Friday, 31 August 2012

Where the Tarby Case Lawyers are Going?

The recent "motion to dismiss" submitted in the case "United States of America v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton" falls into the usual "You-cannot-prove-anything-so-there" mould (rather than the "here-are-the-documents-so-there" one), so no surprises there. It also falls wide of the mark, given what the problem with the process of export/import actually are reported to be. But, given what we do know about what the controversial paperwork actually does say, I suggest we pay attention to the insistent use of the terminology "Display Piece" in the document. In my non-lawyeristic opinion, it may well have a crucial significance in the future development of the case. If I am reading this right, I suggest it would be good (for the Mongolians) if in any response, the government's lawyers do not underestimate Mr Procopi's lawyers and define more precisely what it was that they claim was imported improperly. Let's not have another St Louis mummy mask type fiasco.

Now, quite a few people have been looking on this blog among other places for information about what is happening and what people are saying about it. That is to be expected. What I find interesting is who has NOT shown any interest in the development of this case. As far as I can see, there have not been any hits from the unnamed fossil dealer in Dorset who reportedly imported the fossils to the UK and then sent them off to the US.

No comments:

Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.