Posted on 10/31/2007 5:27:21 PM PDT by SJackson
It was a good decision that gave it to Taylor. A decision otherwise would open the floodgate for all kinds of reparations by people who were not involved originally to people who were likewise not personally involved.
I say, cut it in half and give both parties a half. King Solomon.
I'm sure she hasn't a damn clue - laying abed with her diapers - lawyers are probably busier than usual before the "estate stuff" kicks in -- undoubtedly not far away.
Wrong.
Elitist??? She is simply untalented whore.
Perhaps, since this is a Van Gogh piece, the use of a straight razor would be appropriate.
My grandparents had works of Goya and Rembrandt before WWII.Most likely it is in some private collection or basement in Rome..
You should read more about Van Gogh.
He spent years learning, sold one painting for currency, has been erroneously judged, and remains an artistic master.
I’m sure your shallow post is due to a simple lack of artistic appreciation.
I urge you to exit the cheap bbq grill and actually view the art of Van Gogh.
You might want to read the actual US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Court ruling here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F13BC54E97C846C6882572DF00004A97/$file/0555364.pdf?openelement
It will change your mind.
The Supreme Court was quite correct not to hear this case and frankly, anyone who would take this case all the way to the Supreme Court is either rich and stupid or brainwashed by their lawyer.
If you bother to read it, you’ll find our judicial system is working pretty well.
See my earlier post. If you agree that it makes sense that all 'duress' related contracts should not be nullified, then "[that] law is an ass".
Make a good TV drama.
This painting, IIRC, has been some sort of touchstone for Taylor, a memento of her days with Richard Burton. They had a house in Gstaad where they displayed this painting, and also a specially decorated cabin aboard their yacht for the same purpose. Weird people.
I'm wondering if Frau Mauthner had turned the painting over to Wolf for sale on consignment, then lost it in 1934 when he bugged-out to Switzerland. Wolf obviously retained control of it from '34 until his death; it was his estate that sold it to Taylor though Sotheby's.
Mauthner and Wolf were both Jews. They were also both well-known art collectors who knew one another. If Wolf had shafted Mauthner in this matter, I'd think that topic might've come up at the family dinner table in S. Africa, regardless of the "we don't talk about the Holocaust" code of silence.
US courts not willing to open Pandora’s box.Without any doubt,there is hundreds(if not thousands) looted art affects in US.
” beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” :-))
They should have title insurance for art.
Cool! I’ll start boiling the tar and you go rip open some feather pillows!
Done! I’ll meet you at the capital steps tomorrow morning at 9.
If Liz had her wits about her she would give the painting up.
Her ownership is tainted no matter what the court says.
The legal details and findings may be in her favor but no one ever said the law was moral or ethical.
Well - actually they did but we all know better.
But after all - its only the jooze complaining about the Holocaust again - Ho-hum........
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.