London Lecture: From Murder To Museums: Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler and the Hunt For Nazi Looted Art in America - November 19

In his presentation at the Fordham Centre London on this Monday November 19, From Murder To Museums: Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler and the Hunt For Nazi Looted Art in America, Raymond J. Dowd, Partner - Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP - NYC  recounts how he seized two stolen Schieles after were spotting them at the Salon+Art Show at the Park Avenue Armory in November 2015, leading to international headlines upon restitution. The Schieles are now at Christie's auction house in New York pending an appeal.

 

Dowd traces how history's greatest murder has, until now, concealed history's greatest robbery.  The presentation traces Abraham Lincoln's idea of taking the profit out of war through the Lieber Code Executive Order 100 of April 1863, to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, to the Nuremberg Trials, to show that returning the stolen property to Holocaust victims was a truly American idea that was embraced by the Allied powers in the London Declaration of January 9, 1943.

 

Dowd discusses how 1. confiscatory US tax laws, 2. a fair market value deduction for artworks donated to museums, and 3. an unwillingness of museums to look gift horses in the mouth led to the current situation of US museums having to deal with large inventories of unprovenanced artworks that left Europe after 1933, but were created prior to 1946.   Learn how U.S. taxpayers foot the bill while America's elite filled the nation's greatest cultural institutions with toxic assets.

Dowd presents a new vision of how our museums can better fulfill their charitable and educational missions while respecting the often bloodstained history of the artworks in their care.

RSVP details at the link below:

Nazi Looted Art Fordham London Centre November 19 by Ray Dowd on Scribd

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. Attorney and AuthorCopyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2017-2018) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

Tonight in NYC - Monday November 12 - From Murder To Museums: Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler and The Hunt For Nazi Looted Art In America

From Murder To Museums: Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler and The Hunt For Nazi Looted Art In America

November 12, 2018 - 6:30pm to 9:00pm

Sponsored by the FAME Center, the Cardozo Law Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights and the Art Law Society

 

In their presentation, From Murder To Museums: Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler and the Hunt For Nazi Looted Art in America, Raymond J. Dowd, Partner - Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP - NYC, and Samuel A. Blaustein, Partner - Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP - NYC, recount how they seized two stolen Schieles after they were spotted at the Salon+Art Show at the Park Avenue Armory in November 2015, leading to international headlines upon their restitution to their clients. The Schieles are now at Christie's with an appellate court blocking the sale. 

 

The presentation traces Abraham Lincoln's idea of taking the profit out of war through the Lieber Code Executive Order 100 of April 1863, to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, to the Nuremberg Trials, to show that returning the stolen property to Holocaust victims was an American idea.  

 

The attorneys discuss how 1. Confiscatory US tax laws, 2. A fair market value deduction for artworks donated to museums, and 3. An unwillingness of museums to look gift horses in the mouth led to the current situation of US museums having to deal with large inventories of unprovenanced works that left Europe after 1933, but were created prior to 1946.

 

Register here:

https://cardozo.yu.edu/events/murder-museums-abraham-lincoln-adolf-hitler-and-hunt-nazi-looted-art-America




www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. Attorney and AuthorCopyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2017-2018) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

Raubkunst/Stolen Art Alert in Vienna: Austrian State Treaty of 1955 Requires Austria To Return Nazi Looted Art, Austrian Politicians Continue To Lie

Egon Schiele's Dead City III - Stolen from Fritz Grunbaum

Austria's Shameful Disregard of Its Continuing Treaty Obligations

The Austria State Treaty of 1995 permitted the Russians, French, British and U.S. to depart occupied Vienna.   It was written in English, Russian and French so that the rest of the world could understand exactly what Austria had promised to do.   Below is Article 26 of the Treaty.   It says that Austria is supposed to find and return all property belonging to Jews.

Article 26 was a key aspect of the Allied victory in World War II.  American soldiers lost their lives for Article 26, and the U.S. State Department should wake up and demand Austria's obedience to its obligations.

To its shame, Austria and its politicians have lied to the world and done everything possible to ensure that the children and grandchildren of Nazis could enjoy the property stolen from Vienna's Jews.

The Austria State Treaty is the legal equivalent of the U.S. Constitution.  So if an Austrian tells you that an Austrian law prevents Austria from giving back property stolen from Jews, they are simply lying.   In 2009 I confronted Austrian diplomats with the text of Article 26 at a conference in Prague after they denied Austria's ongoing treaty obligations to despoiled Holocaust victims.

Harvey Weinstein's Woman in Gold with Helen Mirren opened in Vienna on this June 4 to a firestorm of press.  Let's hope that Austrians learn from Hollywood and demand that their politicians start to follow the law of their land, rather than shaming Austria in endless litigation in US courts.

 

Article 26

PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF MINORITY GROUPS

IN AUSTRIA

1. In so far as such action has not already been taken, Austria undertakes

that, in all cases where property, legal rights or interests in Austria have since

13th March, 1938, been subject of forced transfer or measures of sequestration,

confiscation or control on account of the racial origin or religion of the owner,

the said property shall be returned and the said legal rights and interests shall

be restored together with their accessories. Where return or restoration is

impossible, compensation shall be granted for losses incurred by reason of such

measures to the same extent as is, or may be, given to Austrian nationals generally

in respect of war damage.

2. Austria agrees to take under its control all property, legal rights and

interests in Austria of persons, organizations or communities which, individually

or as members of groups, were the object of racial, religious or other Nazi measures

of persecution where, in the case of persons, such property, rights and interests

remain heirless or unclaimed for six months after the coming into force of the

present Treaty, or where in the case of organizations and communities such

organizations or communities have ceased to exist. Austria shall transfer such

property, rights and interests to appropriate agencies or organizations to be

designated by the Four Heads of Mission in Vienna by agreement with the Austrian

Government to be used for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of

persecution by the Axis Powers, it being understood that these provisions do

not require Austria to make payments in foreign exchange or other transfers

to foreign countries which would constitute a burden on the Austrian economy.

Such transfer shall be effected within eighteen months from the coming into

force of the present Treaty and shall include property, rights and interests required

to be restored under paragraph 1, of this Article.

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2014-2015) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

The Second Circuit, Nazi Looted Art, and Why Museums Are Letting ISIS Flourish

Camille Pissaro - La Bergere Rentrant des Moutons

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has remanded a case against the University of Oklahoma brought by a Jewish woman seeking the return of a painting by Camille Pissaro that had been stolen by the Nazis from her father.

This case is one of a wave in the United States where museums have asserted statutes of limitations to hold artwork that the museums know to be stolen from Jewish families.  This violates an international agreement that the United States signed in 1998 known as the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.

I discuss why museum directors who launder stolen art, rather than return it to the families from whom it was stolen should be prosecuted and jailed in a law review article Nazi Looted Art and Cocaine:  When Museum Directors Take It, Call The Cops.

If you are interested in the topic, please check out this 2014 report by the Jewish Claims Conference:  Art and Judaica Looted by Nazis from Jews Still Largely Unidentified; Review of 50 Countries Shows Little Progress Despite International Pacts   It blasts museums for failing to follow their own ethics codes.

U.S. museums are the ultimate repository for billions in stolen art, meaning that the U.S. taxpayer finances looting operations, past and present.  To understand how ISIS finances its operations through looted antiquities, I recommend Col Matthew Bogdanos' lectures and his book The Thieves of Baghdad: One Marine's Passion For Ancient Civilizations and the Journey To Recover The World's Greatest Stolen Treasures.   The Colonel and I recently spoke at the National Arts Club where he described the role of museums and auction houses in laundering antiquities.

When will prosecutors have the courage to take on The American Alliance of Museums?  The National Stolen Property Act has long forbid the transport, possession and concealment of stolen property (as does the law of every state), but prosecutors don't have the gumption to take on rich, powerful and popular museums.  The result is that tax breaks are given out for donations of stolen property.  The U.S. taxpayer is the victim, our museums have been transformed into laundering institutions, and we wonder why organizations like ISIS continue to flourish,.  Prosecutors too dumb to follow the money or too interested in taking easy cases that won't offend anyone wealthy.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/258811543/Second-Circuit-Meyer-v-University-of-Oklahoma-Art-Law#fullscreen=1  www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2014-2015) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

Nazi Looted Art: Cases, Ethics and Law - March 24, 2015 Westchester Women's Bar Association

Nazi Looted Art: Cases, Ethics and Law


Presenter: Raymond Dowd, Esq.  With last year’s film Monuments Men, the upcoming Woman in Gold starring Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds, and with the documentary The Rape of Europa on PBS, the story of Adolph Hitler’s art looting program is finally gaining Hollywood’s attention. A find of 1,400 artworks in Munich last year in the possession of Cornelius Gurlitt, the son of one of Hitler’s art dealers, raised an international firestorm. But the unfinished business of World War II remains unfinished, with governments and families continuing to trace stolen artworks that are hidden in public and private art collections worldwide. With D.A. Robert Morgenthau’s seizure of Egon Schiele’s Portrait of Wally and Dead City III in 1998, world attention focused on the topic. Speaker Raymond J. Dowd of Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP brought the first federal Holocaust-era Nazi art looting case to trial in the Southern District of New York and argued it twice to the Second Circuit. In an entertaining and art-filled lecture, he will present the law, the history and the ethical concerns that continue to face our courts today.

Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Time: 6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Registration and Networking
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Program
Place: Toscana Ristorante
214 Main Street, Eastchester, NY 10707
Fee: $55.00 for WWBA members, $65.00 for non-members.

Dinner; cash bar

RSVP: By March 19h, 2015 to
Executivedirector@wwbany.org
1.5 CLE Credits (includes 0.5 hr. Ethics)1
Attendance limited to WWBA and WPBA members and their invited guests.
www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2014-2015) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

Art Law: Join Me At The Fifth International Conference on Nazi Looted Art October 8-9, 2013

The 5th International Conference on Nazi Looted Art

October 8-9, 2013

Podebrady, Czech Republic

"The West" Versus "The East" Or United Europe?

I have been kindly invited by the Czech government to speak on an panel regarding legal obstacles to the recovery of Nazi-looted art in the United States.  I spoke on an expert panel in 2009 at the Prague Conference on Holocaust-era assets, I have been invited back for the Fifth Anniversary of the Prague Conference. The conference features experts from around the work from museums, archives, not-for-profits and governments who are struggling with issues related to provenance research, archives, and the problem of recovering artworks looted during the reign of Nazi terror.   The conference promises to explore different conceptions of provenance research, documentation and identification of looted cultural assets and the possibilities of the international cooperation in Europe and in the world.  I hope to see you there!

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/152775241"  style="text-decoration: underline;" >Conference Schedule

 For the full brochure online, please click here!

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

ART LAW: STOLEN ART & LITIGATING HOLOCAUST-ERA EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS - Los Angeles September 11, 2013

I will be speaking at a panel sponsored by the Federal Bar Association in Los Angeles at Latham & Watkins.

Time: 5:30 p.mRegistration: 5:00 p.m.
A moderated panel discussion featuring leading authorities discussing claims to Nazi-looted artworks; the legal and practical obstacles facing claimants of property stolen by the Nazis; and the moral and other issues confronting institutions possessing property against which claims have been made.
Location: Latham & Watkins
355 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Cost: Cost: FBA Members $60 - FBA Non-Members $70
Government Employees: $40
FBA Member Group of 10 $500
Federal Judiciary and one guest - Complimentary
Federal Judiciary - Additional Guests $25
(Parking Included)

For full flyer: StolenArtPanelFlyer.pdf

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd
 

Art Law - DePaul Article: It's OK for US Museums To Sue Jews Over Artworks Stolen During the Holocaust

I was provided with an article from Volume XXIII of the DePaul Journal of Art, Technology and Intellectual Property Law (2013) at page 279.   The article is written by Simon Frankel, a partner of Covington & Burling who was counsel to the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and his associate Ethan Forrest.  The article argues that it is ok for museums to sue Jews make sure that their rights to reclaim stolen artworks in museum collections are cut off.

I provide a contrary viewpoint in my recently-published article Nazi Looted Art and Cocaine: When Museum Directors Take It, Call The Cops.

I think that any museum directors who are suing Jews and asserting statutes of limitations and laches to avoid scrutiny of stolen artworks in their collections ought to be put in jail, particularly since taxpayers finance the cost of each acquisition of stolen art.  When Leonard Lauder announces a murky "billion dollar gift" what he means is that he won't pay a billion in taxes and will dump a lot of art that he bought in Switzerland on the cheap and potentially can't sell on the market on unsuspecting taxpayers and that years from now we run the risk of museum directors crying about how they can't figure out where the artworks came from and that when Jewish families invoke Holocaust-era claims, the museums can hire expensive lawyers to deny that the Holocaust ever happened, much as museums are now doing.  A billion dollar loss to New York City taxpayers means fewer schools, crappier roads, and that another billionaire gets a free ride for offloading potential junk in his portfolio.

We need to stop museums from accepting junk provenances: those that are not published and based on readily-available documents and that can be subjected to peer review, as the ethics codes of professional historians require.  The culture of museum secrecy and obfuscation has to end.

Lootedart.com has given my article top billing here.

Center for Art Law calls it an article with "a cheeky title and noble purpose" in a post titled "Attorney's Appeal for Intervention Against Museums Addicted to Nazi Looted Art" here

Jasper Jottings focus on my attack on museums enabling tax cheats here

Sullivan & Worcester's Art Law Report called my arguments "compelling" and the article "noteworthy" pointing out that it raises arguments that museums cannot easily answer here

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.
Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd 

Art Law: Stolen Art Panel Tomorrow Night At Fordham Law

The Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal and the Fordham Art Law Society Present:

Defining Cultural Ownership: Shifting Focus, Shifting Norms

In this panel discussion, attorneys whose practices focus on art law will speak on issues of repatriation and restitution -- specifically, how the legal process of returning looted works of art to their countries of origin is informed by the works' genre and surrounding cultural norms. The discussion will follow the legal system's treatment of looted art from various eras, including Antiquity, the Second World War, and the more recent Cuban Revolution.

Agenda:

7:30 - 7:45
Registration

7:45 - 7:55
Welcome remarks & introduction

7:55 - 8:10
Evan Barr, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

8:10 - 8:25
Raymond Dowd, Partner, Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP

8:25 - 8:40
Mari-Claudia Jimenez, Associate, Herrick Feinstein LLP

8:40 - 9:10
Moderated Q&A

Moderator:
Leila Amineddoleh
Of Counsel and Chair of the Art Law Group, Lombard & Geliebter LLP; Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation; and Adjunct Professor, Fordham University School of Law

Registration:

This program is free and open to the public

CLE Credits: 1.5 Non-transitional & transitional, Professional Practice NYS CLE Credits are available for $50 ($35 for Fordham Law alumni and public interest attorneys)

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!


www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.
Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd 

Will US Supreme Court Hear Nazi Art Looting Case?

Egon Schiele's Seated Woman with Bent Left Leg (Torso) 1917

A petition was docketed this Monday asking the US Supreme Court to review a case where state law was used to grant title to a stolen artwork to a US purchaser.    A PDF of the petition for certiorari can be accessed below.  This is an important opportunity for the US Supreme Court to review the issue of Nazi-looted art in the United States, an issue that has created disarray in our federal courts and has pitted state law against such federal laws as the National Stolen Property Act 18 USC 2314.

My firm represents the petitioner and I am counsel of record.  This was the first Nazi-era art looting case ever to be tried in a U.S. federal court.

Vavra v Bakalar Cert Petition - Nazi Looted Art At US Supreme Court

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.
Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd 

Nazi Art Looting: Egon Schiele, George Grosz and Stolen Art in U.S. Museums

The Roundtable Presents
Nazi Art Looting: Egon Schiele, George Grosz and Stolen Art in U.S. Museums

Tuesday, March 12, 8:00 PM Illustrated Lecture

National Arts Club
15 Gramercy Park South
New York, NY 10003

Ray Dowd returns to the NAC, this time to take us on an astonishing visual tour of the latest Nazi looting cases to hit the art world. He queries whether U.S. museums and collectors have betrayed the Allied victory in World War II by holding on to works belonging to persecuted Jewish families. Will the U.S. Supreme Court deal with the issue? A pre-eminent litigator in federal and state courts, Dowd has lectured at venues such as the Jewish Museum in Berlin, Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the 2009 Holocaust-Era Assets Conference in Prague, and most recently at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. He is a partner in the law firm of Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP in NYC and is a national officer of the Federal Bar Association. You’ve read about his cases in The New York Times and ArtNews, now get the story first hand.


For further information please contact the National Arts Club at (212) 475-3424

www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.
Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd 

Should Stolen Holocaust Art be Returned? Legal and Policy Perspectives and Recent Case Developments

Should Stolen Holocaust Art be Returned? Legal and Policy Perspectives and Recent Case Developments

Thursday, March 21, 2013 from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM.
2nd floor auditorium

Join us for a very special program discussing the hot button issues of whether stolen Holocaust art should be returned. Learn about recent cases and understand the legal and policy perspectives, including a presentation by Ambassador Douglas Davidson, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, U.S. State Department.
AGENDA

• Introduction and Overview of the Issues
• A View from the U.S. State Department
• From Abraham Lincoln's Code of War to the Morgenthau Seizure at MOMA: The American Victory in World War II, Recent Case Law and the Failure to Return Stolen Art to Holocaust Victms
• Nazi Looted Art Commissions After 1998 Washington Conference: Comparing the European and American Experiences
• Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain:An Update

Faculty:
Program Chair and Faculty: Raymond Dowd, Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP

Faculty: Hon. Stephen Crane (Ret.), JAMS; Ambassador Douglas Davidson, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues; Victor Kovner, Davis,Wright Tremaine LLP; David Rowland, Esq.,  Rowland & Petroff LLP, Sharon Cohen-Levin, A.U.S.A., Southern District of New York

Member Price:

$125

Non-Member Attorney Price:

$175

Click here to register online! Or click here to download registration form!


Click here for more information!



 www.dunnington.com
 Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. All practice, no theory.
Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2012-2013) by Raymond J. Dowd 

Nazi Art Looting - Recent Case Law - Audio From Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

Last Thursday I spoke on Nazi art looting at an event hosted by the Brandeis Law Society and the Federal Bar Association at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.   The event was well-attended despite bitterly cold weather with 75 attendees.  The Hon. Sandra M. Moss introduced the program and Frank McGovern, President of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Chapter introduced me.  Thanks to the hosts for the wonderful hospitality.

The audio program is available now on the Federal Bar Association website here, together with a PDF of my powerpoint, so that you can follow along and get the visuals. 

www.dunnington.com
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2011 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Murder, Mystery and Egon Schiele's Dead City February 8 at Jewish Federation of San Antonio

Thanks to the Federal Bar Association and the Jewish Federation of San Antonio, I will be speaking at the Jewish Federation of San Antonio on February 8 about Egon Schiele's Dead City and the mystery and litigation that it has spawned since District Attorney Robert Morgenthau seized it in 1998 at the Museum of Modern Art.
The MoMA's possession and concealment of artworks stolen from Holocaust survivors has come under fire recently, check out William Cohan's MoMA's Problematic Provenances in December ArtNews here.
For more stolen art by Egon Schiele at the MoMA visit Art Stolen from Fritz Grunbaum.

For the latest brief filed last week in Bakalar v. Vavra, an appeal to the Second Circuit arguing that the District Court's application of the laches doctrine to award a stolen drawing to a Massachusetts art collector, see the embedded document below.
11-4042-Cv Appellant's Brief and Special Appendix

www.dunnington.com
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2011 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Boston Globe: Museum Fine Arts Boston Refuses To Release Research on Kokoschka Stolen From Oskar Reichel

Stolen Kokoschka at MFA Boston: Court Rules Claimants Too Late for Justice

The Boston Globe, in a piece here by veteran reporter Geoff Edgers who has reported on many Nazi art looting scandals involving the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, reports in a rather soft and indirect way that the museum is continuing to conceal its research on how a work by Oskar Kokoschka got from the Jewish Viennese dentist Oskar Reichel in February 1939 to the art dealer Otto Kallir.   Earlier coverage of the case here.

Otto Kallir was profiled in an article Dealer with the Devil by the New York Observer here.

In February 1939, Jews had declared their property to the Nazi Reich.  Vienna was in the grips of Adolph Eichmann, who was systematically despoiling them of all property.

The Boston Globe article states as follows:
She [Reed] does defend the MFA, which she says shares the results of all its Nazi-era provenance research on its website, on gallery labels, and in gallery talks. The only exception is when there is a legal matter that includes correspondence that is privileged.

Her understated approach is typical of Reed. She wants the evidence from her research to speak for itself without telling her boss, MFA deputy director Katherine Getchell, how to respond.
That makes perfect sense to Getchell.

“Her job is not to be a policymaker or decision maker,’’ said Getchell. “We want her focused on research and analysis and looking at the different options.’’

But the Boston Globe has glossed the point.  Victoria Reed has presented no evidence, only the most conclusory "results" of her alleged research.  The Museum of Fine Arts website states as follows here:

Provenance Research
Following this March 2007 claim [to the Kokoschka], the MFA thoroughly reviewed the claim to Two Nudes (Lovers) in accordance with its own Acquisitions Policy as well as the guidelines set forth by the American Association of Museums (AAM), the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), and the Washington Principles of 1998 on Nazi-Confiscated Art. The Museum is committed to determining, on an ongoing basis, whether any work of art in its collection has ever been stolen, confiscated, looted, or otherwise unlawfully appropriated as a result of Nazi persecution without subsequent restitution. A leader in provenance research, the MFA makes ownership information available to the public through its website, mfa.org. During the past decade, the Museum has restituted a number of works of art to their rightful owners based on provenance research.

None of this research has been made public.  Instead, the Museum has published a five paragraph summary of the 'results' of its alleged research.  A sample of this conclusory "research" follows below:

By 1924, Reichel had developed a business relationship with Otto Kallir (b. 1894 - d. 1978), a Jewish art dealer who opened the Neue Galerie in Vienna in 1923. Reichel consigned Two Nudes (Lovers), along with other paintings by Kokoschka, for sale through Kallir in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1938, Kallir fled Vienna and turned the Neue Galerie over to his non-Jewish secretary. He opened a new gallery, the Galerie St. Etienne, in Paris. In February 1939, Reichel transferred ownership of five Kokoschka paintings—including Two Nudes (Lovers) —to Kallir, who exhibited them in his Paris gallery that spring. Later that year, Kallir emigrated to New York and opened a branch of the Galerie St. Etienne there. He exhibited Two Nudes (Lovers) frequently between 1940 and 1945, both in his New York gallery and in traveling exhibitions throughout the United States. From New York, Kallir sent money for the five Kokoschka paintings to Oskar Reichel’s two sons, Raimund and Hans, with whom he was in communication; they were living in South America and the United States, respectively.

Oskar Reichel was a Jew in Adolph Eichmann's Vienna.  His assets were logged and registered with the Nazis.  Nazi law prohibited Jews from making any transfers, and if any transfers were authorized, all of the proceeds went to the Reich.  How on earth could Reichel have tranferred ownership these assets to Kallir?    And even if he did, the 1946 Nullification Act, which voided transactions in property of Nazi persecutees, should have applied.  

Why has the MFA's researcher Victoria Reed failed to present her scholarship for peer review?  Historians are ethically mandated to do so.   Here is an excerpt from the American Historical Association's Statement on Professional Conduct

Professional integrity in the practice of history requires awareness of one's own biases and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead.Historians should document their findings and be prepared to make available their sources, evidence, and data, including any documentation they develop through interviews. Historians should not misrepresent their sources. They should report their findings as accurately as possible and not omit evidence that runs counter to their own interpretation. They should not commit plagiarism. They should oppose false or erroneous use of evidence, along with any efforts to ignore or conceal such false or erroneous use.
Historians should acknowledge the receipt of any financial support, sponsorship, or unique privileges (including special access to research material) related to their research, especially when such privileges could bias their research findings. They should always acknowledge assistance received from colleagues, students, research assistants, and others, and give due credit to collaborators.

Historians should work to preserve the historical record, and support institutions that perform this crucial service. Historians favor free, open, equal, and nondiscriminatory access to archival, library, and museum collections wherever possible. They should be careful to avoid any actions that might prejudice access for future historians. Although they recognize the legitimacy of restricting access to some sources for national security, proprietary, and privacy reasons, they have a professional interest in opposing unnecessary restrictions whenever appropriate.

For another great example of museums professing to publish research, but in reality concealing it, please check out William D. Cohan's MoMA's Problematic Provenances in this month's ArtNews here

www.dunnington.com
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2011 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

#art MoMA's Problematic Provenances - George Grosz

Willi Baumeister no title 1928 (collage for Alfred Flechtheim)  image Artvalue here.

Excellent article by William Cohan on MoMA's concealment of the provenances of artworks in Alfred Flechtheim's 1933 inventory in December 2011 Art News here.  Alfred Flechtheim, depicted above by Willi Baumeister, was the most prominent contemporary art dealer of the Weimar Republic.  Scandal erupted over claims by the heirs of George Grosz that Grosz had left artworks now at MoMA in the hands of Flechtheim, who in turn was "Aryanized" by a Nazi from Dusseldorf named Alexander Voemel in 1933.

Cohan's article points out how MoMA has tried to erase Flechtheim from art history.

The MoMA, like a number of other U.S. museums, has used statutes of limitations to hold onto stolen art, even though museum administrators and trustees had concealed information that would permit heirs to make claims for decades.

MoMA Executive Glenn Lowry misled the Grosz heirs by claiming that he had no authority to refuse their claims to the three artworks in question and had not refused their claims to the artworks.    MoMA, represented by the Proskauer law firm, then changed its position, claiming that Lowry actually did have the authority to refuse the claims and that he'd actually refused the claims much earlier than he had by simply not returning the artworks.   

MoMA was successful in convincing federal judges that the "refusal" had triggered New York's three year statute of limitations.

You can read the cert petition in Grosz v MoMA here.   You can read the Second Circuit's opinion here.

It should shock the conscience of Americans that museums can use statutes of limitations to hold onto stolen art, the acquisition of which has been subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.    Rich people should not be able to avoid paying taxes by taken art stolen from Jews in the Holocaust and putting it into U.S. museums where it is hidden from scrutiny - often for decades.

Cohan does an excellent job of outing Nazi agent Curt Valentin.   More on Valentin here and here.

More on Alfred Flechtheim here and here and here.

The first part of Laurie Stein's declassified Swiss report (reference by Cohan) here.

(disclosure - the author represented the Grosz heirs in Grosz v. MoMA).

 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2011 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Alfred Flechtheim Scandal at Museum of Modern Art - MoMA - Continues

I reported previously that the MoMA published a catalog called German Expressionism:The Graphic Impulse by Starr Figura that COMPLETELY eliminated mention of Alfred Flechtheim.

Image of Rudolph Belling's sculpture Portrait of Alfred Flechtheim (1927)

More on Alfred Flechtheim and MoMA's attempts to write him out of art history hereand here

MoMA has perpetrated the fiction that Alfred Flechtheim's gallery was not Aryanized in 1933 because MoMA wishes to shield its collection, particularly the items that were stolen from Alfred Flechtheim, from public scrutiny.   More information on the Nazi taking of Flechtheim's inventory here.

MoMA's website does not even show an image of Belling's Portrait of Alfred Flechtheim, and the MoMA has never told the story of Flechtheim's role as a Nazi persecutee story here.
But after the scandal of publishing the German Expressionism catalog that pretends Flechtheim does not exist, MoMA's website now shows 28 works that it claims were published by Alfred Flechtheim:

That's just completely ridiculous, MoMA's collection has many more works from Flechtheim's 1933 inventory.   As I argued here the provenance of Paul Klee's Pastorale shows that it was likely taken by the Nazi Alexander Voemel from Flechtheim in 1933.

Pastorale (Rhythms) (1927)
Paul Klee (German, born Switzerland. 1879-1940)

1927. Tempera on canvas mounted on wood, 27 1/4 x 20 5/8" (69.3 x 52.4 cm). Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Fund and exchange

Collection work meeting criteria specified in Introduction.

157.1945

Rudolf Probst (Galerie Neue Kunst Fides; Das Kunsthaus), Dresden/Mannheim. Until 1928

Galerie Alfred Flechtheim, Berlin and Düsseldorf, then in London. 1928 – at least 1930 [likely until Flechthem’s death, in March 1937]

(J. B. Neumann (Jsrael Ber Neumann), New York. 1930. Agent for Flechtheim)

(Alex Vömel, Dusseldorf. Former Flechtheim Gallery, became Alex Vömel Gallery from March 1933. [Likely on consignement from Flechtheim, 1933 – 1934])

James Mayor Gallery, London. [Brought to London by Flechtheim when he started to work for the Mayor Gallery, c. 1934.] 1934 – 1935

For sale during Paul Klee exhibition at Kunsthalle Basel, 1935

(Paul Klee, Bern. Returned to him from above exhibition, unsold, 1935)

[Likely returned by Klee to Flechtheim in London]

Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, Paris. [Likely acquired/on consignment from Flechtheim] by 1937 - by 1939

Mrs. Stanley B. Resor, New York. By 1941

Nierendorf Gallery (Karl Nierendorf), New York (New York gallery opened in 1937). Acquired from Stanley B. Resor, by 1945

The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Acquired from Nierendorf through Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Fund and exchange, 1945

And astonishingly, after publishing a catalogue for a 2011 German Expressionism exhibition that pretends Flechtheim did not exist, MoMA's website now has the following:
Alfred Flechtheim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starr Figura, German Expressionism: The Graphic Impulse, New York, The Museum of Modern Art, 2011

Alfred Flechtheim opened his gallery in 1913, with sponsorship from Paul Cassirer. Became known as the leading dealer in Germany for modern French art, much of it obtained through his friend Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, the eminent Parisian gallerist and German émigré. Despite his ambivalence toward contemporary German art, eventually also exhibited a select number of Expressionist, Bauhaus, and Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) artists, including Ernst Barlach, Max Beckmann, George Grosz (under contract from 1925 to 1931), Paul Klee (whom he represented from 1927 to 1933), Oskar Kokoschka, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, and August Macke. Published prints by Grosz, Else Lasker-Schüler, Ludwig Meidner, and many other now less familiar German artists. In 1921 began to issue the cosmopolitan art and culture periodical Der Querschnitt; three years later, sold it to the publishing house Propyläen. Highly successful, particularly in the postwar years, moved his primary operation to Berlin in 1921, and opened branches in Frankfurt and Cologne in 1922. A victim of Nazi anti-Semitism, was forced to emigrate in 1933, and died, impoverished, in London in 1937.

Selected Bibliography

Jentsch, Ralph. Alfred Flechtheim und George Grosz. Bonn: Weidle, 2008.

Peters, Hans Albert, and Stephan von Wiese, eds. Alfred Flechtheim, Sammler, Kunsthändler, Verleger. Exh. cat. Düsseldorf: Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf, 1987.

Iris Schmeisser

So it looks like MoMA's website is trying to make it look as if Starr Figura, the one who wrote the catalog that eliminated any mention of Flechtheim, actually did include mention of Flechtheim, but MoMA hired Iris Schmeisser to write the Website's description of Flechtheim.

Alfred Flechtheim's influence on MoMA in its first year of existence was tremendous and remains undocumented by MoMA's pseudo-art historians.  Why doesn't MoMA acknowledge its intellectual and artistic debt to Flechtheim?   And what happens to someone who writes a catalog on German Expressionism who calls Flechtheim AMBIVALENT towards German contemporary art when indeed he was perhaps one of its greatest champions?

Just look at Rudolph Belling's portrait of Alfred Flechtheim, one of which he gave to Harvard to launch what became the Busch-Reisinger collection.   Does that reflect AMBIVALENCE toward German contemporary art?   Why is Belling's sculpture featuring Flechtheim's nose not front and center in the German Expressionism exhibit?

Where the hell is Flechtheim's nose?

Flechtheim's assistant, Curt Valentin, became a Nazi agent and sold massive quantities of Nazi-looted art onto the U.S. market.   Story here

The Belling sculpture of Flechtheim was a "gift" of Curt Valentin to MoMA:

Why won't MoMA photograph and exhibit this artwork?

 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Art Litigation: Boston Museum of Fine Arts Extorts Westfeld Heirs in Nazi Art Scandal

Rather than freely returning artworks stolen from victims of Nazi persecution, U.S. museums offer heirs less than fair market value, usually under secretive circumstances.    This type of systematic extortion has been condemned in many other countries, such as Austria, which engaged in similar practices folllowing World War II.

Below, Walter Westfeld's heir describes how the Museum of Fine Arts Boston insisted on a confidential settlement, rather than returning a stolen artwork in its possession.   Check the MFA's website here, there is no information on this transaction.

I tried to find some information on the provenance on Eglon van der Neer Portrait of a Man and a Woman In an Interior (1666).   My access to that portion of the MFA's website was blocked.

A puff piece on the MFA's purported provenance research here.  The MFA claims that it prepares reports by a woman named Victoria Reed, but none of these reports appear to be made public.  Ms. Reed is a "curator of provenance"  - which appears to be a synonym for a launderer of stolen artworks.

At issue is the role of U.S. museums in buying stolen art on an industrial level before, during and after World War II, profiting from the misery of murdered European Jews.   The role of U.S. museums in acquiring stolen art has largely been ignored by academics, with U.S. museums cloaking their actions in secrecy.   Although U.S. museums claim to engage in provenance research, little or none of this research is published, few original documents are made available, and no research is available on how much of a burden this traffic in stolen art has placed on U.S. taxpayers.



http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Art Litigation: June 30 CLE Presentation at Modern Restaurant at MoMA: How Long Do Victims of Nazi Spoliation Have To Get Their Art Back?

George Grosz' Portrait of the Poet Max-Hermann Neisse

Purchased from Charlotte Weidler through Curt Valentin

I hope that you can join me in a CLE presentation of Grosz v MoMA at the Modern Restaurant on June 30 (next Thursday) - the flyer is embedded below.

6-30-11 Emips Cle Lunch Flyer1 (3)

 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

US Supreme Court Cert Petition: U.S. Museums Betray The Holocaust Victims Redress Act of 1998

We recently filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the heirs of George Grosz in Grosz v. Museum of Modern Art, accessible by the link below.    The certiorari petition describes how in federal courts around the country, museums and holders of artworks taken from Nazi persecutees have successfully advanced doctrines of constructive notice that have eviscerated the right under state law to recover stolen property that Congress thought existed when it enacted the Holocaust Victims Redress Act of 1998.   As the cert petition shows, museums told Congress that state law remedies were sufficient for victims and their heirs to recover stolen artworks.    After 1998, with Congress off their backs, museums then argued to the courts that no remedies were available under state law to those who actually tried to reclaim artworks.   Several museums even retaliated against Jewish heirs by suing them.   By filing these pre-emptive strikes, museums successfully avoided scrutiny into the question of whether or not the art was stolen.  By leaving potentially looted artworks in our museums, such "quiet title" actions have stained our national conscience.

Unfortunately, very few voices have been heard to draw attention to this tremendous crime.   Media coverage is anecdotal.  Each time stolen artworks are uncovered in museum collections, the museums feign horror and surprise, but the reality is that in the high-tax Cold War years, laundering stolen art was a major function of the U.S. museum community.  We are all now paying for those Cold-war "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" policies.   A generation of wealthy Americans dodged taxes by flipping stolen property to museums, thus passing the societal cost of their misdeeds onto the backs of U.S. taxpayers.

In turning their backs on restitution of Nazi-looted artworks after 1998, American museums have betrayed our trust and have become international scofflaws.   This is a major problem and inconsistent with the traditions of common law under which no one can take good title from a thief.   It is also inconsistent with the traditions of equity, which do not unjustly enrich those with superior knowledge, such as the museums, that should have known better than to profit from the world's worst crime.  Everyone in the art community, thanks to U.S. government warnings starting in the 1940's, knew that acquiring an artwork of European provenance that entered the country after 1932 but was created before 1946 was a "red flag".   Art historians now pretend to have no knowledge of this and instead play a game of blaming the victims and waiting until enough people die or are discouraged so that they can assert the defense of laches.   While museums throw up endless new buildings, they claim they can't even afford to figure out what stolen art is in their collections.   And by refusing to share documents and publish provenances, they ensure that no one else can figure out the stolen property trail either.

American museums, having unclean hands, should not be heard to invoke equity.  American museums, which should be taking the lead in opposing Holocaust profiteering, have instead set up impenetrable legal defenses and hide the truth behind spurious claims of privilege.   This is both morally and legally untenable.  If U.S. museums don't do the right thing and show world leadership in returning the property of Holocaust victims, no one will.

Grosz v Moma Petition of Certiorari FINAL With Appendix 5.10.11


 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here