Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lawyer Barford
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Dave Welsh
Nov 27, 2011, 7:36:41 PM11/27/11
to
US Import Restrictions Only Apply to Illicitly Exported Items
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/11/us-import-restrictions-only-apply-to.html
by Paul Barford
The accusation that many coineys with educations gained in US schools have
fluff for brains seems to be increasingly confirmed by the flow of whingeing
pseudo-justifications which has recently been emerging from the milieu.
Peter Tompa now asks: Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly
Exported" Items?
Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger
Paul Barford has claimed? No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US
Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad
merely because they are of a type on a designated list.
Whoah, whoah. What is the CONNECTION between "openly and legitimately sold"
within a country and "openly and legitimately exported"? None. As these
clowns well know. The coiney lobbyist whinges on:
First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import
restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with
an export permit.
"OK, your starter for ten, fingers on the buzzers: "what do we call a coin
exported from a country which has export restrictions which is accompanied
by an export licence?"..." [buzzzz] "Yes, Oxford Magdalene, "licitly
exported". That is the correct answer".
"Fingers on the buzzers, now what do we call a coin exported from a country
which has export restrictions which has been taken out of the country
without getting an export licence?" [buzzz] "No, I am sorry Wisconsin
Numismatic Academy, the correct answer is "illicitly exported", bad luck".
"Fingers on the buzzers again, what is the correct legal term for a coin
removed from a country which does not issue export licences and therefore
has none? Anyone?" " [buzzz] "Yes, Wisconsin... No... no. No, the correct
answer is that we call such a coin 'illicitly exported', or simply smuggled,
bad luck again..." [raises eyebrow, discretely makes note to producer never
to ask these peabrains back].
Three days later, the TV production company got an indignant letter from the
principal numismatist of the Wisconsin Coin Academy:
The import restrictions discussed on the programme are both illogical
and themselves definitely illicit, according to the 1983 CCPIA implementing
US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That [is a] very clear
contravention of the terms of the CCPIA...
They ignored the letter as the writings of a madman of course.
Basically, if you have an antiquity of a type which is on the designated
lists (which certainly contain many, many more categories than just a few
scrappy coins) and you want to import it into the US either get the seller
to obtain an export licence, or failing that as the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.) SECTION 2606. Import Restrictions, (a) Documentation of lawful
exportation (note that title, Peter Tompa in particular) "unless the State
Party issues a certification or other documentation which certifies that
such exportation was not in violation of the laws of the State Party". Note
this has nothing to do with "open and legitimate sale within the country".
Neither has it anything in the least connected with its 'provenance' or
collecting history. This is purely and simply about lawful export (note that
title everybody, Peter Tompa in particular). All is not lost even if you've
not got one of those, there is a get-out clause [2606(c)(1)(B)] "a statement
provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer,
which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was
exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of
entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is
based". Not even on oath, not even asking for any supporting material to be
supplied. Basically scribbling down some (could be made-up) story of
innocence. Now the reason the silly whingers are complaining about even this
is that they reckon a fellow dealer scribbling such a note on a company
letterhead would - they assert - cost "more than the coin itself". So who
else except dumber-than-my-cat coineys would do business with a seller that
would charge you an arm and a leg for putting down a few words on paper why
the circumstances of the sale of these particular coins are not breaking the
law? How much were Spinks charging to scribble a note about the coins seized
in Baltimore on their way to the ACCG?
...
******************
COMMENTARY
******************
Emperor Barford seems to have tired of that role for the moment, and now
seeks to misrepresent himself as a lawyer, despite the fact that his
qualifications in that field are just as insignificant as his knowledge of
ancient numismatics. Ignorance has never, however, stopped or even slowed
down the ridiculous pretensions of this deluded fanatic.
As best I can understand this particular bit of fanciful drivel, he now
describes distinguished cultural Property law expert Peter Tompa, whose
activities in that field undoubtedly earn about ten times as much as
Barford's current work as a document translator and who graduated from the
Washington College of Law, American University (J.D. cum laude, 1986) and
the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (B.S.F.S. 1982), as not
knowing his subject. Let's see, Mr. Barford claims to hold a mere
baccalaureate degree, which in the field of archaeology isn't much -- one is
expected to have a doctorate if one wishes to be taken seriously, which
Barford of course is not (by archaeologists at any rate).
Tompa on the other hand not only does hold a doctorate (cum laude at that)
from a prestigious university, and has studied Foreign Service as a career
field, he has a very solid track record of accomplishment in cultural
property law, in which he is a well-regarded, multiply published and often
cited authority.
Mr. Barford appears to be unable to open his mouth in discussing cultural
property law (or anything other than archaeology, of which he does have
solid knowledge) without instantly putting his foot in it, which at any rate
would tend to somewhat diminish his incessant outpourings of irrational
drivel. Also, come to think of it , that particular physical contortion does
seem quite apt, in view of the nearby warm and dark place where his muddled
head evidently rests.
Posted to the list by:
Dave Welsh
Numismatica Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/numismatica
dwel...@cox.net
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/11/us-import-restrictions-only-apply-to.html
by Paul Barford
The accusation that many coineys with educations gained in US schools have
fluff for brains seems to be increasingly confirmed by the flow of whingeing
pseudo-justifications which has recently been emerging from the milieu.
Peter Tompa now asks: Do Import Restrictions Only Apply to "Illicitly
Exported" Items?
Do MOU's only apply to "illicitly exported" artifacts as archaeo-blogger
Paul Barford has claimed? No. In fact, import restrictions as applied by US
Customs bar entry of coins openly and legitimately sold in markets abroad
merely because they are of a type on a designated list.
Whoah, whoah. What is the CONNECTION between "openly and legitimately sold"
within a country and "openly and legitimately exported"? None. As these
clowns well know. The coiney lobbyist whinges on:
First, for coins coming directly from the country for which import
restrictions are granted, there is an exception if they are accompanied with
an export permit.
"OK, your starter for ten, fingers on the buzzers: "what do we call a coin
exported from a country which has export restrictions which is accompanied
by an export licence?"..." [buzzzz] "Yes, Oxford Magdalene, "licitly
exported". That is the correct answer".
"Fingers on the buzzers, now what do we call a coin exported from a country
which has export restrictions which has been taken out of the country
without getting an export licence?" [buzzz] "No, I am sorry Wisconsin
Numismatic Academy, the correct answer is "illicitly exported", bad luck".
"Fingers on the buzzers again, what is the correct legal term for a coin
removed from a country which does not issue export licences and therefore
has none? Anyone?" " [buzzz] "Yes, Wisconsin... No... no. No, the correct
answer is that we call such a coin 'illicitly exported', or simply smuggled,
bad luck again..." [raises eyebrow, discretely makes note to producer never
to ask these peabrains back].
Three days later, the TV production company got an indignant letter from the
principal numismatist of the Wisconsin Coin Academy:
The import restrictions discussed on the programme are both illogical
and themselves definitely illicit, according to the 1983 CCPIA implementing
US accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. That [is a] very clear
contravention of the terms of the CCPIA...
They ignored the letter as the writings of a madman of course.
Basically, if you have an antiquity of a type which is on the designated
lists (which certainly contain many, many more categories than just a few
scrappy coins) and you want to import it into the US either get the seller
to obtain an export licence, or failing that as the CCPIA (19 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.) SECTION 2606. Import Restrictions, (a) Documentation of lawful
exportation (note that title, Peter Tompa in particular) "unless the State
Party issues a certification or other documentation which certifies that
such exportation was not in violation of the laws of the State Party". Note
this has nothing to do with "open and legitimate sale within the country".
Neither has it anything in the least connected with its 'provenance' or
collecting history. This is purely and simply about lawful export (note that
title everybody, Peter Tompa in particular). All is not lost even if you've
not got one of those, there is a get-out clause [2606(c)(1)(B)] "a statement
provided by the consignor, or person who sold the material to the importer,
which states the date, or, if not known, his belief, that the material was
exported from the State Party not less than ten years before the date of
entry into the United States, and the reasons on which the statement is
based". Not even on oath, not even asking for any supporting material to be
supplied. Basically scribbling down some (could be made-up) story of
innocence. Now the reason the silly whingers are complaining about even this
is that they reckon a fellow dealer scribbling such a note on a company
letterhead would - they assert - cost "more than the coin itself". So who
else except dumber-than-my-cat coineys would do business with a seller that
would charge you an arm and a leg for putting down a few words on paper why
the circumstances of the sale of these particular coins are not breaking the
law? How much were Spinks charging to scribble a note about the coins seized
in Baltimore on their way to the ACCG?
...
******************
COMMENTARY
******************
Emperor Barford seems to have tired of that role for the moment, and now
seeks to misrepresent himself as a lawyer, despite the fact that his
qualifications in that field are just as insignificant as his knowledge of
ancient numismatics. Ignorance has never, however, stopped or even slowed
down the ridiculous pretensions of this deluded fanatic.
As best I can understand this particular bit of fanciful drivel, he now
describes distinguished cultural Property law expert Peter Tompa, whose
activities in that field undoubtedly earn about ten times as much as
Barford's current work as a document translator and who graduated from the
Washington College of Law, American University (J.D. cum laude, 1986) and
the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (B.S.F.S. 1982), as not
knowing his subject. Let's see, Mr. Barford claims to hold a mere
baccalaureate degree, which in the field of archaeology isn't much -- one is
expected to have a doctorate if one wishes to be taken seriously, which
Barford of course is not (by archaeologists at any rate).
Tompa on the other hand not only does hold a doctorate (cum laude at that)
from a prestigious university, and has studied Foreign Service as a career
field, he has a very solid track record of accomplishment in cultural
property law, in which he is a well-regarded, multiply published and often
cited authority.
Mr. Barford appears to be unable to open his mouth in discussing cultural
property law (or anything other than archaeology, of which he does have
solid knowledge) without instantly putting his foot in it, which at any rate
would tend to somewhat diminish his incessant outpourings of irrational
drivel. Also, come to think of it , that particular physical contortion does
seem quite apt, in view of the nearby warm and dark place where his muddled
head evidently rests.
Posted to the list by:
Dave Welsh
Numismatica Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/numismatica
dwel...@cox.net
0 new messages