The real truth about Peter Nash

[david_l]

I don't want to stir the pot but Leon, it seems like you're taking a hear/see no evil philosophy to items stolen from archives and other public collections. You seem like a decent guy so I guess I just want to clarify.

I don't want to turn this into a flame war or anything but being that I'm an archivist myself, it's important for me to understand the viewpoint of the board's moderator/owner so I can make my own decision if I should keep participating in the community. I do know the history of your card and the NYPL. Your previous statement gave me pause though.

Post #21 talks about hoping to wait out an archive with the hopes that stolen materials will eventually be legally yours (not likely btw). That deeply concerns me on many different levels. What about you?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by david_l

I don't want to stir the pot but Leon, it seems like you're taking a hear/see no evil philosophy to items stolen from archives and other public collections. You seem like a decent guy so I guess I just want to clarify.

I don't want to turn this into a flame war or anything but being that I'm an archivist myself, it's important for me to understand the viewpoint of the board's moderator/owner so I can make my own decision if I should keep participating in the community. I do know the history of your card and the NYPL. Your previous statement gave me pause though.

Post #21 talks about hoping to wait an archive out so that stolen materials will eventually be [I]legally[\/i] yours. That deeply concerns me on many different levels. What about you?

David, From what I have been told by reliable sources I believe the NYPL committed gross negligence many (20?) years ago in not trying to get their stuff back while it was being sold at auction or a lot of this could have been prevented. When they chose to look the other way, to me, it made the future issues their own and not anyone else's. I should add, otherwise I agree with you, when things can be proven they were stolen they should be returned.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So JC now has good title because the NYPL was not diligent enough in seeking to recover the card 20 years ago? Because if he doesn't have good title, it ain't his. And if it ain't his, it's still the NYPL's, and he should return it. But he can tell me to F off.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So JC now has good title because the NYPL was not diligent enough in seeking to recover the card 20 years ago? Because if he doesn't have good title, it ain't his. And if it ain't his, it's still the NYPL's, and he should return it. But he can tell me to F off.

I am saying it is my belief, from what I have been told (and reiterated to on a phone call a minute ago) that the NYPL should possibly be held accountable for their gross negligence. I am not a lawyer but I believe a case of equitable estoppel could potentially be made, from reading what that is on Wiki . The NYPL was told what was going on and chose to ignore it.

If I take something from your house and you see me and let me go, can you come back to me 20 yrs later and say you want the item back and be successful?

[Peter_Spaeth]

First of all, JC did not try to justify his keeping the card on the basis of anything that happened 20 years ago. He talked about waiting out the owner, in post 21. "You hope one day they will dearchive or transfer title..." This is a new gloss you are adding.

In any case, in order to have an informed discussion about what happened 20 years ago and its legal effect if any (about which I am skeptical), I would want to know more than the conclusions you are offering. So please post what you know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

PS at a very high level, negligent conduct normally wouldn't give rise to equitable estoppel as I understand it, there has to be some sort of intentional conduct by the party inconsistent with its present claim. Also reliance by the other party is typically required which wouldn't seem to be the case here.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PS at a very high level, negligent conduct normally wouldn't give rise to equitable estoppel as I understand it, there has to be some sort of intentional conduct by the party inconsistent with its present claim. Also reliance by the other party is typically required which wouldn't seem to be the case here.

Maybe this better defines it. "Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage."


.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

If I take something from your house and you see me and let me go, can you come back to me 20 yrs later and say you want the item back and be successful?

That's exactly what's being done with some antiquities often much more than 20 years after the fact.

Steve B

[ALR-bishop]

Egypt and a few other countries I have visited of would love to get some stuff back

I have his two Images Of America books in my baseball library, the one on on the Royal Rooters and Baseball Legends of Brooklyn's Green-Wood Cemetery, both of which, in my opinion, are pretty good. Now he's lower than a cockroach. What a waste.