Grosz V MoMA Amicus Brief - Nazi Art Looting

Case: 10-257 Document: 71 Page: 1 06/22/2010 56994 70
No. 10-257-cv
MARTIN GROSZ, LILIAN GROSZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,
-against-
THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART, Herrmann-Neisse with Cognac, Painting by Grosz, Self-Portrait
with Model, Painting by Grosz and Republican Automatons, Painting by Grosz,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Civil Action N. 09-cv-3706(CM)(THK) (Hon. Coleen McMahon)
___________________________________________
Brief Amicus Curiae of American Jewish Congress, Commission for Art Recovery;
Filippa Marullo Anzalone, Yehuda Bauer, Michael J. Bazyler, Bernard Dov Beliak,
Michael Berenbaum, Donald S. Burris, Judy Chicago and Donald Woodman,
Talbert D’Alemberte, Marion F. Desmukh, Hedy Epstein, Hector Feliciano,
Irving Greenberg, Grace Cohen Grossman, Marcia Sachs Littell, Hubert G. Locke,
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Arthur R. Miller, Carol Rittner, John K. Roth,
Lucille A. Roussin, William L. Shulman, Stephen D. Smith and Fritz Weinschenk,
In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal
__________________________________________
Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. * Jennifer Anglim Kreder

Valparaiso Univ. School of Law Salmon P. Chase College of Law
656 S. Greenwich Street Northern Kentucky University
Valparaiso, IN 46383 Nunn Hall, Nunn Drive
T: 219-465-7860 Highland Heights, KY 41042
F: 219-465-7860 T: 859-572-5889
[email protected] F: 859-572-5342
*Counsel of Record [email protected]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................... iv
TABLE OF APPENDICES ................................................................................. ix
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ................................... x
RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................ xi
STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI ........................................................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................ 2
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 5
I. FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD ENCOURAGE

EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE DISPOSITION
OF COMPLEX CLAIMS ........................................................................... 5
A. The Dismissal Of This Case Fits A Broad Pattern

Of Judicial Decisions After
Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004),
Dismissing Claims To Restitution Of Holocaust-era
Assets Not On The Merits Of The Claim, But On
Formalistic Readings Of Procedural Fairness .................................. 6
B. The Dismissal Of The Claims For Restitution Of

Nazi-looted Art On Purely Technical Grounds Violates
The Letter And Spirit Of Federal Policy Favoring
Expeditious Restitution Of Property To The Victims
Of Nazi Persecution.......................................................................... 7
C. The Dismissal Of This Case Violates The Letter

And Spirit Of Rule 408 Of The Federal Rules Of
Evidence, Which Fosters Open, Transparent
Communication Among Parties To Achieve A
Meaningful Resolution Of Their Conflict ...................................... 12
i
II. Evidence Relating To The Most Massive Art Heist In

Human History Should Not Be Ignored Or Trivialized
In The Judicial Disposition Of Claims Relating To
Restitution Of Holocaust-Era Assets ........................................................ 15
A. Wholesale Dismissal Of Nazi-looted Art Cases

Violates Relevant Standards Requiring District
Courts To Determine The Plausibility Of Factual
Allegations By Focusing On The Broad Context
Of Historical Events And By Drawing Reasonable
Inferences From Reliable Accounts Of These Events ................... 15
B. Trial Courts Charged With The Duty Of Establishing

Factual Records Should Include Reasonably Grounded Historical
Explanations Of Events Relevant To The
Issues Before The Courts ............................................................... 16
C. Courts Deciding Nazi-looted Art Cases Should Take

Judicial Notice Of The Broad Consensus Among
Historians On The Nazi Spoliation Of Jews And Other Persecuted
Groups, Including The Political
“Enemies Of The State.” ................................................................ 18
III. Trial Courts Charged With The Duty Of Establishing

Factual Records Relating To Nazi-looted Art Should
Allow Broad Access To Documents Relevant To Disputes
About The Provenance Of Artworks ........................................................ 25
A. The District Court Should Be Reversed Because

Its Order Dismissing The Case Is Based On
Unsupported Guesswork Rather Than Determinations
Of Facts Grounded In The Record ................................................. 25
ii
B. Giving Museums Or Auction Houses An Evidentiary

Privilege Over Documents In Their Possession Or
Allowing Them To Claim Confidentiality About
Ownership And Sales Of Works Of Art Is Utterly
Inconsistent With Clearly Established Federal Policy
Against Looting Throughout The Entire Twentieth
Century And Into The Current Century ......................................... 26
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES PAGE(S)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)............................................. 5, 22, 23, 24
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................... 5, 22, 23, 24
Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlansche-Amerikaansche

Stoomvart-Maatschappij, 173 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1949) .......................................... 8
Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlansche-Amerikaansche

Stoomvart-Maatschappij, 210 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1954) ........................................ 9
Grosz v. Museum of Modern Art, No. 09 Civ. 3706,

2010 Westlaw 88003 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2010) ……..……..……..………..passim
Holzer v. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft,

159 Misc. 830, 290 N.Y.S 181 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1936) ......................................... 19
Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

568 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2009)................................................................................ 12
Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) ......................................... 6
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins.,

130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010) ........................................................................................ 26
Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin, 477 F. Supp. 2d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2006) ............ 7
FEDERAL RULES
Fed. R. App. P. 29(a) ............................................................................................ 1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c).............................................................................................. 26
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................. 5, 22, 29
Fed. R. Evid. 408 .................................................................. ……………...passim
iv
OTHER SOURCES PAGE(S)
8 Dept. St. Bull. 21 (1943) .............................................................................. 9, 27
26 Dept. St. Bull. 984-85 (1952)........................................................................... 8
American Association of Museums, Guidelines Concerning the Unlawful

Appropriation of Objects During the Nazi Era, Nov. 1999, amended,
April 2001, http://aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/nazi_guidelines.cfm.... 11
Association of Art Museum Directors, Report of the AAMD Task Force

on the Spoliation of Art During the Nazi/World War II Era,
June 4, 1998 http://www.aamd.org/papers/guideln.php .................... 11, 13, 14, 24
Association of Art Museum Directors, Governance,

http://www.aamd.org/about/#Governance .......................................................... 11
Avraham Barkai, “Arieserung,” 1 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust

(Israeel Gutman, ed, 1990).................................................................................... 9
Avraham Barkai, From Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of

German Jews (William Templar, trans., 1989) ................................................... 18
Louis Brandeis, Other People’s Money – and How Bankers Use It (1914)....... 29
David Cesarani, Becoming Eichmann (2004) .................................................... 17
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, August 8, 1945,

& supplemental information
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictment
s.html#Rosenberg .................................................................................................. 9
Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Vilnius Forum Declaration,

Oct. 5, 2000 ................................................................................................... 10, 27
Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land art. 47, 56,
Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 15 U.N.T.S. 9 ................................................. …...27
Lucy Dawidowitcz, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945 (1975) .................... 3
v
OTHER SOURCES PAGE(S)
Martin Dean, Robbing the Jews (2008) ........................................................ 17, 18
Charles de Jaeger, The Linz File: Hitler’s Plunder of Europe’s Art (1981)....... 20
Stuart E. Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor,

and the Unfinished Business of World War II (2003) .............................. 2, 10, 29
Stuart E. Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor,

and the Unfinished Business of World War II,
37 Van. J. Transnat’l L. 333 (2004) ...................................................................... 3
Milton Esterow, Europe Is Still Hunting Its Plundered Art,

N.Y. Times, Nov. 16, 1964 ................................................................................. 21
Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power (2005) .................................... 17, 18
Hector Feliciano, The Lost Museum (1997)....................................................... 23
Janet Flanner, Annals of Crime: The Beautiful Spoils,

The New Yorker, Feb 22, 1947 .......................................................................... 21

The New Yorker, Mar. 1, 1947 ........................................................................... 21

The New Yorker, Mar. 8, 1947 ........................................................................... 21
Ester Tisa Francini, et al, Flight Goods – Stolen Goods: The transfer of
cultural assets in and via Switzerland 1933-1945 and the question of
restitution 318 (Independent Expert Commission, Switzerland –
World War II, 2001)............................................................................................ 23
German Fugitives Tell of Atrocities at Hands of Nazis,

N.Y. Times, March 20, 1933 .............................................................................. 19
Götz Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi
Welfare State (2007) ........................................................................................... 17
vi
PAGE(S)
Jennifer Anglim Kreder, The New Battleground of Museum Ethics and
Holocaust Era Claims: Technicalities Trumping Justice or Responsible
Stewardship for the Public Trust?, 88 Or. L. Rev. 37 (2009) ..................12, 20, 26
Henry La Farge, Lost Treasures of Europe (1946) ............................................. 20
Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing

Assault on Truth and Memory (1993) ................................................................ 16
Karl Loewenstein, Law in the Third Reich, 45 Yale L.J. 779 (1936) ................ 19
Glenn D. Lowry, Testimony Before the House Banking & Financial Services
Committee, February 12, 1998 ........................................................................... 21
Joan M. Lukach, Hilla Rebay: In Search of The Spirit in Art (1983) ................ 20
Restitution of Identifiable Property; Law No. 59,

12 Fed. Reg. 7983 (Nov. 29, 1947)..................................................................... 10
Ingo Müller, Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich (1991) ................. 17
MoMA meeting of the Board of Trustees minutes, April 11, 2006 ................... 15
The Museum of Modern Art, The Provenance Research Project,

http://www.moma.org/collection/provenance/ ................................................... 28
Lynn Nicholas, The Rape of Europa (1994) ....................................................... 22
William S. Paley, As it Happened, a Memoir (1979) ......................................... 20
Jonathan Petropolous, The Faustian Bargain (2000) .......................................... 20
Jonathan Petropolous, Art As Politics in the Third Reich (1996) ...................... 20
Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference: Terezin Declaration (2009),

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/126162.htm .................. …………………passim
James J. Rorimer, Survival: The Salvage and Protection of Art in War

(1951) .................................................................................................................. 20
vii
PAGE(S)
David Roxan and Ken Wanstall, The Rape of Art (1965).................................. 21
William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years, 1930-1940 (1984) ............................ 17
Francis Henry Taylor, Europe’s Looted Art: Can it Be Recovered?,

N.Y. Times, Sept. 19, 1943 ................................................................................. 20
Text of Resignation of League Commissioner on German Refugees,

N.Y. Times, Dec. 30, 1935 ................................................................................. 18
Otto D. Tolischus, Hitler will Seize Property of Foes,

N.Y. Times, July 15, 1933 .................................................................................. 19
U.S. State Department, Washington Conference Principles on

Nazi-Confiscated Art, Dec. 3, 1998 ........................................ ……………..passim
Adam Zagorin, Saving the Spoils of War, Time, Dec. 1, 1997 .......................... 21
viii
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
A. Particular Statements of Interest of Amici Curiae ................................... a-1
B. Disposition of Federal Holocaust-Era Art Claims Since 2004 ................ a-7
C. Washington Conference Principles on Holocaust-Era Assets

Dec. 3, 1998 ............................................................................................. a-9
D. Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference: Terezín Declaration

June 30, 2009 ........................................................................................... a-10
E. Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Spoliation of Art During

the Nazi/World War II Era, June 4, 1998 ................................................. a-18
F. Letters from MoMA Director Lowry to Ralph Jentsch

July 20, 2005, January 18, 2006 and April 12, 2006 (Appendix F) ......... a-22
ix
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION,

TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(7)(B) because: this brief contains 6,978 words, excluding the parts of
the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because:
this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word
2007 in 14 point Times New Roman.
Date: June 22, 2010 Jennifer Anglim Kreder
x
RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Amici, American Jewish Congress and Commission for Art Recovery have
no corporate parents, and no publicly traded company holds and ownership interest
in any of the amici.
Date: June 22, 2010 Jennifer Anglim Kreder
xi
STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici1 are Jewish community leaders and organizations, Holocaust
educators, artists and art historians, and legal scholars and practitioners
dedicated to the promotion of alternative dispute resolution. The particular
interests of the amici are set forth in Appendix A.
Amici do not assert an opinion on the merits of the restitution claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs-Appellants. For various reasons corresponding to
experience, training, and competence of the amici, all of the amici support
policies that encourage prompt and reasonable settlement of complex
Holocaust-era claims. This goal can often be achieved more efficaciously
through alternative dispute resolution than through litigation.
The principal interest of amici in this litigation is that the opinion of
the district court effectively undermines the goal of expeditious resolution of
claims related to Nazi-looted art and other Holocaust-era assets in two ways.
First, the refusal of the district court to toll the statute of limitations while
the parties were engaged in substantive negotiations to try to settle the case
encourages current possessors of Nazi-looted art to run the clock in feigned
1
This brief is submitted in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 29(a). Counsel for amici
certify that counsel of record for all parties received notice of at least 10 days prior to the
due date of the amici's intention to file this brief and that all counsel have consented to
the filing of this brief. No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part,
and no person or entity, other than the amici curiae, their members, or counsel, made a
monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
1
negotiation. When the purpose of “negotiation” is not to achieve resolution
of a dispute on the merits, but to defeat claims on technical procedural
grounds such as statute of limitations and laches, the effect is a charade.
Second, the effect of the district court’s order discourages future bona fide
negotiation between claimants and museums or other parties holding Nazi-
looted art, since claimants may now perceive time spent in serious
negotiation as futile or as a tool for defendants to prevail on technical
grounds.
Neither of these effects is mandated by federal policies relating to
evidentiary standards, to the function of a district court in assembling
reliable information relevant to making informed records, or to the goal of
effective resolution of competing claims about Nazi-looted art.
Summary of Argument
In the 1990s, several efforts in this country sought to address some of
the issues of gross injustice that remained unaddressed decades after World
War II. The goal was modest: to achieve a measure of “imperfect justice”2
2
See Stuart E. Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the
Unfinished Business of World War II (2003) [hereinafter “Eizenstat”]. Ambassador
Eizenstat has served as Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues during the Clinton and
Obama Administrations. He organized and chaired the Washington Conference on
Holocaust-Era Assets in 1998 and served as Head of the U.S. delegation to the Prague
Conference in 2009. His account describes seeking “imperfect justice” for:
those who placed their most precious assets in the safest banking system in
Europe--in Switzerland--to keep them out of Hitler's clutches (for fifty
2
for the victims of the “war against the Jews.”3 One of these efforts was to
promote effective and equitable disposition of restitution claims such as the
one in the case at bar.
Amici urge three considerations in handling such claims. First, federal
courts should defer to important foreign policy goals embedded in the
Washington Principles of 1998 and the Terezín Declaration of 2009. These
important documents encourage the use of less costly, more efficient means
of resolving claims, and resolution of claims on the merits rather than by
reliance on technical legal defenses. These documents also require
reassessing the recent trend of de facto judicial presumption against
restitution of Holocaust-era assets.
Second, we urge that settlement discussions and diligent efforts to
investigate should not become the basis for forfeiture of property on
limitations grounds. Rule 408(a), Fed. R. Evid., specifies that settlement
years after the war, they were unable to recover them); those who were
forced into brutal slavery and forced labor at the hands of German and
Austrian employers and were never compensated (most of these, by the
way, were non-Jews in Eastern Europe); those whose hard work,
businesses, and apartments were confiscated and never restituted after the
war; those whose insurance policies were never paid; and more broadly,
those whose entire culture was stolen from them.
Stuart E. Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the
Unfinished Business of World War II, 37 Van. J. Transnat’l L. 333, 333 (2004).
3
See Lucy Dawidowitcz, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945 (1975). Dawidowitcz
describes the entire Nazi period (1933-1945) as a war that targeted Jews, deprived them
of liberty, dispossessed them of their homes and almost all forms of property, and took
life by the millions.
3
communications are inadmissible to show the invalidity of a claim. On the
other hand, Rule 408(a)(2) specifically permits use of settlement
communications for the limited purpose of “negating a contention of undue
delay” – relevant to the doctrines of statutes of limitation, laches and tolling.
Proper construction of Rule 408 is of particular concern to amici because of
the lengthy, complex investigation required to bring to light the true nature
of seemingly voluntary Nazi-era property transfers. Negotiation and
settlement must be encouraged to achieve non-litigious resolution of claims
to property stolen in the greatest art heist of history, with traces of the grand
larceny erased by Nazi perpetrators and hidden by many subsequent
beneficiaries. Courts should not reward museums and other possessors of
art that entice claimants to spend time negotiating so that the limitations
period will run before they realize the need to get to a courthouse.
Third, federal courts should allow the full light of history to illuminate
a record to determine whether a complaint is plausible and should survive a
motion to dismiss. More specifically, because provenance evidence is
highly relevant to the resolution of disputes over rightful ownership, federal
courts should not treat such evidence as confidential or privileged, or – as
4
the district court did in this case – as “rank hearsay”4 unworthy of supporting
an allegation in a complaint filed before the discovery process even begins.
Argument
I. Federal Courts Should Encourage Effective

And Reasonable Disposition Of Complex Claims.
Federal courts are accustomed to complex litigation. The more
complex, the more attentive the courts must be to details, but in all cases the
courts owe to litigants even-handed administration of justice. Regardless of
complexity, courts may not dismiss a case on impermissible predicates such
as those that have emerged in disputes over Holocaust-era assets. In such
cases, courts are confronted with painful historical facts that cannot be
denied by wishing them to disappear. This Court should not ignore these
hard facts by affirming an order dismissing the case under Rule 12(b)(6),
Fed. R. Civ. P., when this order is clearly improper even under Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937 (2009), discussed in section II.A. below.
On the contrary, federal courts presented with Nazi-looted art claims
should take judicial notice of the context of the original theft to fully
understand how the works came to be “lost.” Courts must also focus on the
4
Grosz v. Museum of Modern Art, No. 09 Civ. 3706 , 2010 Westlaw 88003, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2010).
5
pervasive reality of dubious “transactions” often relied upon in arguments
relating to provenance (i.e., chain of possession of works of art). Thus,
courts adjudicating Nazi-looted art claims need to acknowledge the full
complexity of the historical facts, discussed in section II.B below.
A. The Dismissal Of This Case Fits A Broad Pattern Of Judicial

Decisions After Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004),
Dismissing Claims To Restitution Of Holocaust-era Assets Not On The
Merits Of The Claim, But On Formalistic Readings Of Procedural
Fairness.
In Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), a Holocaust
survivor in her eighties prevailed against the claim of a foreign government
– supported by the Bush administration – that federal courts lack jurisdiction
over a foreign sovereign that possesses Nazi-looted art. In Appendix B, we
include a chart that summarizes all other federal Nazi-looted art cases since
Altmann. In every other judgment except the one with the most egregious
facts, the courts have rejected the restitution claims, typically on procedural
grounds such as a federal construction of a state statute of limitations or on
the affirmative defense of laches.
So eager have some museums and private collectors in this country
been to remove the dark cloud of the Nazi past from their title to disputed
artworks that many of them have gone to court as plaintiffs seeking swift
dismissal without addressing the merits of rightful ownership. For example,
6
in Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin, 477 F. Supp. 2d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2006), a
district judge actually held that the statute of limitations ran in 1943, before
the Allies had landed on the beaches of Normandy, let alone defeated the
Wehrmacht and liberated survivors in work camps and mass killing centers.
Analogously, the present case was dismissed on the theory that
settlement communications triggered the limitations period under New
York’s “demand and refusal” rule despite the mandate in Rule 408, Fed. R.
Evid., that such evidence be used only to negate a contention of undue
delay. These cases, and the cases summarized in Appendix B, appear to
reflect either a categorical refusal to permit fact finding or – worse – a de
facto presumption that survivor’s and heirs’ claims to Nazi-looted art are
invalid.
B. The Dismissal Of The Claims For Restitution Of Nazi-looted Art On

Purely Technical Grounds Violates The Letter And Spirit Of Federal
Policy Favoring Expeditious Restitution Of Property To The Victims Of
Nazi Persecution.
Both the de facto presumption against the legitimacy of Nazi-looted
art restitution claims in which some federal courts have indulged and the
summary disposition of these claims without reference to the complex
historical factors delaying assertion of owners’ claims violate foreign policy
goals pursued by the United States and the Allies during and immediately
7
after World War II, and in recent diplomatic breakthroughs in 1998, 2000,
and 2009.
In the normal course of judicial administration touching on foreign
policy, federal judges typically defer to determinations of policy matters by
the executive branch. For example, in 1949 this Court ruled inadmissible
the statements of a Jewish victim of Nazi persecution describing his brutal
imprisonment by the Nazis that led him to “transfer” major assets under
duress, on the ground that to do so would denigrate a foreign country.
Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlansche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij,
173 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1949). In 1952, however, Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal
Advisor in the Department of State, clarified:
[The U.S.] Government’s opposition to forcible acts of

dispossession of a discriminatory and confiscatory nature
practiced by the Germans on the countries or peoples subject to
their controls . . . [and] the policy of the Executive, with respect
to claims asserted in the United States for restitution of such
property, is to relieve American courts from any restraint upon
the exercise of their jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the
acts of Nazi officials.5
5
26 Dept. St. Bull. 984-85 (1952) (the “Tate letter”).
8
Once this Court was fully informed of the government’s views of coerced
“transactions” during the Nazi era in Germany, it promptly reversed its
previous ruling in the same case.6
U.S. diplomats led efforts to warn other countries against looting in
the landmark London Declaration of January 5, 1943, 8 Dept. St. Bull. 21
(1952), which “declare[d] invalid any [coerced] transfers of, or dealings
with, property . . . whether such transfers or dealings have taken the form of
open looting or plunder, or of transactions apparently legal in form, even
when they purport to be voluntarily effected.” Immediately after the war,
the Nuremberg Tribunal evaluated detailed evidence of coerced sales similar
to the aryanization7 of George Grosz’s art at stake in this case, and the
plunder of art was declared a war crime and is so recognized today. At
Nuremberg, it was perfectly clear to the fact finders who had done what and
to whom.8
Shortly thereafter in Bonn and Vienna it was equally clear that, in
order to rejoin the human family, Germany and Austria had to repudiate all
6
Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlansche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij, 210 F.2d
375, 376 (2d Cir. 1954).
7
See Avraham Barkai, “Ariesierung,” 1 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust 84-87 (Israel
Gutman, ed., 1990).
8
For example, Alfred Rosenberg, head of infamous ERR art looting unit, was convicted
and sentenced to death by hanging. E.g.,
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html
#Rosenberg.
9
spurious “transactions” of the entire Nazi era, including art “deals” that were
really seizures. E.g., Restitution of Identifiable Property; Law No. 59, 12
Fed. Reg. 7983 (Nov. 29, 1947) (Military Government Law 59). It is
distressing that in a federal courtroom today what used to be as clear as day
has now become as obscure as the night and fog.
Current foreign policy requires deference like this Court gave to the
Tate letter. Diplomats from the State Department played a leading role9 in
securing public commitment by the forty-four nations that adopted the
Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art10 and the
Terezín Declaration,11 which emerged from the international conference
hosted by the Czech Republic in June 2009. These declarations call for
effective, fact-based resolution of Nazi-looted art claims. Principle eleven
of the Washington Principles encourages nations “to develop national
processes to implement these principles, particularly as they relate to
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.”

9
See Eizenstat, supra, note 2, at 187-204 (Chapter 9 on looted art entitled “The
Barbarians of Culture”).
10
U.S. State Dep’t, Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, Dec. 3,
1998, http://www.lootedartcommission.com/Washington-principles. We include the full
text of this document in Appendix C. These Principles were reaffirmed in Vilnius,
Lithuania, in 2000. Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Vilnius Forum Declaration,
Oct. 5, 2000, http://www.lootedartcommission.com/vilnius-forum.
11
See Terezín Declaration, June 30, 2009,
http://www.holocausteraassets.eu/files/200000215-35d8ef1a36/
TEREZIN_DECLARATION_FINAL.pdf. We include the full text of this document in
Appendix D (Nazi Confiscated and Looted Art ¶ 2 encourages nations to use “alternative
processes” to litigation based on “facts and merits” of claims).
10
The Terezín Declaration states in its principles under the heading “Nazi-
Confiscated and Looted Art”:
3. . . . [W]e urge all stakeholders to ensure that their legal

systems or alternative processes . . . facilitate just and fair
solutions with regard to Nazi-confiscated and looted art, and to
make certain that claims to recover such art are resolved
expeditiously and based on the facts and merits of the claims
and all the relevant documents submitted by all parties.
Governments should consider all relevant issues when applying
various legal provisions that may impede the restitution of art
and cultural property, in order to achieve just and fair solutions,
as well as alternative dispute resolution, where appropriate
under law. (Emphasis added)
To give credit when due, this development in foreign policy was
sparked in no small measure by Guidelines issued by the Association of
American Museum Directors (“AAMD”) in June 1998.12 For this very
reason, amici are deeply troubled not only by the district court’s misreading
of the correspondence between the Director of the MoMA Glenn Lowry and
Ralph Jentsch, but also with the fact that Lowry, currently AAMD’s Vice
President at Large,13 could engage in conversation with a claimant that
makes a mockery of any serious negotiation over disputed title to an
artwork. See Section I.C, below.
12
AAMD, Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Spoliation of Art During the
Nazi/World War II Era, June, 4 1998, http://www.aamd.org/papers/guideln.php
[hereinafter “AAMD Guidelines”]. We include this document as Appendix E. See also
American Association of Museums Guidelines Concerning the Unlawful Appropriation
of Objects during the Nazi Era, Nov. 1999, amended Apr. 2001, http://aam-
us.org/museumresources/ethics/nazi_guidelines.cfm (similar guidelines).
13
AAMD, Governance, 2010, http://www.aamd.org/about/#Governance.
11
C. The Dismissal Of This Case Violates The Letter And Spirit Of Rule
408 Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Which Fosters Open,
Transparent Communication Among Parties To Achieve A Meaningful
Resolution Of Their Conflict.
The district court improperly based its dismissal of this case on its
reading of isolated snippets of ongoing written and oral communications
between Lowry and Jentsch.14 It is fundamental policy to encourage
communication for negotiation and settlement purposes.15 Precisely in order
to secure meaningful negotiations, federal courts should, under
circumstances such as those found here, toll the state statute of limitations
for the duration of negotiation and settlement discussions.
To rule otherwise would effectively bar claimants and museums and
other possessors of Nazi-looted art from doing thorough, detailed, often
time-consuming provenance research before arriving at the courthouse door,
a result pushed by some museums in this country.16 To allow MoMA to use
settlement negotiations as a tool to delay ownership claims past the statute of
limitations is not only unjust, but is in direct contradiction to the text and
14
We include the letters from Lowry to Jentsch dated July 20, 2005, January 18, 2006,
and April 12, 2006, in Appendix F.
15
E.g., Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 568 F.3d 345, 352 (2d. Cir.
2009).
16
See Jennifer Anglim Kreder, The New Battleground of Museum Ethics and Holocaust
Era Claims: Technicalities Trumping Justice or Responsible Stewardship for the Public
Trust?, 88 Or. L. Rev. 37 (2009) (analyzing museums’ filing of declaratory judgments
before claimants have had sufficient time to complete provenance research).
12
spirit of the Washington Principles, Terezín Declaration and AAMD
Guidelines discussed in section I.B above.
The unquestionable purpose of Rule 408, Fed. R. Evid., is to foster the
policy of favoring settlement and negotiation over litigation. This policy
necessarily requires that adequate time be given to settle the claim. Failure
to toll the statute of limitations in complex Nazi-looted art cases while the
parties research the facts and provenance has two effects: first, claimants
will be unlikely to participate in good faith to negotiate complex claims;
second, museums and other possessors of art are encouraged to engage in
strategies to draw out negotiation past the statute of limitations. Both effects
are contrary to the intention of the drafters of Rule 408.
Rule 408(a)(2) specifically provides that “conduct or statements made
in compromise negotiations regarding the claim” may not be used to prove
the invalidity of a claim. The district court searched through the Lowry-
Jentsch letters to construct from words isolated from context the requisite
demand and refusal under New York law – despite Lowry’s continued, clear
representations that he lacked the authority to speak for MoMA until the
Board voted upon Nicholas Katzenbach’s recommendation.17 Up to that
point, moreover, the circumstances of the negotiation were akin to David
17
Grosz, at *11.
13
and Goliath: Jentsch, an art historian unaware of the legal significance of
specific words, versus Lowry, Director of one of the most esteemed
institutions in the nation advised by sophisticated counsel and a Board of
Directors fully aware of the significance of reciting Lowry’s powerlessness
to convey definitive “magic words of rejection.”18 Instead – as the district
court candidly acknowledged and then ignored – Lowry used “temporizing
language . . . almost certainly designed to entice plaintiffs to continue
negotiating and to prevent the dispute from becoming public or escalating
into litigation.”19
Ultimately the district court concluded that a seemingly friendly letter
from Lowry to Jentsch, indicating that MoMA wanted to continue to work
toward a just and fair solution, was a “refusal.”20 The language about setting
up a timeframe to continue research for years and an agreement to share
ownership forever in no way would put Jentsch or the Grosz foundation on
notice that MoMA had “refused” to continue working towards an agreement.
This cooperation in search of a just and fair solution, instead of litigation, is
exactly what the Washington Principles, Terezín Declaration, and AAMD
Guidelines encourage.
18
Id., at *9.
19
Id., at *13.
20
Id.
14
MoMA’s express refusal came on April 12, 2006, in a letter notifying
the Grosz heirs that its Board of Trustees accepted the recommendations of
Katzenbach that MoMA had no obligation to return and should not return
the Paintings. Amici note that Katzenbach based his conclusion on the idea
that the Grosz claims would be time-barred, not because of the facts and
merits of the claim.21 It was at this time, and not before, that MoMA refused
the claim, and, in accord with New York law and with Rule 408, Fed. R.
Evid., the statute of limitations began to run. Moreover, Lowry’s
“temporizing language” calls out for application of the equitable doctrines of
tolling and estoppel.
II. Evidence Relating To The Most Massive Art Heist In Human

History Should Not Be Ignored Or Trivialized In The Judicial
Disposition Of Claims Relating To Restitution Of Holocaust-Era Assets.
A. Wholesale Dismissal Of Nazi-looted Art Cases Violates Relevant

Standards Requiring District Courts To Determine The Plausibility Of
Factual Allegations By Focusing On The Broad Context Of Historical
Events And By Drawing Reasonable Inferences From Reliable Accounts
Of These Events.
What judges think of their function and task undoubtedly informs
their understanding of their power or jurisdiction. Amici most emphatically
do not suggest that, in order to right the egregious injury of the Holocaust,
judges may impose a bias against museums or current possessors of art.
21
MoMA meeting of the Board of Trustees minutes, April 11, 2006, page 2.
15
Neither may they sustain a general bias against claimants. Either form of
bias would violate the most ancient requirement of judicial ethics: to judge
with even-handed justice. Whatever the blindfold over the eyes of Lady
Justice might mean, it is surely not permission to overlook, let alone to
forbid attention to, relevant information about the provenance of a disputed
artwork.
B. Trial Courts Charged With The Duty Of Establishing Factual

Records Should Include Reasonably Grounded Historical Explanations
Of Events Relevant To The Issues Before The Courts.
The district court viewed itself as confronted “with a legal, not a
historical, question.”22 This view is a false dichotomizing of the judicial
function. Judges cannot be expected to know intimately the historical
context of all cases that come before them. Perhaps this is why the district
court so candidly diminished the significance of the historical events that she
casually disregarded in the opinion in this case. But in cases like this one,
attentiveness to what happened seventy to eighty years ago augments
executive efforts to resolve the “unfinished business” of World War II and
guards against assaults upon truth and memory. Cf. Deborah E. Lipstadt,
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1993).
22
Grosz, at *22.
16
From the very beginning of the Nazi era, law and jurisprudence
became a strong component of justification of regulations that deprived
“enemies of the State” of their liberty and property, and these deprivations
led in turn to mass murder. See, e.g., Ingo Müller, Hitler's Justice: The
Courts of the Third Reich (1991). Indeed, the “legalized” grand larceny
became a form of financing the mass murder.23
Hence it is not only appropriate, but even necessary, in cases such as
this for judges to consider the historical reality in Nazi Germany and
German-occupied Europe. The Führerprinzip demanded unquestioning
loyalty to the concentrated power of a “unitary executive.” Both legislators
and judges in Nazi Germany participated in the normalization of practices of
State grand theft that were engineered to make involuntary transactions
appear “ordinary and legal” from the very first weeks of the Nazi regime
early in 1933, even before the infamous racist Nuremberg laws of “blood
and honor” in 1935, and the final push to a “Final Solution.”
23
See, e.g., Martin Dean, Robbing the Jews (2008); Götz Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries:
Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State (2007); Richard J. Evans, The Third
Reich in Power 322-411 (2005); David Cesarani, Becoming Eichmann 67 (2004).
Immediately after the Anschluss in March of 1938, the U.S. Consul General in Vienna
observed: “There is a curious respect for legal formalities. The signature of the person
despoiled is always obtained, even if the person in question has to be sent to Dachau in
order to break down his resistance.” William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years, 1930-1940
30 (1984).
17
C. Courts Deciding Nazi-looted Art Cases Should Take Judicial Notice

Of The Broad Consensus Among Historians On The Nazi Spoliation Of
Jews And Other Persecuted Groups, Including The Political “Enemies
Of The State.”
Jews were systematically excluded from professions and forced to
compile inventories to streamline the systematic despoliation of their
property from 1933 to 1942 when Jews had little or no property left to rob,
and when the focus turned to “cost-efficient” mass murder in the death
camps of occupied Poland.24 It is a gross distortion of reality to suggest that
the financial despair of Jews in 1933 during widespread, sporadic boycotts
until the passage of the first Nuremberg law in 1935 resulted from a series of
isolated private set-backs brought about by generalized, severe financial
conditions akin to the Great Depression.25 The National Socialist platform,
adopted as official German state policy as of 1933, was committed to driving
Jews and other “enemies of the State” out of economic life.
In 1935, James McDonald resigned on moral grounds from his post as
High Commissioner for Refugees. McDonald detailed the economic
devastation of German Jews and noted that many wanted to flee but could
not because of financial predation between 1933 and 1935.26
24
Dean, supra note 23.
25
See Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power 382 (2005); Avraham Barkai, From
Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of German Jews (1989).
26
Text of Resignation of League Commissioner on German Refugees, N.Y. TIMES, Dec.
30, 1935.
18
As early as 1933, the New York Times (and other periodicals)
published articles documenting Nazi seizures of property of critics of the
Nazi regime.27 The New York Times decried: “To Be a Jew Is Held a
Crime.”28 As of January 1, 1936, Professor Karl Lowenstein wrote for the
Yale Law Journal: “Jews are finally driven out even from the remaining
nooks and crannies of economic life by the official economic boycott, more
or less endorsed by the courts.”29 “Obligations of contract, vested rights, the
right to dispose freely of property, were superseded by political
coordination. Legal titles were voided and property confiscated under the
pressure of party members and officials.”30 Judges in New York were
presented with and understood these facts as early as 1936.31
The historical record leaves no serious doubt that – both during and
immediately after the war – the Nazi practice of spoliation of Jewish
treasures and other “degenerate” art was common knowledge among insiders
of the art world. For example, in a 1938 letter to a Guggenheim Foundation
curator, the famous artist Otto Nebel described the Nazis’ plans to liquidate
27
Otto D. Tolischus, Hitler will Seize Property of Foes, N.Y. Times, July 15, 1933, at 1.
28
German Fugitives Tell of Atrocities at Hands of Nazis, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 20, 1933, at
1, 5.
29
Karl Loewenstein, Law in the Third Reich, 45 Yale L.J. 779, 797 (1936).
30
Id. at 807.
31
See Holzer v. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft, 159 Misc. 830, 290 N.Y.S. 181 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 1936), aff’d sub nom. 252 A.D. 729, 299 NY.S. 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937, aff’d
in part, modified in part, 277 N.Y. 474, 14 N.E.2d 798 (1938).
19
“degenerate art”: “[T]he entire German museum collections in modern art
are involved! . . . I believe that one shouldn’t help transform works of art
into armaments – and that, after all, would be the end result. But that is my
own opinion, and it needn’t bother anyone.”32 Francis Henry Taylor, former
Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, condemned Nazi-looted art
trafficking in the New York Times on September 19, 1943.33 Moreover, the
“Monuments Men” of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Program
sought tirelessly to secure tremendous caches of stolen art and restitute it to
the countries of victims. After their return from Germany, many became
museum directors and academics in prestigious colleges and universities and
told their stories.34 After the war, the State Department and other agencies,
governments and organizations issued warnings about looted objects
infecting the market and publicized lists of stolen art and the identities of
traffickers,35 including two names found in the provenance records in this
case. News stories ran in publications such as The New Yorker, which in
32
Joan M. Lukach, Hilla Rebay: In Search of The Spirit in Art 121 (1983). See generally
Jonathan Petropolous, The Faustian Bargain (2000); Jonathan Petropolous, Art As
Politics in the Third Reich (1996).
33
Francis Henry Taylor, Europe’s Looted Art: Can It Be Recovered?, N.Y. Times, Sept.
19, 1943, at SM18.
34
See James J. Rorimer, Survival: The Salvage and Protection of Art in War (1951);
Henry La Farge, Lost Treasures of Europe (1946); Charles de Jaeger, The Linz File:
Hitler’s Plunder of Europe’s Art (1981). Some art collectors told stories of having
purchased looted art. William S. Paley, As It Happened, a Memoir 107 (1979) (CBS
Chairman).
35
See, e.g., Kreder, supra note 16, at 88-89.
20
1947 published a series of three articles by the renowned cultural
commentator Janet Flanner detailing the massive character of the Nazi
practice of spoliation of Jewish and other “degenerate” art.36
In 1998, MoMA director Lowry acknowledged in congressional
testimony the “…rapacity of the Nazis and their collaborators,” estimating
that “tens of thousands” of pieces of art were stolen by the Nazis.37 Another
historian has stated: “The paintings came to America because for more than
10 years during and after the war there was no where else to sell them[.]” 38
Some American museums would have us believe that the art world
was oblivious to the infection of the market until 1998, but the story of the
Nazis stealing more art than any regime in history, surpassing even
Napoleon, was widely told – even front page news.39 Theodore Rousseau, a
former OSS officer who became a curator of paintings at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, thought it was “absurd” for U.S. museums to miss out on
the fire sales: “[I]t’s absurd to let the Germans have the paintings the Nazi
36
Janet Flanner, Annals of Crime: The Beautiful Spoils, The New Yorker, Feb. 22, Mar.
1, Mar. 8, 1947 at 31, 33, 38.
37
Glenn D. Lowry, Testimony Before the House Banking & Financial Services
Committee, February 12, 1998.
38
Adam Zagorin, Saving the Spoils of War, Time, Dec. 1, 1997, at 87 (quoting Willi
Korte, consultant on Holocaust losses to the Senate Banking Committee).
39
See David Roxan & Ken Wanstall, The Rape of Art (1965); Milton Esterow, Europe Is
Still Hunting Its Plundered Art, N.Y. Times, Nov. 16, 1964, at 1.
21
bigwigs got, often through forced sales, from all over Europe. Some of them
ought to come here [to U.S. museums].”40
The revival of interest in Holocaust-era assets in the 1990s after de-
classification of archives, which allowed some to begin the costly search for
family and assets, does not negate the fact that the art world had
contemporaneous knowledge about the massive infection of the market
starting in 1933. MoMA acquired one of the Grosz paintings at issue in
1947, and another in 1954.41 Not caring does not equate to not knowing.
Some current possessors of this property, including some of the
world’s most esteemed museums like MoMA, have argued that Jews and
opponents of National Socialism were all able to engage freely in voluntary
transfer of property within the Third Reich after 1933. This may have been
possible in some instances, but was emphatically not true generally.
All that is required to preclude dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R.
Civ. P., under Twombly-Iqbal is factual allegation, facial plausibility,
reasonable inferences, and attention to context.42 Factual allegations are
given a presumption of truth, but must be more than a recitation of the
40
Lynn Nicholas, The Rape of Europa 439 (1994).
41
Grosz, at *2.
42
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1937, citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.
22
elements of a cause of action and conclusory statements.43 Determining the
plausibility of a factual allegation is “context-specific, requiring the
reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense.”44
In this case, a German modernist artist later deemed to be an “enemy
of the State,” fled Germany in January 1933, leaving his work with Jewish
art dealer Alfred Flechtheim. Later, Flechtheim also fled. The Nazis
aryanized Flechtheim’s galleries in November 1933.45 The district court
suggested that the reason why Flechtheim went out of business was that he
was in general financial distress. This erroneous judgment is unadorned
with any citation to evidence in the record or acknowledgement of
systematic boycotting and extortion of Jews starting in 1933 and imposition
of the Flight Tax, matters appropriate for judicial notice.
The dismissal of this case cannot be squared with the standards
announced in Twombly and Iqbal. On the contrary, the massive Nazi theft
of art is well documented not only as a general historical fact, but also as a
specific fact about Flechtheim’s galleries in Berlin and Dusseldorf. There is
also a powerful historical consensus about the Nazi program of selling stolen
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Ester Tisa Francini, et al, Flight Goods – Stolen Goods: The transfer of cultural assets
in and via Switzerland 1933-1945 and the question of restitution 318 (Independent Expert
Commission, Switzerland 2001). See generally Hector Feliciano, The Lost Museum 155-
164 (1997).
23
artwork to American collectors and museums. It is further acknowledged
that the chief obstacle complicating provenance research is that the Nazis
went out of their way to disguise their grand larceny as though it was only a
series of open transactions between willing sellers and buyers. In the light
of such uniform scholarly consensus, this Court should hold that the
Complaint satisfies the Twombly-Iqbal standard of plausibility.
This Court should also reverse the ruling of the district court
concerning the statute of limitations. The view that Lowry’s “temporizing”
language triggered the statute of limitations in the context of a complex
provenance dispute flies in the face of the AAMD Guidelines, Washington
Principles and Terezín Declaration. The lack of any clear language to refuse
the Grosz heirs’ demand until April 12, 2006, is controlling. Solid equitable
grounds also support the tolling of the limitations period: (1) conformity
with U.S. foreign policy, (2) Rule 408, Fed. R. Evid., and (3) Lowry’s own
language, “almost certainly designed to entice plaintiffs to continue
negotiating and to prevent the dispute from becoming public or escalating
into litigation.”46
46
Grosz, at *13.
24
III. Trial Courts Charged With The Duty Of Establishing Factual

Records Relating To Nazi-looted Art Should Allow Broad Access To
Documents Relevant To Disputes About The Provenance Of Artworks.
For the historical reasons outlined above in section II.B, provenance
research in the case of specific works of Nazi-looted art – such as Grosz’s
art – often necessitates extensive research of archives of multiple institutions
in many nations. The haste of the district court to dismiss this case –
anomalous when compared to the length of time for disposition of most civil
litigation – is egregiously wrong in the particular circumstances of
Holocaust-era claims.
It is bad enough that victims are often blamed for their misfortune. It
is worse that victims of grand larceny and mass murder have had to wait for
over half a century for any remedy to achieve “imperfect justice.” It is
outrageous that judges are now eroding theses efforts to achieve “imperfect
justice.”
A. The District Court Should Be Reversed Because Its Order Dismissing

The Case Is Based On Unsupported Guesswork Rather Than
Determinations Of Facts Grounded In The Record.
As noted above in section II.B, individual rights were nonexistent for
Jews and other “enemies of the State,” as defined by the Nazi party, after
1933. Yet possessors of Nazi-looted art, including prominent institutions,
have distorted history and convinced federal judges to accept the wildly
25
implausible view that Jews had no one but themselves to blame for their
financial plight until implementation of the Nuremberg Laws, and often
museums push the date back even further.47 The district court in this case
went beyond the face of the complaint to decide a motion to dismiss on the
ground of an affirmative defense, the statute of limitations. In doing so, the
district court improperly engaged in determinations of fact and in value
judgments not supported by the factual record in the case. This further
distorts history and law.48
B. Giving Museums Or Auction Houses An Evidentiary Privilege Over

Documents In Their Possession Or Allowing Them To Claim
Confidentiality About Ownership And Sales Of Works Of Art Is Utterly
Inconsistent With Clearly Established Federal Policy Against Looting
Throughout The Entire Twentieth Century And Into The Current
Century.
The most ancient records of war, including classic literature such as
Homer’s Iliad and Virgil’s Aeneid, depict wartime seizure of enemy
property, but there were – and are – rules. “To the victor belong the spoils,”
the ancient adage reads, but it absolutely does not apply to Nazi looting.
47
See Kreder, supra note 16, at 62 (Toledo Museum of Art won suit alleging 1938 sales
of paintings it bought in 1939 were voluntary), 65 (MoMA/Guggenheim declaratory
claim – sale date uncertain), 71 (MFA-Boston declaratory claim implying that 1938
Vienna sale after Anschluss to known art trafficker was voluntary), 75 (purchaser won
declaratory judgment regarding transfer after Viennese owner imprisoned in Dachau).
48
In unexplained, flat contradiction to Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., the district court ruled
that claimants in art cases bear the burden of pleading “the statute of limitations in their
complaint[s].” 2010 Westlaw 88003, at *23; see Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v.
Allstate Ins., 130 S.Ct. 1431 (2010) (demonstrating primacy of federal procedure in the
face of conflicting state law).
26
International law governing the use of force has prohibited looting for
centuries. For example, Article 46 of the Hague Convention of 1907 forbids
the confiscation of private property. Article 47 forbids pillage. Article 56
specifically forbids "[a]ll seizure of ... works of art.” The antiquity of this
war crime does not make it moral or legal, any more than the antiquity of
rape, torture, and killing of unarmed, non-threatening civilians would justify
any of those war crimes.
We have detailed above, pp. 8-10, American foreign policy against
looting affirmed by the London Declaration of 1943, in the criminal charges
prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials, and in the post-war requirement that
Germany and Austria nullify all “transactions” relating to the dispossession
of victims of Nazi persecution through the entire Nazi era. We have also
stressed the importance of the Principles of the Washington Conference of
1998, the Vilnius Forum Declaration of 2000 and the Terezín Declaration of
2009. As demonstrated in the Washington Principles, nullifying the
transactions requires transparency of provenance documents:
1. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not

subsequently restituted should be identified.
2. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible
to researchers… (emphasis added).
3. Resources and personnel should be made available to
facilitate the identification of all art that had been confiscated
by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.
27
MoMA has expressly and publicly agreed to these principles.49 It
should not now be heard to repudiate even the simplest of these directives.
MoMA advertises on its own website its openness and willingness to
provide the provenance documents to any serious researcher: “Please note
that the Museum’s archival records for all collection works are open, as they
always have been, to serious researchers.”50 Moreover, MoMA’s website
states:
In April 2000, The Museum of Modern Art's director, Glenn D.

Lowry, joined other American museum directors to present
testimony before The Presidential Advisory Commission on
Holocaust Assets, reaffirming the museum community's
commitment both to assist in the discovery of objects
unlawfully appropriated during the Holocaust period and to
make information on collection provenance more widely
available.51
MoMA recognized the importance of access to documents relevant to
provenance of Holocaust-era artworks – and so should federal courts.
Research into the facts of claims about Nazi-looted art is doubly
difficult: at the outset the Nazis sought to hide the real nature of their theft;
now the possessors of stolen art are typically reluctant to admit it. For these
two reasons this Court should not allow any possessor of art with relevant
49
The Museum of Modern Art, 2009, The Provenance Research Project,
http://www.moma.org/collection/provenance/.
50
Id.
51
Id.
28
information about provenance to refuse to disclose it in the normal course of
discovery. MoMA’s defense of “confidentiality” of documents within its
possession leads ineluctably to an inference52 that this evidence does not
support its claim to undisputed ownership of the art at issue in this case. The
Court should require the “disinfectant” that Justice Brandeis understood to
be best: “sunlight.”53
The return of property stolen by the Nazis is desired not only in high
value cases that motivate federal litigation, but also for objects sought for
cultural or sacred character (e.g., Torah scrolls) or for its association with
family members murdered during the Holocaust (e.g., photographs). In his
remarks at the opening of the Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets in
Washington, D.C., in December of 1998, famous survivor Elie Wiesel noted:
The duty to remember covers not only big accounts, huge

palaces, and rare art collections but also less wealthy families,
small merchants, cobblers, peddlers, school teachers, water
carriers, beggars; the enemy deprived them of their pathetically
poor possessions, such as a prayer book, a shirt, a comb,
eyeglasses, toys. In other words: the poor victims were robbed
of their poverty.54
As painful as the burden of this memory may be, we dare not forget.
52
In an appeal from dismissal on a 12(b)(6) motion, all reasonable inferences should be
drawn against the moving party (Defendant-Appellee MoMA).
53
Louis Brandeis, Other People’s Money – and How Bankers Use It (1914).
54
Elie Wiesel, “Foreword,” in Eizenstat, supra note 2, at xi.
29
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above and in the briefs of the Plaintiffs-
Appellants, the judgment of the district court should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. * Jennifer Anglim Kreder

Valparaiso Univ. School of Law Salmon P. Chase College of Law
656 S. Greenwich Street Northern Kentucky University
Valparaiso, IN 46383 Nunn Hall, Nunn Drive
T: 219-465-7860 Highland Heights, KY 41042
F: 219-465-7872 T: 859-572-5889
[email protected] F: 859-572-5342
*Counsel of Record [email protected]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
30
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
Particular Statements of Interest of Amici Curiae
Organizations and Communities
The American Jewish Congress is a civil rights organization based in New York City,
with several regional chapters throughout the country. It is motivated by the need to
ensure the creative survival of the Jewish people, deeply cognizant of the Jewish
responsibility to participate fully in public life, inspired by Jewish teachings and values,
informed by liberal principles, dedicated to an activist and independent role, and
committed to making its decisions through democratic processes. Its mission is to protect
fundamental constitutional freedoms and American democratic institutions, particularly
the civil and religious rights and liberties of all Americans and the separation of church
and state; to advance the security and prosperity of the State of Israel and its democratic
institutions, and to support Israel's search for peaceful relations with its neighbors in the
region; to advance social and economic justice, women's equality, and human rights at
home and abroad; to remain vigilant against anti-Semitism, racism, and other forms of
bigotry, and to celebrate cultural diversity and promote unity in American life; and to
invigorate and enhance Jewish religious, institutional, communal and cultural life at
home and abroad, and seek creative ways to express Jewish identity, ethics and values.
The Commission for Art Recovery works in different countries to determine suitable
solutions, legislative or otherwise, to the still unfinished business of returning art taken
by the Nazis or as a result of their policies. In cooperation with lawyers, scholars, art
experts, and other appropriate groups, we identify the best plans and help put them into
practice; then we maintain an advisory role, monitoring progress and ensuring that
research results are made public. Through negotiation, we encourage European
governments to put into practice the Principles adopted at the Washington Conference on
Holocaust-Era Assets in December1998 and reinforced by the Declaration adopted at the
Vilnius International Forum of Holocaust Era-Looted Cultural Assets in October 2000,
and in the Terezín Declaration that concluded the Prague Conference on Holocaust-Era
Assets in June of 2009. The Commission for Art Recovery favors amicable resolution of
art-ownership disputes, but when this fails we have brought litigation against a
government or an institution that is unreasonably resistant to legitimate claims for the
return of stolen art.
a-1
Persons (Institutional Affiliation for Identification Purposes Only)
Filippa Marullo Anzalone is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Library and
Technology Services at Boston College Law School in Newton, Massachusetts, where
she teaches a seminar on Art Law.
Yehuda Bauer is Professor Emeritus of History and Holocaust Studies at the Avraham
Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the
Director of the International Center for Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust
Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority of the State of Israel, located in Jerusalem.
He has published or edited many books and scholarly articles on the Shoah. For example,
he is the author of Jews for Sale?: Nazi-Jewish Negotiations, 1933-1945 (1994); A
History of the Holocaust (rev. ed. 2001); Rethinking the Holocaust (2000); and The
Death of the Shtetl (2010).
Michael J. Bazyler is a Professor of Law and The "1939" Club Law Scholar in
Holocaust and Human Rights Studies at Chapman University School of Law in Orange,
California, where he teaches a course on Law and the Holocaust. He is the author of
Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts (2003), and the editor
of Holocaust Restitution: Perspectives on the Litigation and Its Legacy (2005).
Rabbi Bernard Dov Beliak is the founding president of the Hamif Gash Foundation.
Rabbi Michael Berenbaum served as Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia Judaica (2d

ed. 2008) and as project director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. He is a
Holocaust Scholar whose writings include A Promise to Remember: The Holocaust in the
Words and Voices of Its Survivors (2003); The World Must Know: The History of the
Holocaust Told in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (1993); and The Vision of the
Void: Theological Reflections on the Works of Elie Wiesel (1979). He edited Witness to
the Holocaust (1997) and A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by
the Nazis (1990). With Michael J. Neufeld he co-edited The Bombing of Auschwitz:
Should the Allies Have Attempted It? (2000). With Abraham J. Peck, he co-edited The
Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined
(1998). With Betty Rogers Rubenstein he co-edited What Kind of God?: Essays in Honor
of Richard L. Rubenstein (1995). With Yisrael Gutman he co-edited Anatomy of the
Auschwitz Death Camp (1994). With John K. Roth he co-edited Holocaust: Religious
and Philosophical Implications (1989). He is also the executive producer of “Desperate
Hours” (2001), a documentary film about the Shoah in Turkey.
a-2
Donald S. Burris is senior partner in the firm of Burris, Schoenberg & Walden, LLP, in
Los Angeles. He was co-counsel with his partner Randol Schoenberg in the landmark
litigation, Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004).
Judy Chicago and Donald Woodman are artists. They are the co-authors of The
Holocaust Project: From Darkness to Light (1993), an account of their journey to several
concentration camps and death camps in Europe, and the photography and painting that
ensued from this journey. The volume includes a study of the suffering, including torture
and death, inflicted upon prisoners detained at the slave labor camps around Mauthausen,
Austria, and in the death camps at Auschwitz and Treblinka in occupied Poland.
Talbert D’Alemberte is President Emeritus and Professor of Law at Florida State

University. During his term as president of the American Bar Association (1991-1992), he
edited an ABA report, Blueprint for Improving the Civil Justice System, which included
strong support for various mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution. D’Alemberte has
been involved for many years in the modern dispute resolution movement, chairing the
first ABA committee on the subject and later served as a mediator, most notably in the
water dispute between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. In recognition of D’Alemberte’s
contributions to the field of ADR, the ABA Section of Alternative Dispute Resolution
gives an award each year named for D’Almberte to a lawyer who contributes significantly
to ADR.
Marion F. Deshmukh is Robert T. Hawkes Professor of History at George Mason

University, where she teaches German and European cultural history and German art
history, including courses on 19th and 20th Century Germany, 19th and 20th Century
German and Austrian Art, the Third Reich and Holocaust.
Hedy Epstein is a survivor of the Shoah who left her home in Kippenheim, Germany in
1939 at the age of 14 as part of the Kindertransport to England. Her story is narrated in
the Academy-Award winning film “Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the
Kindertransport” (2000) and in the companion volume of the same title. She lives in St.
Louis, and for decades she has been has been engaged in human rights and social justice
issues, especially in fair housing in the Greater St. Louis Area. She has also been
involved for decades in Holocaust education at all levels.
Hector Feliciano is an art historian and the author of The Lost Museum: The Nazi
Conspiracy to Steal the World's Greatest Works of Art (1998).
Rabbi Irving Greenberg was from 1974 to 1997 the founding president of the Jewish
National Center for Learning and Life (CLAL). From 1997 to 2000 (??) he served as the
a-3
President of the Jewish Life Network: Steinhardt Foundation. From 2000 to 2002 he
served as the Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Council. He is the
author of numerous books, including Living in the Image of God: Jewish Teachings to
Perfect the World – Conversations with Rabbi Irving Greenberg (edited by Shalom
Freedman 1998); For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between
Judaism and Christianity (2004).
Grace Cohen Grossman is an art historian and curator who lives in Los Angeles,
California.
Marcia Sachs Littell is Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Director of
the Master of Arts Program in Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the Richard Stockton
College of New Jersey. Her publications include Liturgies on the Holocaust: An
Interfaith Anthology (1986); Holocaust Education: A Resource Book for Teachers and
Professional Leaders (1985). Confronting the Holocaust: A Mandate for the 21st
Century. co-edited with Stephen Feinstein and Karen Schierman(1998), Women in the
Holocaust: Responses, Insights, Perspectives (2001); and A Century of Genocide co-
edited with Daniel Curran and Richard Libowitz (2002). She is the senior research
consultant to the Philadelphia Center on the Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights.
Hubert G. Locke is professor emeritus at the University of Washington. He is the author

of Searching for God in Godforsaken Times and Places: Reflections on the Holocaust,
Racism, and Death (2003); Learning from History: A Black Christian's Perspective on
the Holocaust (2000); The Black Anti-Semitism Controversy: Protestant Views and
Perspectives (1994). He is the editor of Exile in the Fatherland: Martin Niemöller's
Letters from Moabit Prison (1986); The Barmen Confession: Papers from the Seattle
Assembly (1986), and The Church Confronts the Nazis: Barmen Then and Now (1984).
With Marcia Sachs Littell he co-edited Holocaust and Church Struggle: Religion, Power,
and the Politics of Resistance (1996), and Remembrance and Recollection: Essays on the
Centennial year of Martin Niemöller and Reinhold Niebuhr, and the Fiftieth year of the
Wannsee Conference (1996). With Franklin H. Littell he co-edited What Have we
Learned?: Telling the Story and Teaching the Lessons of the Holocaust: Papers of the
20th Anniversary Scholar's Conference (1993), and The German Church Struggle and the
Holocaust (1974), and he is the co-founder of The Scholars’ Conference on the Holocaust
and the Churches.
Carrie Menkel-Meadow is A.B. Chettle, Jr. Professor of Law, Dispute Resolution and
Civil Procedure at the Georgetown Law Center, and Professor of Law at the University of
California, Irvine School of Law. She is a prolific scholar and lecturer on alternative
mechanisms of dispute resolution. In addition to her scholarship, research and teaching,
a-4
Professor Menkel-Meadow often serves as a mediator and arbitrator in public and private
settings and has trained lawyers, judges, diplomats, and mediators in the United States
and on five continents.
Arthur R. Miller is a University Professor at New York University School of Law. He is

a co-author (with Jack Friedenthal, Helen Hershkoff and John Sexton) of Civil
Procedure: Cases and Materials (10th ed., 2009) and the co-author (with Charles A.
Wright) of Federal Practice and Procedure (2001).
Carol Rittner, R.S.M., is Distinguished Professor of Holocaust & Genocide Studies, and
the Dr. Marsha Raticoff Grossman Professor of Holocaust Studies at The Richard
Stockton College of New Jersey. She is the author, editor, or co-editor of numerous
publications, including Courage to Care: Non-Jews Who Rescued Jews During the
Holocaust (1986); Different Voices: Women and the Holocaust (1993); Living with our
Differences: Beyond Hate (1994); The Holocaust and the Christian World (with Steven
Smith and Irena Steinfeldt, 2000); “Good News” after Auschwitz?: Christian Faith within
a Post-Holocaust World (2001); Pius XII and the Holocaust (2002), Will Genocide Ever
End? (2002), and Genocide in Rwanda: Complicity of the Churches? (2004). Dr. Rittner’s
current research interests include rescue during the Holocaust and other post-Holocaust
genocides; and, the use of rape as a weapon of war and genocide in the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries.
John K. Roth is the Edward J. Sexton Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and the
Founding Director of the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human
Rights (now the Center for Human Rights Leadership) at Claremont McKenna College,
where he taught from 1966 through 2006. In addition to service on the United States
Holocaust Memorial Council and on the editorial board for Holocaust and Genocide
Studies, he has published hundreds of articles and reviews and authored, co-authored, or
edited more than forty books, including Genocide and Human Rights: A Philosophical
Guide; Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath; and
Ethics During and After the Holocaust: In the Shadow of Birkenau. With Peter Hayes,
Roth is currently editing the Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies for the Oxford
University Press.
Lucille A. Roussin is the founding Director of the Holocaust Restitution Claims

Practicum at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, where she also
teaches a seminar on Remedies for War Time Confiscation. She earned a Ph.D. in Art
History & Archaeology from Columbia University and her law degree from the Cardozo
School of Law. She was Deputy Research Director of the Art and Cultural Property Team
of the Presidential Commission on Holocaust Assets in the US, and was an associate in
a-5
the Art and International Law Practice Group at Herrick, Feinstein LLP in New York
City. She is currently a member of the Cultural Properties Legislation Committee of the
Archaeological Institute of America and Vice Chair of the Art and Cultural Heritage
Committee of the American Society of International Law, serves on the Board of the
Lawyers Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, and is a member of the Art Law
Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. She participated in the
international conference on Restitution of Holocaust-Era Assets in Prague in June of
2009.
William L. Shulman is the President of the Association of Holocaust Organizations, an

informal network of groups engaged in Holocaust and Genocide Studies throughout the
United States, and in educational programs related to these themes.
Stephen D. Smith is a theologian with a particular interest in the impact of the Holocaust
on religious and philosophical thought and practice. His publications include Making
Memory: Creating Britain’s First Holocaust Centre; Forgotten Places: The Holocaust
and the Remnants of Destruction; and The Holocaust and the Christian
World. He founded the UK Holocaust Centre in Nottinghamshire, England, and
cofounded the Aegis Trust for the prevention of crimes against humanity and genocide,
and was also the inaugural Chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which runs
the National Holocaust Memorial Day in the United Kingdom. He is currently
the Executive Director of the Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and
Education at the University of Southern California.
Fritz Weinschenk was born in Mainz, Germany, of Jewish parents. In 1935 his family
and emigrated to the United States to escape Nazi persecution of Jews. He fought in
World War II with the US Army and survived the landing at Omaha Beach. From 1946 to
1950 he served as a member of the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps in Germany.
Admitted to the Bar of New York in 1953, he was active in many restitution and
indemnification cases. From 1962 to 1995 he served as a Commissioner to German courts
and prosecutors in over 200 Nazi-crimes cases, and was twice awarded the
Bundesverdienstkreuz (Federal Service Award). He obtained the degree of Doktor Juris
from Mainz University summa cum laude. His record of pro bono service includes
membership on the Board of the United Restitution Organization, the Conference on
Jewish Material Claims against Germany, and the Jewish Philanthropic Fund of 1933,
Inc.
a-6
Appendix B
Disposition of Federal Holocaust-Era Art Claims Since 2004
CASES LOST BY HOLOCAUST VICTIMS OR THEIR HEIRS
Case Name Case Citation or Court in Disposition

Number Which Pending
1 Grosz v. 09-cv-3607 Appeal noticed to 2d Motion to dismiss granted after improper factual
MoMA Cir. from S.D.N.Y. Jan. conclusions about when demand was refused.
11, 2010 slip op.
2 Bakalar v. 08-5119-cv Awaiting 2d Cir. Claimant lost after trial, incorrect exclusion of Holocaust
Vavra Opinion on Appeal. art historian expert report, choice-of-law determination
Oral argument was Oct. and interpretation of Swiss law analyzed in brief of amici.
9, 2009, 2008 WL
4067335, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2,
2008)
3 Boston MFA 08-10097- Appeal noticed to 1st Court granted museum’s motion for summary judgment
v. Seger- RWZ Cir. from D.Mass. May declaring its superior interest in painting.
Thomschitz 28, 2009 slip op.
4 Dunbar v. 08-711 Appeal noticed to 5th Prescriptive ownership by present-day possessor under
Seger- Cir. Louisiana law; motion for summary judgment granted.
Thomschitz 2009 WL 1911008
(E.D.La. July 2, 2009).
5 Westfield v. Civ.A. Appeal noticed to 6th Court ruled that Germany could not be sued under the
Germany 3:09-0204 Cir. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) for any taking of
2009 WL 2356554 property during the war without even citing Bernstein.
(M.D. Tenn., July 28,
2009).
6 Von Saher v. 07-56691 Remanded from 9th Cir. Struck down all claims filed pursuant to California statute
Norton to C.D. Cal. extending limitations period to 2010 and remanded to
Simon 2009 WL 2516336, determine whether statute of limitations has run on
Museum of (9th Cir. Aug. 19, common law conversion claim. Petition for certiorari
Art 2009). filed with Supreme Court.
7 Orkin v. 05-55364 Petition for cert. to Holocaust Victims Redress Act did not create a private
Taylor SCOTUS denied. right of action. State law claims barred by statute of
487 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. limitations.
2007).
8 Detroit Inst. 06-10333 2007 WL 1016996 Declaratory judgment issued to museum and claimants’
of Arts v. (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, state law claims dismissed on statute of limitations
Ullin 2007). grounds.
9 Toledo 3:06 CV 477 F. Supp. 2d 802 Declaratory judgment issued to museum and claimants’
Museum of 7031 (N.D. Ohio 2006). state law claims dismissed on statute of limitations
Art v. Ullin grounds (claim accrued in 1938 and expired in 1941,
before the end of WWII).
a-7
CASE WON BY HOLOCAUST VICTIM OR HEIR IN FEDERAL COURT
Case Name Case Number Citation or Court Disposition

in Which Pending
Vineberg v. 08-1136 548 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. Affirmed D. R.I. summary judgment in favor of
Bissonnette 2008). claimant. Only case won by a claimant in federal
court since 2004.
CASES SETTLED AFTER COMPLAINT FILED IN FEDERAL COURT
Museum of 07 CV 11074 549 F. Supp. 2d 543 Settled on eve of trial.

Modern Art v. (S.D.N.Y. 2008),
Schoeps 594 F. Supp. 2d 461
(S.D.N.Y. 2009).
U.S. v. One Oil CV 04- 362 F.Supp.2d 1175 Parties settled after the present-day possessor filed a
Painting 8333FMCAJWX (Mar. 31, 2005). declaratory judgment action against the claimant
Entitled after removing the painting from California on the
“Femme en eve of a hearing on a temporary restraining order in
Blanc” By the state court case filed by the claimant. The
Pablo Picasso California trial court judge then dismissed the
California state case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The U.S. government then filed this
civil forfeiture action seizing the painting. Settled.
Republic of 03-13 541 U.S. 677 (2004). FSIA applies to allow jurisdiction over foreign
Austria v. sovereign regardless of whether the conduct at issue
Altmann predates the FSIA. Claimant won after consenting
to arbitration in Vienna.
CASES STILL PENDING IN DISTRICT COURT
United States v. 99 Civ. 9940 2002 WL 553532 Civil forfeiture action filed after grand jury
Portrait of Wally, (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, subpoena to seize painting was quashed in state
A Painting by 2002). court in 1998. Federal case has been pending
Egon Schiele since 1999. Trial set for 2010.
Cassirer v. Spain CV 05-3459- 461 F. Supp. 2d Court denied Spain’s motion to dismiss on FSIA
GAF(CTX) 1157 (C.D. Cal. grounds under the expropriation exception.
2006). Interlocutory appeal affirmed this ruling Sept. 8,
2009. Rehearing en banc Mar. 24, 2010.
See also #6 above.
a-8
Appendix C
Washington Principles on Holocaust-Era Assets (December 3, 1998)
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/holocaust/heacappen.pdf
On December 3, 1998, 44 governments participating in the Washington Conference on

Holocaust-Era Assets endorsed the following principles for dealing with Nazi-looted art.
In developing a consensus on non-binding principles to assist in resolving issues relating

to Nazi-confiscated art, the Conference recognizes that among participating nations there
are differing legal systems and that countries act within the context of their own laws.
1. Art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted should be
identified.
2. Relevant records and archives should be open and accessible to researchers, in
accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives.
3. Resources and personnel should be made available to facilitate the identification of
all art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted.
4. In establishing that a work of art had been confiscated by the Nazis and not
subsequently restituted, consideration should be given to unavoidable gaps or
ambiguities in the provenance in light of the passage of time and the circumstances of
the Holocaust era.
5. Every effort should be made to publicize art that is found to have been confiscated by
the Nazis and not subsequently restituted in order to locate its pre-War owners or
their heirs.
6. Efforts should be made to establish a central registry of such information.
7. Pre-War owners and their heirs should be encouraged to come forward and make
known their claims to art that was confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently
restituted.
8. If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis and
not subsequently restituted, or their heirs, can be identified, steps should be taken
expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution, recognizing this may vary according
to the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific case.
9. If the pre-War owners of art that is found to have been confiscated by the Nazis, or
their heirs, cannot be identified, steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just
and fair solution.
10.Commissions or other bodies established to identify art that was confiscated by the
Nazis and to assist in addressing ownership issues should have a balanced
membership.
11.Nations are encouraged to develop national processes to implement these principles,
particularly as they relate to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving
ownership issues.
a-9
Appendix D. Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference: Terezín Declaration

(June 30, 2009)
Upon the invitation of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic we the representatives of
46 states listed below met this day, June 30, 2009 in Terezín, where thousands of
European Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution died or were sent to death camps
during World War II. We participated in the Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference
organized by the Czech Republic and its partners in Prague and Terezín from 26-30 June
2009, discussed together with experts and non-governmental organization (NGO)
representatives important issues such as Welfare of Holocaust (Shoah) Survivors and
other Victims of Nazi Persecution, Immovable Property, Jewish Cemeteries and Burial
Sites, Nazi- Confiscated and Looted Art, Judaica and Jewish Cultural Property, Archival
Materials, and Education, Remembrance, Research and Memorial Sites. We join
affirming in this
Terezín Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues
- Aware that Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other victims of Nazi persecution have
reached an advanced age and that it is imperative to respect their personal dignity and to
deal with their social welfare needs, as an issue of utmost urgency,
- Having in mind the need to enshrine for the benefit of future generations and to
remember forever the unique history and the legacy of the Holocaust (Shoah), which
exterminated three fourths of European Jewry, including its premeditated nature as well
as other Nazi crimes,
- Noting the tangible achievements of the 1997 London Nazi Gold Conference, and the
1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, which addressed central issues
relating to restitution and successfully set the stage for the significant advances of the
next decade, as well as noting the January 2000 Stockholm Declaration, the October 2000
Vilnius Conference on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Assets,
- Recognizing that despite those achievements there remain substantial issues to be
addressed, because only a part of the confiscated property has been recovered or
compensated,
- Taking note of the deliberations of the Working Groups and the Special Session on
Social Welfare of Holocaust Survivors and their points of view and opinions which
surveyed and addressed issues relating to the Social Welfare of Holocaust Survivors and
other Victims of Nazi Persecution, Immovable Property, Nazi Confiscated Art, Judaica
and Jewish Cultural Property, Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, which
can be found on the weblink for the Prague Conference and will be published in the
Conference Proceedings,
- Keeping in mind the legally non-binding nature of this Declaration and moral
responsibilities thereof, and without prejudice to applicable international law and
obligations,
a-10
1. Recognizing that Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other victims of the Nazi regime
and its collaborators suffered unprecedented physical and emotional trauma during their
ordeal, the Participating States take note of the special social and medical needs of all
survivors and strongly support both public and private efforts in their respective states to
enable them to live in dignity with the necessary basic care that it implies.
2. Noting the importance of restituting communal and individual immovable property that
belonged to the victims of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution,
the Participating States urge that every effort be made to rectify the consequences of
wrongful property seizures, such as confiscations, forced sales and sales under duress of
property, which were part of the persecution of these innocent people and groups, the vast
majority of whom died heirless.
3. Recognizing the progress that has been made in research, identification, and restitution
of cultural property by governmental and non-governmental institutions in some states
since the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets and the endorsement of
the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, the Participating States
affirm an urgent need to strengthen and sustain these efforts in order to ensure just and
fair solutions regarding cultural property, including Judaica that was looted or displaced
during or as a result of the Holocaust (Shoah).
4. Taking into account the essential role of national governments, the Holocaust (Shoah)
survivors’ organizations, and other specialized NGOs, the Participating States call for a
coherent and more effective approach by States and the international community to
ensure the fullest possible, relevant archival access with due respect to national
legislation. We also encourage States and the international community to establish and
support research and education programs about the Holocaust (Shoah) and other Nazi
crimes, ceremonies of remembrance and commemoration, and the preservation of
memorials in former concentration camps, cemeteries and mass graves, as well as of
other sites of memory.
5. Recognizing the rise of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust (Shoah) denial, the Participating
States call on the international community to be stronger in monitoring and responding to
such incidents and to develop measures to combat anti-Semitism.
The Welfare of Holocaust (Shoah) Survivors and other Victims of Nazi Persecution
Recognizing that Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other victims of Nazi persecution,
including those who experienced the horrors of the Holocaust (Shoah) as small and
helpless children, suffered unprecedented physical and emotional trauma during their
ordeal.
Mindful that scientific studies document that these experiences frequently result in
heightened damage to health, particularly in old age, we place great priority on dealing
with their social welfare needs in their lifetimes. It is unacceptable that those who
suffered so greatly during the earlier part of their lives should live under impoverished
circumstances at the end.
a-11
1. We take note of the fact that Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other victims of Nazi
persecution have today reached an advanced age and that they have special medical and
health needs, and we therefore support, as a high priority, efforts to address in their
respective states the social welfare needs of the most vulnerable elderly victims of Nazi
persecution – such as hunger relief, medicine and homecare as required, as well as
measures that will encourage intergenerational contact and allow them to overcome their
social isolation. These steps will enable them to live in dignity in the years to come. We
strongly encourage cooperation on these issues.
2. We further take note that several states have used a variety of creative mechanisms to
provide assistance to needy Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other victims of Nazi
persecution, including special pensions; social security benefits to non-residents; special
funds; and the use of assets from heirless property. We encourage states to consider these
and other alternative national actions, and we further encourage them to find ways to
address survivors’ needs.
Immovable (Real) Property Noting that the protection of property rights is an essential
component of a democratic society and the rule of law,
Acknowledging the immeasurable damage sustained by individuals and Jewish
communities as a result of wrongful property seizures during the Holocaust (Shoah),
Recognizing the importance of restituting or compensating Holocaust-related
confiscations made during the Holocaust era between 1933-45f and as its immediate
consequence,
Noting the importance of recovering communal and religious immovable property in
reviving and enhancing Jewish life, ensuring its future, assisting the welfare needs of
Holocaust (Shoah) survivors, and fostering the preservation of Jewish cultural heritage,
1. We urge, where it has not yet been effectively achieved, to make every effort to
provide for the restitution of former Jewish communal and religious property by either in
rem restitution or compensation, as may be appropriate; and
2. We consider it important, where it has not yet been effectively achieved, to address the
private property claims of Holocaust (Shoah) victims concerning immovable (real)
property of former owners, heirs or successors, by either in rem restitution or
compensation, as may be appropriate, in a fair, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory
manner consistent with relevant national law and regulations, as well as international
agreements. The process of such restitution or compensation should be expeditious,
simple, accessible, transparent, and neither burdensome nor costly to the individual
claimant; and we note other positive legislation in this area.
3. We note that in some states heirless property could serve as a basis for addressing the
material necessities of needy Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and to ensure ongoing
education about the Holocaust (Shoah), its causes and consequences.
4. We recommend, where it has not been done, that states participating in the Prague
Conference consider implementing national programs to address immovable (real)
a-12
property confiscated by Nazis, Fascists and their collaborators. If and when established
by the Czech Government, the European Shoah Legacy Institute in Terezín shall facilitate
an intergovernmental effort to develop non-binding guidelines and best practices for
restitution and compensation of wrongfully seized immovable property to be issued by
the one-year anniversary of the Prague Conference, and no later than June 30, 2010, with
due regard for relevant national laws and regulations as well as international agreements,
and noting other positive legislation in this area.
Jewish Cemeteries and Burial Sites Recognizing that the mass destruction perpetrated
during the Holocaust (Shoah) put an end to centuries of Jewish life and included the
extermination of thousands of Jewish communities in much of Europe, leaving the graves
and cemeteries of generations of Jewish families and communities unattended, and
Aware that the genocide of the Jewish people left the human remains of hundreds of
thousands of murdered Jewish victims in unmarked mass graves scattered throughout
Central and Eastern Europe,
We urge governmental authorities and municipalities as well as civil society and
competent institutions to ensure that these mass graves are identified and protected and
that the Jewish cemeteries are demarcated, preserved and kept free from desecration, and
where appropriate under national legislation could consider declaring these as national
monuments.
Nazi-Confiscated and Looted Art Recognizing that art and cultural property of victims
of the Holocaust (Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution was confiscated,
sequestered and spoliated, by the Nazis, the Fascists and their collaborators through
various means including theft, coercion and confiscation, and on grounds of
relinquishment as well as forced sales and sales under duress, during the Holocaust era
between 1933-45 and as an immediate consequence, and
Recalling the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art as endorsed at
the Washington Conference of 1998, which enumerated a set of voluntary commitments
for governments that were based upon the moral principle that art and cultural property
confiscated by the Nazis from Holocaust (Shoah) victims should be returned to them or
their heirs, in a manner consistent with national laws and regulations as well as
international obligations, in order to achieve just and fair solutions,
1. We reaffirm our support of the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated
Art and we encourage all parties including public and private institutions and individuals
to apply them as well,
2. In particular, recognizing that restitution cannot be accomplished without knowledge
of potentially looted art and cultural property, we stress the importance for all
stakeholders to continue and support intensified systematic provenance research, with
due regard to legislation, in both public and private archives, and where relevant to make
the results of this research, including ongoing updates, available via the internet, with due
regard to privacy rules and regulations. Where it has not already been done, we also
a-13
recommend the establishment of mechanisms to assist claimants and others in their

efforts,
3. Keeping in mind the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, and
considering the experience acquired since the Washington Conference, we urge all
stakeholders to ensure that their legal systems or alternative processes, while taking into
account the different legal traditions, facilitate just and fair solutions with regard to Nazi-
confiscated and looted art, and to make certain that claims to recover such art are
resolved expeditiously and based on the facts and merits of the claims and all the relevant
documents submitted by all parties. Governments should consider all relevant issues
when applying various legal provisions that may impede the restitution of art and cultural
property, in order to achieve just and fair solutions, as well as alternative dispute
resolution, where appropriate under law.
Judaica and Jewish Cultural Property Recognizing that the Holocaust (Shoah) also
resulted in the wholesale looting of Judaica and Jewish cultural property including sacred
scrolls, synagogue and ceremonial objects as well as the libraries, manuscripts, archives
and records of Jewish communities, and
Aware that the murder of six million Jews, including entire communities, during the
Holocaust (Shoah) meant that much of this historical patrimony could not be reclaimed
after World War II, and
Recognizing the urgent need to identify ways to achieve a just and fair solution to the
issue of Judaica and Jewish cultural property, where original owners, or heirs of former
original Jewish owners, individuals or legal persons cannot be identified, while
acknowledging there is no universal model,
1. We encourage and support efforts to identify and catalogue these items which may be
found in archives, libraries, museums and other government and non-government
repositories, to return them to their original rightful owners and other appropriate
individuals or institutions according to national law, and to consider a voluntary
international registration of Torah scrolls and other Judaica objects where appropriate,
and
2. We encourage measures that will ensure their protection, will make appropriate
materials available to scholars, and where appropriate and possible in terms of
conservation, will restore sacred scrolls and ceremonial objects currently in government
hands to synagogue use, where needed, and will facilitate the circulation and display of
such Judaica internationally by adequate and agreed upon solutions.
Archival Materials Whereas access to archival documents for both claimants and
scholars is an essential element for resolving questions of the ownership of Holocaust-era
assets and for advancing education and research on the Holocaust (Shoah) and other Nazi
crimes,
a-14
Acknowledging in particular that more and more archives have become accessible to
researchers and the general public, as witnessed by the Agreement reached on the
archives of the International Tracing Service (ITS) in Bad Arolsen, Germany,
Welcoming the return of archives to the states from whose territory they were removed
during or as an immediate consequence of the Holocaust (Shoah),
We encourage governments and other bodies that maintain or oversee relevant archives to
make them available to the fullest extent possible to the public and researchers in
accordance with the guidelines of the International Council on Archives, with due regard
to national legislation, including provisions on privacy and data protection, while also
taking into account the special circumstances created by the Holocaust era and the needs
of the survivors and their families, especially in cases concerning documents that have
their origin in Nazi rules and laws.
Education, Remembrance, Research and Memorial Sites Acknowledging the
importance of education and remembrance about the Holocaust (Shoah) and other Nazi
crimes as an eternal lesson for all humanity,
Recognizing the preeminence of the Stockholm Declaration on Holocaust Education,
Remembrance and Research of January 2000,
Recognizing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in significant
part in the realization of the horrors that took place during the Holocaust, and further
recognizing the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide,
Recalling the action of the United Nations and of other international and national bodies
in establishing an annual day of Holocaust remembrance,
Saluting the work of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust
Education, Remembrance and Research (ITF) as it marks its tenth anniversary, and
encouraging the States participating in the Prague Conference to cooperate closely with
the Task Force, and
Repudiating any denial of the Holocaust (Shoah) and combating its trivialization or
diminishment, while encouraging public opinion leaders to stand up against such denial,
trivialization or diminishment,
1. We strongly encourage all states to support or establish regular, annual ceremonies of
remembrance and commemoration, and to preserve memorials and other sites of memory
and martyrdom. We consider it important to include all individuals and all nations who
were victims of the Nazi regime in a worthy commemoration of their respective fates,
2. We encourage all states as a matter of priority to include education about the Holocaust
(Shoah) and other Nazi crimes in the curriculum of their public education systems and to
provide funding for the training of teachers and the development or procurement of the
resources and materials required for such education.
3. Believing strongly that international human rights law reflects important lessons from
history, and that the understanding of human rights is essential for confronting and
a-15
preventing all forms of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination, including Anti-

Semitism, and Anti-Romani sentiment, today we are committed to including human
rights education into the curricula of our educational systems. States may wish to
consider using a variety of additional means to support such education, including heirless
property where appropriate.
4. As the era is approaching when eye witnesses of the Holocaust (Shoah) will no longer
be with us and when the sites of former Nazi concentration and extermination camps, will
be the most important and undeniable evidence of the tragedy of the Holocaust (Shoah),
the significance and integrity of these sites including all their movable and immovable
remnants, will constitute a fundamental value regarding all the actions concerning these
sites, and will become especially important for our civilization including, in particular,
the education of future generations. We, therefore, appeal for broad support of all
conservation efforts in order to save those remnants as the testimony of the crimes
committed there to the memory and warning for the generations to come and where
appropriate to consider declaring these as national monuments under national legislation.
Future Action Further to these ends we welcome and are grateful for the Czech
Government´s initiative to establish the European Shoah Legacy Institute in Terezín
(Terezín Institute) to follow up on the work of the Prague Conference and the Terezín
Declaration. The Institute will serve as a voluntary forum for countries, organisations
representing Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other Nazi victims, and NGOs to note and
promote developments in the areas covered by the Conference and this Declaration, and
to develop and share best practices and guidelines in these areas and as indicated in
paragraph four of Immovable (Real) Property. It will operate within the network of other
national, European and international institutions, ensuring that duplicative efforts are
avoided, for example, duplication of the activities of the Task Force for International
Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research (ITF).
Following the conference proceedings and the Terezín Declaration, the European
Commission and the Czech Presidency have noted the importance of the Institute as one
of the instruments in the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Europe
and the rest of the world, and have called for other countries and institutions to support
and cooperate with this Institute.
To facilitate the dissemination of information, the Institute will publish regular reports on
activities related to the Terezín Declaration. The Institute will develop websites to
facilitate sharing of information, particularly in the fields of art provenance, immovable
property, social welfare needs of survivors, Judaica, and Holocaust education. As a useful
service for all users, the Institute will maintain and post lists of websites that Participating
States, organizations representing Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other Nazi victims
and NGOs sponsor as well as a website of websites on Holocaust issues.
We also urge the States participating in the Prague Conference to promote and
disseminate the principles in the Terezín Declaration, and encourage those states that are
a-16
members of agencies, organizations and other entities which address educational, cultural
and social issues around the world, to help disseminate information about resolutions and
principles dealing with the areas covered by the Terezín Declaration.
A more complete description of the Czech Government´s concept for the Terezín Institute
and the Joint Declaration of the European Commission and the Czech EU Presidency can
be found on the website for the Prague Conference and will be published in the
conference proceedings.
List of States: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France FYROM, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, The Holy See (observer),
Serbia (observer)
a-17
APPENDIX E
Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Spoliation of Art during the Nazi/World War II Era
(1933-1945)
June 4, 1998
AAMD Statement of Purpose: "The purpose of the AAMD is to aid its members in
establishing and maintaining the highest professional standards for themselves and the
museums they represent, thereby exerting leadership in increasing the contribution of art
museums to society."
I. Statement of Principles
A. AAMD recognizes and deplores the unlawful confiscation of art that constituted one
of the many horrors of the Holocaust and World War II.
B. American museums are proud of the role they, and members of their staffs, played
during and after World War II, assisting with the preservation and restitution of hundreds
of thousands of works of art through the U.S. Military’s Monuments, Fine Arts and
Archives section.
C. AAMD reaffirms the commitment of its members to weigh, promptly and thoroughly,
claims of title to specific works in their collections.
D. AAMD urges the prompt creation of mechanisms to coordinate full access to all
documentation concerning this spoliation of art, especially newly available information.
To this end, the AAMD encourages the creation of databases by third parties, essential to
research in this area, which will aid in the identification of any works of art which were
unlawfully confiscated and which of these were restituted. Such an effort will
complement long-standing American museum policy of exhibiting, publishing and
researching works of art in museum collections in order to make them widely available to
scholars and to the general public. (See III. below.)
E. AAMD endorses a process of reviewing, reporting, and researching the issue of
unlawfully confiscated art which respects the dignity of all parties and the complexity of
the issue. Each claim presents a unique situation which must be thoroughly reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
II. Guidelines
AAMD has developed the following guidelines to assist museums in resolving claims,
reconciling the interests of individuals who were dispossessed of works of art or their
heirs together with the fiduciary and legal obligations and responsibilities of art museums
and their trustees to the public for whom they hold works of art in trust.
A. Research Regarding Existing Collections
1. As part of the standard research on each work of art in their collections, members of
the AAMD, if they have not already done so, should begin immediately to review the
provenance of works in their collections to attempt to ascertain whether any were
unlawfully confiscated during the Nazi/World War II era and never restituted.
a-18
2. Member museums should search their own records thoroughly and, in addition, should
take all reasonable steps to contact established archives, databases, art dealers, auction
houses, donors, art historians and other scholars and researchers who may be able to
provide Nazi/World-War-II-era provenance information.
3. AAMD recognizes that research regarding Nazi/World-War-II-era provenance may
take years to complete, may be inconclusive and may require additional funding. The
AAMD Art Issues Committee will address the matter of such research and how to
facilitate it.
B. Future Gifts, Bequests, and Purchases
1. As part of the standard research on each work of art:
(a) member museums should ask donors of works of art (or executors in the case of
bequests) to provide as much provenance information as possible with regard to the
Nazi/World War II era and
(b) member museums should ask sellers of works of art to provide as much provenance
information as possible with regard to the Nazi/World War II era.
2. Where the Nazi/World-War-II-era provenance is incomplete for a gift, bequest, or
purchase, the museum should search available records and consult appropriate databases
of unlawfully confiscated art (see III below).
(a) In the absence of evidence of unlawful confiscation, the work is presumed not to have
been confiscated and the acquisition may proceed.
(b) If there is evidence of unlawful confiscation, and there is no evidence of restitution,
the museum should not proceed to acquire the object and should take appropriate further
action.
3. Consistent with current museum practice, member museums should publish, display or
otherwise make accessible all recent gifts, bequests, and purchases thereby making them
available for further research, examination and study.
4. When purchasing works of art, museums should seek representations and warranties
from the seller that the seller has valid title and that the work of art is free from any
claims.
C. Access to Museum Records
1. Member museums should facilitate access to the Nazi/World-War-II-era provenance
information of all works of art in their collections.
2. Although a linked database of all museum holdings throughout the United States does
not exist at this time, individual museums are establishing web sites with collections
information and others are making their holdings accessible through printed publications
or archives. AAMD is exploring the linkage of existing sites which contain collection
information so as to assist research.
D. Discovery of Unlawfully Confiscated Works of Art
1. If a member museum should determine that a work of art in its collection
a-19
was illegally confiscated during the Nazi/World War II era and not restituted, the
museum should make such information public.
2. In the event that a legitimate claimant comes forward, the museum should offer to
resolve the matter in an equitable, appropriate, and mutually agreeable manner.
3. In the event that no legitimate claimant comes forward, the museum should
acknowledge the history of the work of art on labels and publications referring to such a
work.
E. Response to Claims Against the Museum
1. If a member museum receives a claim against a work of art in its collection related to
an illegal confiscation during the Nazi/World War II era, it should seek to review such a
claim promptly and thoroughly. The museum should request evidence of ownership from
the claimant in order to assist in determining the provenance of the work of art.
2. If after working with the claimant to determine the provenance, a member museum
should determine that a work of art in its collection was illegally confiscated during the
Nazi/World War II era and not restituted, the museum should offer to resolve the matter
in an equitable, appropriate, and mutually agreeable manner.
3. AAMD recommends that member museums consider using mediation wherever
reasonably practical to help resolve claims regarding art illegally confiscated during the
Nazi/World War II era and not restituted.
F. Incoming Loans
1. In preparing for exhibitions, member museums should endeavor to review provenance
information regarding incoming loans.
2. Member museums should not borrow works of art known to have been illegally
confiscated during the Nazi/World War II era and not restituted unless the matter has
been otherwise resolved (e.g., II.D.3 above).
III. Database Recommendations
A. As stated in I.D. (above), AAMD encourages the creation of databases by third
parties, essential to research in this area. AAMD recommends that the databases being
formed include the following information (not necessarily all in a single database):
1. claims and claimants
2. works of art illegally confiscated during the Nazi/World War II era
3. works of art later restituted
B. AAMD suggests that the entity or entities creating databases establish professional
advisory boards that could provide insight on the needs of various users of the database.
AAMD encourages member museums to participate in the work of such boards.
a-20
April 30, 2001

Addendum
to the Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Spoliation of Art during the
Nazi/World War II Era (1933-1945)
The Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States has
issued a report dated December 15, 2000. The Commission found that museums are
committed to continuing provenance research on works in their collections and to
disseminating the information obtained.
Specifically, the Commission acknowledged the commitment of the American museum

community that (1) works created before 1946, transferred after 1932 and before 1946,
and which were or could have been in continental Europe during that period will be
identified and disclosed and all provenance information in the possession of museums
regarding those works be disclosed; (2) such provenance information will be disclosed,
even where there are no known gaps; and (3) provenance research by museums will be a
continuing process with additional information disclosed as it becomes known.
The Commission recognized that provenance research is difficult, expensive and time-
consuming, often involving access to records that are hard or impossible to obtain, and
that most museums lack the resources to accomplish this.
The Commission further found that the museum community has begun to develop tools
to achieve full disclosure and will participate in the process of creating a searchable
central registry of Nazi/World War II Era cultural property held by American museums,
beginning with European paintings and Judaica.
Consistent with the report of the Commission, the Task Force issues the following
addendum to its June 1998 report:
It should be the goal of member museums to make full disclosure of the results of their
ongoing provenance research on those works of art in their collections created before
1946, transferred after 1932 and before 1946, and which were or could have been in
continental Europe during that period, giving priority to European paintings and Judaica.
a-21
APPENDIX F
a-22
a-23
a-24
a-25
a-26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on June 22, 2010, she caused to be
served the Brief of Amici Curiae upon:
Ms. Margaret Dale

Proskauer Rose LLP
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036-8299
Counsel for Defendant-Appelee
David Rowland, Esq.

Rowland and Petroff
2 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Raymond Dowd
Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP
1359 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, New York 10018
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
by transmitting a PDF via email and sending one courtesy copy via 1st class mail,
prepaid. The required number of copies of the Brief were sent via Fed Ex and email
to the Clerk of Court on June 22, 2010.
__/s/______________________________________
Jennifer A. Kreder

Grosz V MoMA Amicus Brief - Nazi Art Looting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grosz V MoMA Amicus Brief - Nazi Art Looting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grosz V MoMA Amicus Brief - Nazi Art Looting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 10-257 Document: 71 Page: 1 06/22/2010 56994 70

MARTIN GROSZ, LILIAN GROSZ,

Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. * Jennifer Anglim Kreder

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................... iv

TABLE OF APPENDICES ................................................................................. ix

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) ................................... x

RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................ xi

STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI ........................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................ 2

I. FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD ENCOURAGE

A. The Dismissal Of This Case Fits A Broad Pattern

B. The Dismissal Of The Claims For Restitution Of

C. The Dismissal Of This Case Violates The Letter

II. Evidence Relating To The Most Massive Art Heist In

A. Wholesale Dismissal Of Nazi-looted Art Cases

B. Trial Courts Charged With The Duty Of Establishing

C. Courts Deciding Nazi-looted Art Cases Should Take

III. Trial Courts Charged With The Duty Of Establishing

A. The District Court Should Be Reversed Because

B. Giving Museums Or Auction Houses An Evidentiary

FEDERAL CASES PAGE(S)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)............................................. 5, 22, 23, 24

Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlansche-Amerikaansche

Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlansche-Amerikaansche

Grosz v. Museum of Modern Art, No. 09 Civ. 3706,

Holzer v. Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft,

Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) ......................................... 6

Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins.,

Fed. R. App. P. 29(a) ............................................................................................ 1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c).............................................................................................. 26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................. 5, 22, 29

Fed. R. Evid. 408 .................................................................. ……………...passim

OTHER SOURCES PAGE(S)

8 Dept. St. Bull. 21 (1943) .............................................................................. 9, 27

26 Dept. St. Bull. 984-85 (1952)........................................................................... 8

American Association of Museums, Guidelines Concerning the Unlawful

Association of Art Museum Directors, Report of the AAMD Task Force

Association of Art Museum Directors, Governance,

Avraham Barkai, “Arieserung,” 1 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust

Avraham Barkai, From Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of

David Cesarani, Becoming Eichmann (2004) .................................................... 17

Charter of the International Military Tribunal, August 8, 1945,

Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Vilnius Forum Declaration,

OTHER SOURCES PAGE(S)

Martin Dean, Robbing the Jews (2008) ........................................................ 17, 18

Stuart E. Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor,

Stuart E. Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor,

Milton Esterow, Europe Is Still Hunting Its Plundered Art,

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power (2005) .................................... 17, 18

Hector Feliciano, The Lost Museum (1997)....................................................... 23

Janet Flanner, Annals of Crime: The Beautiful Spoils,

Janet Flanner, Annals of Crime: The Beautiful Spoils,

Janet Flanner, Annals of Crime: The Beautiful Spoils,

German Fugitives Tell of Atrocities at Hands of Nazis,

Henry La Farge, Lost Treasures of Europe (1946) ............................................. 20

Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing

Restitution of Identifiable Property; Law No. 59,