Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LA Judge Rules Against San Diego Jewish Family Over $30M Painting Looted By Nazis
cbs2la ^

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 ...


TOPICS: US: California
KEYWORDS: art; judge; nazis; painting; sandiego; ww2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: Freedom4US
Exactly!

"found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art "

Try that argument when you're stuck with a counterfeit $100 bill.......Or ANY other stolen property!!!!!

21 posted on 05/02/2019 12:21:20 PM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing
Nonsense!

Deals under such extreme duress are ALWAYS invalid!

22 posted on 05/02/2019 12:22:53 PM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Semantics. The painting was apparently the price of the exit visa. No painting no exit visa. Yeah, it was a probably a bribe. But in the end she got the bargain she negotiated. Either way she was going to lose the painting. She bought 60 years of life by surrendering it when she did. She also got $13,000 in reparations from the German Government in 1958. That was probably the value of the painting at that time. You could buy a pretty nice house for $13,000 in 1958.


23 posted on 05/02/2019 12:22:57 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Freep mail me if you want to be on my Fingerstyle Acoustic Guitar Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

they took the painting by causing extreme duress- there was no choice- other than die- but the nazis would take the painting anyways-

The mafia used to work that way- and it was a crime- they ‘offered’ protection- and the owners could either ‘accept’ the offer or die- The mafia would take products for free from the stores under this ‘agreement’ but still it was a crime-


24 posted on 05/02/2019 12:24:12 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Coercion voids a contract. But I’m sure the Nazis appreciate your support


25 posted on 05/02/2019 12:24:41 PM PDT by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

“No evidence the museum knew it was looted”.

Well, they know it NOW!
It belongs to the family.


26 posted on 05/02/2019 12:25:46 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

see my last reply- and also post 22-

“Duress makes a contract voidable

Duress is a means by which a person or party can be released from a contract, where that person or party has been forced or coerced into the contract.If this coercion can be shown to be true then the contract entered into cannot not be considered a valid agreement....

To be successful in a claim for duress there must be effectively no choice for the party other than to comply with the demand.”

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/duress-makes-a-contract-voidable-contract-law-essay.php


27 posted on 05/02/2019 12:26:24 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

She “traded” it for an exit visa. Don’t be fooled, it was confiscated.


28 posted on 05/02/2019 12:27:42 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Huh? So a woman who loses a child to kidnapping loses all rights to her child?

~~~

I phrased my question badly. I was trying to convey my incredulity that the judge really seems to be saying that the circumstances about how the painting left their possession was meaningless. It seems very important, which is why I used the word duress.


29 posted on 05/02/2019 12:29:22 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Shouldn’t she get the painting back?


30 posted on 05/02/2019 12:30:16 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
a Spanish museum which acquired a $30 million painting

PROVANANCE ... Don't buy a work of art without it.

ML/NJ

31 posted on 05/02/2019 12:32:18 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
"What does that have to do with anything? WTF?"

Yep... Antisemitism rules the courts these days...

32 posted on 05/02/2019 12:34:03 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is Sam Adams now that we desperately need him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

They aren’t supposed to buy stolen goods, I understand that.

My point is, the mete fact that they “didn’t know it was stolen” does not confer legitimate title! It does mean (if true) they won’t be prosecuted, but they have no claim to ownership. This is black letter law.


33 posted on 05/02/2019 12:34:14 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; petitfour; BenLurkin

LEGAL isn't always MORAL.

Spain paid $350 million for the painting.

You'd think Spain would compensate the grandson $1 million or two, given that Judge Walter also criticized Spain, calling its decision to keep the painting “inconsistent” with international agreements that it and other countries have signed “based upon the moral principle that art and cultural property confiscated by the Nazis from Holocaust (Shoah) victims should be returned to them or their heirs.


34 posted on 05/02/2019 12:35:05 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Well, this is bullshit.


35 posted on 05/02/2019 12:35:33 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

If you are in possession of stolen property the cops don’t care. It’s stolen and it’s not yours.
This is the same Spanish government who claims the treasure from ships lost centuries ago.


36 posted on 05/02/2019 12:35:42 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Chivalry is not dead. It is a warriors code and only practiced by warriors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Sounds like she got a good deal.”

So “your money or your life” is binding, legal, exchange?

I guess we’ve got to let muggers keep the money now.


37 posted on 05/02/2019 12:37:05 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

She gave the painting up a gun point. Sounds like piracy to me.


38 posted on 05/02/2019 12:37:11 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Chivalry is not dead. It is a warriors code and only practiced by warriors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

As an aside, since a valid contract presupposes and requires two willing parties, doesn’t this mean the “social contract” is null and void? Hm.


39 posted on 05/02/2019 12:37:45 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Looking at the case, it turns on Spanish law, which was specifically written to screw victims of the Shoa.


40 posted on 05/02/2019 12:39:01 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson