"Dear Cultural Property Advisory Council,

I write to you to urge your support for the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Bulgaria in order to help protect the cultural and archaeological heritage of this great and historic country. As Chief Executive Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America, I can assure you that our 235,000 members speak with one voice on this issue, agreeing that we should do whatever we can to create import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material from across Bulgaria’s long history. Our members include professional archaeologists with academic and research interests in Bulgarian material, archaeological enthusiasts with a curiosity about Bulgaria’s past, and students who form the next generation of scholars. All recognize the value of Bulgaria’s unique archaeological patrimony. And that patrimony is under threat. In the January/February 2009 issue of ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, the entire country was listed as one on the world’s most endangered sites and described thus: 'Like its neighbors, Bulgaria is rich in archaeological remains—ancient Greek, Thracian, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman. But rather than draw millions of visitors each year to its ancient sites, this poor Balkan country mainly exports its cultural heritage. The transition from Communism to a free market economy has left Bulgaria exposed to the swirling forces of the global illicit antiquities trade. Desperate poverty means huge numbers of Bulgarians…are involved in the trade.' The members of the Archaeological Institute of America agree that the United States should do whatever we can to stamp out that trade that threatens sites across Bulgaria and to support Bulgarian heritage. Therefore we ask that on November 16, you recommend the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding between our government and the government of the Republic of Bulgaria. Sincerely, Peter Herdrich Archaeological Institute of America"

_______________________________

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.

Impossible to employ

Published on Halsbury's Law Exchange here.

Last week Stephen Levinson wrote about the law making process, and in particular the problems which bedevil the creation of employment law.


Mr Levinson identified four structural reasons behind the problems with employment law making: (i) responsibility for employment law is spread between four separate departments; (ii) civil servants continuously move between departments, denuding them of knowledge and experience; (iii) new statutes are almost invariably followed by statutory instrument after statutory instrument; and (iv) there is often inadequate consultation.

These are all valid points, and no doubt applicable to many other areas of law. I would venture to add two further points. The first is that much employment law is now made in Europe. Complex directives have to be transposed into national law. The last say on their interpretation is not that of the domestic courts but rather the European Courts. Whether they make good or bad decisions, the fact remains that the process by which employment laws are made, and by which answers to employment questions are reached, is rendered more complex, slow and expensive by an extra layer of regulation emanating from the European Union. For large companies able to retain expensive advice this may be manageable, if inefficient; for smaller firms it may be unmanageable and a disincentive to hire more staff. For both employers and employees it will make knowing their rights all the more difficult.

The second point is the most fundamental as well as the most obvious: it is policy that produces complexity. Employment law is overly complex because lawmakers are always tempted to try and micromanage employment relations. No doubt this is (usually) done with good intentions. One often hears employment rights being described as “fundamental”. In many instances I would not disagree – it is not as though anyone would or should advocate returning to a Victorianesque world of chimney sweep wages and conditions set entirely by the free market. I would however make three observations.

First, all employment rights, fundamental or otherwise, are wholly irrelevant to a substantial portion of workers, namely the self-employed. The likes of public holidays, sickness and maternity leave, the minimum wage, working time regulations and so forth mean nothing to the self-employed. Of course that does not undermine the need for protection of those who are employed from being exploited. But the more complex and costly it becomes to hire someone will, as mentioned, make employers more reluctant to hire new staff.

Secondly, complex provisions harm, not help, vulnerable workers. They will not be able to afford the increasingly expensive advice about their rights, nor will any employment litigation be resolved as quickly or efficiently as it might be otherwise. They will find it harder to obtain work because many employers cannot face the red tape and uncertainty that complex employment law brings and will decide against expansion accordingly.

Thirdly, it is not as simple for the state to play Robin Hood as some recent employment decisions seem to assume. For example, the European Courts ruled recently that employees who are sick during their holidays should be able to claim the time as sick leave, thus preserving their holidays. One can see the superficial attraction: if a certain amount of paid leave (holiday) is considered a “fundamental right”, then ensuring that employees retain the benefit that leave irrespective of the misfortune of illness is a logical step. However, a right can only exist if someone else assumes a corresponding duty, and in this case obviously the duty has to be that of the employer. The employer must therefore assume a greater duty.

The problem is of course that employment relations are not static. Employers can be expected to respond to the increased (but uncertain) costs that they will face by any or all of the following measures: negotiating lower wages, paying shareholders lower dividends, or raising prices. At least two of those will affect employees directly (with their own wages, plus the fact that, as consumers, they will have to pay higher prices that other companies impose in response to the ruling) and all three will as well in the case of employees who are also shareholders. It also gives dishonest employees an incentive to claim sickness at opportune moments in order to extend their holiday entitlement, which of course will be at the expense of the honest employees who will be left sharing the increased costs and also covering for the unscrupulous. Arguably, therefore, it would have been better for the state not to have intervened at all in that case.

As Mr Levinson concludes there is no silver bullet. But one does hope that his suggestion for greater thought to be given to the law making process is taken on board by the Cabinet Office. Improving employment law is a difficult task, but that makes it more, not less important.

End of the beginning

I have recently changed roles at LNUK and am now Managing Editor of the Journals & Magazines department.  The handover period rather got in the way of any articles and blogs, but something close to normal service should now resume.

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.

A Mighty Heart (2007) Directed by Michael Winterbottom

Nick:
The war in Iraq seems an age away now. 10 years is a long time. So much pain and loss on all sides.  It's war based on a brazen lie from supposed civilized nations. Coupled with the arrogance that we are dealing with supposedly inferior people living in different cultures we dare not understand, our trail of destruction raises all kinds of moral questions. But we can afford to ignore our own moral dilemmas as our lives are enveloped in materialistic temptations and those troubles in far off continents just seem like something happening over there. Winterbottom has repeatedly tried to draw us back into messes our governments have often shirked, giving us real events dramatized in his dry/semi-documentary style if not an actual documentary. The Shock Doctrine (2009) The Road To Guantanamo(2006) Welcome To Sarajevo(1997) and A Mighty Heart all deal with war in modern times and its various repercussions. Winterbottom has form and doesn't shirk from showing the uncomfortable.

A Mighty Heart is another movie where Winterbottom manages to work with top-draw Hollywood talent on a low budget. So, amongst Winterbottom's often difficult and challenging oeuvre you'll find the likes of Jessica Alba, Colin Firth, Steve Coogan, Kate Hudson, Milla Jovovich, Kate Winslet and Woody Harrelson slumming it in often political, generally top quality, yet weird films. This time, it's Angelina Jolie, taking a trip out of her comfort zone and messing with the rough trade to show she's got the chops to be taken seriously. And she's good in A Mighty Heart. Winterbottom rein-acts the real life kidnapping and ultimate murder of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan with his usual no thrills. The focus is on how Pearl's pregnant wife Mariane (Jolie) deals with the often confusing search for her husband.

Winterbottom bravely shows possible logical reasons as to Pearl's murder by Islamic fundamentalists he was supposed to interview before he and his wife were due to leave Pakistan. Was it because of Guantanamo? Because Pearl was Jewish? Repercussions for American involvement in Iraq? Supposed Wall Street Journal coercion with the CIA? Or because the Pearls housed an Indian helper who was possibly looking to discredit Pakistan? Winterbottom considers all options to the kidnapping/murder that nowadays is simply put down to an al-Qaeda killing.  A Mighty Heart despite this, still works as drama. That Mariane Pearl, a journalist herself, emerges from A Mighty Heart as a human being with great compassion and willingness to understand difference in the most trying and horrific circumstances, is something we could all learn from. Up to his usual high standards, Winterbottom's picture is a powerful reminder and lesson in tolerance.

Astrid:
In 2007 there was still a sense of urgency about understanding what was really going on with the USA in Iraq, Afghanistan and the neighboring countries. I had that need too and wanted to see A Mighty Heart immediately when it came out. I did not see it, for some reason. Now, at the end of 2011 there is a deflated helplessness and resignation to all things evil – I mean that the general feeling, the media and individual people seem to be much less attuned to asking what is still going on. I'm talking about a perspective that's strictly Scandinavian, far-removed from the streets of Pakistan for example. (I imagine it impossible to not ask those questions there every day.)

In this climate watching A Mighty Heart seemed out of place. It did not feel right to view it as pure cinema, because of its depiction of real events and people. It did not seem right to view it as a superstar vehicle for Angelina Jolie either. As a movie or a series of acting performances there was nothing that impressive about the film. Yet, time had passed and the film had lost some of its political urgency, which I can imagine was shocking still in 2007.

Then again, as the end credits roll and remind you that Mariane Pearl is now living with her son in Paris, the realness of it all hits me. Despite the movie's end or the Western world's gradual disinterest in their own hateful mess, the husband and father Pearl is never coming home to his family.
This simple point should end all conflict and prove futile the logic of hatred and warfare. It seems that the Pearl family knew this and know it still, after their personal loss. It is still important to make films about what is really happening around the world – sometimes cinematic values become secondary to the need to tell the truth. Injustice will not end through ignorance.

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.