Federal Charges For Florida Fossil Dealer

[THobern]

Do we all agree to this premise: For a criminal charge to be brought and sustained, the prosecutor would have to be confident that he could prove, among other things, criminal intent (or criminal negligence). And, he would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt...

Not always, it's not necssary to prove mens rea for necessary for strict liability provisions; it would also depend on what constitutes the actus reus. However, it seems in the circumstances that the importer was at least grossly negligent. There seem to have been a number of things that should have tipped them off, even if they weren't aware, such as the parcel being imported as assorted reptile skulls.

Edited June 25, 2012 by THobern

[Harry Pristis]

When someone uses two Latin terms in an argument, my perception is obfuscation. In fact, careful dissection of your post reveals that you seem to have nothing pertinent to say about criminal liability, criminal negligence or criminal prosecution.

[steelhead9]

Not always, it's not necssary to prove mens rea for necessary for strict liability provisions; it would also depend on what constitutes the actus reus. However, it seems in the circumstances that the importer was at least grossly negligent. There seem to have been a number of things that should have tipped them off, even if they weren't aware, such as the parcel being imported as assorted reptile skulls.

What makes you so certain there weren't assorted reptile skulls in the shipment? How do you, or any of the posters in this thread know the particulars of how this fossil was exported from Mongolia. There is much more to this story than meets the eye. In truth it boils down to those who think fossils should be the sole possessions of governments and instituitions, and those who think, in the right circumstances, they should be available to everyone.

[Auspex]

Safe bet that no one here is in possession of all the salient facts of this "case"; our discussion is thus all opinionated speculation, and none of us 'jail house lawyers' are going to have a hand in deciding the outcome. Well and good; as long as we refrain from insult, and give politics a wide berth, the thread will retain topical interest to the Forum.

[THobern]

What makes you so certain there weren't assorted reptile skulls in the shipment? How do you, or any of the posters in this thread know the particulars of how this fossil was exported from Mongolia. There is much more to this story than meets the eye. In truth it boils down to those who think fossils should be the sole possessions of governments and instituitions, and those who think, in the right circumstances, they should be available to everyone.

No, that's not what we've been talking about. The conversation up until now has been whether there could be criminal culpability as well as civil liability. Whether the law has been broken is a factual question, whether the law in question should exist is a normative one. I got the information from the article that was linked in the first post;

"the 8-foot-tall (2.4-meter-tall), 24-foot-long (7.3-meter-long) skeleton was incorrectly listed on customs forms as consisting of assorted fossilized reptiles and skulls"

the absence of 'skeleton' is a fairly glaring omission. We don't know how it was exported from Mongolia, but that's pretty irrelevant under the circumstances, as the country's laws mean that you can be sure that it was illegal.

Edited June 26, 2012 by THobern

[THobern]

Not always, it's not necssary to prove mens rea for necessary for strict liability provisions; it would also depend on what constitutes the actus reus. However, it seems in the circumstances that the importer was at least grossly negligent. There seem to have been a number of things that should have tipped them off, even if they weren't aware, such as the parcel being imported as assorted reptile skulls.

When someone uses two Latin terms in an argument, my perception is obfuscation. In fact, careful dissection of your post reveals that you seem to have nothing pertinent to say about criminal liability, criminal negligence or criminal prosecution.

Not always, it's not necssary to prove mens rea for necessary for strict liability provisions; it would also depend on what constitutes the actus reus. However, it seems in the circumstances that the importer was at least grossly negligent. There seem to have been a number of things that should have tipped them off, even if they weren't aware, such as the parcel being imported as assorted reptile skulls.

Google would give definitions of the two terms;

Actus reus; the physical element of a crime

Mens rea; the mental element of a crime.

You had said that it was necessary to prove intent to commit a crime. My point was that it might not be necessary to prove the mens rea (the mental element, which you referred to as 'intent') if; either the statute required only the actus reus (this is called 'strict liability'), or if the criminal act in question defined the mental elements more broadly, not requiring specific and positive knowledge of the history. It would all come to interpretation of the statute, or common law principles, with which the prosecution brought a case.

However, I said that this still is probably irrelevant, as the mental element could probably also be satisfied in any case, as the facts (read the article) show that there were things to tip the importer off. It's hard to imagine that, given the price and description on the declaration form, and the species information, that this was in perfect good faith. So even if you don't believe that there was prior collusion, the prosecution could press the receipt the items; the continued possession of a knowingly misacquired item.

Edited June 26, 2012 by THobern

[Boesse]

Well, that's just super, Bobby! I'm certain that a jury will be impressed (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that all Tarbosaurs are "only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told.... "

If tarbosaurs in the field are being vandalized, we should be happy that this one was saved. But then, do we really need another tarbosaur skeleton? Phil Currie probably cares, but it is not important to most of us.

You seem to have inside information, Bobby. Are you going to be testifying against the collectors involved in this lawsuit?

When next you're talking with him, I hope you'll suggest rare earth element analysis to the US Attorney. I'm sure he has that covered somewhere in his budget.

I'm glad you think that's super. Thanks. I don't have any insider information, as it happens, although a couple of the people involved are friends of mine. If you cared enough to read the literature, there is a growing body of studies utilizing "large" sample sizes of dinosaurs for all manners of analyses - including tyrannosaurids, and in science, we need the largest sample sizes possible. So, every specimen matters. Although you may not care about fossil tyrannosaurids, there is a huge list of people who do, easily viewable in plain sight, here: http://www.change.org/petitions/heritage-auctions-stop-the-auction-of-illegally-collected-mongolian-dinosaur-fossils (I'll do the math so you don't have to: that's Phil Currie + 1,765 others). It would seem that given the amount of damage that this specimen has endured, that it was another vandalized specimen, presumably no different from the rest in that regard. And yes, I'm sure the community as a whole is quite happy that this specimen will most likely (it would appear, anyway) be returned to Mongolia. But then again, we have to give credit where credit was due: this specimen wasn't really being saved, was it? It was destined for the foyer of the house of whoever bought it.

That being said, the people involved are smarter than either of us, and I'm confident they'll make the right decision about geochemical tests for the specimen.

[THobern]

... It was destined for the foyer of the house of whoever bought it...

Exactly, and it enabled and incentivised the continued removal of these specimens by inexperienced excavators, destroying and limiting scientific information. To those who are arguing that you can't be sure of the locality of the specimen; that's already then a tremondous amount of information lost on the specimen.

[Sinopaleus]

...that's Phil Currie + 1,765 others).

Make that Phil Currie + 1,766 others.

[Harry Pristis]

A petition for rescuing an orphan tarbosaur from its legal (so far) custodians, what an idea! Petitions will not provide anything useful, except the confirmation that people will sign on-line petitions for anything. They seem to get caught up in whatever story the petition conveys -- people want to correct whatever injustice was posited.

And it is always wise to try to discern the motives of those who author the petition. How does the outcome of a successful petition benefit the authors? How does the outcome of the petition benefit the signers?

This urge to correct injustice via petition is not always well-founded because the petition is always presented in the alarmist, antipathy-producing terms. Justice comes from reasoned arguments -- evidence, and rule of law -- not from the impassioned pleas of emailers who may or may not have a full or rational understanding of the circumstances.

In the tarbosaur case, the petition would have the USAttorney spend our federal tax dollars to seize and send some data-denuded bones back to Mongolia (IF that is where it originates), a client-state of China. In doing so, the federal government would inflict severe economic damage to one (at least) of our US citizens. This is not science. This is some arbitrary justice the petitioners demand.

[THobern]

Is it really "severe economic damage"? Presumably he paid only $15,000 for it (this does not include prep time obviously), or did in fact know that it was misrepresented on the customs form. If he paid 15,000 for it unwittingly, he is entitled to recoup his loses through civil means.

It's not just a case of returning this particular specimen to the Mongolian government, although it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable. The point of a law is often to disincentivise future breaches, not necessarily right a specific wrong; by showing that it is not a financially viable to export and import illegal specimens, this may go some way to preventing future excavations.

[THobern]

A petition for rescuing an orphan tarbosaur from its legal (so far) custodians, what an idea! Petitions will not provide anything useful, except the confirmation that people will sign on-line petitions for anything. They seem to get caught up in whatever story the petition conveys -- people want to correct whatever injustice was posited.

And it is always wise to try to discern the motives of those who author the petition. How does the outcome of a successful petition benefit the authors? How does the outcome of the petition benefit the signers?

This urge to correct injustice via petition is not always well-founded because the petition is always presented in the alarmist, antipathy-producing terms. Justice comes from reasoned arguments -- evidence, and rule of law -- not from the impassioned pleas of emailers who may or may not have a full or rational understanding of the circumstances.

In the tarbosaur case, the petition would have the USAttorney spend our federal tax dollars to seize and send some data-denuded bones back to Mongolia (IF that is where it originates), a client-state of China. In doing so, the federal government would inflict severe economic damage to one (at least) of our US citizens. This is not science. This is some arbitrary justice the petitioners demand.

The petition was started by a Neil Kelley, the paleontologist at UC, Davis. His motives are laid out here; http://microecos.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/but-i-dont-even-like-tyrannosaurs/

[Harry Pristis]

The petition was started by a Neil Kelley, the paleontologist at UC, Davis. His motives are laid out here; http://microeco

Thank you for confirming my assertion that such petitions are not based on evidence. Kelley (and Bobby) base their position on their ethical sensibilities, not facts. They do acknowledge that provable facts (in those regrettable "legal machinations") will prevail.

Unhappily, only the attorneys will prosper in this case. Every US taxpayer will take a small hit. At least one taxpayer will take a big hit. What's lacking here is a sense of proportion.

[THobern]

Thank you for confirming my assertion that such petitions are not based on evidence. Kelley (and Bobby) base their position on their ethical sensibilities, not facts. They do acknowledge that provable facts (in those regrettable "legal machinations") will prevail.

Unhappily, only the attorneys will prosper in this case. Every US taxpayer will take a small hit. At least one taxpayer will take a big hit. What's lacking here is a sense of proportion.

What do you mean that they are basing it on ethical sensibilities, not facts? Any judgement is going to be just that; interpreting facts in light of an ethical position. You need to be more clear on which judgement you are referring to, as there are several questions being debated at once;

• Whether the dealer or exporter could be criminally culpable, as well as liable under civil law.
  
• Whether it could, and should have, been known that the specimen came from Mongolia.
  
• Whether the government should step in where there has been smuggling.
  

I addressed the first and third question, Bobby primarily addressed the second question.

On the third point; naturally every tax payer will take a hit, but it's short-sited view. You said that it is enforcing the interests of China, but if data on the site is preserved and protected, it will be available to any scientist or layperson with journal access.

Normally people on this site are exceptionally vocal about the need to protect scientifically valuable sites and ensure that valuable finds are properly accessed.

Edited June 26, 2012 by THobern

[mikeymig]

A petition for rescuing an orphan tarbosaur from its legal (so far) custodians, what an idea! Petitions will not provide anything useful, except the confirmation that people will sign on-line petitions for anything. They seem to get caught up in whatever story the petition conveys -- people want to correct whatever injustice was posited.

And it is always wise to try to discern the motives of those who author the petition. How does the outcome of a successful petition benefit the authors? How does the outcome of the petition benefit the signers?

This urge to correct injustice via petition is not always well-founded because the petition is always presented in the alarmist, antipathy-producing terms. Justice comes from reasoned arguments -- evidence, and rule of law -- not from the impassioned pleas of emailers who may or may not have a full or rational understanding of the circumstances.

In the tarbosaur case, the petition would have the USAttorney spend our federal tax dollars to seize and send some data-denuded bones back to Mongolia (IF that is where it originates), a client-state of China. In doing so, the federal government would inflict severe economic damage to one (at least) of our US citizens. This is not science. This is some arbitrary justice the petitioners demand.

AMEN - Thats what some people say when they express strong agreements.

[Boesse]

The entirety of Harry's problem is that he has a difference of opinion with seemingly the majority of tyrannosaurid researchers out there - Harry hasn't seen the specimen (and neither have I, mind you). That being said, a number of prominent paleontologists from numerous countries have come together and agreed that the fossil - based on its morphology and its preservation - looks like a mongolian dinosaur, talks like a mongolian dinosaur, and smells like a mongolian dinosaur. According to them, it bears the same hallmark coloration as other material from the Nemegt Fm., which is apparently distinctive and not necessarily represented in fossils from China. I by no means am advocating arguments from authority - but it's foolish to dismiss out of hand their observations simply because they're a group of characters you happen to disdain.

When it comes down to a "difference of opinion" like this, I'm inclined to trust scientists who have actually looked at the fossil, rather than Harry, who has not. No offense.

If our friend in Florida is out some money - well, that's too bad. It really is his loss; he should have known better, because it shouldn't take more than a few minutes with google to find out large countries in Eastern Asia generally don't allow export of fossils - clearly a lot of stuff still makes it out of China anyway. That being said, if the fossil were from China, where there is a gray area, and material still makes it out and nobody says anything about it. Let's say that this fossil was sent through, hopefully going unnoticed, to be one of the 'gray area' specimens of questionable legality - a judge is not going to look lightly at that either, as it would appear those involved were trying to exploit loopholes and shortcomings in the law. That's not good either, and no matter which way you skin it - China or Mongolia - you come to the likely conclusion that it was illegally removed. As far as the importer not knowing where it came from - that's the realm of black market art dealers and drug smugglers. "No, officer, I didn't put that bag of cocaine in my briefcase. I don't know where it came from." An extreme example, but you get the point - and whether or not he really knows where it came from - lets argue he honestly doesn't - then that's just a shady business model, and he has nobody to thank or blame but himself. That being said, I don't know enough of the particulars about the guy in Florida - and I haven't been convinced that he should be prosecuted; he may genuinely be innocent. But nobody here knows, including Harry and myself. Anyway, just some thoughts.

As far as motives for the author of the petition - I'll tell you what I do know. Neil Kelley, unlike the rest of imagined vertebrate paleontologists in their ivory towers, hoarding fossils from the public, is a graduate student working on marine reptiles, and put the petition together because he thought it would be helpful. I can assure you he does not have a mustache to twirl, a white cat to stroke, or any nefarious ulterior motives.

[Harry Pristis]

Thank you, Bobby, for trying to sum up "The entirety of Harry's problem..." What a hoot!

The opinions of professional paleontologists mean nothing until the civil case is adjudicated.

Here is what I think of the case against the Florida collector in my words:

I am sorry to hear of Eric's problem with the Tarbosaurus. I missed the part about the "federal charges," though. I understood that it is a "claim," and a civil lawsuit, to recover the fossil for Mongolia.

"Fraud" is a pretty strong word to describe the situation. Fraud under British law? Fraud under U.S. law? I doubt that there will ever be sanctions under criminal law. Try to be less judgmental, Nate, . . . leave that to the professional paleontologists and the ambitious prosecutor.

...

What no one seems to recognize is the possibility that Eric acted in good faith. Did Eric pay (was it $13,000?) for a tyrannosaur that was purported to be, say an old find from the Isle of Wight? If $13,000 seems like a ridiculously low price, remember how Phil Currie described the skeleton -- much damaged and missing significant parts. I prefer to give Eric the benefit of the doubt....

Well, that's just super, Bobby! I'm certain that a jury will be impressed (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that all Tarbosaurs are "only found in Mongolia. So far as can be told.... "...

In the tarbosaur case, the petition would have the USAttorney spend our federal tax dollars to seize and send some data-denuded bones back to Mongolia (IF that is where it originates), a client-state of China. In doing so, the federal government would inflict severe economic damage to one (at least) of our US citizens. This is not science. This is some arbitrary justice the petitioners demand.

Thank you for confirming my assertion that such petitions are not based on evidence. Kelley (and Bobby) base their position on their ethical sensibilities, not facts. They do acknowledge that provable facts (in those regrettable "legal machinations") will prevail.

Unhappily, only the attorneys will prosper in this case. Every US taxpayer will take a small hit. At least one taxpayer will take a big hit. What's lacking here is a sense of proportion.

Even THobern understood what we are discussing:

Posted Yesterday, 04:13 AM

The conversation up until now has been whether there could be criminal culpability as well as civil liability. Whether the law has been broken is a factual question, whether the law in question should exist is a normative one.

So, you see, Bobby, it's not a difference of opinion . . . I have no opinion on the source of the bones or how they found their way to the auction block. Frankly, I don't care. I do care about a rational and proportional legal outcome for the collector.

What I do have an opinion about is the self-serving promotion by professional paleontologists of the importance of these bones. Don't get me started on that subject.

[THobern]

...Even THobern understood what we are discussing...

Yeah, I have my moments.

[THobern]

Thank you, Bobby, for trying to sum up "The entirety of Harry's problem..." What a hoot!

The opinions of professional paleontologists mean nothing until the civil case is adjudicated.

Here is what I think of the case against the Florida collector in my words:

Even THobern understood what we are discussing:

So, you see, Bobby, it's not a difference of opinion . . . I have no opinion on the source of the bones or how they found their way to the auction block. Frankly, I don't care. I do care about a rational and proportional legal outcome for the collector.

What I do have an opinion about is the self-serving promotion by professional paleontologists of the importance of these bones. Don't get me started on that subject.

How can you have an view on the opinion of the paleontologist, without having an opinion on the source of the bones? Without an understanding of how important they are, how can you appreciate the validity of his opinion? How can you have a view about the proportionality of the response, without understanding how they were recovered (and how others like them continue to be recovered)? That seems to be putting ethical sensibilities above facts.

Edited June 28, 2012 by THobern

[Sinopaleus]

I have no opinion on the source of the bones or how they found their way to the auction block. Frankly, I don't care. I do care about a rational and proportional legal outcome for the collector.

Ouch and Wow. How do you say that... Wouch?

If I'm reading this correctly... You're saying that you don't care about the T. baatar and what it means to the people of Mongolia, on the contrast, you do care for the private collector who wants to decorate his living room with just another acquisition, STOLEN (according to CNN's T.V report) from another country???

I really hope I'm reading this incorrectly.

[fossilselachian]

Brief comment by Eric on this subject in 16 July issue of Time Magizine.

[Harry Pristis]

Ouch and Wow. How do you say that... Wouch?

If I'm reading this correctly... You're saying that you don't care about the T. baatar and what it means to the people of Mongolia, on the contrast, you do care for the private collector who wants to decorate his living room with just another acquisition, STOLEN (according to CNN's T.V report) from another country???

I really hope I'm reading this incorrectly.

You are reading me correctly. I am only mildly interested in the bones, but I just don't have room to display them. We don't know (and probably will never know at a scientific level) where the bones were recovered. I have no idea what the "people of Mongolia" think except for one letter from one politician. Do you presume to know the minds of the Mongolians?!

We all understand that Wolf Blitzer is a legal authority in these matters, so whatever he reports on CNN must be correct. LOL

You sound like you you have imbibed the SVP KoolAde. Let me point out that these bones are not unique sacred objects, and professional paleontologists ("pro pals" I call 'em) are not the high priests of a religion known as "The Science." It is not sacrilege for private collectors to acquire and display these objects.

The idea that vertebrate fossils are sacred, and that their possession should be restricted to pro pals is a self-serving notion that has been promoted by the SVP. They've put it into action through lobbying various government agencies to put in place collecting restrictions favorable to pro pals but restrictive on amateur and commercial collectors. When favorable restrictions are in place, pro pals (like Phil Currie) mount publicity campaigns to enforce them.

That's what we have here . . . a publicity campaign with petitions and news articles quoting pro pals like Phil Currie. They cite the horror of it all . . . the lost fossil heritage (of somewhere) . . . the lost scientific knowledge (though there is nothing new reported about this damaged specimen) . . . the SACRILEGE that Phil Currie (or some other pro pal) didn't get a grant to excavate this fossil himself.

I hope this alters your perspective a little . . . gives you a new paradigm to examine the current state of affairs.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Harry Pristis

[JimB88]

You are reading me correctly. I am only mildly interested in the bones, but I just don't have room to display them. We don't know (and probably will never know at a scientific level) where the bones were recovered. I have no idea what the "people of Mongolia" think except for one letter from one politician. Do you presume to know the minds of the Mongolians?!

We all understand that Wolf Blitzer is a legal authority in these matters, so whatever he reports on CNN says MUST be correct. LOL

You sound like you you have imbibed the SVP CoolAde. Let me point out that these bones are not unique sacred objects, and professional paleontologists ("pro pals" I call 'em) are not the high priests of a religion known as "The Science." It is not sacrilege for private collectors to acquire and display these objects.

The idea that vertebrate fossils are sacred, and that their possession should be restricted to pro pals is a self-serving notion that has been promoted by the SVP. They've put it into action through lobbying various government agencies to put in place collecting restrictions favorable to pro pals but restrictive on amateur and commercial collectors. When favorable restrictions are in place, pro pals (like Phil Currie) mount publicity campaigns to enforce them.

That's what we have here . . . a publicity campaign with petitions and news articles quoting pro pals like Phil Currie. They cite the horror of it all . . . the lost fossil heritage (of somewhere) . . . the lost scientific knowledge (though there is nothing new reported about this damaged specimen) . . . the SACRILEGE that Phil Currie (or some other pro pal) didn't get a grant to excavate this fossil himself.

I hope this alters your perspective a little . . . gives you a new paradigm to examine the current state of affairs.

well spoken

This is one reason I dont get into dinos at all (other than they're all about money and vastly over-studied) is they are also sooo political. Its fun to watch the pro's backstab each other when a major find is made. Its ridiculous! Now I love paleontology, but when taken in the context of human society and its future it plays a miniscule, if any, part at all. So seeing people ruined over it is very sad.

Edited July 8, 2012 by JimB88

[Harry Pristis]

well spoken

This is one reason I dont get into dinos at all (other than they're all about money and vastly over-studied) is they are also sooo political. Its fun to watch the pro's backstab each other when a major find is made. Its ridiculous! Now I love paleontology, but when taken in the context of human society and its future it plays a miniscule, if any, part at all. So seeing people ruined over it is very sad.

Thank you, 'JimB88,' you are quite right to point out some of the (less-attractive) behaviors of our pro pals. These people operate on the same mix of motives as do the rest of us . . . they are ambitious, they are lazy; they are venal, they are idealistic; they are honest, they are conniving. In other words, they are human. Let me offer a more-detailed picture:

At the 1987 annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists(SVP), the vast majority of professionals attending voted to reject the then-recent recommendations of the National Research Council on regulating paleontological collecting. The NRC recommendations are a blueprint for reconciling the interests of professionals, amateurs, and even commercial collectors. For most of us, it is hard to find fault with the insights, the logic, and the compromises recommended by the NRC panel of experts; but, the SVP professionals manage to do so. This attitude has not changed.

What motivates vertebrate paleontologists (and their institutions) to reject compromise, to want it all their way? Their argument is well known: "There is a Sacred Duty to collect, curate, and interpret the limited vertebrate fossils resources in order to add to the pool of human knowledge." Whether or not they believe in the Sacred Duty concept, some professionals (and institutions) seem to find it a convenient rationale for exploiting amateurs. In the professionals' view, amateurs are usually a necessary evil, sometimes a curse, rarely an asset; amateurs and commercial collectors are the competition!

The reality is that professional careers are built on acquiring significant fossil material. Significant material means institutional prestige. It also leads to publishable research; publication leads to a better job, tenure, grant money, status among peers, travel, and other good things. Getting significant fossils can mean the difference between being curator at a prestigious museum or teaching earth science at a community college.

Considering the importance of significant fossils to the professional, it is understandable that he may perceive amateurs as unreliable and undesirable competition. In this light, it becomes clear just how useful to an ambitious professional the "Sacred Duty" rationale can be: it is at once the moral high ground AND a justification for actions which would seem unreasonable in another context.

Holding this self-erected moral high ground and driven by ideology or career ambition, perspective and sense of fair-play can become distorted. Fossil collectors, both amateur and commercial, may be seen as the forces of chaos and destruction which must be defeated or, at least, controlled (laws and regulations). Compromise may be viewed as a victory for evil. I think these are the notions which may cloud the judgement of professionals and their institutions.

Despite the Sacred Duty demagoguery, there may still be professionals who try as best they can to deal honestly and equitably with collectors. But, the collector has to be mindful that there is a backdrop of conflicting interests which may involve more than science.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48530179/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.UCAYx7T2b0c