Posted on 05/02/2019 12:05:17 PM PDT by BenLurkin
A 15-year court battle has seemingly come to an end after an L.A. federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Spanish museum which acquired a $30 million painting looted by the Nazis is the work’s rightful owner, and not the San Diego Jewish family of a woman who surrendered it 80 years ago to escape the Holocaust.
In his 34-page ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art when it took possession in 1993.
According to the lawsuit first filed in L.A. federal court in 2005, the Nazis confiscated the painting from Lilly Cassirer, whose Jewish family owned a prominent art gallery in Berlin in the 1930s. Lilly Cassirer was among the last of the family to flee ahead of the Holocaust. As she tried to leave Germany, a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa she needed. Her sister, who remained, was later killed in a Nazi death camp.
The painting was purchased directly from Pissarro’s art dealer in 1900 by the father-in-law of Lilly Cassirer, who eventually inherited it and displayed it in her home for years. When she and her family fled the Holocaust in 1939, she traded it for passage out of the country.
For years the family thought it was lost, and the German government paid her $13,000 in reparations in 1958
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
“No evidence the museum knew it was looted”.
What does that have to do with anything? WTF?
If the museum paid serious money for it...even if they didn't know it was stolen...tough luck for the museum.
If she traded it, then she didn’t own it when the Nazis confiscated it.
Beat me by 9 seconds...
so, according to this ruling, if a woman had a child stolen by nazis- who later sold the child to some other family, the child would no longer be mother’s ‘because the new family didn’t know the child was stolen/kidnapped? wow, just wow!
Traded it for her life???????????????????????????????????
John F. Walter found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art when it took possession in 1993
~~~
So, no concept of “receiving stolen property” here?
Likewise, a family that lost it due to the gravest of duress has no rights to it either.
I feel bad for the museum that (there is no evidence showing) knew it was looted, but it certainly didn’t belong to them before this. Take up with those who peddled it.
What about all these people who lose their rights to plunder shipwrecks and discovered riches, because courts rule that there are historical and legacy rights to account for? Shouldn’t the family history of the item pre-empt some museum’s commercial curator interest?
...a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa...
Translation: the Nazis stole it.End of story.Finding for the plaintiff! Next case!
Sounds like she got a good deal.
[[As she tried to leave Germany, a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa she needed.]]
In otherwords- she was FORCED to trade it- in other words- the Nazis stole it- the granting of exit visa played no part- she was forced into this- it was stolen
Wait a minute, if the family already received reparations from the German government, how can they even bring suit against the museum?
Have you noticed these days have no common sense, and therefore the common man does not see justice done.
Sad, and these people can’t hope to for sure be alive when its appealed to higher courts because they are already in their 80’s.
[[Likewise, a family that lost it due to the gravest of duress has no rights to it either.]]
Huh? So a woman who loses a child to kidnapping loses all rights to her child?
The painting wasn't stolen from Lilly, she traded it in exchange for something else (exit visa) therefore her family is not entitled to it.
Who is “Pissarro”? Was this supposed to have been the artist?
Bad example! Kidnapping is not a TRADE.
The family thought it was lost?? That doesn't fit.
no it isn’t- they ‘kidnapped’ the painting by forcing her to surrender it- and allowed her to leave- the only alternative was die- either way- the nazis were leaving with a painting that wasn’t theirs-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.