The CODOH Revisionist Forum

On 9 January 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (covering California) ruled that the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation in Madrid is the owner of a painting by Camille Pissarro, Rue Saint–Honoré, après-midi, effect de pluie (1892) and not the heirs of a German Jewish women named Lilly Cassirer.

Freak out time in the California legislature!

Authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who Chairs the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and previously represented Holocaust survivors as an attorney in private practice, California Assembly bill 2867 "will 'empower California residents to recover art and other personal property stolen during the Holocaust..."

https://a46.asmdc.org/press-releases/20 ... ver-stolen


“Governor Newsom’s signature on this bill is a victory for morality and justice and will ensure that California continues to stand on the right side of history,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D - Encino). “AB 2867 will empower Holocaust survivors and other victims of persecution to reclaim stolen property and will send a clear message to those who refuse to return stolen art. I applaud Governor Newsom for his long standing leadership in standing up for Holocaust survivors and thank him for his partnership on this important new law.”

Now the real facts, Assemblyman Gabriel's assertions of morality and justice aside...

The Pissarro painting was actually sold by Lilly Cassierer to an art dealer in 1939. The art dealer was named Jakob Scheidwimmer but he allegedly offered Lilly too low a price. Ms. Cassierer admits she was paid for the painting but
not what she would have gotten if she could have shipped the painting out of Germany.
As Lilly testified in 1951 when filing a claim for reparations,
“I went along with it, although I knew this price didn’t even remotely reflect its true value. Theoretically, I would have the option of trying to sell the painting to another Aryan art dealer….Furthermore, we had to consider the possibility that Scheidwimmer—we weren’t sure whether he had connections with the Gestapo—might take offense at our refusal to sell."

Unmentioned is the fact that National Socialist Germany, like many countries, had/has restrictions on exporting "important art."
Here are Englands rules. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/export-art- ... cial-rules.
or https://www.ibanet.org/MediaHandler?id= ... d0ac6c7681

In 1954 the family accepted 13,000 US dollars in compensation from the German government, which would be the equivalent of 250,000 US dollars today.
In 1958: Lilly Cassirer Neubauer reached an agreement with the German government, with the art dealer
Jakob Scheidwimmer and with Julius Sulzbacher, through which she accepted compensation of
120,000 German Marks from the Federal German government, an amount agreed to correspond to
the market value of the work at that time. She gave 14,000 Marks of that compensation to
Sulzbacher’s heir. This agreement brought all claims among the parties to an end. From that date
onwards, neither Lilly Cassirer Neubauer nor her heirs made any further attempts to locate or recover
the painting.
https://www.museothyssen.org/sites/defa ... _ING_0.pdf

Things seem very different than what Assemblymember and Lawyer Jesse Gabriel (Encino) claims!


The Pissarro was sold in 1952 in New York at the Knoedler & Co. Gallery to Sydney Schoenberg in St. Louis, Missouri. Then in 1976, it was purchased by Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, a Dutch born Swiss industrialist at the Hahn Gallery, again in New York. He sold it to the Kingdom of Spain in 1993, where it has hung ever since in the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum in Madrid.

There the grandson of Lilly, Claude Wolfgang, saw the painting. In Claude 2005 filed suit to get the painting. He died shortly thereafter but his heirs continued the lawsuit.
In 2019, a US District Judge for the Central District of California, applying Spanish law, found that the defendants did not demonstrate a “willful blindness” on the part of the Museum, when it added the painting to its collection.
In 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also found in favor of Spain, again applying Spanish law. The court ruled that, regardless of the test applied by the district judge to determine the degree of care employed by the purchaser to determine the origin of the painting, both the Baron in 1976 and the Museum in 1993, lacked actual knowledge of the theft.
In 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled that this case did not involve any substantive federal law issues because it basically dealt with property law. Therefore, the choice of law rules that the district judge and the court of appeals should have applied were the conflict rules of the forum state, i.e. the conflict rules of California. The case was returned to the Court of Appeals.
On 9 January 2024, the US Court of Appeals ruled that, even applying California choice of law rules, Spanish law was applicable and the painting belonged to the fair price purchaser, the Museum.

The gravamen of Assemblyman Gabriel's new law is that a sale made in 1939 was "unfair" to the Jewish seller and that significant compensation received in 1954 "wasn't enough." Nor was the 120,000 German Marks received in 1958.

There was no overt theft or stealing as is often claimed by Gabriel. Lilly has more than double dipped with the
painting.

There is nothing moral or just with Gabriel's law...an innocent public entity with no fault paid full and fair price for the
painting so all people could see the painting. Gabriel would screw the Museum over...along with thousands of people
who see the painting each year.
The law Governor Newsom signed into law is a foolish piece of special interest legislation.

Of course the real issue is that important Impressionist works have soared in value since Lilly sold the painting in 1939 and received additional full compensation in 1954 and full and fair compensation in 1958.
I doubt we would be hearing from the distant heirs of Lilly Cassirer if there were not a huge windfall profit to be made
for them and their lawyers.

Here is a link to the painting still on view to the public in Madrid. Thank you 9th Circuit court of appeals!
https://www.museothyssen.org/en/collect ... and%201898.

The painting in question...still on display in Madrid. Thank you Ninth Circuit!

https://www.museothyssen.org/en/collect ... and%201898.

Dang...I thought the there were only 2 payments made to Lilly.
Turns out there was a third!

1958: Lilly Cassirer Neubauer reached an agreement with the German government, with the art dealer
Jakob Scheidwimmer and with Julius Sulzbacher, through which she accepted compensation of
120,000 German Marks from the Federal German government, an amount agreed to correspond to
the market value of the work at that time. She gave 14,000 Marks of that compensation to
Sulzbacher’s heir. This agreement brought all claims among the parties to an end. From that date
onwards, neither Lilly Cassirer Neubauer nor her heirs made any further attempts to locate or recover
the painting.
https://www.museothyssen.org/sites/defa ... _ING_0.pdf

Things are seem very different than what Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (Encino) claims!

I'm by no means an expert in this area of law but something tells me that in any context other than the "Holocaust" claims like this would be laughed out of court. "My family had to sell something because they needed money." Yeah, happens every day. Even a lot of the Holocaust claims seem to get rejected (probably since they would establish overly radical precedents) but that they even entertain claims like this 80 years after the fact is revealing.

I recall hearing about similar cases. For example, this one from a few years ago.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/met-p ... on-1587079

A family was trying to sue the Met because one of their ancestors had sold a Picasso painting during the 1930s which subsequently was valued at over $100M. The court ultimately rejected the claim because it was deemed that the family had waited too long.

They are basically claiming that they should be able to sell something and get paid for it, but they also feel entitled to a free option with a century long expiry date!

To hear Jews talk about all the many times they've been robbed and cheated, you would assume they were a people suffering in grinding poverty. In reality, they are among the wealthiest ethnic groups in the world which suggests they haven't had quite as raw a deal as they claim.