The Untold Story of Cultural Heritage, World War II, and the PacificA Conference Marking the 70th Anniversaries of the Battles of of the Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal
Thursday, November 8, 2012 – Friday, November 9, 2012 THIS WEEK!
Showing posts with label WWII stolen art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WWII stolen art. Show all posts
Register Now! - The Untold Story of Cultural Heritage, WWII, and the Pacific
The Untold Story of Cultural Heritage, World War II, and the PacificFagan Attempts to Restart Claim Against Czech Republic After Florida Court Halts "Victims of Holocaust Art Theft" Case
 | |
| Museum of Decorative Arts. CC Kirgyt12. |
The United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, ruled on June 4 that the newly created organization called Victims of Holocaust Art Theft needed an attorney by July 5 or the case would be dismissed. Fagan, disbarred from the practice law, could not serve as the the organization's attorney. He filed a lengthy pleading on June 29 urging the court to allow him to go forward in the case pro se (without an attorney) in recognition of the fact that he and "Victims of Holocaust Art Theft" were one and the same. Michal Klepetář filed a separate letter on the same date stating that he wished Fagan to represent his interests.
District Court Judge James Cohn dismissed "Victims" case on July 9, writing in a footnote (citations omitted):
In response to the Court’s June 4 Order, Fagan filed a “Motion for Permission for Plaintiff Pro Se to Proceed Under the Name ‘Victims of Holocaust Art Theft’ and for other relief.” In that Motion, Fagan asserts that Plaintiff is not a legal entity apart from Fagan himself but instead is a fictitious name that Fagan is using to bring claims in his individual capacity. As the Court previously noted, however, the allegations of the Complaint indicate that other individuals besides Fagan have an interest in Plaintiff. But even if the Court were to assume that Fagan alone owns and controls Plaintiff, it remains clear that Fagan is seeking to represent the interests of persons other than himself. More troubling, Fagan reveals for the first time in his Motion that he is “a disbarred lawyer” and that “[e]ven after [his] disbarment,” he has been “sought out by persons and groups with restitution claims who wanted [him] to assist and consult with them.” This disclosure suggests that Fagan, despite being disbarred from the practice of law, may be using Plaintiff as a vehicle to represent other persons before this Court. For these reasons, Fagan’s Motion does not alter the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff may not proceed without counsel, and the relief sought in that Motion is denied.
The next day, Fagan responded by filing a new lawsuit in his own name, captioned Edward D. Fagan v. Czech Republic; National Gallery in Prague; Museum of Decorative Arts of Prague docket 9:12-cv-80743-KAM.
In order to file a civil complaint to obtain property, one must have standing to sue. Fagan claims in his latest complaint that he "is an owner of certain rights to The Popper Art Collection which were obtained / acquired from Michal Klepetář (Klepetář ), the Popper heir/legal successor. It remains to be seen if the court will permit the case to go forward.
CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com
Florida Court Orders Entity Called Victims of Holocaust Art Theft to Get a Lawyer in Lawsuit Against Czech Republic
 |
| Florida federal court, southern district |
The case of Victims of Holocaust Art Theft v. Czech Republic; National Gallery in Prague; Museum of Decorative Arts of Prague is a replevin (i.e. give the stuff back) action that seeks the return of alleged Nazi looted art. Fagan is reportedly a reparations lawyer who no longer possesses a license to practice law. The United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, reviewed Fagan's civil complaint sua sponte (i.e. on its own, without any party filing a motion). The court concluded the following (citations omitted in the order quoted below):
"Plaintiff, an entity known as Victims of Holocaust Art Theft, seeks to recover an art collection that allegedly was stolen from a Jewish Czech family (the Poppers) by the Nazis and is now in the possession of the Czech Republic and its museums. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff 'is a business registered in Florida and in this judicial district, is an owner of certain interests in The Popper Collection, [and] is a limited partner with and has limited but express authority [of] Michal Klepetář, one of The Popper Heirs . . . to take certain acts regarding The Popper Collection, including commencing this action.' The Complaint further notes that Plaintiff’s formation 'is the result of agreements, cooperation and partnering between / of Edward D. Fagan and Michal Klepetář . . . and other persons with similar claims for restitution / replevin of art work originating in other Eastern European countries.'"
"The Complaint is signed by Edward D. Fagan on behalf of Plaintiff. Based on a review of the Complaint and the accompanying Civil Cover Sheet, it is clear that Fagan has filed the Complaint as a pro se representative of Plaintiff, not as its attorney. Nowhere does the Complaint indicate that Fagan is an attorney admitted to practice before this Court."
"Although parties in federal court are generally allowed to 'plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,' '[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.' . . . This is true regardless of whether the entity is a for-profit enterprise or a nonprofit organization."
"Here, while Plaintiff’s exact form and nature are not fully clear, the Complaint shows that Plaintiff is an organization owned and controlled by at least one person (Michal Klepetář) other than Fagan. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to vindicate the interests of Klepetář and other persons in allegedly stolen artwork. Fagan, therefore, may not represent Plaintiff on a pro se basis. Instead, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed in this action, it must be represented by counsel."
CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com
Czech Republic Sued in Florida for Return of Art
 |
| National Gallery in Prague. Source: Chmee2. CC. |
A newly created Florida entity filed a civil complaint on April 19 in federal district court against the Czech Republic and two of its cultural institutions. The lawsuit of Victims of Holocaust Art Theft v. Czech Republic; National Gallery in Prague; Museum of Decorative Arts of Prague seeks the return of Nazi looted art, according to a complaint filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division. (Docket 12-80420-CIV)
The suit claims that 125 pieces of art were plundered during World War II, but the plaintiff specifically seeks the return, or the cash equivalent, of at least 50 pieces valued at over $50 million. The complaint states that the “Popper Collection” was “among the valuable art and other objects that was looted and seized by the Nazi authorities . . . .”
Richard and Regina Popper, owners of the “Popper Collection,” are said to have been “stripped of their nationality and citizenship rights” and “were deported from Prague to the Lodz Ghetto and murdered in Lodz after arrival (in 1941 or 1942); however the exact date of their murder is not known.”
According to the court complaint, Victims of Holocaust Art Theft is a Florida business formed by Edward D. Fagan and Michal Klepetář, who is a descendant of Richard and Regina Popper. Documents submitted to the Florida secretary of state's office show that Fagan, who lists a Boca Raton address, registered the fictitious name (i.e. trade name) on April 18, one day before filing the federal lawsuit on behalf of Victims of Holocaust Art Theft.
The lawsuit claims jurisdiction over the Czech Republic because of its commercial activities in the United States.
CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com
Court Forfeits Cristo Portacroce After Italy Does Not File A Claim
 |
| The forfeited Cristo Portacroce. Courtesy ICE |
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida has ordered the forfeiture of the painting, the Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Manigoldo. The court issued the default judgment once the previous possessors, Italy and its Brera Art Gallery, failed to make a claim for the return of the artwork.
The court's ruling was brief: "Upon Application of the Plaintiff(s) in the above styled cause and having examined the records and there appearing to be no responsive pleadings filed by the defendant(s), default is hereby entered against the Italian Republic, Ministry of Culture, and the Pinacoteca di Brera, on January 3, 2012."
The painting will likely be handed over to the heirs of Federico Gentili di Giuseppe, who filed a claim on December 14, 2011 arguing that they were the lawful owners. Prosecutors submitted information to the court that the painting was taken from the family by the Nazis during World War II. Click here for details.
Federal officials seized the Cristo Portacroce in November 2011, which the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science in Florida had on loan. See here for background.
Court papers filed by government lawyers show that the Italian's were aware that the painting's ownership was in dispute. But the records do not explain why the Italy-Brogan loan agreement did not contemplate legal protection from seizure under the federal law known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display.
Court papers filed by government lawyers show that the Italian's were aware that the painting's ownership was in dispute. But the records do not explain why the Italy-Brogan loan agreement did not contemplate legal protection from seizure under the federal law known as Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display.
CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com
PART II OF II: US Attorney Reveals Legal and Factual Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuit Against Cristo Portacroce – Case Reveals Italy’s Refusal to Turn Painting Over to Gentili di Giuseppe Family
In support of the warrant seizing Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue (Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Manigoldo) from The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science and in support of the civil complaint seeking forfeiture, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Florida supplies important details about the artwork’s asserted history. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent Phillip Reynolds describes facts in an affidavit submitted to the federal district court that permits the construction of the following timeline and details:
 |
| Portrait of Girolamo Romano, painter of the disputed artwork known as Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Mangoldo. |
June 1914 - Art collector Federico Gentili di Giuseppe, Italian and of Jewish descent and living in Paris, purchased the Cristo Portacroce from the Crespi family collection. The 16th century painting by artist Girolamo Romano, was lawfully exported from Italy.
April 20, 1940 - Just before the Nazi invasion of France, Federico Gentili di Giuseppe died and left his estate to his son and daughter. They fled Paris without their possessions.
March 17, 1941 - The French Vichy government ordered the liquidation of the entire Gentili di Giuseppe estate.
April 23, 1941 - The Cristo Portacroce, and dozens of other paintings once in the Gentili di Giuseppe family’s possession, were auctioned. “Lemar” of Paris reportedly bought the Cristo Portacroce.
1994 - A Girolamo Romani catalog raisonné published by Alessandro Nova listed the Cristo Portacroce as having been owned by Federico Gentili di Giuseppe.
1997 – Descendants of Federico Gentili di Giuseppe sued the Louvre for the return of five paintings sold during the same auction as the Cristo Portacroce.
1998 - The Brera Art Gallery (Pinacoteca di Brera) took possession of the painting, although no details are provided regarding this transfer.
June 2, 1999 – a French court ordered custody of the five paintings at the Louvre to Federico Gentili di Giuseppe’s descendants, acknowledging that the 1941 auction was a “nullity” in that several painting were purchased by Nazis, including Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring. The court also ordered the Louvre to pay 40,000 francs (approximately $8300).
After June 2, 1999 – The Art Institute of Chicago, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and the Art Museum of Princeton University all returned works of art to the Gentili di Giuseppe family heirs. Institutions in Berlin, Cologne, and Lyons did the same.
January 10, 2000 and March 14, 2000 – Lawyer Jean Pierre Sulzer twice contacted the the Brera Art Gallery by mail on behalf of Gentili di Giuseppe’s descendants, receiving no reply.
2001 – The Brera Art Gallery referred the restitution claims of the Gentili di Giuseppe heirs to the Italian Ministry of Culture, and attorneys for the family wrote a letter to the ministry on October 3, 2001 asking for the painting.
June 6, 2002 – The Commission for Art Recovery of the World Jewish Congress, a New York based group that seeks to restitute cultural property taken from Holocaust victims, wrote a letter to Italian President Silvio Berlusconi after the Ministry of Culture reportedly rejected the claims of the Gentili di Giuseppe family. The letter urged the president to reconsider Italy’s position. (The contents of the letter suggest that the Brera made an earlier reply stating that it acquired the painting--and a second painting--in good faith. The Brera's letter is not contained in court documents).
March 14, 2003 – The Italian Ministry of Culture responded to the Commission for Art Recovery’s intervention by saying that it carefully reviewed the matter in light of the Washington Principles and could not find that it could accommodate the request for repatriation. (See the Washington Principles here).
2006 – The Commission on Looted Art in Europe reportedly contacted the Italian government in an effort to have the Christo Portacroce returned.
March 18, 2011 – The Brogan placed the painting on display at its museum in Tallahassee, Florida.
November 4, 2011 – The loan contract between the Brera and the Brogan was due to terminate on November 6, and the painting was to be delivered to Italy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE seized the painting on November 4, 2011 to prevent its return to Milan, and the US Attorney filed its in rem action against the artwork seeking its forfeiture.
The prosecution will seek to prove these alleged facts as it attempts to convince the federal district court that it has the evidence to forfeit the Cristo Portacroce. Time will tell if any party steps forward to contest the claim.
See Part I for a discussion of the US government's asserted legal claims in this case.
See Part I for a discussion of the US government's asserted legal claims in this case.
CONTACT: www.culturalheritagelawyer.com
PART I OF II: US Attorney Reveals Legal and Factual Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuit Against Cristo Portacroce – Argues That Painting Loaned to The Brogan by The Brera Was Stolen, Smuggled, and War Material
 |
| "The Brera," which once possessed the Romano painting seized by ICE in Florida on November 4, 2011. Author: Masi27185. Creative Commons License |
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) seized the painting known as Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue pursuant to a court authorized warrant on Friday, November 4, 2011. Judicial records reveal that federal officials chose to seize the painting at that time because the artwork, which was on loan to and openly displayed at The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science, was about to be returned to the Brera Art Gallery (Pinacoteca di Brera) in Milan, Italy. The Brera originally possessed and loaned the artwork, painted by Girolamo Romano around 1543.
The US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida filed a civil forfeiture action in federal district court in Tallahassee the same day as the seizure. Seizure permits the government to take possession of the painting, but a forfeiture order issued by the court would allow the government to gain title of the painting. That is why the US Attorney’s Office filed an in rem (against the thing) lawsuit, naming the artwork as the defendant. The case is captioned and docketed as United States of America v. Painting Known as Cristo Portacroce Trascinato Da Un Mangoldo, 4:11-cv-00571-RH-WCS.
Federal prosecutors argue in their civil complaint that forfeiture of the painting is proper under multiple legal theories. They cite the typical ones under the criminal statutes (Title 18 of the United States Code) and the customs statutes (Title 19 of the United States Code). But the government also makes a claim under Title 22, the foreign relations section.
First, prosecutors allege that the painting was smuggled pursuant to 18 USC § 545 and therefore must be forfeited under the terms of this criminal statute.
They also say that the artwork must be forfeited because it was illegally imported in contravention of the customs law at 19 USC § 1595a(c)(1)(A) since the painting was “stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported or introduced” into the United States.
Next, federal attorneys claim that the painting was about to be exported in violation of 19 USC § 1595a(d), a customs law requiring that the painting “shall be seized and forfeited to the United States” because its export would be “contrary to law.”
Federal lawyers also make a claim under the Illegal Exportation of War Materials statute at 22 USC § 401(a), saying that it mandates forfeiture of the painting: “Whenever an attempt is made to export or ship from or take out of the United States any arms or munitions of war or other articles in violation of law, or whenever it is known or there shall be probable cause to believe that any arms or munitions of war or other articles are intended to be or are being or have been exported or removed from the United States in violation of law” then the article may be seized and shall be forfeited.” (Emphasis added by the author).
Finally, the government makes the claim that the painting was stolen under 18 USC § 2314, the National Stolen Property Act, which criminalizes conduct whereby a person “transports, transmits, or transfers in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud.”
The court will decide if prosecutors possess the evidence to prove their case. To date, the information prosecutors possess appears considerable. That material is discussed in Part II.
ICE Seizes Stolen Art From Florida's Brogan Museum - Said To Be Taken During WWII
 |
| ICE seizes Romano painting said to be stolen by the Nazis. Photo courtesy of ICE |
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in Tallahassee, Florida yesterday served a seizure warrant on "Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rascal." The painting had been held at the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science at the request of the US Attorney's office, northern district of Florida, while prosecutors determined whether the painting by Girolamo Romano’s was unlawfully taken from a Jewish family during World War II. Now the artwork is now in federal custody.
Who will have final title and possession of the artwork ultimately will be determined by a federal district court judge.
[UPDATE: November 9, 2011 - Read more details here.]
Find the complete press release describing the seizure and issued by ICE here. Also, listen to Chucha Barber, the Brogan Museum’s chief executive officer, who provides a short audio sketch of the ownership claims to the painting on PRI's The World.
Thanks go to Gary Nurkin for alerting me to this news.
Thanks go to Gary Nurkin for alerting me to this news.
Art on Temporary Loan from Foreign Lenders - Immunity from Seizure and the Brogan Museum
Because the information presented by newspaper could be misconstrued—as noted by some members of the American Bar Association’s Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee—it is worth discussing what the federal law is and how it works.
Congress passed a statute in 1965 entitled Immunity from Seizure Under Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or Display (22 USC § 2459). Lawmakers wished to promote the importation of fine art for the benefit of Americans by encouraging foreign art lenders to feel confident that their cultural works would not become entangled in litigation once on American soil. The statute protects from judicial seizure imported objects of cultural significance intended for temporary, nonprofit exhibition. The law prevents a civil litigant from seizing temporarily imported fine art to satisfy a judgment in a lawsuit, for example.
The immunity protecting an object of cultural significance is not automatic, which is why museums that accept foreign art on temporary loan should always consider applying for it. Any immunity that is granted is specific to the artwork; the immunity does not apply broadly to the museum as the Times article reports.
In order to acquire this immunity for an artwork, a museum should submit an application to the US Department of State at least six weeks prior to its importation. The application should contain ten pieces of information that include a description of the item covered, its provenance, its exhibition location, a description of the object’s cultural significance, and a description of why the temporary exhibition is in the national interest. By Executive Order 12047, the President of the United States has authorized the Director of the US Information Agency “(1) to determine that any work of art or other object to be imported into the United States within the meaning of the Act is of cultural significance, (2) to determine that the temporary exhibition or display of any such work of art or other object in the United States is in the national interest, and (3) to cause public notices of the determinations referred to above to be published in the Federal Register.” The USIA director must consult with the Secretary of State and may consult with others, including the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and the Director of the National Gallery of Art.
For the Brogan Museum to have taken advantage of seizure immunity for the Romano painting, it would have had to apply for it.
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/arts/design/for-florida-museum-dispute-over-romano-painting-is-a-boon.html?_r=1&src=recg
Photo of the Brogan Museum permitted to be used under Creative Commons license.
Description: Tallahassee FL Brogan MOAS01.jpg
Tallahassee, Florida: The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science
Date: 24 May 2011(2011-05-24), 14:10:25
Source: Own work
Author: Ebyabe
Contact information may be found at www.culturalheritagelawyer.com. DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this web site/email/blog/feed/podcast is general information only, not legal advice, and not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No attorney-client relationship is formed, and no express or implied warranty is given. Links or references to outside sources are not endorsements. This site may be considered attorney advertising by some jurisdictions. The attorney is licensed in NH. The attorney is not certified by the TX Board of Legal Specialization, nor certified by NY regulators as a so-called "specialist" or "expert." Do not send confidential communications through this web site or email.
Stolen Art Repatriated to Poland Following Default Judgment in U.S. v. One Julian Falat Painting Entitled “Off to the Hunt” and One Julian Falat Painting Entitled “The Hunt”
U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York repatriated two Julian Falat paintings on September 22, transferring them to President Bronisław Komorowski of Poland in a ceremony held at the Polish Consulate in New York. American and Polish officials said that the Nazis stole “The Hunt” and “Off to the Hunt” from Warsaw’s Polish National Museum during the era of World War II.
In 2006, the Polish government found the paintings at two auction houses in New York, which removed them from sale when notified. Authorities acquired the paintings this past August after a federal district court in Manhattan entered a default judgment in the U.S. government’s favor. Federal officials then turned the paintings over to Poles.
"No one can ever provide just compensation to the victims of the Nazis' atrocities, but it is very gratifying for our office to play a role in returning the art that they looted during World War II to its rightful owners," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in a statement. "After 60 years, these national treasures will finally be returned to the Polish Government—a repatriation that would not have been possible without their help."
The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed an in rem forfeiture action against the paintings on December 13, 2010 in order to acquire the artworks. (In a court proceeding for civil forfeiture, the defendant is the property, not a person.) In its complaint, the prosecution alleged that there was probable cause for forfeiture. Assistant US Attorney Kan Nawaday specifically described how “Off to the Hunt” was removed from the National Museum without its frame during World War II. A frame for the artwork originally contained an inked inventory mark, the number 345, when the Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts in Warsaw placed it there in 1904. The frame survives. “The Hunt,” meanwhile, was also transferred to the National Museum when the German SS confiscated the painting. A catalog record and photograph of the artwork still exists.
The Polish government published a catalog of looted art in 1951 following the Second World War. It described both paintings. Since 1989, the Polish government continued to post the loss of “Off to the Hunt” and “The Hunt” on the internet. The paintings surfaced when Christie’s and Doyle New York, respectively, offered them for auction.
The federal complaint explained that an HSI agent spoke with the consignor of “Off to the Hunt,” whose name was supplied to the Polish government by Christie’s. The consignor had no purchase records and no import paperwork, according to the complaint. Additionally, HSI’s own search of customs records could not find any information related to the import.
HSI was also in contact with the attorney for the consignor of “The Hunt.” The federal complaint described how HSI “spoke with employees of Doyle . . . who informed them that the consignor . . . had brought the painting in for appraisal unframed and wrapped in an old sheet. Additionally . . . employees advised that [the consignor] had provided conflicting stories about how she came in possession of the painting.” HSI itself could find no importation records relating to the painting, according to court papers.
The federal forfeiture complaint stated that each Falat painting was valued at $50,000.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office argued that the paintings could be lawfully forfeited under four alternative legal theories. First, the works of art could be forfeited under 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C) because they were proceeds arising from a violation(s) of the National Stolen Property Act. Second, they could be forfeited under 19 USC 1497(a)(1) because there was no declaration of entry made on any customs form when imported into the United States. Third, they could be forfeited pursuant to 19 USC 1595a(C)(1)(a) because there was probable cause to believe that they were imported in violation of the federal smuggling law or the National Stolen Property Act. Fourth, the paintings could be forfeited because there was “probable cause to believe that they were brought to the United States contrary to law, the possessors of the Defendant Paintings [were] aware that they were stolen and are attempting to offer the Defendant Paintings for sale . . . .”
The government won its case by default after the paintings’ possessors failed to contest the forfeiture complaint. The court granted judgment on August 3, 2011.
"Those paintings are two magnificent and very important pieces of art," said Bogdan Zdrojewski, minister of culture and national heritage of Poland. "If you think about all the Falat paintings, these two are definitely the most interesting and most valuable ones," the minister was quoted as saying in a September 22, 2011 ICE press release.
But at least one of the paintings is not one that the Nazis looted, according to assertions made in a July 1, 2011 letter and attachments sent to the federal court by the possessor of “Off to the Hunt.” She wrote that “a technical analysis of my painting put[s] into severe doubt that my painting and [the Polish government’s] lost painting were one and the same.” She objected to the “far-from-thorough ICE investigation and . . . U.S. Civil laws designed to trap criminals and not good-faith possessors of disputed objects . . .” She also wrote of her inability to enlist her insurer or an affordable attorney to help defend the court action.
In letters addressed to NY Senator Charles Schumer dated June 23 and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated June 27 (both contained in the public court file) the possessor made a variety of statements, including the following:
• she was the daughter of a Holocaust survivor,
• she inherited “Off to the Hunt” from her father who bought it in Paris before transporting it to the USA in 1948,
• the “lost painting and mine are two originals by the same painter,” and
• it was improper for the government to imply that she and/or her father may have been “bad faith” possessors of the work.
HSI Executive Associate Director James Dinkins, meanwhile, said in a September 2011 press statement that his agency was “deeply gratified to be able to return these cherished paintings that were taken from the people of Poland so long ago.”
Photo courtesy of ICE.
Contact: http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/.
Statute of Limitatons to Recover Stolen Culture Lengthened in California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Assembly Bill 2765. This law allows an owner of a stolen or fraudulently taken cultural object to file a lawsuit to recover the piece within six years of finding the object. This new law is significant for three reasons.
First, it doubles the time an aggrieved party can recover an object of "historical, interpretive,scientific, cultural, or artistic significance" that has been stolen or taken by fraud or duress
Second, the law enacts the "actual discovery" rule. That means that the six year clock only starts to run once the original owner actually discovers the wherabouts of the cultural object.
Third, the law is retrospective. The legislature specifically stated that the law "shall apply to all pending and future actions commenced on or before December 31, 2017, including any actions dismissed based on the expiration of statutes of limitation in effect prior to the date of enactment of this statute if the judgment in that action is not yet final or if the time for filing an appeal from a decision on that action has not
expired, provided that the action concerns a work of fine art that was taken within 100 years prior to the date of enactment of this statute." There is no doubt then that the new law may impact Marei Von Saher's effort to move forward on her claim to recover Lucas Cranach the Elder's diptych "Adam and Eve" from the Norton Simon Museum, originally looted by the Nazis.
Read the law at http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2765_bill_20100930_chaptered.html
First, it doubles the time an aggrieved party can recover an object of "historical, interpretive,scientific, cultural, or artistic significance" that has been stolen or taken by fraud or duress
Second, the law enacts the "actual discovery" rule. That means that the six year clock only starts to run once the original owner actually discovers the wherabouts of the cultural object.
Third, the law is retrospective. The legislature specifically stated that the law "shall apply to all pending and future actions commenced on or before December 31, 2017, including any actions dismissed based on the expiration of statutes of limitation in effect prior to the date of enactment of this statute if the judgment in that action is not yet final or if the time for filing an appeal from a decision on that action has not
expired, provided that the action concerns a work of fine art that was taken within 100 years prior to the date of enactment of this statute." There is no doubt then that the new law may impact Marei Von Saher's effort to move forward on her claim to recover Lucas Cranach the Elder's diptych "Adam and Eve" from the Norton Simon Museum, originally looted by the Nazis.
Read the law at http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2765_bill_20100930_chaptered.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)