POPULARITY
2 episodes with legal standing
3 episodes with legal standing
2 episodes with legal standing
2 episodes with legal standing
In this episode of Right to Life Radio, host John Gerardi and guest Jonathan Keller dive into the recent Supreme Court ruling on the abortion pill, discussing its implications and the broader landscape of abortion regulations. They unpack the 9-0 decision, exploring the concept of legal standing and its role in this case. The conversation also touches on the growing prevalence of medication abortions and the challenges facing the pro-life movement in a changing regulatory environment. Additionally, John and Jonathan critique the political maneuvers surrounding IVF legislation and the seeming inconsistencies in the pro-life stance of many Republican leaders. Show Notes: 1. Introduction: • Host: John Gerardi • Guest: Jonathan Keller from California Family Council • Overview of the Supreme Court's decision regarding the abortion pill. 2. Supreme Court Ruling: • Explanation of the 9-0 decision. • Legal standing and its importance. • Historical context of the FDA's approval and regulation of the abortion pill. 3. Implications of the Decision: • The impact of the ruling on pro-life efforts. • Increased accessibility of the abortion pill and its consequences. • Discussion on the ethics and safety concerns related to medication abortions. 4. Political and Legal Analysis: • Critique of the Republican approach to FDA regulations. • The role of the Supreme Court in adjudicating actual lawsuits versus advisory opinions. 5. IVF Legislation Debate: • Examination of recent political focus on IVF. • Analysis of competing bills and their implications. • The moral and ethical considerations surrounding IVF practices. 6. Closing Thoughts: • Reflections on the broader pro-life movement. • Discussion on the importance of consistency in pro-life advocacy.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the abortion pill, but only to establish clearer guideposts as to when doctors can challenge the FDA in a federal lawsuit. The case revolved around private plaintiffs who objected to relaxed rules around abortion pills but failed to demonstrate a personal injury, lacking standing as a result. This decision sets an important precedent: individuals must show clear harm, not just moral or ideological objections, to challenge government rules through the court system. Join The Lieb Cast as we explore the implications of this ruling for future attempts to sue agencies based on policy disagreements alone.
This particular doctrine is central to the Gospel, and it was certainly central to The Reformers, who brought back to the church this doctrine that seemed to have been lost for centuries. The central detail is that we are Justified through Faith, and not by any other means, such as good works. And even the faith that we have was first given to us by God as a gift. So, for sure, there can be no boasting! The post The Order Of Salvation Pt.5 Justification (Right Legal Standing Before God)! appeared first on Living Rock Church.
In 2008, Ecuador enshrined the rights of nature in its constitution. But where is such jurisprudential thinking at in Australia? Here, property and commercial lawyer Mieke Elzer discusses the idea of nature's rights at law, particularly in the wake of the successful Sharma appeal. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with Attwood Marshall lawyer Mieke Elzer about the myriad forms of environmental law and how the earth law stream emerges from it, what is meant by ecological jurisprudence and where we're at with such legal considerations, the notion that the natural environment – from trees to oceans – can or should have legal standing, and where Australia sits in relation to global counterparts on such questions. Elzer also delves into the likelihood or otherwise that the natural environment can or will be recognised in Australian law, increasing litigation being seen or to be seen in this space, what it would take for a test case to emerge on the legal standing of the natural environment, bringing the judiciary along for the journey in shifting mindsets, and how all legal practitioners can be more environmentally conscious in their daily operations – both for the community and for themselves.
“Biden's Mind and the 2024 Election” “Trump vs the Migrant Terror” Trump Honors Laken Riley” “Trump's Legal Standing”
The way GHQ 3rd class inter pass gang has conducted election, Pakistan has become. Liability for the world and dismantling and its nuclear cassettes taken away by the world. It is danger to
From his start as an investment banker with expertise in securitization to his earliest days as a trial attorney Neil discusses the evolution of foreclosure actions by lenders. Of particular interest is how Neil speaks to how they have been able to veer away from the traditional rules of evidence and discovery to foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners not knowledgable on how these pactice are a violation of basic jurisprudence. The very basic issues of "Legal Standing" are discussed and Neil highlights how they are being ignored in courtrooms all accross the country because homewoners and their attorneys are not challenging the issue of "legal standing" in the discvery process during foreclosure defense litigation. Neil Garfields work continues with Lance Denha esq., Neil's hand picked successor on livinglies.me
June 29, 2023 - We explore the legal questions raised by the effort to house asylum seekers outside of New York City with Don Chesworth, a partner in the Rochester law office of Tully Rinckey.
In this episode, host Nikki Nolan welcomes back Thomas Gokey, co-founder of the Debt Collective, to discuss the challenges and effects of reinstating the student loan payment system. Thomas believes it is impractical to resume payments and urges for an extension instead. He criticizes the Department of Education's inability to implement the restart due to broken systems and incorrect payment information. The Republicans are attempting to kill the payment pause and cancellation through the Congressional Review Act, which could also increase account balances and revoke public service loan forgiveness. Thomas emphasizes the need for continued advocacy and urges listeners to contact their representatives and the White House to express concerns. The Department of Education's proposed restart date of June 30th is seen as confusing and raises questions about political-strategic motives. Thomas also discusses a 14-page report that challenges the legal standing of the lawsuit against student debt relief, highlighting flawed claims made by MOHELA, a student loan servicer. The report questions the lack of verification and basic levels of discovery in the lawsuit's progression. References: The Willow Project Promises a Worse Future for Alaska—And for Earth House votes to repeal Biden's student debt relief plan The Suit Against Student Debt Relief Doesn't Add Up: Flawed Claims of Legal Standing in Biden v. Nebraska Join the Debt Collective Debt Collective Events
Lee dissects all the legal issues from the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar
Recorded live May 1st, 2022 Romans 6:8-13 Being Dead to Sin is not just a Legal Standing we have; it can be our life.
After 14 years, the Beloit Casino has cleared all the legal hurdles. Jon Warner attempts to educate me on “Legal Standing” according to our courts. GC 2022 is just around the corner
Judul Skripsi Ahmad Roni Sanjaya : Legal standing paralagel dalam memberikan bantuan Hukum pasca putusan MA no. 22 p/hum/2018 tentang uji materi Permenkumham no 1 tahun 2018. Selamat mendengarkan~ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/laili-amalia-puteri/message
Anies Baswedan Punya Legal Standing dalam Merevisi Kenaikan Upah DKI Tahun 2022 ================================================== Yuk Follow! Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/spkep_cemwu/ Twitter : https://twitter.com/spkepspsi Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/spkep.spsi Tiktok : https://www.tiktok.com/@keptv Website : https://spkep-spsi.org/ LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/spkep-spsi-8b120514b/ Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/c/SPKEPSPSITV/ ================================================== --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/keptv/message
- Texas Abortion law- Colorado emergency over- TSA- Liberal Philosophy vs Theology
April 25 2021 Sunday Pastor John C. Mathis Not Guilty-On Basis Of The Word Isaiah 43:25, 26 25 I am He that blotteth out thy transgressions “for Mine own sake,” and will not remember thy sins 26 Put Me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that you may be justified Isaiah 1:18 18 Come now, and let us reason together…though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool 1 John 2:1 1 If any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE (lawyer, one who defends by argument) with the Father • You have Legal Standing with your Heavenly Father on the Basis of the Word of God Colossians 2:10-14 BLOTTING out the handwriting of ordinances (legal documents) against you Matthew 26:28 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins Psalm 51:1 David after Nathan came to him about Bathsheba 1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness: according not the multitude of Thy tender mercies BLOT out my transgressions 2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin Isaiah 44:22 22 I have BLOTTED out, as a thick cloud, thy sins: return unto Me; for I have redeemed thee Acts 3:19 19 Repent…and be converted, that your sins may be BLOTTED out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord • He doesn't remember your sins and iniquities of the past. He has no knowledge that you ever did anything wrong Micah 7:18, 19 18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardons iniquity, and passes by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retains not His anger forever, because He delights in mercy. 19 He will turn again, He will have compassion on us; He will subdue our iniquities; and will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea • Well, if He doesn't remember, why should you remind Him? • A lawyer is continually bringing up law and legal precedent. In the same way, You bring God's Word to His attention: "Put me in remembrance...." HE WANTS TO RULE IN YOUR FAVOR Isaiah 55:11 11 So shall MY WORD be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it SHALL NOT RETURN UNTO ME VOID, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it • This verse should be the very Backbone of your Argument Jeremiah 1:12 12 I will hasten my word to perform it Genesis 18:25 25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Your Defense—NOT GUILTY on the Basis of the Word • You don't have to go on “paying for” the wrongdoing of your past. For God to punish you, He would have to remember your sins, but He doesn't remember them. • We've all made a real mess of things at times 1 John 1:9 Written to believers • If you don't know the truth, the devil will continuously bring up pictures of your past to condemn you Romans 8:1 1 There is therefore now NO condemnation to them which are In Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit John 3:16, 17 God so loved…sent not His Son to condemn Condemn: To sentence, pronounce guilty, to blame or point a finger 1 John 5:14, 15 This is the Confidence John Mathis ccfjcm@aol.com http://clevelandchristianfellowship.com Website https://the-prodigalson.com Email tstacyhayes@gmail.com YouVersion Bible App https://my.bible.comi iOS App https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prodigal-son/id1450529518?mt=8 … Android App https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.wizzard.android.prodical Social Media https://www.facebook.com/The-Prodigal-SON-209069136315959/ https://www.facebook.com/noreligion1511/ https://twitter.com/noreligion1511 https://www.instagram.com/noreligion1511/ https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCPx4s1CLkSYef6mp4dSuU4w/featured
Contractor Radio - The Business Strategy Source for Home Services Contractors
In today's episode of Contractor Radio, we get the opportunity to sit down with Mat Mulholland, the president of Allgood Adjustments. Not only does he know his stuff when it comes to public adjusting, but he is one of the most interesting people we've met in the Insurance Restoration industry. Mat is also the host of the "Listen to This Bull" podcast.2:00 - Introduction4:00 - Introduction to Mat Mulholland16:56 - What is Your Greatest Achievement19:40 - What Do You Think Contractors Think of Public Adjusters?35:30 - "Bull Crap" Things Insurance Companies Say39:20 - Legal Standing that Public Adjusters Have47:55 - Mat's Favorite Beer/Elon Musk Interview Moment?!49:13 - Transitioning to Being More Front-Facing53:00 - Generational Differences with Motivation59:00 - How Do You Want to Be Remembered?1:00:00 - Listen to This Bull Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/c/listentothisbull/videos 1:06:11 - Parting ThoughtsA huge shoutout to this year's sponsors that you know you can trust! Thanks for making Contractor Radio possible!Signpost - helping home service businesses attract, connect with, and grow their customer base! https://www.signpost.com/Balanced Claims - solve claims administration problems for contractors who want to grow in the insurance restoration industry! https://balanceclaims.com/Atlas Roofing - the shingle manufacturer that innovates, supports, and enables contractors to gain a competitive advantage in their market. https://www.atlasroofing.com/Kill Your Competition - a distinctively different web design and marketing company. No hidden fees, more qualified leads. Learn more at https://killyourcompetition.today/GetTheReferral - the industry-leading referral app to proactively get better leads more often! https://www.getthereferral.com/ContractorCoachPRO - the executive level coaching team that helps contractors get control of their business so they can grow their business to achieve personal and financial freedom. Take our free contractor assessment today and get a free coaching call! https://bit.ly/CTR-podcastHail Trace - the industry-leading storm data provider that helps contractors get more customers! https://hailtrace.com/SumoQuote - contractor quotes that and crush the competition. The fastest way to build custom quotes that impress clients and win more work! https://www.sumoquote.com/Beacon - From the first quote to the final invoice, we are dedicated to the success of contractors. We maintain a massive network of 500+ locations in the U.S. & Canada and a suite of digital resources like automated order workflows, live pricing, material ordering, and mobile delivery tracking. https://www.becn.com/ScopeTechnologies - providing contractors with the measuring and estimating tools to win more jobs in more services! Roofing, Gutters, Siding, Painting, Insulation, and Concrete! https://myscopetech.com/
In this episode, we explain the concept of legal standing. Dr. David Schein is an attorney, speaker, and a professor and Associate Dean at the University of St. Thomas. He is the founder and CEO of Claremont Management Group, a consulting firm in Houston, Texas. Dr. Schein has written and published The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures, a thought-provoking, non-partisan book that reviews the last 100 years of American Presidents (from Wilson through Obama), offering not just criticism, but common sense solutions to help fix America before it's too late. Dr. Schein also hosts the podcast “Saving America,” where he discusses politics, current events, and solutions for saving America.
Menko Polhukam Mahfud MD mengumumkan, pemerintah melarsng aktivitas FPI dan akan menghentikan setiap kegiatan FPI karena FPI tidak memiliki Legal Standing, Rabu (30/12). (Red)
Bahwa sejarah dan pengalaman dalam pengembangan usaha di tubuh PCNU JEMBER khususnya selalu mengalami inprosedural kepemilikan usaha setelah masa jabatan. Artinya banyak usaha yang didirikan setelah berjalan dimiliki oleh kelompok individup pengurus. Hal ini karena lemahnya LEGAL STANDING.
In this episode, Michael discusses President Trump's current legal standing, the unfortunately historic wealth transfers that have happened from small businesses to major corporations over the last few months due to the lockdowns, and the potential dangers of mandatory COVID vaccinations in countries and industries across the world. Come join the conversation!Subscribe to the email list to receive insider updates, show notes, and more:https://exceptional-producer-6026.ck.page/863a113776Donate to the show:https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=CK7PXGDFC89TA&source=urlLeave a positive review for the show on Apple:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/refining-politics-culture-w-michael-seifert/id1515214229For all other inquiries, please visit my website:http://www.refiningpoliticsandculture.com
Comments on the rise of Telemedicine during the COVID-19 era; Production and distribution problems in the pharmaceutical industry world wide; Telogen Effluvium is an challenging hair loss condition; The important topic of osteopenia in women over 70; Dietary advice to prevent calcium oxalate kidney stones; The importance of serotonin -- treating depression and anxiety with tryptophan and 5-HTP instead of SSRI drugs; Pros and cons of head higher vs. legs higher sleep positions; Comments on the legal concept of standing in lawsuits such as recent anti-abortion cases
Comments on the rise of Telemedicine during the COVID-19 era; Production and distribution problems in the pharmaceutical industry world wide; Telogen Effluvium is an challenging hair loss condition; The important topic of osteopenia in women over 70; Dietary advice to prevent calcium oxalate kidney stones; The importance of serotonin -- treating depression and anxiety with tryptophan and 5-HTP instead of SSRI drugs; Pros and cons of head higher vs. legs higher sleep positions; Comments on the legal concept of standing in lawsuits such as recent anti-abortion cases
This summer has seen mass protests stretch across the United States, some of them yielding vandalism and violence. The presence of armed civilian groups at these demonstrations seems to be on the rise, further raising the stakes in situations already tense. Amna Nawaz talks to Georgetown University's Mary McCord, former Justice Department acting assistant attorney general for national security. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
Known | Legal Standing | Sermon by Pastor Kim Buckman | . When we come before God, it is not a matter of pity. It is not a problem of a mother’s love that overlooks a son’s disobedience and rebellion. Hebrews 4:16 So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most. Check Out Our Website https://htcfamily.org/ Building Lives For Life Change. "I came so that they could have REAL and eternal life." John 10:10
A Cameron, Missouri, school district superintendent has received a series of complaint letters regarding religious activity in school. However, these letters are rife with unsubstantiated claims and unidentified sources. In order to be taken seriously, legal demand letters require litigants and facts—not anonymous threats and gripes. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America, whether that is Tim Tebow’s eye black or Coach Kennedy’s silent prayer. However, with these public displays of religions often come needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent, demanding an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity. But something always seems to be missing with these letters: A litigant. Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — such a letter amounts to little more than a public gripe. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.
It's safe to say that most are living beneath their legal rights in Christ. But it's something we can progress in -- we can optimize our legal standing before the Judge of All! It's about justice. Recognize your identity and standing in Christ. Understand your advantages. And quest for them in faith and prayer as you stretch for your high calling! >> Go to JesusSmart.com/godspeed to see a complete list of Godspeed tinysodes >> Get the Jesus Smart eLetter and keep current with podcast episode releases
Tonight we talk about how to be persuasive in court so that the Judge realizes that the foreclosure might not result in any proceeds being used to pay down the debt. The point of defending a foreclosure is saving the house or getting compensation for losing the house. Saving the house means defending it. Getting compensation means filing a lawsuit for damages. In nonjudicial states you need to file for a TRO in order to challenge the foreclosure. The central point of foreclosure defense in the current era is to reveal the fact that the foreclosure will not result in payment of the debt. Everyone seems to think that the central point is to avoid paying the debt. There used to be only one defense to foreclosure: payment. In the current era starting in the late 1990's there is another defense — lack of payment. The issue is wrapping your head around something that is completely counter-intuitive. Why would anyone foreclose unless they were looking for money to pay down a debt? The answer to that question sends most people into a tailspin, stumbling over their own words. In the end the judge doesn't know what your are talking about and you lose your home unless you present a clear and persuasive reason to prevent foreclosure — namely that the party claiming foreclosure is not in fact the owner of the debt and probably has never seen nor possessed the original promissory note. That claimant has never loaned any money and they don't say that they have loaned you money. That claimant has never paid value for the debt, note or mortgage, they don't say they did. In most cases you were mislead into believing that the Payee named on the promissory note was lending you money.
Shrinking Legal Presumptions Charles Marshall, California attorney and Bill Paatalo, private investigator, discuss the implications of two Hawaii cases that are mirroring other decisions across the country. Hawaii Schranz Case Hawaii St. John Case The above links go to two recent Hawaii cases dealing with legal standing. The fundamental fact of law is that standing must be ACTUAL NOT PRESUMED. Specifically the issue is whether the foreclosing party actually had the original note at the time the foreclosure was commenced. Reasserting that standing is jurisdictional and therefore must be proven (with actual facts) present before a party takes any action, the courts here reversed (not for publication) Summary Judgments in favor of U.S. Bank and BONY Melon respectively.
ICOs and Regulations: Taming the New Wild West ICOs - or Initial Coin Offerings - are a widely used method for cryptocurrency startups, and also how some blockchain technology companies raise their initial funds to get their projects started. It is very much like a Kickstarter or GoFundMe, with the “reward” being given in newly created tokens. These tokens can be used on the product or service that is being built, which is referred to as a utility token, or in some cases, held like a stock and entitles the holder to a profit share, which is referred to as a security. With an ICO, businesses will usually write a whitepaper which gives all the details about their purpose, ideas, and a roadmap to allow investors (both small and large) to have the information needed to buy into these projects for a fraction of the speculated cost, once the coin hits the open market. These projects, are mostly still in the beginning stages of development. That’s right, most have no working product yet, but still ask people to pay them… and people do! By the tens of thousands, or even millions in some cases. ICOs took in over $2 billion dollars in 2017. There are currently over 1500 ICOs that have taken place, with thousands more on the horizon. All on the promise of what might be. If that doesn’t sound scary enough, add this factor in - ICOs have been mostly unregulated. Until now. Until recently, the industry has not been taken seriously by governments, financial institutions, or most of the general population. But with a market cap today of over $424 billion dollars at the time of writing (May 2018), it is now just beginning to get the attention it warrants. While many have gotten rich beyond their wildest expectations, others have been defrauded, robbed, and scammed. For even a discerning mind, it can be difficult to tell the difference when taking in a project at first glance. As 2018 moves forward, governments around the world are taking notice and passing laws they feel best protects their people. There are many concerns: Fraud, is the first, and most obvious, concern. China and South Korea have both banned ICOs. The United States has launched several SEC investigations, and is considering whether it can claim crypto coins are securities (which can only be sold by licensed individuals/institutions). Ponzi/Pyramid schemes have been a big problem also. USI-Tech and Bitconnect are two of the largest successful scams to date, taking in hundreds of millions of dollars, on false pretenses, only to shut down (or be shut down by the government). A substantial amount of money is now leaving the traditional investment sector, to a place where it can vanish and never be recovered if a company goes under. For money to leave the country in the past, a wire transfer had to be created, which was recorded and monitored, and took a long time to complete. A cryptocurrency transaction can move any amount of money around the world in just a moment, with or without a trace (depending on which currency is used). Price fixing is an issue as well, with many coins being mineable (created), using computer hardware performing work. It is considered a “pump and dump” technique, to create and flood the market with supply at will, to control the price. Some cryptocurrencies are untraceable and private, so governments are worried they will be used for money laundering for criminals, and avenues that can be used to fund terrorism. It is important to mention in context, that all of the above activities still existed and thrived long before cryptocurrency ever came around. Even though automobiles are used by bank robbers to make their escape, not every car on the planet is used by a criminal. Hopefully, the same logic will prevail. Despite all the calamity, why are ICOs still growing in popularity? Because it gives people a chance to make an investment. The minimum investment into a wall-street IPO is tens of thousands of dollars. Many offerings are restricted to accredited investors only. The common person isn’t permitted or endowed enough to participate at the most profitable stages in traditional finance. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain companies are built and financed by the common person, united to build something that makes the world a better place. On social media channels and community sites like Telegram, you can see thousands of loyal (sometimes rabid) followers and investors who believe in their project of choice, and back it like their favorite sports team. Legal Standing in 2018: China - ICOs are banned 100%. The Chinese companies who completed their ICOs were instructed to refund all the money they received. The government has also banned crypto exchanges and may be soon blocking all sites related to the cryptocurrency industry entirely. European Union - ICOs are regulated, as of November 13th, 2017. An ICO must adhere to Anti-Money Laundering and “Know Your Customer” policies. Investments cannot be anonymous, and full personal disclosure must be made by investors. United States - ICOs are heavily regulated. ICOs are required to obtain a license, and register with the SEC. Many who have not considered their own token to be a security have not registered yet, and are fearful the SEC will come after them. Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer procedures are required. There is more regulation to come from currently ongoing investigations. Canada - ICOs are regulated. Depending on the type of coin, it may be classified as a security, and is subject to government regulation. Canada looks at each project on a case by case basis, rather than one sweeping law that rules everything related. Switzerland - ICOs are treated with supportive regulation! Laws are friendly, and help protect cryptocurrency companies against suffocating regulations from other countries. They go through each ICO to weed out the potential fraud and poorly designed projects, leaving behind a good promising ICO market. Israel - ICOs are allowed, though a study is being conducted to decide how to regulate these operations in the future. There are plans to introduce tax laws on ICO tokens. Germany - ICOs are regulated. Germany warns the public that investments in these projects are risky. Germany defers to the November 13th, 2017 European Securities Market instruction to comply to securities standards. Japan - ICOs are allowed, but regulation is on the horizon. Japan is considering whether ICOs could fall under the Payment Services Act, or Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. In 2016, Japan declared Bitcoin a legal currency, a monumental achievement for the crypto community! Russia - ICOs are allowed. The government is currently watching things unfold while it determines what stance to take. In October 2017, it issued a ruling that requires all altcoin (a blanket term for any cryptocurrency besides Bitcoin) miners to register, and tax laws will be modified. Singapore - ICOs are allowed. Regulation seems to be coming soon, as the Monetary Authority stated in November 2017, that altcoins could qualify as a “capital market product” and be subject to existing regulations for other products in that industry. United Kingdom - ICOs are allowed. The government has issued warnings to investors about the risks of investing in these products, calling them “experimental”. Regulation could be coming soon, but there are no clear indicators of what the attitude will be. Brazil - ICOs are regulated. Virtual currency exchanges are banned. ICOs are considered securities and are subject to all applicable laws. Australia - ICOs are regulated. Australia looks to weed out scams and fraudulent ICOs, promoting the remaining ICOs as free from fraud. United Arab Emirates - ICOs are allowed. The UAE plans to pass regulation at some point in the near future. Taiwan - ICOs are allowed. The Taiwanese government is supportive of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. While ongoing legislation is underway, the crypto market experiences extreme volatility and has nearly unimaginable dips and peaks, when fears about unfavorable rules or country-wide bans occur. In February 2018, the market overall value dropped more than 60% from January highs, as China passed its law banning cryptocurrencies and exchanges. As of mid-April 2018, it has since recovered the majority of that loss, (much of that growth happening in a 2 week span). It is a scary place to be a day trader, but those who hold for the future are always optimistic. With so much happening so fast, it can get confusing very quickly. In some places, the rules hurt ICOs. In some places, the rules help ICOs. In some places, the rules apply only to the ICO but not the actual coin and company itself. In some places, the rules apply to the entire industry regardless of the product. It is safe to expect that as time goes on, only more laws (and taxes) will be implemented. Some may see this as a good thing, paving the way for financial institutions and the general public to feel safe participating in the financial revolution, boosting the portfolios of everyone else who got in early. Others feel these rules are burdening and suffocating a decentralized worldwide market, prohibiting natural growth. In any event, there are many more changes to come in the next few years. It’s an exciting time to be alive. Listen to Crypto and Blockchain Talk for more interesting topics! SUBSCRIBE to our channels and never miss an episode: SPOTIFY iTunes Stitcher Soundcloud Google Play Music Tunein Castbox Pocket Casts Overcast iHeartRadio PlayerFM Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
In our first full-length episode, we discuss the Berkshire Museum’s controversial decision to sell off 40 works of iconic art from its permanent collection to raise funds to rebrand itself as a science and natural history museum, and build a large endowment. Only after the regional museum had signed an agreement with Sotheby’s auction house to deaccession these works, did the museum announce its plans to the public. Museum and cultural groups, the fine arts community, and certain local constituents have passionately opposed these plans. Other stakeholders and commentators have strongly supported the museum’s efforts to monetize its collection and rebrand. We will discuss both the ethical and legal issues around deaccessioning and the Berkshire Museum’s actions in particular. We are joined by the financial and art-market journalist, Felix Salmon. More information on the Berkshire Museum and deaccessioning: From Felix Salmon: http://www.felixsalmon.com/ https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-lost-masterpieces-of-norman-rockwell-country https://hyperallergic.com/409126/berkshire-museum-battle-sothebys-auction/ More perspectives: https://berkshiremuseum.org/newvision/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2017/11/26/change-die-choice-clear-for-berkshire-museum/zLEFaUrZiXfJRNlhaVeb1K/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/01/27/the-berkshire-museum-defends-its-most-important-asset-its-open-doors/M92tisiPanIT93ZHXKysCP/story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/arts/design/berkshire-museum-art-auction-criticized.html http://www.artnews.com/2017/07/25/museum-alliance-and-directors-group-issue-open-letter-criticizing-berkshire-museums-deaccession-plan/ Litigation status and some papers: http://www.artnews.com/2018/02/05/berkshire-museum-case-heads-massachusetts-supreme-court/ http://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/big-reveal-from-ag-due-monday-on-berkshire-museum,531233 https://www.scribd.com/document/362156288/Complaint-in-Berkshire-Museum-Case http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wfcr/files/verified_complaint_b2211761_.pdf?_ga=2.41888810.982465672.1508763064-1725306865.1506095323 https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/878449/Motion%20for%20Injunction%20Pending%20Appeal(B2218262).pdf?t=1518034885672 More about deaccessioning: https://www.aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/PositionPaperDeaccessioning%2011.07.pdf https://www.npr.org/2014/08/11/339532879/as-museums-try-to-make-ends-meet-deaccession-is-the-art-worlds-dirty-word http://www.philly.com/philly/education/la-salle-museum-plans-sale-of-prized-artwork-masterpieces-20180103.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/arts/design/censured-delaware-art-museum-plans-to-divest-more-works.html http://legacy.wbur.org/2011/10/28/rose-art-museum http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/arts/design/28fink.html Episode Transcription: Steven Schindler: Hi, I’m Steven Schindler. Katie Wilson-Milne: I’m Katie Wilson-Milne. Steven Schindler: Welcome to the Art Law of Podcast, a monthly podcast exploring the places where art intersects with and interferes with the law. Katie Wilson-Milne: And vice-versa. The Art Law Podcast is sponsored by the law firm Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP, a premier litigation and art law boutique New York City. Felix Salmon: There’s this very vivid and high-stakes debate, which people care about very much about the deaccessioning and like 99% of the planet has no idea it really exists. But, the people who care about it, care about it very much. They basically said, look at this, there is a bunch of billionaires out there in the world who are willing to pay millions and millions of dollars for the art in our little museum, and we don’t have very much money and we can raise like $50 million just by selling off all of our art. And then, honestly we would rather have $50 million then the bunch of dusty old paintings, this art is worth more to those billionaires who we don’t even know who they are, then it is to us. And, the idea of a museum being a place which preserves cultural heritage basically goes straight out the window and they get to play with this vast pool of money that they have decided they can conjure up just by selling off their paintings. Katie Wilson-Milne: In July 2017, the Berkshire Museum, a quirky museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts announced to the public that it would auction of 40 works of art from its collection. To raise more than $60 million for capital projects, to transition to a science and national history museum, and to raise a substantial endowment. Chief among the objects for sale are two premier paintings Norman Rockwell, one thought widely to be his best work, and two Alexander Calder sculptures. These works alone were estimated to bring in over $40 million. Now, when a museum decides to sell works from its collection, it is called deaccessioning. Deaccessioning is controversial and the Berkshire Museum’s decision to sell works from its collection set off a firestorm in the art community, that spawned two multi-party law suits, a devoted protest movement, and sanction in disavowal from the art and museum community. Steven Schindler: And that’s what we want to talk about in this episode. We will explore the question, ‘Can a museum sell art from its permanent collection?’ One reason why we choose to focus on this story in this episode is that it is really a great vehicle to think more generally about ethical issues around museum deaccessioning, the plight of small regional museums and about the public’s interest and ownership stake in museum art collections. Katie Wilson-Milne: These really are the questions at the heart of the Berkshire Museum story, so let’s turn to it. To really understand both sides of these issues, we need to take a step back and look at the history of the museum and the surrounding area. In 1903, a wealthy local philanthropist named Zenas Crane donated a building located in Pittsfield, Massachusetts for use as a public museum of art and artifacts. Pittsfield is a city in Western Mass, an area called the Berkshires known for its natural beauty and today a lively summer vacation and art scene. Crane wanted this museum in rural Massachusetts to be a window to the world for the area’s people. The Berkshire museum was originally located behind and operated by the Berkshire Athenaeum, and they shared a board of trustees. The museums earlier relationship with the Athenaeum is important to our story for one primary reason: The Massachusetts legislation establishing the Athenaeum in 1871 stated that its property could not be removed from the town of Pittsfield. In 1932, the museum became a separate and standalone entity. By law, the Athenaeum transferred to the museum, the museum building, its land, as well as the money and objects donated by Zenas Crane. The 1932 legislation doing this did not have any language about the property staying in Pittsfield, but it did state that museum property be used according to any written conditions of the donor. Things changed in Pittsfield in the following decades, as the trial court in the current litigations stated, “Since the 70s, the national economic winds have eroded the Berkshire County business environment resulting in many industries and businesses dying off or relocating. The population has shrunk and most importantly generous benefactors have vanished.” Steven Schindler: And it’s true, Pittsfield today is an economically struggling and depopulating city. The Berkshire Museum, the city’s main museum is in financial trouble. It operates at a significance deficit and has a relatively small endowment. In light of the museum’s financial needs, the current board of trustees embarked on a master planning process in 2015 in which they considered changes to the museum’s mission and physical layout, they also considered options for increasing revenue and reducing costs, including approaching Christie’s and Sotheby’s to value the museum’s collection. Katie Wilson-Milne: And, we should note the museums former director, Stuart Chase, has adamantly opposed deaccessioning works to pay for operating expenses, which caused a clash with the board. He was replaced with a new director, Van Shields, in 2011, who has been proponent of monetizing the museum’s collection. Steven Schindler: The board also hired a consulting firm, heald focus groups and several board retreats focused on the future of the museum. The consulting firm recommended the museum raised $25.6 million to stabilize operations and suggested the deaccessioning of 22 to 41 works of art. The board eventually opted to raise much more, a $60 million plan with $20 million to go toward transforming the museum into a science museum and $40 million toward a robust endowment. By the fall of 2016, the board had decided to sell off the most valuable parts of the museum’s collection to raise these funds. And in spring of 2017, the board signed an agreement with Sotheby’s to auction of 40 works no longer deemed relevant to the museums updated mission. Months later in July 2017, the museum announced its plan to deaccession works of art to the public for the very first time. Sotheby’s anticipated that the auctions would raise somewhere between $46 and $68 million. Katie Wilson-Milne: And, while only 40 works were up for sale out of the museum’s 40,000 or so objects, these works were the vast majority of the Berkshire Museum’s collections value, and included pieces by famous artists such as Norman Rockwell and Alexander Calder. Norman Rockwell’s painting, Shuffleton’s Barber Shop, widely thought to be his best work, alone accounts for an estimated 35% of the value of the entire museum collection. Now Norman Rockwell had lived and worked in the Berkshires and had a close relationship with the museum. He in fact had called it his favorite museum and he donated two of the works to be sold at auction to the museum himself in 1958 and 1960. Interestingly, Alexander Calder, now one of the world’s most famous sculptors with works regularly selling for tens of millions of dollars, got his start with the Berkshire Museum. His first ever public commissions flanked the existing museum’s theatre and his father’s woodwork sculptures define another of the museum spaces. Among the works to be sold are two Calder sculptures acquired in the 1930’s, when the museum was the first to give Calder an exhibition and the first museum to purchase his works. So that’s the factual background. There are many vocal supporters and opponents of what the museum’s called its “New Vision Plan” and the public outrage and legal battles comes next. Steven Schindler: So, let’s dive into the ethical and legal issues in this case. And what’s interesting to me is the overlap between the ethical and legal issues. So, starting with the ethical issues; certain museum member groups have adopted ethical guidelines for deaccessioning, and principally these groups are the American Alliance of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors. And, these two groups have both adopted ethical guidelines and any museum that’s affiliated with or the directors who are affiliated with these groups are really ethically bound to go along with them. Over the years, the rules for deaccessioning have developed, but in principle these ethical rules require that each museum have and adopt a set of guidelines that deal with managing their collections and how you buy and you sell art. One of the principle guidelines is that whenever you sell works of art, and there are number of reasons why museums are entitled to sell works of art, but one of the principle rules is that when you sell or deaccession works of art, the proceeds of deaccessioning should only be used to buy new works, is simply not permitted to use the proceeds of selling art to pay for electricity or to build a new movie theatre. So, for years the Berkshire Museum had a standard deacessioning policy, one that would fit right squarely within the guidelines that we’ve just been discussing, and it had on occasion deacessioned works in accordance with these kinds of guidelines, they sold works and they bought other works. But, it turns out that shortly after they consigned the 40 works to Sotheby's, somebody looked at their policy and said, “Well this doesn’t make sense and this consignment to Sotheby's is contrary to the policy that we have.” So what did they do? They amended the policy after the fact, specifically allowing the very transaction that they were contemplating. And the consequence of violating these ethical guidelines is that the museum gets sanctioned and can no longer borrow works, which is central to the core operating function of a museum. Now once this became public, the Massachusetts Cultural Council, the Smithsonian, the Peabody Essex, AAM, AAMC, AAMD, all vociferously came out against the sale and basically called this a violation of the public trust. So, these ethical guidelines are enough to ostracize the Berkshire Museum from the museum community, discourage donors from giving, and prevent it from cooperating productively with other museums in the future. They do not however make the museum’s deacessioning illegal. At least in Massachusetts, there are no laws adopting these ethical guidelines, where in New York we do have such laws, but at least in Massachusetts these are ethical guidelines and are not legally binding standards. Katie Wilson-Milne: But it’s not just an ethical issue, right Steve? Steven Schindler: No, in fact two high profile law suits have been filed. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, what are the legal arguments given that Massachusetts doesn’t have a statute prohibiting deaccessioning for operating expenses? Steven Schindler: Well, this goes back again to the history of the museum and whether the museum, under its own legal commitments and state laws, permit it to sell these works. Two groups of plaintiffs have sued the museum seeking to enjoin the sale. Now, let me describe these two law suits. The first law suit was brought primarily by the sons of Norman Rockwell, and they name the trustees of the Berkshire Museum as defendants and also brought into the law suit, Maura Healey, who is the attorney general of the State of Massachusetts, in her capacities as attorney general. The second law suit was brought by members of the Berkshire Museum. Both of these law suits were eventually consolidated and arguments were heard before the trial judge as to whether or not the sale of Sotheby should be enjoined or stopped. So, the parties before the court argued that the sale of the museum’s core art collection violates three restrictions. The first argument was that the sale of the works to Sotheby’s violated the museum’s charitable purpose, contained in its charter to be an art museum. The second argument was that the statutes creating the museum and its predecessor entity, that is the Athenaeum or Athenaeum, prevent it from selling any of the art acquired by the museum or its predecessor before 1932. And then, the third argument is that Norman Rockwell himself intended and the museum agreed that his art would remain at the museum for the community in perpetuity. So, that is the sort of first set of arguments which we can call either breach of trust, breach of contract. The second set of arguments is based upon the trustees’ of the museums alleged breach of their fiduciary duty of care to the museum. And the way that argument generally goes is that essentially that the museum’s decision to sell off the core collection of the museum was not reasonable under all of the circumstances. And that rather than undertaking an extensive survey and search to try to see if there were any other ways to keep the museum solvent while retaining the collection that they didn’t do any of those things. And, their failure to explore any alternatives, constitutes a breach of their fiduciary duty of care. Now, let me just stop here for legal concepts that are relevant. The first is how do you get an injunction and what is it? Typically, you are entitled to enjoin something from happening if you can show that you will be irreparably harmed if an injunction is not issued and that generally means that money after the fact is not going to compensate you for your loss. You also have to be able to show to the judge that you are likely to succeed on the merits and that the equities that is looking at the harm or potential harm to both sides are in your favor. And so, with this mind both cases went before the judge seeking this kind of preliminary injunction of the Sotheby sale. The other legal standard that comes into play here is a somewhat arcane concept called Standing, Legal Standing. And that question is who has the right to go to the judge and ask that action be taken on behalf of themselves or on behalf of the museum. And in this case, both of the private parties had difficulty with standing. The judge had observed that while the Rockwell heirs were indeed sons of Norman Rockwell, the problem was that they were not executor of his estate and therefore didn’t have the right to come into court on behalf of Norman Rockwell’s estate. And then, with respect to the members, the judge also observed that the trustees of the museum are the ones who have the authority to act for the museum and simply by the virtue of the fact that you are a member of a museum doesn’t mean that you are entitled to come into court and challenge the actions of the museum. I’m a member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I pay a few hundred dollars a year for that privilege, but I can’t go into court and enjoin them from building the next new wing. Now, while the attorney general had standing to bring this law suit, the trial judge at least after hearing the case in October of 2017 decided that the attorney general did not meet the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction. And principally, the judge concluded that the attorney general was not likely to succeed on the merits of the case. After the trial court dismissed the case and denied plaintiff’s request for an injunction, the parties immediately appealed. And, now to tell us more about the controversy is Felix Salmon. Felix Salmon is a financial journalist, formerly of Portfolio Magazine and Euromoney and a former finance blogger for Reuters. He has hosted Slate’s ”Money Podcast” since 2014. Felix has recently writing about the controversy at the Berkshire Museum. Welcome to the Podcast Felix. So, why is the deaccessioning is such a big deal, why should anybody care? Felix Salmon: So, I think one way to think about this is to put yourself in the shoes of Norman Rockwell when he donates what is probably his single greatest painting, arguably his single greatest painting, Shuffleton's Barbershop, to the Berkshire Museum in the 1950s. And, back then, there was no such thing as the deaccessioning. Deacessioning only really began as a thing in the 1970s. So, when Norman Rockwell donates this painting to the Berkshire Museum, and Norman Rockwell lives in the Berkshires, he has done his entire practice in the Berkshire, he cares about the Berkshires. What is it that he is doing? And what he doing quite explicitly, and this has been recorded contemporaneous letters and back and forth between him and the then directors of museum, is he is giving his painting to the people of the Berkshires, for the people of the Berkshires, for them to look at and enjoy in perpetuity. That’s what museums do, you give your work of art to a museum, and the museum then is a custodian basically for the painting, and presents it in a certain context and manages to – and people can come to museum to see that work of art, that’s the whole point. What happens in deaccessioning is that the museum basically reneges on that agreement and says, we no longer feel that it’s our job to look after this painting and to show it to the people to the Berkshires and to use it for the benefit of the people of Berkshires, instead what we are going to do is we are going to ship it off to Sotheby’s in New York, they are going to sell it to the highest bidder who is almost certainly not going to be in the Berkshires and we are going to use the cash to build an atrium. That is clearly not what the agreement between -- no one in the original agreement when Rockwell gives that painting to the Berkshire Museum ever dreamed that might ever happen. Steven Schindler: Right. Are there any circumstances in which deaccessioning is acceptable? Felix Salmon: Absolutely. Yes. And the deaccessioning happens frequently, and it happens all the time. And grand institutions like the Museums of Modern Art or the Metropolitan Museum or any major museum you guys can think of is constantly deaccessioning their various works. Now, what they are not doing is selling off the Desmoiselles, they are not selling off Starry Night. They’re not selling off their greatest artworks. What they are doing is they are saying, we have vastly more art than we can ever show, that for whatever reason is not important or interesting or doesn’t fit into our program, and at the same time, and this is the important thing, we have a relentless appetite to stay relevant to create a program which is important to our audience, and so we need to do acquisitions. And so what they are basically doing is swapping out, and they are saying, if we sell a bunch of art here that gives us the resources to buy a bunch of out there. What art is not is asset on the balance sheet, which can be liquidated just to fill a whole in your annual P&L. That art is always in the history of museum finance been held on the balance sheet of the zero value for exactly that reason. But not that it has never happened, it has happened, but when it does happen there is nearly always a controversy and a bit of bru ha ha. And most museums directors, when they start moving in that direction, tend to do so quite apologetically and talk a lot about existential crises and how they have no choice and they’re trying to create like a whole new sustainable situation, where they’re never going to have to do this again and they’re very apologetic about it. One of the interest things about the Berkshire Museum announcement was that there was none of that and they were just enthusiastically selling off literally what seems to be well over 90% of the value of their collections. Katie Wilson-Milne: Yeah. I think we want to ask you too about what went wrong in this particular example. Because, I think for probably many of non-art world or non-museum listeners, it makes total sense for a museum to sell assets to generate liquidity when it needs to keep the lights on or to pay salaries. It’s only real asset is the art. If it doesn’t have funds coming in from another source and there is art that’s not being displayed, why not sell it? I mean, I know you disagree. Felix Salmon: Yeah. And, because I mean -- the first response to that is there is a stock versus flow problem there, you have generally don’t sell of this family silver to plug, you know, to pay a credit card bill. Steven Schindler: But, what if I wanted to do it to send my daughter to college? There has to be some discussion at some point, wouldn’t there be of weighing priorities and what is important, I mean it may be that -- my great grandmother left her prized chifforobe to be handed down from generation to generation. And then, one day I wake up and I say, well, I can either look at this dusty relic or I can sell it and send my daughter to college, and what would she rather have, because she is not here any longer to talk her about it? Felix Salmon: Right. And then – I’m sympathetic, and you of course have every right to do that. And, I’m sympathetic to anyone who pushes back against the idea that we should totally run our lives according to the wishes of dead people. You know, dead people are dead, like, let’s run our lives according to the wishes of what we are doing right now, but a museum is a living thing, and a museum exists to look after artworks and to preserve artworks. And it’s not -- as I say, that they are never allowed to deaccession, they totally are. But, that is within the context of creating a collection, not in the context of an annual shortfall. If you are having annual shortfalls, that’s a bigger issue which is hard to solve on a sustainable basis through deaccessioning. One of the things we are seeing with the Berkshire Museum is that they are actually going one step further, and they are trying to fill a kind of annual shortfall in perpetuity by selling off so much art, like that they can put it into an endowment and then just extract money from the endowment to cover these hypothetical shortfalls that they’ll will have in decades time, and that seems a little bit weird to me. The other really important thing when you talk about the deacessioning is to just have one eye on future donations, the slogan is that collectors collect art, and museums collect collectors. And so, the question is always in the back of our head, how are we going to collect the collectors? Every collector in the world is looking at you and looking at how you look after the art that you have been entrusted by previous collectors. If collectors look at you and say, well, the way you look after the art that has been entrusted to you by artists like Norman Rockwell and other previous collectors is you just sell it off to make payroll, you are not going to get very many future collectors donating you anything at all. So, in terms of the long term future of the institution, you are kind of cutting yourself off at the knee caps if you start engaging in egregious deacessioning of this form. Katie Wilson-Milne: Are you saying that, that’s the underpinning for why there are ethical guidelines on deacessioning? Felix Salmon: That’s one of the underpinnings; it’s not the only one. There is also this idea that there is a job of museums which is to keep art and to look after art and that is a very central role that museums have. One of the things you see frequently in auction catalogues is there will be some editioned work, there will be like a Warhol say, and the auction catalogue will say, this is the last of this series in private hands, and they will say, the other five are all in museums, and this is your last chance to get one of the paintings in this series, because the other five are all in museums. And what’s the thinking behind that? What's was the logic behind that? The logic behind that is obviously if the other five are all in museums, they’re never going to come on the market. That’s just an understood part of the art market, the whole art market, the way that people think about what’s available and what isn’t would change, valuations would certainly fall. Steven Schindler: Reading your articles about Berkshire Museum, I’m struck by your objections to the process of what happened, the lack of transparency in the museum’s actions. This is a situation where the museum seemed pretty careful to try to hide what they were doing from public view. Felix Salmon: There is absolutely no conceivable reason why you would sign a contract with Sotheby's, which is like an irrevocable contract, and ship the art off to New York City before you announce that you are facing financial difficulties and that you have come to the conclusion that a certain amount of the deacessioning will be necessary. What we have seen time and time again with museums is that they come out and say, “eek!” we have this really nasty cash crunch, and we are going to have to do something pretty drastic, and one of the options on the table is deacessioning of some form or another. And, once the announcement has been made, a bunch of options often start presenting themselves and people start coming along and saying, hey, I didn’t realize you are having this really nasty cash crunch, and maybe I can help out. The Berkshire Museum never gave the community that option, if there was a local benefactor say who might have been able to acquire one of the Rockwells and donate it to the Norman Rockwell Museum down the street, that would have kept the Rockwell in the Berkshires, that would provided liquidity to the Berkshire Museum, and that might have helped bridge a certain amount of gaps. So, it seems clear that there was something else going on in this case. Katie Wilson-Milne: Well, and what do you think it was, because clearly the museum’s position is they were having trouble fundraising, they didn’t have this wealthy local owner. Felix Salmon: Well one of the reasons that they were having trouble fundraising was that they fired all their fundraisers, but yes. Katie Wilson-Milne: Pittsfield especially, but the Berkshire is not a wealthy area, there are wealthy people that go in the summer to go Tanglewood or Jacob’s Pillow or do other art related things, but it doesn’t have a wealthy year-round population anymore and one of the museum’s claims, I think, or what’s implicit in their papers is that the times have changed, the population of the Berkshires had changed. You know, people were not as interested in going to look at Norman Rockwell painting or Calder sculpture. Felix Salmon: Well, that would maybe be more compelling if they’d actually tired. And, it’s interesting, because those claims are very similar, the situation of Pittsfield in Berkshire is actually very similar to the situations of North Adams which is a couple of hours -- Steven Schindler: MASS MoCA. Felix Salmon: -- further north, and not only is North Adams is home to MASS MoCA, which is a hugely successful museum, and is expanding and is doing amazing stuff right now, but it has even now started opening up new spaces and Tom Kraines wants to open up a new museum there with Frank Garry and there is a whole bunch of like interesting cultural stuff going on in North Adams, and it’s becoming a cultural destination. Pittsfield can do that too, Pittsfield is bigger it has better communications and the museum is located in the city centre, in the part of the town which is dire need of rehabilitation and that was the other thing, North Adams one of the ways that MASS MoCA put itself on the map was by getting grants from the city and state to say -- and saying like if you look help us out here we will revitalize the entire town. Katie Wilson-Milne: And they did. Felix Salmon: And they really did, it worked. And that’s something which again the Berkshire Museum never really attempted. Steven Schindler: Could you tell, and I haven’t been able to tell us from the court papers, whether or not there were any studies done to actually demonstrate that attendance was down or the people weren’t interested in coming to see these works of art, was that just something that the museum just said to justify what it was doing? Felix Salmon: The museum claimed that they spent a couple of years talking to various local stakeholders. Most of the local stakeholders who are consulted and talking about this consultation process will tell you that basically the way these meetings worked, because they get got called in and they were asked, “Do you send your kid to the Berkshire Museum’s Ooey Gooey Camp?” And they say, “Yes, we do, we love it!” And they said, “Would you like more things like Ooey Gooey Camp?” And they said, “Yes! More things like Ooey Gooey Camp would be great!” And the museum never asked should we sell our Rockwells in order to create more Ooey Gooey Camps, but they took the answers to those questions as a public buy-in to the idea that they should, they never really presented the people they were talking to with any kind of tradeoffs. And, the first that the local community ever heard that there was any kind of fiscal crisis was the announcement that they already signed this deal with Sotheby's. Steven Schindler: So, how much is the opposition coming from the local community and how much is coming from what I would view as sort of out of town elitist art snobs, like ourselves? Felix Salmon: So, this is -- the museum loves the idea that like there is a bunch of snobby art types in Boston and New York, who don’t understand the realities of Pittsfield and are out of touch and honestly like have they even been to Pittsfield and who are they to say anything, and the local community is supportive of them and all you need to do is to read the letters page of the Berkshire Eagle to understand that is totally not true and that Save The Art Campaign and various other people are genuinely grassroots. It’s not to say that there is no support. I mean, what the museum has done is really cleaved the town in two, and friendships have been broken over this and people and – there are marriages where people are on either side of it, it’s really like the big debate in Pittsfield and in the surrounding area, but there is no -- I mean, that’s primary reason for them not to have done this in the first place. Like, a museum is meant to be the focal point, a place in the town which brings the town together, instead what they have done is they have torn the town apart. That in itself is good reason not to have gone down this road. Katie Wilson-Milne: Should say that the Berkshire Eagles is the amazing local paper that has had terrific journalism about this whole saga and has actually I think changed its mind, came out in the very beginning like the Boston Globe did in favor of this New Vision Plan, and then later, after doing some serious digging, recanted that and has been pretty against deacessioning plan. Felix Salmon: To the point at which the museum is now refusing to talk to the Berkshire Eagle. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, it seems obvious to us, especially the way you are presenting it, that this was a terrible decision, no museum that knows what’s doing, would ever have deacessioned in this manner at least, if that all, to pay for capital projects, but what was the board thinking? I mean, are these people who are so completely out of touch, who have no concept of their obligations as trustees? Felix Salmon: Well, one of the things that Van Shields did when he became director was he basically put an end to any kind of acquisitions policy. The people who were in charge of acquisitions got pushed out of the museum, and the art shows in the museum started becoming less and less of a priority. There are non-art shows in the museum, it’s also a museum of natural history and science and stuff like that. The board chair is a science teacher and the role played, there was this a group of friends of the museum who would pay a $1000 a year to meet with the museum to talk about their collections and that kind of stuffs. And that group just waned to nothing, because there were no meetings. When people went up to Van Shields and said I have this collection of X, Y, Z, do you -- would you be interested in acquiring it, should that it donate it to you? Van, he would just turn around and say, you know what, don’t bother we’ll just sell it, we’ll never exhibit it. And so -- Katie Wilson-Milne: He said that out loud? Felix Salmon: He said that out loud to collectors. Katie Wilson-Milne: Wow! Steven Schindler: Wow! Felix Salmon: And so, what happened was that every -- he systematically pushed out and alienated everyone in the community who had any love for art, which meant that by the time he presented his plans to the board, there were no real -- there was no one on the board who cared about the art holdings. Katie Wilson-Milne: Because they would have already left? Felix Salmon: Exactly. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, are there any examples you know of where deacessioning was done appropriately and that should be sort of the gold standard for museums who face this quandary? Felix Salmon: So, obviously, as I say, that the way that larger successful museums like MoMa or the Met do their deaccessioning is perfectly fine – Katie Wilson-Milne: And no one objects. Felix Salmon: -- and no one objects. If what you wanted to do is use art – use proceeds from the sale art for non-acquisition purposes, the example I gave in my New Yorker piece was the New-York History Society. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Felix Salmon: And, they did something which was highly controversial and the lot of people to this day think they shouldn’t have done it, but what they did was what I call responsible deaccessioning. They talked to the attorney general. They talked to all of the stakeholders. They created a system whereby even if someone won the work of art being auctioned, they still wouldn’t be guaranteed that they could take it home, because any other museum in first New York State, but then anywhere else in the country would have a sort of rights of first refusal to buy it at a discount to that price. They tried very hard to keep that art in the museum world broadly defined, but I will say that this is – that litigating this stuff in the courts as this is being done is a clear sign that something has gone very, very wrong, like it should never reach this point. And there were other things which are clear signs, like for instance if you are going to be a museum of science and art, two of the works being sold are very important Calder pieces, which were acquired by the museum. They were the first works that Calder ever sold to any museum. They were part not only of the museum’s attempt to show great art in the Berkshires, but they were also very scientifically important. They were motorized in a way that no art had ever been done before. And of course Calder and his dad Stirling Calder, who built a bunch of the upstairs room in Berkshire Museum where were very local, like, these works are so integral to not only the mission of the museum, but also to the history of the museum that you would never sell them. Like that would, it would be thinkable to sell them and the idea they just got sort of piled into this job lot without so much as a second thought, again is the indication that something just went hardly wrong here. If you are going to be an art museum of the Berkshires, then frankly Calder and Rockwell are the top two names that you want to have, because those are the two great Berkshires artists. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, will it be different if what was being deaccessioned wasn’t art. Is there something special about art that makes people so upset at this prospect they wouldn’t be true if it was a significance piece of furniture from a certain period or some kind of non-art object that had historical significance? Is there something about art? Felix Salmon: I think what happened is that the valuations that artists been able to achieve in the secondary market have skewed incentives that there is really no non-art object that a museum is likely to own, which you could send off to Sotheby's and which could fetch $30 or $40 million. Steven Schindler: There are the 40,000 other things that they had in their collection. Felix Salmon: And none of those were being -- Katie Wilson-Milne: Were worth nothing, right. Felix Salmon: Consigned, exactly, and Sotheby's had no interest in those. And it’s not just the Berkshire Museum, it’s pretty much all museums. You could go along to the Met and you could take all of the furniture in the Met and consign it at Sotheby's and add it altogether and it would be worth less than one of their paintings. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, they just never do it, because it wouldn’t raise the money? Felix Salmon: It doesn’t move the needle. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, in conclusion; museum sells art all the time, deaccessioning is a common form of collections management. But, it is accepted by the museum and fine art community only if the funds go to buy new art, not to the operations of the museum like salaries, renovations, et cetera. That puts a small regional museum, which is asset rich, but cash poor in a difficult position. And while there may be legal reasons why a museum can’t sell its own art, such as if the donor put a restriction on the sale of the work, the museum agents violate fiduciary obligations or the sale is illegal from some independent reason, they are typically far more ethical and moral concerns at play. Steven Schindler: And that’s it for today’s podcast. Katie Wilson-Milne: We will share information about the Berkshire Museum and other deaccessioning controversies on the podcast website, artlawpodcast.com, and in the show notes, as well as some more information on our guest Felix Salmon. Steven Schindler: And please subscribe to us on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts and send us feedback at podcast@schlaw.com. We would love to hear from you. Katie Wilson-Milne: Until next time, I’m Katie Wilson-Milne. Steven Schindler: And I’m Steven Schindler bringing you the art law podcast, a podcast exploring the places where art intersects with and interferes with the law. Katie Wilson-Milne: And vice-versa. Produced by Jackie Santos
Dr. Jim Richards, along with Bob and Audrey, tackle a new level of authority that we have as believers. Establishing the Kingdom of heaven, while we are living here on earth is not only our privilege, but it is where we have legal standing. This is where we naturally, instinctively live according to God's names, character and nature…without hesitation! Jim shares his first “heart exercise” how he began persuading his heart of the glorious inheritance we have in Jesus.
Only half facetiously, I suggest to my students that, when there’s a lull in a cocktail-party conversation, they should spice things up by asking, “Should any citizen who thinks the government is acting illegally be able to challenge the government in court?” When partygoers reply, “of course — that’s what the rule of law means […]
This second session of "The New Creation Series" talks about the significant change that took place in Lucifer and Adam when they fell into sin, in regards to the substance of their nature (or vital state), and just legal standing before God.
Why take the time to write show notes if whether I write them is already determined? We’re joined by Adam Kolber to talk about free will, moral responsibility, determinism, and criminal law. This show’s links: Adam Kolber’s faculty profile, writing, and blog Adam Kolber, Standing Upright: The Moral and Legal Standing of Humans and Other Apes Oral Argument 33: Other Minds (guest Matthew Liebman) Adam Kolber, Free Will as a Matter of Law (many of the other references in the show can be found here) Oral Argument 67: Monstrous Acts (guest Josh Lee) Special Guest: Adam Kolber.
This week Melanie (@pmelogna) and I discuss the landmark decision of United States vs. Windsor and Hollingsworth vs. Perry. The consequences to the Defense of Marriage Act, California's Marriage Definition Proposition 8, and Homosexuals' right to marry are all issues of conversation, legal standing and the Fifth Amendment are some big legal issues.
This week Melanie (@pmelogna) and I discuss the landmark decision of United States vs. Windsor and Hollingsworth vs. Perry. The consequences to the Defense of Marriage Act, California's Marriage Definition Proposition 8, and Homosexuals' right to marry are all issues of conversation, legal standing and the Fifth Amendment are some big legal issues.
Bureaucrats Never Have a Case by Administrator (aka Marc Stevens) http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/20/27/ Statism is based on the illogical premise that you don't own your own life A "complaint" shouldn't be confused with a "case" The Stockholm Syndrome, writ large http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome IF IT’S NATURAL TO BE FREE, WHAT’S STOPPING US? http://completeliberty.com/chapter9.php "Citizens" and "States" don't really exist; they're unjust legal fictions The words on paper crafted by bureaucrats are necessarily open to vast interpretation, and many of words spell injustice The Constitution’s Problems: Article I Section 8...Sadly, A Template For Disaster http://completeliberty.com/chapter2.php#47 Once you allow taxation, you open society up to unending tyranny, saying in effect that extortion is good and proper and useful The two absolutely essential elements of legal standing: 1) violation of a legal right and 2) personal injury The unjust laws of the Nanny State create "criminals" out of everyone and generating constant "revenue" for the terrocrats The problem with our society today is not strictly the authoritarian sociopaths in the insane institution of government; it's all the people who are either tuned out or tacitly or directly support violent ideologies; mostly slave-on-slave violence keeps us enslaved Why does society need the monstrous contradiction of government, the preeminent violator of individual rights? Such a meme only promotes low self-esteem and perpetual enslavement "Tax cases" are an indication of how truly sick and twisted our culture is--governmental employees are putting people in cages who've violated no one's rights! Statists allege (but never prove) that the "State" has a legal right to "tax revenue" (your money) and governmental employees are "injured" when they don't get their extorted money "No attempt is made to put such allegations in an 'indictment' because it’s impossible to establish factually how an obligation to file a 'tax return' was created. To prove an obligation or legal right was created, there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and the person who allegedly has this obligation. Statists immediately point out the 'constitution.' And that is the point where they lose; and lose big time." Basically, people in government seek to deprive individuals of self-ownership and property rights simply by virtue of their geographical location, essentially claiming that we are born enslaved It's monstrously contradictory to claim the "right" to deprive innocent others of their rights to self and property The Constitution binds or obligates no one and created nothing; no one today has signed or agreed to it as a contract, except perhaps some brainwashed governmental employees, those who really need to unbrainwash themselves by reading the following: No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6 "The State" can't be a valid plaintiff; it's at best a fictional third party; "The State" has no standing in any case, not even regarding real crimes such as murder "There is no such thing as a legitimate government, so nothing they do is legitimate regardless of the endless red herrings statists throw up." "Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis; pay or get shot. To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government." Either you're for voluntary social interaction (complete liberty) or you're for anti-social human interaction (statism) "...statism and it’s supporting theology are not here to promote freedom or protect 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'; it’s mind control to divert our attention away from the actions of anti-social individuals who are so desperate to 'protect' us they are willing to kill us and steal our property." The libertarian movement is crippled by the unwillingness to differentiate those who want a voluntary society and those who do not; any libertarian who promotes "limited" government or any form of statism whatsoever is engaging in this monstrous moral contradiction in society All governmental courts operate outside the bounds of natural and objective law, i.e., a voluntarily funded and provided legal system; statist courts, regardless of their rhetoric (used for public relations), are necessarily invalid Prosecution of alleged rights-violators must involve restitution and reparations; the ingenuity of justice service entrepreneurs will probably entail many elements of the insurance model As we transition to complete liberty, the need for rights-protection services becomes less and less; the threat against our lives and property will be extremely remote in a society of complete liberty, because the biggest violators of rights (governments) will be absent The only way to clarity in these matters is to reassess the nature of one's volitional capacity and one's fears of others, which entails addressing the moral corruption and authoritarianism in family life; "Do this because I said so" is the same as "Obey this law (because we wrote it down)" Are We There Yet, Are We There Yet? Let’s Check Marx and Engels’s List by Robert Higgs http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2366 The Timeless Allure Of Communism http://completeliberty.com/chapter1.php#15 Government needs to make slaves out of adults (property tax payers) to indoctrinate future tax payers (kids in schools of government) "Remember the government's motto: you've got money, and we want it." "Therefore, in the present distressing circumstances, we may be warranted in asking: is our politico-economic system finally going smash in a frenzy of monetary inflation, bailouts, and government takeovers? We’ll know the answer pretty soon." So, what can we do? Focus on passing moral judgment; point out to others the coercion at the base of society (the gun in the room: http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html); and, get people out of your life who behave in morally corrupt ways and advocate coercion Ultimately, it's either statism or voluntarism; mutual respect of persons and property is the ideal bumper music "Gimmee_Dada Orwell-REMIX" by Roger Grant and Dada Orwell (aka Dave Ridley) http://www.politicalgraffiti.com/nhfree/music/Gimmee_Dada_Orwell-REMIX.mp3 to comment, please go to http://completeliberty.com/magazine/category/91697
79% - Say Tax Cheating is Wrong - Yahoo! News http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20080411/ts_pew/79saytaxcheatingiswrong Moral corruption of taxes The moral and the practical false dichotomy Taxation with representation is still tyranny by Mary Ruwart http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1269 Feeding (and collaborating with) the beast... Don't vote: it just encourages the bastards Teaching subservience by Larkin Rose http://www.isil.org/channels/archives/14239 "Training the peasant larvae" Mark Twain's smarts Refusing governmental schools as the antidote Free Tibet? Hell, free America! by Mark Morford http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/04/16/notes041608.DTL& Celebrating Jefferson's birthday a crime? So About That Tree of Liberty… http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/13/so-about-that-tree-of-liberty/ Issue of standing...adventures in legal land Standing Cross-Reference by Marc Stevens http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/52/27/ Amerikan Communism For the love of dogs Physicist off his rocker--or not? Teleportation and forcefields possible within decades, says Professor Michio Kaku http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/02/eakaku102.xml bumper music "Enemy" by Days of the New (Days Of The New II album) http://www.daysofthenew.com/ to comment, please go to http://completeliberty.com/magazine/category/91697
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
