Tweet
Persian treasure trove on the line at U. of C.
A federal judge has rejected a key defense by the University of Chicago in a lawsuit over rights to ancient Persian artifacts, a decision bound to ripple through the American museum community.
The next step, according to the Rhode Island lawyer who sued the university and several renowned museums: Seize an invaluable collection at U. of C.'s Oriental Institute--thousands of clay fragments with cuneiform writing that came from Iran. Then auction off the pieces to compensate victims of Middle Eastern violence on the grounds that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
The judge's decision comes as American museums are facing tough questions about how they acquired certain collections.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art recently agreed to return invaluable antiquities that Italian authorities said had been looted from that country. The J. Paul Getty Museum is negotiating a similar claim with Italy.
The judge's rebuke of U. of C. left several other lines of defense still to be heard. The case, which also involves the Field Museum, comes back to court for another hearing next month.
U. of C. had argued that it needed to protect Iran's rights to the property, even though Iran declined to come to court. The university said the Iranians were gun-shy because of bad experiences with the American legal system, a claim rejected by U.S. District Judge Blanche M. Manning in Chicago.
In a decision published Friday, Manning ruled the university's "brazen accusation that the courts of the United States are hostile to Iran and that, as a result, Iran should be excused from bothering to assert its rights, is wholly unsupported."
From the University of Chicago's perspective, this might be a case of injury about to be added to insult. David J. Strachman, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he will move to translate the judge's ruling into cash for his clients.
"Shortly, we are going to be asking for a judicial sale for the purpose of raising funds to satisfy the judgment," said Strachman.
In her ruling, Manning also took a poke at the U. S. government, which backed the university's side of the dispute. "The government relegates the [key] argument to a footnote," she wrote.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "We are reviewing the court's ruling."
In several recent cases involving U.S. citizens and foreign nations, the Department of Justice intervened and claimed the national interest is better served if such disputes are resolved through diplomatic negotiations rather than legal suit, an argument revived in the University of Chicago case.
"The government came into court crying the sky will fall if Iran has to satisfy this judgment," Strachman said. He said his clients were pleased by the judge's decision, which rejected that line of reasoning.
"They had been disheartened that the government defended Iran," Strachman said. "It was very upsetting to them, because they were doing what the Congress said they should be doing to help fight terrorism."
The Chicago case--formally titled Jenny Rubin, et al vs. the Islamic Republic of Iran, et al--stems from a deadly bombing in Israel nearly nine years ago.
On Sept. 4, 1997, suicide bombers set off explosive devices in Ben Yehuda mall, a popular tourist destination in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the bloody attack, which killed five bystanders and left 192 people wounded.
Several of the survivors were American visitors who filed a federal lawsuit against Iran and Iranian officials. They claimed that Hamas was financed by Iran, making the country legally responsible for their suffering. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina agreed and noted that Iran has a ministry for terrorism and budgets "between $50 million and $100 million a year sponsoring various organizations such as Hamas."
When Iran didn't show up in court, the judge ruled for the plaintiffs by default, awarding them damages of $423.5 million. Though a victory for Strachman and his clients, that left him the task of collecting from Iran's assets in the U.S., among them the collection of Persian artifacts housed at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute.
In response, the university invoked an ancient legal principle, known as sovereign immunity, which holds that governments can't be sued just like ordinary citizens. The university's lawyers argued that though Iran hadn't asserted that defense, it was doing it on Iran's behalf.
When a magistrate judge rejected that defense, the university appealed to Manning. But she agreed with the original finding.
Larry Arbieter, a University of Chicago spokesman, said that because the matter is still in court, the university declined to comment on the judge's ruling.
Joe Brennan, vice president and general counsel for the Field Museum, said that institution, though not directly affected by Friday's decision, disagreed with it. He looked upon the aftermath of the judge's ruling as an instance of living to fight another day.
"It was only one of several lines of defenses we've offered," he said. "There is another hearing coming up in July, and we're confident of winning."
The next step, according to the Rhode Island lawyer who sued the university and several renowned museums: Seize an invaluable collection at U. of C.'s Oriental Institute--thousands of clay fragments with cuneiform writing that came from Iran. Then auction off the pieces to compensate victims of Middle Eastern violence on the grounds that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
The judge's decision comes as American museums are facing tough questions about how they acquired certain collections.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art recently agreed to return invaluable antiquities that Italian authorities said had been looted from that country. The J. Paul Getty Museum is negotiating a similar claim with Italy.
The judge's rebuke of U. of C. left several other lines of defense still to be heard. The case, which also involves the Field Museum, comes back to court for another hearing next month.
U. of C. had argued that it needed to protect Iran's rights to the property, even though Iran declined to come to court. The university said the Iranians were gun-shy because of bad experiences with the American legal system, a claim rejected by U.S. District Judge Blanche M. Manning in Chicago.
In a decision published Friday, Manning ruled the university's "brazen accusation that the courts of the United States are hostile to Iran and that, as a result, Iran should be excused from bothering to assert its rights, is wholly unsupported."
From the University of Chicago's perspective, this might be a case of injury about to be added to insult. David J. Strachman, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he will move to translate the judge's ruling into cash for his clients.
"Shortly, we are going to be asking for a judicial sale for the purpose of raising funds to satisfy the judgment," said Strachman.
In her ruling, Manning also took a poke at the U. S. government, which backed the university's side of the dispute. "The government relegates the [key] argument to a footnote," she wrote.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said, "We are reviewing the court's ruling."
In several recent cases involving U.S. citizens and foreign nations, the Department of Justice intervened and claimed the national interest is better served if such disputes are resolved through diplomatic negotiations rather than legal suit, an argument revived in the University of Chicago case.
"The government came into court crying the sky will fall if Iran has to satisfy this judgment," Strachman said. He said his clients were pleased by the judge's decision, which rejected that line of reasoning.
"They had been disheartened that the government defended Iran," Strachman said. "It was very upsetting to them, because they were doing what the Congress said they should be doing to help fight terrorism."
The Chicago case--formally titled Jenny Rubin, et al vs. the Islamic Republic of Iran, et al--stems from a deadly bombing in Israel nearly nine years ago.
On Sept. 4, 1997, suicide bombers set off explosive devices in Ben Yehuda mall, a popular tourist destination in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the bloody attack, which killed five bystanders and left 192 people wounded.
Several of the survivors were American visitors who filed a federal lawsuit against Iran and Iranian officials. They claimed that Hamas was financed by Iran, making the country legally responsible for their suffering. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina agreed and noted that Iran has a ministry for terrorism and budgets "between $50 million and $100 million a year sponsoring various organizations such as Hamas."
When Iran didn't show up in court, the judge ruled for the plaintiffs by default, awarding them damages of $423.5 million. Though a victory for Strachman and his clients, that left him the task of collecting from Iran's assets in the U.S., among them the collection of Persian artifacts housed at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute.
In response, the university invoked an ancient legal principle, known as sovereign immunity, which holds that governments can't be sued just like ordinary citizens. The university's lawyers argued that though Iran hadn't asserted that defense, it was doing it on Iran's behalf.
When a magistrate judge rejected that defense, the university appealed to Manning. But she agreed with the original finding.
Larry Arbieter, a University of Chicago spokesman, said that because the matter is still in court, the university declined to comment on the judge's ruling.
Joe Brennan, vice president and general counsel for the Field Museum, said that institution, though not directly affected by Friday's decision, disagreed with it. He looked upon the aftermath of the judge's ruling as an instance of living to fight another day.
"It was only one of several lines of defenses we've offered," he said. "There is another hearing coming up in July, and we're confident of winning."
نيز برای نوشتن بهرهبرداری میشده که امروزه هيچ نمونهای از آن به دست نيامده است.
Comment