Posted on 05/02/2019 12:05:17 PM PDT by BenLurkin
That’s not a trade.
It’s extortion, made legal by the Nazis.
We obliterated each and every Nazi law after Germany surrendered.
Except extortion?
Hmmmmmmm....
The Spanish don’t have a very good record regarding Jews. They subjected them to torture, burning at the stake, and expulsion from the country wholesale. I guess they haven’t changed in screwing over Jews. That painting never legally belonged to the Nazis—it was taken under duress. A burglary at gunpoint.
Hmmm, this isn’t an easy case. Plenty of bribes were paid in that era to get the hell out of Nazi-controlled territory. It’s certainly unjust that bribes had to be paid in the first place, but if the briber received the benefit of the bargain (which apparently she did), should she be entitled to a refund simply because the bribe turned out to be extraordinarily valuable decades later?
“t does mean (if true) they wont be prosecuted, but they have no claim to ownership. This is black letter law.”
Not in Spain. In the article, there is a specific Spanish law designed to screw over victims of the Shoa.
I would have been OK with the gang killing anyone who got in their way, including Spanish law enforcement.
See my post #46
ah i see- thanks for clearing that up- i agree-
She’s received compensation from Germany,
already. Is this a double dip?
This is a Shrub judge “ruling”, too. Who knew “Your painting or you go to the Death Camp” was a legit transaction ? What a joke.
I note that this case has been remanded to this judge TWICE. Obviously he doesn’t make good rulings and perhaps the appeals court will reverse it again. If he is looking to laws outside our own to base his decision, why use Spanish law? Why not International law? His whole decision is a mess.
One of the leading French Impressionist painters.
Govt people take care of each other. Even across the Atlantic.
The public servant stole it a bribe to get him to do his job.
So what? The museum knows now. The art was stolen. It should be returned to the family from whom it was stolen. The museum's grievance is with whomever they bought it from, and they should seek reimbursement from them.
Is this judge in his right mind?
$13,000 in 1958 would be be about 15 million if invested in a decent mutual fund, in today dollars.
Just say’n.
Obviously seized under duress!
It belongs to the family--not the museum.
But they accepted $13,000 reparations 30 years ago. The fact that it’s worth more now, really doesn’t enter into it.
That’s good news. See, some years ago I bought a lovely collection of watches with a name engraved on them...John F. Walter...but since I didn’t know they were stolen I won’t have to give them back.
Spain hosted Nazi submarines during WWII. Germany gives Spain a painting, thanks for helping out. Spain says your welcome.
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.