Return-Path: Delivered-To: randols@bslaw.net Received: (qmail 8029 invoked by uid 399); 11 Jun 2009 14:13:02 -0000 X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by ClamAV 0.95.1 (no viruses); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:13:02 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com) (71.74.56.122) by mail2.andhosting.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2009 14:13:02 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 71.74.56.122 Received-SPF: softfail (mail2.andhosting.com: transitioning SPF record at bslaw.net does not designate 71.74.56.122 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=; Received: from [192.168.1.102] (really [75.82.36.115]) by hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090611141301506.GZVV9737@hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:13:01 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.19.0.090515 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:12:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Amendment From: "E. Randol Schoenberg" To: Michael Franz CC: E Randol Schoenberg Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Amendment Thread-Index: AcmXX2hyzMUvgaDhQPq6tXxxCmNqfgABmL5AFM40csM= In-Reply-To: <3D8A70EADE0DD34AA2414E7CE70A4B24040C9518@SV2CL03EV01.voyager2.or.at> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3327549136_2322696" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3327549136_2322696 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Have you ever finished the amendment to the Kunstr=FCckgabeG? Maybe you need to abandon your concept (which seems not to be working) and return to what = I suggested? I was reading the recent decisions, for example Maria Kalbeck Mautner, wher= e the Beirat said > Der Beirat hat erwogen: > Gem=E4=DF =A7 1 Z. 2 Kunstr=FCckgabegesetz k=F6nnen entzogene Gegenst=E4nde ihren > urspr=FCnglichen Eigent=FCmern bzw. der Rechtsnachfolger von Todes wegen > =FCbereignet werden. Gegenst=E4ndlich l=E4sst sich zwar nicht feststellen, auf > welchem Wege die Objekte von der damaligen Theatersammlung erworben wurde= n. Da > jedoch Maria Kalbeck Mautner verfolgt war und im November 1938 =D6sterreich > verlassen musste, kann dahingestellt bleiben, ob die Objekte aus dem > von der Spedition nicht abgegangenen Umzugslift stammen und in der Folge > beschlagnahmt wurden oder von Maria Kalbeck Mautner aus Anlass ihrer Fluc= ht > der Theatersammlung geschenkt oder an diese ver=E4u=DFert wurden. In jedem Fa= ll > handelt es sich um Rechtsgesch=E4fte, welche durch die Verfolgung von Maria > Kalbeck Mautner bedingt (bzw. Teil der Verfolgung) waren. > Der Beirat kommt daher zum Ergebnis, dass die Voraussetzungen =A7 1 Z 2 > Kunstr=FCckgabegesetz erf=FCllt sind und empfiehlt der Bundesministerin f=FCr > Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur die =DCbereignung der 16 identifizierten Objek= te. Now, why (other than animosity towards me and Maria Altmann) wasn't this th= e standard used for the Klimt "Amalie Zuckerkandl" painting from Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer's collection? (Remember the supposed reason for not returning it was that they dreamed up an imaginary scenario where Ferdinand in exile in Switzerland somehow made a =B3gift=B2 of the painting to Amalie=B9s daughter.) The solution is very simple. You do not even need any change in the law. The Beirat should reconsider the case under the proper standard. The prior agreement and judgment is not a bar to reconsideration. See Kantor (settlement), Mahler-Werfel (final judgment AND prior negative Beirat recommendation). Remember that the Kunstr=FCckgabeG does not give rights and claims, but is only a procedure for the Austrian government to rid itself o= f problematic artworks. The portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl is a problem, and it won=B9t go away even if everyone sticks his head in the sand and pretends it is not a problem. Someone, sometime, has to deal with it. Will it be you? If Dr. Kremser can get over his animosity towards me, and Dr. Rosenauer can forget for just one moment that you have to lose another Klimt, this should be a simple case. It was ALWAYS a simple case. Randy > From: Michael Franz > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:27:20 +0100 > To: E Randol Schoenberg > Subject: Amendment >=20 > It is being finalized and no, we did not fort he reasons I explained in > October during our meeting. >=20 > Best regards, > Michael >=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: E. Randol Schoenberg [mailto:randols@bslaw.net] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009 16:42 > An: Franz Michael > Betreff: Amendment >=20 > Did you ever get to resubmit the amendment to the KunstrueckgabeG? I am = still > hoping you will add some clarification on the applicability of the 3. > RueckstellungsG definition of Entziehung. >=20 > Randy > E. Randol Schoenberg, Of Counsel > Burris, Schoenberg & Walden, LLP > 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 > Los Angeles, CA 90025-1168 > Tel: (310) 442-5559 > Fax: (310) 442-0353 > eFax: (425) 740-0483 > Email: randols@bslaw.net > http://www.bslaw.net >=20 --B_3327549136_2322696 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Amendment Have you ever finished the amendment to the KunstrückgabeG?  May= be you need to abandon your concept (which seems not to be working) and retu= rn to what I suggested?

I was reading the recent decisions, for example Maria Kalbeck Mautner, wher= e the Beirat said

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Der Beirat hat erwogen:
Gemäß § 1 Z. 2 Kunstrückgabegesetz können entzoge= ne Gegenstände ihren ursprünglichen Eigentümern bzw. der Rech= tsnachfolger von Todes wegen übereignet werden. Gegenständlich = lässt sich zwar nicht feststellen, auf welchem Wege die Objekte von der= damaligen Theatersammlung erworben wurden. Da jedoch Maria Kalbeck Maut= ner verfolgt war und im November 1938 Österreich verlassen musste, kann= dahingestellt bleiben, ob die Objekte aus dem
von der Spedition nicht abgegangenen Umzugslift stammen und in der Folge be= schlagnahmt wurden oder von Maria Kalbeck Mautner aus Anlass ihrer Flucht= der Theatersammlung geschenkt oder an diese veräußert= wurden. In jedem Fall handelt es sich um Rechtsgeschäfte= , welche durch die Verfolgung von Maria Kalbeck Mautner bedingt (bzw. = Teil der Verfolgung) waren.
Der Beirat kommt daher zum Ergebnis, dass die Voraussetzungen § 1 Z 2 = Kunstrückgabegesetz erfüllt sind und empfiehlt der Bundesministeri= n für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur die Übereignung der 16 identifi= zierten Objekte.
=
Now, why (other than animosity towards me and Maria Altmann) wasn't this th= e standard used for the Klimt "Amalie Zuckerkandl" painting from F= erdinand Bloch-Bauer's collection?  (Remember the supposed reason for n= ot returning it was that they dreamed up an imaginary scenario where Ferdina= nd in exile in Switzerland somehow made a “gift” of the painting= to Amalie’s daughter.)

The solution is very simple.  You do not even need any change in the l= aw.  The Beirat should reconsider the case under the proper standard. &= nbsp;The prior agreement and judgment is not a bar to reconsideration.  = ;See Kantor (settlement), Mahler-Werfel (final judgment AND prior negative B= eirat recommendation).  Remember that the KunstrückgabeG does not = give rights and claims, but is only a procedure for the Austrian government = to rid itself of problematic artworks.  The portrait of Amalie Zuckerka= ndl is a problem, and it won’t go away even if everyone sticks his hea= d in the sand and pretends it is not a problem.  Someone, sometime, has= to deal with it.  Will it be you?

If Dr. Kremser can get over his animosity towards me, and Dr. Rosenauer can= forget for just one moment that you have to lose another Klimt, this should= be a simple case.  It was ALWAYS a simple case.

Randy



> From: Michael Franz <Michael.Franz@bmukk.gv.at>
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:27:20 +0100
> To: E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.= net>
> Subject: Amendment
>
> It is being finalized and no, we did not fort he reasons I explained i= n
> October during our meeting.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: E. Randol Schoenberg [mailto:r= andols@bslaw.net]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2009 16:42
> An: Franz Michael
> Betreff: Amendment
>
> Did you ever get to resubmit the amendment to the KunstrueckgabeG? &nb= sp;I am still
> hoping you will add some clarification on the applicability of the 3. =
> RueckstellungsG definition of Entziehung.
>
> Randy
> E. Randol Schoenberg, Of Counsel
> Burris, Schoenberg & Walden, LLP
> 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
> Los Angeles, CA 90025-1168
> Tel: (310) 442-5559
> Fax: (310) 442-0353
> eFax: (425) 740-0483
> Email: randols@bslaw.net
> http://www.bslaw.net
>
--B_3327549136_2322696--