U.S. Supreme Court hears World War Two-era Jewish property claims

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

 

Is there such a person as a Jewish citizen? I was of the understanding that citizenship was dependent upon internal political circumstances, one of which may be nationality.  You can be a national of a country, but may not be a citizen, who has full political, social and civil rights. 

 

So, my question remains. Is there such a person as a Jewish citizen?

My typo. I meant German.

[Scott Tracy]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

21 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

If I were the Hungarian or German (Prussian) governments. I would ignore any ruling made in any US Court.

Perhaps if the plaintiffs and the defendants were US citizens, this could fly. Sue in your own country first.

 

Just my opinion. 

 

Why do you assume that the plaintiffs aren't US citizens?

 

It matters not if just the plaintiffs are US citizens. It matters if both the plaintiffs and defendants are. Please note the 'and' in the statement.Perhaps I should have italicized it to show emphasis.

In this case, the defendants are not US citizens, therefore in my view, the litigation should take place in Germany or Hungary, since the cases hinge on German and Hungarian actions and laws at the time being in force.

The Supreme Court of the United States appears to have been asked to pass judgement on the actions and laws of another state. 

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

The parties in question didn't sell to the Prussian State. The items were sold to Goering and he gave them to the Prussian State.

As for the rest of the mitigatory stuff you're trying to shovel in the Nuremberg laws are very clear about who is and who isn't a Jewish citizen.

 

Hermann Goering was not part of the deal made on 14 June 1935. He was prime minister at that time.

 

The Prussian state was represented by the Dresdner Bank. The price was settled at 4,25 million RM for the (last) second batch. There was an agreed provision that the payment would happen in 3 instalments and the Jewish consortium could cancel the deal within 4 weeks after signing with the German bank.

 

The art pieces were at the time of the deal in Amsterdam in a museum. The contract stipulates that the Jewish art consortium had to arrange the transportation from A’dam to Berlin.

 

Please note that the first batch of the German art collection was previously sold for 2,5 million to private persons. Most of them German Jewish citizens. 

 

It’s all documented on the German website of the Prussian Heritage museum. 

 

The art works were previously proposed to art dealers in London and New York also struggling with the economic crisis just after 1929.

 

The Nurnberg laws are not relevant for the deal.

 

https://www.preussischer-kulturbesitz.de/fileadmin/user_upload_SPK/documents/mediathek/schwerpunkte/provenienz_eigentum/rp/Restitutionsersuchen_Welfenschatz_-_Darstellung_des_belegten_historischen_Sachverhaltes_auf_der_Grundlage_der_Provenienzforschungen_der_SPK.pdf 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Thorgal

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Hermann Goering was not part of the deal made on 14 June 1935. He was prime minister at that time.

 

The Prussian state was represented by the Dresdner Bank. The price was settled at 4,25 million RM for the (last) second batch. There was an agreed provision that the payment would happen in 3 instalments and the Jewish consortium could cancel the deal within 4 weeks after signing with the German bank.

 

The art pieces were at the time of the deal in Amsterdam in a museum. The contract stipulates that the Jewish art consortium had to arrange the transportation from A’dam to Berlin.

 

Please note that the first batch of the German art collection was previously sold for 2,5 million to private persons. Most of them German Jewish citizens. 

 

It’s all documented on the German website of the Prussian Heritage museum. 

 

https://www.preussischer-kulturbesitz.de/fileadmin/user_upload_SPK/documents/mediathek/schwerpunkte/provenienz_eigentum/rp/Restitutionsersuchen_Welfenschatz_-_Darstellung_des_belegten_historischen_Sachverhaltes_auf_der_Grundlage_der_Provenienzforschungen_der_SPK.pdf 

WASHINGTON - The heirs to the Jewish art dealers who were forced to sell the medieval devotional art collection known as the Welfenschatz (in English, the Guelph Treasure) to agents of Hermann Goering in 1935 filed their brief today in the Supreme Court of the United States. It can be viewed at this link. The Supreme Court is set to hear argument on December 7, 2020, on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and its "takings clause" create jurisdiction over the heirs' claims for restitution of the Welfenschatz—as all reviewing courts so far have held. 

Court of Appeals Upholds Claims to Renowned Guelph Treasure Sold Under Duress to Nazi Agents (sullivanlaw.com)

 

The key question in the upcoming lawsuit is whether every possible Nazi stolen art case must be investigated in detail or whether is it sufficient to presume that after Hitler's takeover of power in 1933, Jewish art dealers were gradually disenfranchised and thus were no longer on a level playing field in the art market.

Nazi-looted art claim sets new test for Germany | Arts | DW | 19.04.2017

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

 

It matters not if just the plaintiffs are US citizens. It matters if both the plaintiffs and defendants are. Please note the 'and' in the statement.Perhaps I should have italicized it to show emphasis.

In this case, the defendants are not US citizens, therefore in my view, the litigation should take place in Germany or Hungary, since the cases hinge on German and Hungarian actions and laws at the time being in force.

The Supreme Court of the United States appears to have been asked to pass judgement on the actions and laws of another state. 

Obviously, the courts so far disagree with you. In the German case it's compounded by the fact that there is no law that governs art stolen or coerced from owners during the Nazi era.

[Thorgal]

22 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

 

It matters not if just the plaintiffs are US citizens. It matters if both the plaintiffs and defendants are. Please note the 'and' in the statement.Perhaps I should have italicized it to show emphasis.

In this case, the defendants are not US citizens, therefore in my view, the litigation should take place in Germany or Hungary, since the cases hinge on German and Hungarian actions and laws at the time being in force.

The Supreme Court of the United States appears to have been asked to pass judgement on the actions and laws of another state. 

 

Plaintiff is a US citizen.

Germany (defendant) can not benefit of immunity of the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act because it’s part of the exclusion described under §1605 a 3.

 

The claim of plaintiff of OP was accepted by the US Supreme Court because it’s about art ownership dispute during the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945.

 

Germany has to prove its innocence. See link of my previous comment to Prussian Heritage authorities in Germany. 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605

[Caldera]

Ridiculous. Germany and Hungary have courts that can deal with those matters.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Why do you assume that the plaintiffs aren't US citizens?

Were they US citizens at the time of the transaction/were the parties to the transaction US citizens at the time of the transaction?

[CorpusChristie]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

The Jews? You think this is an effort undertaken by worldwide Jewry?

 

  No, I am referring to the people involved in the lawsuit .

If you know their names, do let me know and I shall refer them by their personal names 

[CorpusChristie]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Obviously, the courts so far disagree with you. In the German case it's compounded by the fact that there is no law that governs art stolen or coerced from owners during the Nazi era.

 

  Seems that it was bought and sold   legitimately .

If it was stolen or coerced , thats a different issue  

[CorpusChristie]

5 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

First you say why mention him and then you act like his opinion matters?

 

  I do think that Trumps opinion is irrelevant , but as his opinion was given and stated in this thread , I am stating that I agree with him .

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  No, I am referring to the people involved in the lawsuit .

If you know their names, do let me know and I shall refer them by their personal names 

What's wrong with the word "plaintiffs"?

[Thorgal]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

WASHINGTON - The heirs to the Jewish art dealers who were forced to sell the medieval devotional art collection known as the Welfenschatz (in English, the Guelph Treasure) to agents of Hermann Goering in 1935 filed their brief today in the Supreme Court of the United States. It can be viewed at this link. The Supreme Court is set to hear argument on December 7, 2020, on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and its "takings clause" create jurisdiction over the heirs' claims for restitution of the Welfenschatz—as all reviewing courts so far have held. 

Court of Appeals Upholds Claims to Renowned Guelph Treasure Sold Under Duress to Nazi Agents (sullivanlaw.com)

 

The key question in the upcoming lawsuit is whether every possible Nazi stolen art case must be investigated in detail or whether is it sufficient to presume that after Hitler's takeover of power in 1933, Jewish art dealers were gradually disenfranchised and thus were no longer on a level playing field in the art market.

Nazi-looted art claim sets new test for Germany | Arts | DW | 19.04.2017

 

There’s no proof that the Jewish art dealers were forced to sell the remaining part of the collections.

The 70 pages report only “presumes” with historical facts outside the art deal.

 

https://www.beratende-kommission.de/Content/06_Kommission/EN/Empfehlungen/14-03-20-Recommendation-Advisory-Commission-Guelph-Treasure.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7

Edited December 9, 2020 by Thorgal

[cmarshall]

21 hours ago, Sujo said:

I dont like these claims 70 years after the fact.

 

Because when a thing is stolen fair and square it should stay stolen.

[cmarshall]

20 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Nuremberg laws against Jews were implemented in September 1935.

 

 

Laws against the Jews in Germany began in April 1, 1933 shortly after the Nazi's got power in January.  By April 7 Jews were expelled from the civil service and couldn't teach in schools.  And so on.

 

http://histoire.museeholocauste.ca/en/timeline/antijewish-laws

[onthedarkside]

A pair of off-topic posts on the use of the term "Jew" have been removed.

 

[polpott]

 

 

As for the case in question, the claims need to be made in Germany and Hungary. I fail to see how they should be heard in the US. The Nuremberg trials took place in Germany as that's where the crimes were committed and those on trial were Germans, Which is why the trials didn't take place in Newark, New Jersey.

Edited December 9, 2020 by onthedarkside
off topic content removed