Plastino seeking identity of owner of a piece of his original art

[comix4fun]

The stories swirling around claim the work may have been stolen. Which is very different from a scenario of a dying artist making an unreasonable request.

 

The final caption even seems to reveal the original intentions Palastino has been claiming:

 

 

The problem is, they weren't his intentions, they were DC's. He may have agreed with those intentions, but it wasn't like it was a choice between getting the artwork back or it being donated. He did his work for hire gig, got paid, and DC owned, and could dispose of, the artwork anyway they chose.

 

And "National Enquirer" stories are not what I would cite as source material if I wanted to make a persuasive case.

 

Also it doesn't matter if he's dying, well, deceased, good, bad, talented or a hack to the underlying claim. It's a sympathy ploy being utilized by a "journalist" of questionable skill and education who doesn't know his prostrate from his prostate.

 

 

[seanfingh]

The stories swirling around claim the work may have been stolen. Which is very different from a scenario of a dying artist making an unreasonable request.

 

The final caption even seems to reveal the original intentions Palastino has been claiming:

 

And there is absolutely no indication that theft has taken place. DC may have decided not to give the piece away, or the Kennedy museum may have said "screw it" and sold it at auction.

 

The only person that stands to lose in this deal is the BFP.

[Cimm]

Regardless of whether or not it was stolen 20 years ago, it is almost a certainty that the current possessor bought the art in good faith, and is selling it in good faith, and therefore has no obligation or liability, moral or legal or otherwise, as to the artist's lament. That would be something to take up between Plastino's attourney and Sotheby's, and their records, and whoever sold it through Sotheby's....

[comicwiz]

The stories swirling around claim the work may have been stolen. Which is very different from a scenario of a dying artist making an unreasonable request.

 

The final caption even seems to reveal the original intentions Plastino has been claiming:

 

 

The problem is, they weren't his intentions, they were DC's.

 

Does that matter? Seriously, who cares whose intentions they were - that was the original intention, and it's right there in full colour. In other words, I don't see this as some ploy for sympathy as I do the act to fulfil what was promised when this artwork was created.

 

And as far as who published the story, I thought it was the right thing to attribute the source since I was sharing one of the images from the story.

[comicwiz]

The stories swirling around claim the work may have been stolen. Which is very different from a scenario of a dying artist making an unreasonable request.

 

The final caption even seems to reveal the original intentions Plastino has been claiming:

 

And there is absolutely no indication that theft has taken place. DC may have decided not to give the piece away, or the Kennedy museum may have said "screw it" and sold it at auction.

 

The only person that stands to lose in this deal is the BFP.

 

If it's any of those scenarios, it would be truly sad. Especially since one of Plastino's Facebook posts mentions the Kennedy Library expressed support in the situation.

[miraclemet]

Current owner has the right to sell.

 

New owner should be contacted (through the Auction House as a proxy) by DC and offer a trade of some other OA they possess (they must have something comparable in their archives), and then DC can donate it to the Kennedy Library.

 

Alternatively the new owner can have loan it him/herself to the Kennedy Library and retain ownership if they really want to own it.

 

Alternately DC can bid on the art themselves and win it and donate it to the Kennedy. Or even just make an outright offer to the current owner to buy it and skip the auction.

DC would get some nice PR out of this. They could have Plastino at the ceremony delivering the art to the museum for display...

 

everyone wins.

[jaybuck43]

I'm going to hazard a guess here. Superman #170 was published in July 1964. Around that time work was still going on just to get funding with lots of fund raising being done. DC probably tacked on the "will be donated to the library" speech as a way of getting comic book readers to help raise interest in the library. So DC took the Artwork and then filed it away somewhere in their offices. Now here is the problem, The Kennedy Family did not even donate THEIR papers until February of 1965 (probably resulting in at least 1 year of the pages laying in the DC office) but then it would take another 14 years before the library even opened (and it was moved from Harvard to UMASS Boston) so during that 15 year time frame, DC probably forgot to get around to sending the art work in. (God knows how many different editors they had during that time frame) Then they either sold the art off as they were want to do, or some enterprising employee removed the art from DC and sold it off (that initial purchaser may not have been protected but there is no question that the 1993 buyer was a BFP.

[Sardo Numspar]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Not necessarily true. Laws on this vary state to state. Some states laws are very harsh toward the innocent purchaser, and essentially stand for the proposition that one cannot obtain title (even as a bona fide purchaser for value) for something that was stolen from the legitimate owner. The recourse would be for the innocent purchaser to pursue a damage claim against the thief (but would have to return the stolen item to the original owner down the line). There would be in these states, however, a bar to a replevin action if the state's statute of limitations to commence a replevin action has passed.

 

Other states have laws that stand for the proposition you described where an innocent purchaser who paid adequate consideration for the item is protected and title would pass to him/her.

[Hibou]

I may have missed it if someone already posted this but has the JFK Library expressed a desire to acquire or purchase the piece?

 

I did see someone post that the library is supportive of Plastino...

 

[budsbundy]

Why doesn't he just redraw them?

He could put the new drawings on tour like he says he wants too, and have a notation that these are recreations from the original artist.

 

He has prostate cancer, so unless he draws with his "blank", he should be able to do this.

[jjonahjameson1]

Why doesn't he just redraw them?

He could put the new drawings on tour like he says he wants too, and have a notation that these are recreations from the original artist.

 

He has prostate cancer, so unless he draws with his "blank", he should be able to do this.

 

Huge difference in hand/eye coordination and ability to grip a pencil and maintain control. Much easier to do it when you're 41 vs 91 years old.

 

 

[seanfingh]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Not necessarily true. Laws on this vary state to state. Some states laws are very harsh toward the innocent purchaser, and essentially stand for the proposition that one cannot obtain title (even as a bona fide purchaser for value) for something that was stolen from the legitimate owner. The recourse would be for the innocent purchaser to pursue a damage claim against the thief (but would have to return the stolen item to the original owner down the line). There would be in these states, however, a bar to a replevin action if the state's statute of limitations to commence a replevin action has passed.

 

Other states have laws that stand for the proposition you described where an innocent purchaser who paid adequate consideration for the item is protected and title would pass to him/her.

 

True. The old chestnut is "you can't get good title from a thief." But regardless of whether that applies in the appropriate jurisdiction there are two HUGE issues - there is no evidence of theft and Plastino never had any ownership in the art. It is much more likely that Jay's lapse of time theory or some other logical reason led to the art not being donated. Not being donated is not stolen. Thus the BFP will receive all of the applicable protection.

 

Even if it were stolen, Plastino has no standing to pursue any claims because he is not the real party in interest. DC or the museum would be.

[Mark 1]

Why doesn't he just redraw them?

He could put the new drawings on tour like he says he wants too, and have a notation that these are recreations from the original artist.

 

He has prostate cancer, so unless he draws with his "blank", he should be able to do this.

 

Huge difference in hand/eye coordination and ability to grip a pencil and maintain control. Much easier to do it when you're 41 vs 91 years old.

 

 

Al recently did this cover recreation. I think he's more than capable of re-drawing the JFK page

 

[LanceTX]

Why should he have a right to know what happened to the art? The buyer bought it at auction 20 years ago, The artist gave up his claim to it a long time ago.

 

I think he's trying to trace back the steps from now until when it had gone missing/not showed up at Harvard. I don't think he has a right to know, but it would probably be nice to let him get some closure on this. Of course, as comic artists are concerned, no one is likely to give two turds about his feelings when it comes to a $20k piece of art.

 

But the way the story reads, he doesn't just want to know where it is, he wants it back.

 

This is absolutely insane. Why does a guy who bought something legitimately have to give it up just because it used to be someone else's?

[comicwiz]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Not necessarily true. Laws on this vary state to state. Some states laws are very harsh toward the innocent purchaser, and essentially stand for the proposition that one cannot obtain title (even as a bona fide purchaser for value) for something that was stolen from the legitimate owner. The recourse would be for the innocent purchaser to pursue a damage claim against the thief (but would have to return the stolen item to the original owner down the line). There would be in these states, however, a bar to a replevin action if the state's statute of limitations to commence a replevin action has passed.

 

Other states have laws that stand for the proposition you described where an innocent purchaser who paid adequate consideration for the item is protected and title would pass to him/her.

 

True. The old chestnut is "you can't get good title from a thief." But regardless of whether that applies in the appropriate jurisdiction there are two HUGE issues - there is no evidence of theft and Plastino never had any ownership in the art. It is much more likely that Jay's lapse of time theory or some other logical reason led to the art not being donated. Not being donated is not stolen. Thus the BFP will receive all of the applicable protection.

 

Even if it were stolen, Plastino has no standing to pursue any claims because he is not the real party in interest. DC or the museum would be.

 

These are some excellent viewpoints - thanks for taking the time to analyze this interesting situation.

 

From a laymen's perspective, IF DC held all the cards in the decision, and they reneged (for whatever in/deliberate reason), the fact the art never made it to the library eventually casts a negative spotlight on them.

 

Jay's chronology of events which may have intervened with the act to donate the art seems most logical, at least up to this point in the thread discussion.

 

However the backdrop to the whole situation is that initially DC made, what some might argue a "respectful" decision, not to run the story in light of the tragedy, but then ran it with the caption perhaps as a way to insulate themselves from potential public scrutiny which might have construed the act as too opportunistic or too soon after the assassination.

 

A lot of people from our generation never could understand or relate to what historians describe as the "dark days", and this extends to the "City of Hate" label that still follows the City of Dallas to this day.

 

Where I'm going with all this is to not follow through on what they promised in the story caption not only gives credence to Plastino's account, but leaves the impression DC saw an opportunity, and potentially did the unfathomable by attempting to profit from the tragedy. And this isn't exclusive to them running the story in the manner they did, but following them right through to the piece ending-up on Sotheby's action block.

 

My take: it's probably a good idea, perhaps more than any company associated to this art, for DC to trace back to exactly what happened as the investigation Plastino describes is going on may have the greatest negative trickle effect on them.

 

Whether you believe Plastino's account or not, the 50 year anniversary of the JFK assassination and the approach he's used thus far appears to have relegated a great deal of support from the sidelines. There is an outlier here that shouldn't be overlooked either, and it deals with the context of the art itself and the visceral connection people have to the event which marks the killing of the most popular person, certainly post WWII, and possibly ever to hold office, in US history.

[Sardo Numspar]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Not necessarily true. Laws on this vary state to state. Some states laws are very harsh toward the innocent purchaser, and essentially stand for the proposition that one cannot obtain title (even as a bona fide purchaser for value) for something that was stolen from the legitimate owner. The recourse would be for the innocent purchaser to pursue a damage claim against the thief (but would have to return the stolen item to the original owner down the line). There would be in these states, however, a bar to a replevin action if the state's statute of limitations to commence a replevin action has passed.

 

Other states have laws that stand for the proposition you described where an innocent purchaser who paid adequate consideration for the item is protected and title would pass to him/her.

 

True. The old chestnut is "you can't get good title from a thief." But regardless of whether that applies in the appropriate jurisdiction there are two HUGE issues - there is no evidence of theft and Plastino never had any ownership in the art. It is much more likely that Jay's lapse of time theory or some other logical reason led to the art not being donated. Not being donated is not stolen. Thus the BFP will receive all of the applicable protection.

 

Even if it were stolen, Plastino has no standing to pursue any claims because he is not the real party in interest. DC or the museum would be.

 

As to this specific Plastino situation, I agree with you on both points.

[comix4fun]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Not necessarily true. Laws on this vary state to state. Some states laws are very harsh toward the innocent purchaser, and essentially stand for the proposition that one cannot obtain title (even as a bona fide purchaser for value) for something that was stolen from the legitimate owner. The recourse would be for the innocent purchaser to pursue a damage claim against the thief (but would have to return the stolen item to the original owner down the line). There would be in these states, however, a bar to a replevin action if the state's statute of limitations to commence a replevin action has passed.

 

Other states have laws that stand for the proposition you described where an innocent purchaser who paid adequate consideration for the item is protected and title would pass to him/her.

 

Of course, I agreee, the laws vary from state to state. I checked that ahead of time. When the artwork was purportedly going to be donated it was in DC's ownership, in New York. Most of the basic legal definitions of the elements of BFP and the precedents clearing title for an innocent buyer for value come out of NY. Unless they've changed that stance it's probably the same NY law. A NY lawyer might know better.

 

That's why Plastino's lack of actual ownership of the art given DC's stance at the time of work for hire and artwork ownership negates his ability to pursue a claim that the artwork was stolen from him and negates his standing to be the one to pursue other relief to clarify the events that led to the current owner having possession of the artwork.

 

In any case, this is about as stale and as slow an attempt by a party as you are likely to find. Throw in that he was a bystander to the purported transfer and has no standing to pursue this matter and what you're left with is a giant waste of time.

[budsbundy]

If he's not willing to redraw them, and if he truly just wants them back so they can be placed on a tour like he was talking about(and not for his own financial gain) and enjoyed by many, then I think an easy fix in this situation would be for the current owner to loan them out for the tour.(insured against damage of course)

Everyone gets to see them, Plastino is happy, and at the end of the tour the current owner gets them back.

 

 

[jaybuck43]

New York Lawyer here. We don't believe in BFP if coming from a thief. There was a huge case here a few years ago dealing with a similar situation. A jewish man had his art collection stolen by the Nazis during WWII. It eventually ended up (at all places) at Sotheby's of London and auctioned off for about 5,000. The heirs of the jewish man (he had died in Dachau in 1941) sued the seller. Using New York Law the court found that he did not have good title because a thief cannot pass good title in New York. Bakalar appealed the decision and won, not because the New York law was wrong but rather because of the defense of Laches (the only time I have ever seen this work outside of law school) For you non-lawyers it is basically the defense of unreasonable delay. Basically the heirs should have brought their claim sometime before 2005 (they had 5-7 years to do so) or at least attempted to track down the missing pieces. My guess is that even if the art had been stolen from DC, DC would be precluded from bringing the case due to laches (at a minimum DC should have been trying to track down this pieces especially when it was posted for sale in 1993) If you wanna read the case here is a PDF http://www.commartrecovery.org/sites/default/files/bakar20110817.pdf

[seanfingh]

 

Too bad no one is getting paid for this. There are some pretty tasty analyses up in here.