Al Plastino's Statement & Plea Re the Supes #170 Kennedy Splash

[comix4fun]

Al did not need to corraborate his claim, he just needed to evidence it. And to evidence that art was stolen before it got to its intended recipient at the JFK library he had the testimony of a witness that it was intended to go to the JFK library (himself) as well as the statement in the art itself that it was to be donated, plus other published statements by DC to that effect, and the JFK library's statement that it never got the art.

 

That is good enough to make out a case for theft.

 

So, what is the evidence it was not stolen?

 

As for the BFP notion: You might have difficulty estabishing BFP when the art itself says it was to go to the JFK library and there is no provenance or evidence of deacession. Especially when everyone in the silver age OA market knows stolen art is an issue. I don't have my Sotheby's catalog handy, so I don't know what they said at the time.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if the possessor was paid an amount closer to what he paid Sotheby's if he was paid off by DC.

 

 

 

Third hand testimony of an artist who wasn't in ownership, possession or control of the artwork once he completed it and gave it to DC is NOT evidence of theft. Plastino never donated the art himself. He read, or was told, that was what the intention was. I highly doubt he drove the artwork on over to the library or shipped it himself or was even present when any of that was supposed to have happened.

 

Given the fact that the JFK Library didn't even open until 1979 you're going to have an incredibly hard time finding sufficient weight to lay on what happened to that art and if DC ever donated it to begin with given the lapse of time.

 

Again, not even in the same UNIVERSE as a substantiated and solid case for theft. It might make out an internet message board claim of theft, but that and a buck will get your a cup of joe at Micky D's.

 

And, honestly, "what is the evidence it was not stolen?"....is not the standard. People have to prove their claims, the accused do not have to prove a negative.

 

The Sotheby's sale, an international auction house that publicized the sale far and wide, and sold the artwork (again) at public auction without objection, claim, or report of the artwork being stolen is EXACTLY what creates BFP. That's especially true when over 20 years have passed in the interim without a peep out of anyone who is supposed to be the original owner of the item, of which Plastino was NEVER one. (thumbs u

[sfcityduck]

Third hand testimony of an artist who wasn't in ownership, possession or control of the artwork once he completed it and gave it to DC is NOT evidence of theft. Plastino never donated the art himself. He read, or was told, that was what the intention was. I highly doubt he drove the artwork on over to the library or shipped it himself or was even present when any of that was supposed to have happened.

 

Given the fact that the JFK Library didn't even open until 1979 you're going to have an incredibly hard time finding sufficient weight to lay on what happened to that art and if DC ever donated it to begin with given the lapse of time.

 

Again, not even in the same UNIVERSE as a substantiated and solid case for theft. It might make out an internet message board claim of theft, but that and a buck will get your a cup of joe at Micky D's.

 

And, honestly, "what is the evidence it was not stolen?"....is not the standard. People have to prove their claims, the accused do not have to prove a negative.

 

The Sotheby's sale, an international auction house that publicized the sale far and wide, and sold the artwork (again) at public auction without objection, claim, or report of the artwork being stolen is EXACTLY what creates BFP. That's especially true when over 20 years have passed in the interim without a peep out of anyone who is supposed to be the original owner of the item, of which Plastino was NEVER one. (thumbs u

 

The burden of proof in a civil proceeding is exceedingly low -- merely proof by a preponderance of the evidence -- and that is the standard which governs art recovery lawsuits. In all likelihood the victim was DC, and the available evidence, which includes testimony from a witness to events at the time (Plastino) does more than enough to meet that burden. Once that burden is met, it is up to the possessor of the art to prove clear title. This requires tracing the provenance, which I don't think is publicly known here beyond the Sotheby's sale. (And we all know that art stolen from publishers, sometimes by employees, is in the marketplace.)

 

The Sotheby's sale does not have the legal significance you think it does because it took place in New York (which is also where the publisher was located) and NY law is very favorable to victims of art theft and not at all sympathetic to the notion of a BFP. NY does have some limitations periods that might come into play, assuming it could be established that DC was on notice of the Sotheby's public sale, but NY law is also favorable to owners on that issue.

 

Finally, the fact that the JFK library was not opened until 1979 is not evidence of anything. Donations are routinely made to Presidential libraries before they are constructed.

 

The point, ultimately, being: Good attorneys, and Plastino engaged one and DC has many, are prevailing on these sorts of art theft claims all the time. This is a huge issue in the fine art world where stolen art that comes to auction or which passed through auction houses is being recovered. And, yes, that is true for auctions at Sotheby's.

[sfcityduck]

I'm not an attorney, and not really sure why I'm jumping in at this point, but at that time art was not routinely returned to the artist. In fact, it wasn't clear that the artist had any claim to the art at all (at that time the publishers kept, gave away, destroyed, or did what they wanted with the art). Since then, practices have changed.

 

I think it would help you to read the string from the beginning. Thanks for posting. It's always interesting to hear different people's perspectives.

 

Ron

 

I have read the thread in toto. My assumption is that DC is the owner, Plastino is a witness, and that's why DC recovered the art and donated it. My only questions are: (1) Did they pay something, and (2) how much?

[malvin]

 

I have read the thread in toto. My assumption is that DC is the owner, Plastino is a witness, and that's why DC recovered the art and donated it. My only questions are: (1) Did they pay something, and (2) how much?

 

I guess I'm wondering why you want to know how much DC paid, if any? That is only something DC and the previous owner would know, we would be speculating at this point.

 

As well, DC likely bought the art to donate for publicity/PR, especially in light of his untimely passing. I'm not sure how it can be assumed that DC "recovered" it.

 

Malvin

[comix4fun]

Third hand testimony of an artist who wasn't in ownership, possession or control of the artwork once he completed it and gave it to DC is NOT evidence of theft. Plastino never donated the art himself. He read, or was told, that was what the intention was. I highly doubt he drove the artwork on over to the library or shipped it himself or was even present when any of that was supposed to have happened.

 

Given the fact that the JFK Library didn't even open until 1979 you're going to have an incredibly hard time finding sufficient weight to lay on what happened to that art and if DC ever donated it to begin with given the lapse of time.

 

Again, not even in the same UNIVERSE as a substantiated and solid case for theft. It might make out an internet message board claim of theft, but that and a buck will get your a cup of joe at Micky D's.

 

And, honestly, "what is the evidence it was not stolen?"....is not the standard. People have to prove their claims, the accused do not have to prove a negative.

 

The Sotheby's sale, an international auction house that publicized the sale far and wide, and sold the artwork (again) at public auction without objection, claim, or report of the artwork being stolen is EXACTLY what creates BFP. That's especially true when over 20 years have passed in the interim without a peep out of anyone who is supposed to be the original owner of the item, of which Plastino was NEVER one. (thumbs u

 

The burden of proof in a civil proceeding is exceedingly low -- merely proof by a preponderance of the evidence -- and that is the standard which governs art recovery lawsuits. In all likelihood the victim was DC, and the available evidence, which includes testimony from a witness to events at the time (Plastino) does more than enough to meet that burden. Once that burden is met, it is up to the possessor of the art to prove clear title. This requires tracing the provenance, which I don't think is publicly known here beyond the Sotheby's sale. (And we all know that art stolen from publishers, sometimes by employees, is in the marketplace.)

 

The Sotheby's sale does not have the legal significance you think it does because it took place in New York (which is also where the publisher was located) and NY law is very favorable to victims of art theft and not at all sympathetic to the notion of a BFP. NY does have some limitations periods that might come into play, assuming it could be established that DC was on notice of the Sotheby's public sale, but NY law is also favorable to owners on that issue.

 

Finally, the fact that the JFK library was not opened until 1979 is not evidence of anything. Donations are routinely made to Presidential libraries before they are constructed.

 

The point, ultimately, being: Good attorneys, and Plastino engaged one and DC has many, are prevailing on these sorts of art theft claims all the time. This is a huge issue in the fine art world where stolen art that comes to auction or which passed through auction houses is being recovered. And, yes, that is true for auctions at Sotheby's.

 

 

 

The NYC law you keep mentioning is strictly limited by the time frame you mention. They had 3 years to do something, anything and waited over 20 years. That's called the kiss of death for any claim.

 

The timing of the Sotheby's sale and the extreme length of time that followed has extreme significance and is the type of hurdle that these cases do not overcome so the burden of proof becomes moot because it's kicked out on a preliminary motion for laches.

 

The gap in time of 15 years from the time of alleged donation and the opening of the library is a HUGE issue. It's certainly not one to be dismissed out of hand. Think about the questions that arise. To what entity was the artwork allegedly donated? When? Where? Who accepted it on behalf of the entity? Did the entity change over time? How was material transferred? Where was it stored? What's the chain of custody over the 15 years that intervened? Who handled the artwork? There are probably a dozen more questions that, in a setting where you have to prove a case as more likely than not, will create more doubt than certainty.

 

That doesn't get into the issues of ownership of the artwork, if it was even donated in the first place, standing to sue. There are, literally, dozens of hurdles to a claim this stale and brought by a party who is in no more a position to claim ownership or control than you or I.

 

I am glad it made it's way to the Library, but I am not willing to dismiss out of hand all of the details and facts and lack of facts that are getting glossed over.

[sfcityduck]

 

The NYC law you keep mentioning is strictly limited by the time frame you mention. They had 3 years to do something, anything and waited over 20 years. That's called the kiss of death for any claim.

 

The timing of the Sotheby's sale and the extreme length of time that followed has extreme significance and is the type of hurdle that these cases do not overcome so the burden of proof becomes moot because it's kicked out on a preliminary motion for laches.

 

The gap in time of 15 years from the time of alleged donation and the opening of the library is a HUGE issue. It's certainly not one to be dismissed out of hand. Think about the questions that arise. To what entity was the artwork allegedly donated? When? Where? Who accepted it on behalf of the entity? Did the entity change over time? How was material transferred? Where was it stored? What's the chain of custody over the 15 years that intervened? Who handled the artwork? There are probably a dozen more questions that, in a setting where you have to prove a case as more likely than not, will create more doubt than certainty.

 

That doesn't get into the issues of ownership of the artwork, if it was even donated in the first place, standing to sue. There are, literally, dozens of hurdles to a claim this stale and brought by a party who is in no more a position to claim ownership or control than you or I.

 

I am glad it made it's way to the Library, but I am not willing to dismiss out of hand all of the details and facts and lack of facts that are getting glossed over.

 

Your view of the limitations period is a little simplistic. NY law is quite complicated on the limitations period, including a unique demand and refusal trigger, and the mere fact the art was in a Sotheby's auction is not enough, by itself, to commence the running of the limitations period. Also, establishing a laches defense requires proof of actual knowledge by DC of the stolen artworks location and prejudice to the party asserting the defense from any alleged delay in demanding the return of the artwork. This is by no means a kiss of death. Here's an article on the topic if you're interested:

 

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal-7-18-12.asp

 

The delay between the alleged gift and the opening of the museum is only relevant to a party trying to establish provenance that would disprove that the artwork was stolen. DC could easily have met its initial low burden to establish theft by the evidence we already know about. Any argument that the JFK library received the artwork (which is not necessary for DC's case for theft as it could have been, likely was, stolen by a DC employee or intermediary) would only be relevant to a defense that the artwork was legitimately transferred by the library to a private party wherein it ultimately got to Sotheby's.

 

As for standing, either DC or Plastino's estate has standing (likely DC), so that's not an issue at all.

 

Obviously, we're speculating here, and if we were really litigating this case we'd be taking discovery to ascertain the real facts, most notably who was it that consigned the piece to Sotheby's and where did they get it (and back up the chain of possession).

 

But, that's not what I'm interested in. I'm not suggesting the Heritage seller did anything wrong. I am interested in how the Heritage seller (and DC) made out because it's a very interesting topic to folks like me who buy art. Rumors say there's some pretty significant Marvel and DC art floating around in the OA market of dubious provenance, and someday we might see similar scenarios if they come up for public auction.

 

 

[comix4fun]

My view's not so much simplistic as much as based in how these things actually work out given my experience in representing creators over rights issues for the better part of two decades.

 

Weak stale cases that catch headlines actually hurt the perception of the rights of people with far stronger standing who've been far more vigilant in protecting themselves.

 

I've learned how to spot cases that have a very low chance of winning.

 

The only people that come out ahead with this fact pattern are those on a hourly rate.

[sfcityduck]

My view's not so much simplistic as much as based in how these things actually work out given my experience in representing creators over rights issues for the better part of two decades.

 

Weak stale cases that catch headlines actually hurt the perception of the rights of people with far stronger standing who've been far more vigilant in protecting themselves.

 

I've learned how to spot cases that have a very low chance of winning.

 

The only people that come out ahead with this fact pattern are those on a hourly rate.

 

Are you talking about IP disputes like the suits by the S&S heirs? I agree with you on those.

 

But, stolen art is a different issue, and it seems like the victims of art theft are doing quite well in NY. Do you practice in that arena?

 

 

[comix4fun]

My view's not so much simplistic as much as based in how these things actually work out given my experience in representing creators over rights issues for the better part of two decades.

 

Weak stale cases that catch headlines actually hurt the perception of the rights of people with far stronger standing who've been far more vigilant in protecting themselves.

 

I've learned how to spot cases that have a very low chance of winning.

 

The only people that come out ahead with this fact pattern are those on a hourly rate.

 

Are you talking about IP disputes like the suits by the S&S heirs? I agree with you on those.

 

But, stolen art is a different issue, and it seems like the victims of art theft are doing quite well in NY. Do you practice in that arena?

 

 

 

Given the right facts I am sure victims of theft do well. I understand you are just coming across this story, but I've been over and over all the known details for months. Most people here have been.

 

We had a person who had no standing make a claim to which he had no actual personal knowledge beyond the time he stopped penciling the pages, regarding a story that DC may have never donated in the first place and may have simply been sold or given away. There's never been any proof offered that the purported donation ever took place.

 

The holes in his claim were larger than the facts. I practice in several areas of creators rights, but I've had a much broader practice over that time. Reading all the fact, over this length of time, with a critical eye, this isn't a slam dunk winner or ever close to that. That's why, I believe, it was quickly and quietly settled. The parties involved know the weakness or strength better than anyone else.

 

There's no chance someone paying for this piece from Sotheby's in the early 90's, or someone that bought it from that buyer sometime hence, would just give this up without a fight unless they were compensated. That compensation, and the speed to which it was determined, tells you all you need to know about how strongly the alleged aggrieved parties felt about the totality of this fact pattern. The surest way to actually get this artwork to the library was to come to an agreement with the owner to let it go. That's not a recovery in legal terms, that's a purchase and a recognition of what a mess (and expense) an uncertain and shaky case this would have been to pursue.

[sfcityduck]

Given the right facts I am sure victims of theft do well. I understand you are just coming across this story, but I've been over and over all the known details for months. Most people here have been.

 

We had a person who had no standing make a claim to which he had no actual personal knowledge beyond the time he stopped penciling the pages, regarding a story that DC may have never donated in the first place and may have simply been sold or given away. There's never been any proof offered that the purported donation ever took place.

 

The holes in his claim were larger than the facts. I practice in several areas of creators rights, but I've had a much broader practice over that time. Reading all the fact, over this length of time, with a critical eye, this isn't a slam dunk winner or ever close to that. That's why, I believe, it was quickly and quietly settled. The parties involved know the weakness or strength better than anyone else.

 

There's no chance someone paying for this piece from Sotheby's in the early 90's, or someone that bought it from that buyer sometime hence, would just give this up without a fight unless they were compensated. That compensation, and the speed to which it was determined, tells you all you need to know about how strongly the alleged aggrieved parties felt about the totality of this fact pattern. The surest way to actually get this artwork to the library was to come to an agreement with the owner to let it go. That's not a recovery in legal terms, that's a purchase and a recognition of what a mess (and expense) an uncertain and shaky case this would have been to pursue.

 

I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

 

Whether Plastino had standing or not is academic because DC stepped up as a potential plaintiff, and the reality is that either Plastino or DC had standing. At worst, Plastino was a witness to relevant events for DC. Whether the donation actually was consummated is not relevant if the intent was for the donation to occur but the art was stolen before it could occur. You seem to be assuming the art had to be stolen from the JFK library for it to be art theft, but it could (and more likely would have been) stolen from DC. And there is overwhelming evidence DC intended to donate the art, not just from Plastino's recollection as a well-placed witness, but also on the very art itself and contemporaneous publications. So, IMHO, surmounting the low hurdle to state a case for theft was easy for DC.

 

Under NY law, DC could demand return of the art from the current possessor. If the possessor refused, DC could pursue a suit. NY law strongly favors theft victims. It might seem unfair to purchasers, but its the law.

 

I disagree with you regarding the significance of DC acquiring and donating the art. It does not necessarily indicate DC paid full value. The possessor/consigner to Heritage may well have wanted to avoid a fight, with the bad publicity that would bring, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE ART STATES ON ITS FACE IT WAS TO BE DONATED TO THE JFK MUSUEM, which raises a big red flag. Easy cases are routinely made for recovery of art stamped as belonging to the WPA or Dept. of Treasury because its obvious they were stolen. That same line of analysis could be applied to this art, and, in any event, NY law is horrible for alleged BFPs. DC was not in a weak position.

 

The fact that possessor did not insist on the auction going forward, which likely would have yielded a lot of money, may well indicate that the possessor folded and agreed to settle with DC for far less than the auction value. The speed of the negotiation indicates either that DC paid money or the possessor decided the fight was not worth it. Worth noting that the GSA gives possessors of stolen govt. art two options: (1) Donate the art to a public institution (which gains a tax benefit) or (2) return it to the government (which doesn't convey any benefit). Perhaps the possessor decided that the best result for him was to just give the art to the JFK and claim the full value as a deduction instead of taking a lesser amount of money from DC or fighting it out. Your assumption that DC paid the auction estimate, or anything, is by no means certain. And that's the question I want answered.

 

In short, I'd like to know who won the battle. IMHO that's not clear at all based on the information I've seen.

[comix4fun]

Given the right facts I am sure victims of theft do well. I understand you are just coming across this story, but I've been over and over all the known details for months. Most people here have been.

 

We had a person who had no standing make a claim to which he had no actual personal knowledge beyond the time he stopped penciling the pages, regarding a story that DC may have never donated in the first place and may have simply been sold or given away. There's never been any proof offered that the purported donation ever took place.

 

The holes in his claim were larger than the facts. I practice in several areas of creators rights, but I've had a much broader practice over that time. Reading all the fact, over this length of time, with a critical eye, this isn't a slam dunk winner or ever close to that. That's why, I believe, it was quickly and quietly settled. The parties involved know the weakness or strength better than anyone else.

 

There's no chance someone paying for this piece from Sotheby's in the early 90's, or someone that bought it from that buyer sometime hence, would just give this up without a fight unless they were compensated. That compensation, and the speed to which it was determined, tells you all you need to know about how strongly the alleged aggrieved parties felt about the totality of this fact pattern. The surest way to actually get this artwork to the library was to come to an agreement with the owner to let it go. That's not a recovery in legal terms, that's a purchase and a recognition of what a mess (and expense) an uncertain and shaky case this would have been to pursue.

 

I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

 

Whether Plastino had standing or not is academic because DC stepped up as a potential plaintiff, and the reality is that either Plastino or DC had standing. At worst, Plastino was a witness to relevant events for DC.

 

How do you know DC stepped in as a potential plaintiff? They made no statements about ownership or rights or anything else. All we know is they worked a deal to get the artwork and then donate it. That's all we know. Trying to determine their exact motivation beyond that is pure speculation. If you are really trying to get a grip on what actually happened you might get closer to that goal without imputing so much personal opinion to fill in the gaps.

 

At worst, Plastino would have been a deceased witness with no actual testimony on the record, no deposition and no ability to be crossed.

 

Whether the donation actually was consummated is not relevant if the intent was for the donation to occur but the art was stolen before it could occur. You seem to be assuming the art had to be stolen from the JFK library for it to be art theft, but it could (and more likely would have been) stolen from DC. And there is overwhelming evidence DC intended to donate the art, not just from Plastino's recollection as a well-placed witness, but also on the very art itself and contemporaneous publications. So, IMHO, surmounting the low hurdle to state a case for theft was easy for DC.

 

 

If DC can account for he artwork the entire time it was in their care and possession then they might be able to claim theft from the moment that they no longer had it in their possession. However, then they have to contend with why they didn't ever claim theft, file any official reports with the police, attempt to regain their property, or attempt to stop the sale of the artwork 20 years ago from one of the two largest and most public auction houses in the world.

 

Sitting on ones hands for 50 years when one knew or should have known their items were stolen pretty much undoes everything else your saying will happen. The hurdle isn't that low.

 

A small blurb on the bottom of a comic panel is not anyone's definition of "overwhelming".

 

As well, Plastino was not "well placed". He was a work for hire artist who wasn't in management or in the editorial or corporate structure. He wasn't in ownership of the artwork and never made any claim of specific knowledge of the whereabouts of the artwork after he completed his work. For all we know that blurb at the bottom of the one panel in the comic is where he got most of his information regarding the donation.

 

Under NY law, DC could demand return of the art from the current possessor. If the possessor refused, DC could pursue a suit. NY law strongly favors theft victims. It might seem unfair to purchasers, but its the law.

 

 

You were telling me before I was simplifying my legal analysis. I don't think I've ever oversimplified this much. Repeating this over and over doesn't overcome how much time passed overall and how public the sale was.

 

How long have you been practicing in this area?

 

I disagree with you regarding the significance of DC acquiring and donating the art. It does not necessarily indicate DC paid full value. The possessor/consigner to Heritage may well have wanted to avoid a fight, with the bad publicity that would bring, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE ART STATES ON ITS FACE IT WAS TO BE DONATED TO THE JFK MUSUEM, which raises a big red flag. Easy cases are routinely made for recovery of art stamped as belonging to the WPA or Dept. of Treasury because its obvious they were stolen. That same line of analysis could be applied to this art, and, in any event, NY law is horrible for alleged BFPs. DC was not in a weak position.

 

 

50 years later? With no record of ever making note, even once, that the items were stolen? Never in the intervening 50 years? Not even when one of the two largest auction houses in the world auction those self same items in the same city 20 years ago?

 

You think that's a strong position for any plaintiff?

 

If that were true everyone would be a plaintiff's attorney it would be more lucrative than a money tree in the backyard.

 

 

The fact that possessor did not insist on the auction going forward, which likely would have yielded a lot of money, may well indicate that the possessor folded and agreed to settle with DC for far less than the auction value.

 

Or that the claims made against the art had tainted their marketability. Potential buyers wondering how many years they could enjoy their piece before someone else might try to take it away from them.

 

 

 

The speed of the negotiation indicates either that DC paid money or the possessor decided the fight was not worth it.

 

a 5 figure set of pages that someone paid good money for and was about to see even better money for and you think they gave it up without a fight? for free?

 

Have you worked on many cases with this much up in the air where BFP's just give up because someone 50 years subsequent decided to ask for it?

 

 

 

Worth noting that the GSA gives possessors of stolen govt. art two options: (1) Donate the art to a public institution (which gains a tax benefit) or (2) return it to the government (which doesn't convey any benefit). Perhaps the possessor decided that the best result for him was to just give the art to the JFK and claim the full value as a deduction instead of taking a lesser amount of money from DC or fighting it out. Your assumption that DC paid the auction estimate, or anything, is by no means certain. And that's the question I want answered.

 

In short, I'd like to know who won the battle. IMHO that's not clear at all based on the information I've seen.

 

Too many "Perhap's", "Maybe's" and "IF's" for me.

 

You mentioned a couple posts ago that you "just came across" this story. Maybe you should check out this entire thread.

 

Do you practice in this area? Ever dealt, first hand, with stolen artwork or other creator's issues? I ask because I've seen creator's with far stronger cases, prosecuted far earlier than 50 years hence, have a far more difficult time getting any recompense than you propose.

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

I don't practice in the art theft area. I know folks who do. Again, my interest largely stems from being a buyer of fine art and knowledge of the ongoing WPA and Nazi art recovery efforts.

 

Do you handle art theft cases? I was inferring you were an IP attorney.

 

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree because you are not convincing me. The laches and limitations periods issues are litigated, and there are cases where art was recovered under fact patterns that you would apparently find shocking. The only way to know how the parties viewed the merits of the case, and they were certainly in a better position than you or I, is by obtaining the answer to my questions: Did DC pay and, if so, how much?

 

What's clear is DC interjected themselves into the situation. Hard to believe they would have done so in any role other than as a party potentially entitled to recovery of the art. Hard to believe that Plastino is not a relevant witness since he was the artist, and it was a high profile story at the time. Statements by deceased persons can be a hearsay exception, although I don't know the exact parameters of the exception NY, so his death may not have hurt.

 

In any event, no need to guess. No need to construct fanciful arguments that DC did or didn't pay. The truth is out there and I'd like to know it. Because I'm curious. What I don't buy is the notion that it is obvious what happened (DC paid a lot). I think it is far from obvious, and I suspect that your handicapping of the dispute may differ from how the parties actually evaluated the case. So, we disagree. And I can live with that. If it turns out I'm wrong, so be it. I can live with that too. What I'd like is an answer, no matter what it is, because I really don't have any stake in the outcome not owning any art that could have been stolen.

[Jesusjon]

This is why outside counsel always bills for so many hours. They spend all their time posting on the CGC boards and then charging the client for it!!

 

[revat]

This is why outside counsel always bills for so many hours. They spend all their time posting on the CGC boards and then charging the client for it!!

 

 

I'm sure Heritage has in-house counsel, no problem

[revat]

This is why outside counsel always bills for so many hours. They spend all their time posting on the CGC boards and then charging the client for it!!

 

 

I'm sure Heritage has in-house counsel, no problem

 

and DC too

[jaybuck43]

Ugh... My head hurts. 1 word. Puffery.

[Jesusjon]

This is why outside counsel always bills for so many hours. They spend all their time posting on the CGC boards and then charging the client for it!!

 

 

I'm sure Heritage has in-house counsel, no problem

 

and DC too

 

yes but I don't believe either attorney in this thread works for either.

[revat]

This is why outside counsel always bills for so many hours. They spend all their time posting on the CGC boards and then charging the client for it!!

 

 

I'm sure Heritage has in-house counsel, no problem

 

and DC too

 

yes but I don't believe either attorney in this thread works for either.

 

To be fair, this is a large part of how the legal process works a large part of the time. Lawyers bounce their ideas and theories and law knowledge around until they find strategies with enough support to attempt to convince a judge or jury. We're just getting an 'inside look' into the 14th nerdiest legal strategy session currently in existence.

[sfcityduck]

Only 14th!?! Fantastic! I'm practically not uncool!

[comix4fun]

This is why outside counsel always bills for so many hours. They spend all their time posting on the CGC boards and then charging the client for it!!

 

 

I'm sure Heritage has in-house counsel, no problem

 

and DC too

 

yes but I don't believe either attorney in this thread works for either.

 

 

If I did I'd a made some cash today!!