jew liar to swindle art work from foundation
Heinrich
latest example, a Jew who claims that the Nazis "forced his father to sell a
painting" has tried to swindle the painting back from its current rightful
owners the Lord Lloyd-Webber Foundation.
Note how the lying Jew has been forced to accept that the artwork was not
"stolen" from his father (as other Jews like to claim), but was quite
legally sold -- yet he now claims that the Nazis somehow 'forced' the sale!
Is there no end to the lies these people tell?
"Lord Lloyd-Webber was given the go-ahead to sell a £30m Picasso yesterday
after last-minute legal action by a German professor who claimed ownership
of the masterpiece failed.
The composer won a key ruling in a New York court which left him officially
free to sell The Absinthe Drinker (Angel Fernandez de Soto). A judge had
temporarily blocked Lord Lloyd- Webber's attempt to sell the work after the
German professor claimed the Nazis had forced his family to sell it during
the 1930s.
The impresario's charitable art foundation intends to sell the 1903 Picasso,
valued at between $40 and $60m, at Christie's US auction house later today.
However, Julius Schoeps, who has insisted that he is the rightful owner of
the work under new US "restitution" laws aimed at returning stolen artworks
to their previous homes, may still mount a legal challenge.
Schoeps is heir to the estate of the painting's original purchaser Paul Von
Mendelssohn Bartholdy, a Jewish banker from Berlin, and claims that his
ancestor was forced to sell it in 1934 as a consequence of Nazi persecution.
At a Manhattan court last night, a federal judge dismissed Schoeps' lawsuit,
but said he remained free to file an appeal at state court level this
morning.
Documents filed by Schoeps' legal team said that it was one of several major
impressionist works collected by Bartholdy, who owned one of the largest
private banks in Germany.
Although Bartholdy had never sold a piece before Adolf Hitler came to power,
the lawsuit claimed that subsequent persecution caused Bartholdy to begin
selling prized paintings into a depressed market.
As a result, Schoeps argued that he was entitled to claim ownership of the
work, described in the catalogue as part of "an extraordinary series of now
celebrated masterpieces" .
Lord Lloyd-Webber's foundation - which bought the painting for £18m -
described the claims as "utterly spurious, without legal or factual
substance".
"The Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation (ALWF) purchased the picture in good
faith in 1995 and it has received an enormous amount of publicity," said a
spokesman last night