Tuesday, December 4, 2012
This post is researched, written, and published on the blog Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire at culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.com.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals today heard arguments about the meaning of the word "of" in the case of Rubin v. Iran. The Rubin plaintiffs wish to seize "property of Iran" after receiving a multi-million dollar court judgment holding that country responsible for injuries caused by a terrorist attack. The litigants have been unable to obtain payment; therefore, they seek to execute the judgment by taking ancient Iranian cultural artifacts housed at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) and the Harvard museums. After losing their case in the lower federal district court, the plaintiffs appealed.
The attorney for the plaintiffs/appellants told the judges today, "We don't really care, frankly, whether or not the property actually belongs to Iran." explaining "All we care about is whether the property is 'of Iran.'" "What does the word 'of'' mean?," counsel asked. He answered that "...the word 'of' does not always mean possession."...
See also the chronicle of news on Persepolis