LA Judge Rules Against San Diego Jewish Family Over $30M Painting Looted By Nazis

cbs2la ^

[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

[Bob434]

justice in a court of law is not vengeance- as stated already- God instituted the courts and judges for all people- even Christians-

[[These people are not going to get their painting,]]

Thanks to crooked courts that protect criminals- they probably won’t- the point about painting and child is that something that didn’t belong to the nazis was taken by force- as explained in previous post- doesn’t matter if it’s a painting or child- it was a crime for the nazis to take something that didn’t belong to them by force-

[Savage Beast]

No, he should observe Spanish law. You’re right, and I appreciate your clarification. But couldn’t the matter be litigated in some other venue?

[FreedomNotSafety]

Long delay on answer. Sorry.

I am guessing most other venues will be no better. The concept of “holder in die course” is a common law right and should not be diminished even for Nazi looted Jew owned art. That sounds terrible. But the alternative is worse. Did our ancestors steal the land we now occupy? What about the diamond you wear? How many transfers should stolen goods be traced and retrieved from? How about corrupt judges and lawmakers who decide something was stolen way after any witnesses have died?

Remember if there was knowledge of the theft or reason to be suspicious then “holder in due course” does not apply.

[Savage Beast]

What you say makes sense. Thanks!

I had a gorgeous piece of property on the Atlantic Coast, and the state government proclaimed that I didn't own it, that I would have to prove ownership by virtue of a grant from the king of England. I found the grant, and all was well. But I wondered why the grant alone was inviolate. For example, the king's authority to make such a grant could be challenged, though I didn't mention this for obvious reasons.