Wright Letters

[benjulmag]

To respond, I did do my due diligence. I scrupulously examined the cdv to see if it had any identifying marks to indicate it was stolen property. On top of that, I was explicitly told the NYPL was notified of the Copeland sale and told some of the items in it matched missing items that were on the original Spalding inventory list. Yet I was told the NYPL took no action to assert claim to anything and the auction went on. I do not know anything I purchased was stolen. The Forest Citys cdv you refer to is an albumen photographic item that is not unique. In fact years later I sold it when ANOTHER one in better condition surfaced.

In another instance when I had an opportunity to purchase a rare item, not only did I check the original Spalding inventory (it was not on it), but I spent half a day at the NYPL looking at microfilm of similar items in the event the item was inadvertently not listed or listed incorrectly.

I'm not downplaying the importance of stolen items being returned to their rightful institutions. Nor do I believe that individuals who put their heads in the sand and intentionaly overlook telltale signs an item might be stolen should not be forced to relinquish owneship. But I do feel institutions have affirmative obligations too, and I believe those obligations are not just ethical but also legal -- to take reasonable actions to timely assert claims of ownership when reasonably put on notice items are about to be auctioned, and to publicize lists of stolen items.

[FrankWakefield]

Corey, I don't mind you disagreeing.

If something is stolen from your home, the something is still yours. And there's no time limitation that changes that. Such a law or concept would be a step toward condoning or facilitating crime. This isn't some civil easement problem where you slumber on your rights and eventually lose them. When the crime of theft occurs that doesn't affect rightful title to the something. It merely affects possession.

If whoever eventually buys it traces back their alleged title, they'll eventually get back to a thief. And no way, not ever, will the thief be able to convey rightful title to something, no matter how much time passes (unless they subsequently buy title from the rightful owner).

So disagree, but a rightful owner remains a rightful owner; notwithstanding a thief selling something to a good guy years later.

[benjulmag]

On this one we'll agree to disagree. I'm talking here of the narrow instance where the rightful owner learns of the whereabouts of his property, knows it is about to transact to an unknowing third party purchaser, and takes no actions whatsoever to notify that person the item is stolen, or otherwise assert claim of ownership. I believe that in such an instance rights you once had to reclaim your property can in time through such inaction be lost. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that is my understanding. Yes, of course as a society we don't want to reward crime and want the victims of theft to get their property back. But at the same time we also want good faith third party purchasers to be comfortable transacting business and not be asked years down the road to suffer potentially great financial loss when the loss could have been entirely avoided by the original owner taking reasonable actions.

And, as I mentioned, I believe this concept has been codified into law in regard to stolen WWII artwork.

[benjulmag]

The issue here isn't blaming an institution for the theft of an item or rewarding the theft. The issue pertains to an institution learning of the whereabouts of a stolen item, yet doing nothing. In example you cite, suppose you were the buyer of that Walter Johnson baseball? When you bought it you had no reason whatsoever to believe it was stolen. And suppose twenty years later, when the auction house that sold it to you is long out of business, you are asked by the HOF to return it and bear the complete loss for the money you spent on it. Won't you be a little aggrieved if you learned that at the time you originally bought the ball the HOF knew of the sale, knew the item was stolen from them, knew you had it for those twenty years AND didn't inform you that the ball was stolen or otherwise take action to assert claim to the ball? I think a lot of people in that situation would be very pissed and question the fairness of any system that does not recognize them as the owner of the ball at that twenty-year point.

[Freddie Maguire]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

As I understand the law, if you are slow or lax to assert your rights and know or reasonably should know your inaction will be to the detriment of good faith third parties, then you will be deemed to have waived those rights. In fact, in the art world, in regard to items stolen by the Third Reich, isn't some of this codified into law? Aren't individuals/heirs who reasonably should have taken actions to assert their claims (e.g., listing the stolen artwork with an international registry) prevented from years later belatedly doing so at the expense of good faith purchasers?

It sound like you've done quite a bit of background research on the legalities of this issue. I can appreciate the work you've put in. (Although, a cynic might question your motives.)

But, do you feel it's proper to cite the NAZI theft of art work as precedent? For one, the theft in our case is from a public institution. Additionally, the original owners of the stolen artwork in the cases mentioned above are clearly dead and had little recourse for retribution (In fact it took years for thefts to be acknowledged thus the late claims by descendants). And lastly, I find it in very poor taste. We are talking about baseball cards, after all.

Originally Posted by benjulmag

To respond, I did do my due diligence. I scrupulously examined the cdv to see if it had any identifying marks to indicate it was stolen property...

While the stamps or markings are probably the best way for the NYPL to prove ownership of stolen materials, of course, you could check the edges of your Knickerbocker material to see if they match up with the sliced pages that remain in the Knickerbocker Correspondence scrapbooks at the NYPL.

I do appreciate the hard work you appear to have done. And, you obviously have a great understanding of the law.

I think you'll find this interesting: http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I91_0018.htm

It's a legal precedent for the State of New York in a matter similar to this (more similar than NAZI crimes, I hope.)

[1lovediane]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

On this one we'll agree to disagree. I'm talking here of the narrow instance where the rightful owner learns of the whereabouts of his property, knows it is about to transact to an unknowing third party purchaser, and takes no actions whatsoever to notify that person the item is stolen, or otherwise assert claim of ownership. I believe that in such an instance rights you once had to reclaim your property can in time through such inaction be lost. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that is my understanding. Yes, of course as a society we don't want to reward crime and want the victims of theft to get their property back. But at the same time we also want good faith third party purchasers to be comfortable transacting business and not be asked years down the road to suffer potentially great financial loss when the loss could have been entirely avoided by the original owner taking reasonable actions.

And, as I mentioned, I believe this concept has been codified into law in regard to stolen WWII artwork.

again, have your lawyer explain whether a thief can pass title to stolen chattels even to a "good faith purchaser." enough whining.

[birdman42]

My, this thread has brought some folks out of the woodwork. 1lovediane and Freddie Maguire, we'd love to hear your thoughts on other matters. Do you have a particular interest in the topic, or did it just rile you?

As to creating "good title" out of thin air, it happens all the time, and with official sanction. Police departments all across the country hold sales of unclaimed recovered property. They post announcements in the local paper, and that's considered plenty of notice. If you were the original owner, how far do you think you'd get with a claim years later of, "Hey, that's my bike."

And that lost luggage place in Scottsboro, Alabama sells all kinds of material that can be positively identified, including cell phones with their unique IDs. Where would a claim against a buyer from there get you?

I'm certainly not condoning theft of material, whether it's from a private or public source, but once you're given an opportunity to reclaim your property, and you choose not to (and inaction is a choice), then I'd imagine you're ceding some of your prior rights. (Does that create "abandonment"? Only a lawyer could say for sure, though I'd bet that some of the non-lawyers on here will weigh in. Disclaimer: IANAL)

The police sale is almost exactly analogous to the NYPL situation:

• They had property (assuming that an item in question actually was in their collection)
• It was taken from them
• They were notified of its whereabouts
• They chose not to act
• A buyer purchased it in good faith (Here's the difference--at a police sale, the buyer can assume that at one point the item was stolen property; with the material we're discussing here, the buyer can assume, unless information is provided otherwise, that the material is clean)

You may believe that Corey, or Barry, or someone else here is in the wrong (even though you have no evidence to that effect), but I don't think the law would agree.

My rock at the hornet's nest,

Bill

[Potomac Yank]

This is beginning to border on the Supernatural.

[FrankWakefield]

Basic property law, guys... a bundle of sticks, each stick represents a right or entitlement to the property. A seller can only convey as good of a title as he acquired. A thief has no title, nor can he convey good title. Nor can any subsequent buyer. That is basic, fundamental stuff in law school.


With Unclaimed Luggage in Scottsboro, it is unclaimed. Abandoned. No crime. Not the same at all.

With police bike auctions you left out the part about where the police attempt to locate the rightful owner and return the bike. And then the part about the bike's nominal value versus storage costs, and the municipality's decision to sell or give away bikes after a certain period of time. (Usually to kids that can't afford bikes.) The police aren't auctioning off recovered stolen jewelry like that, now, are they???

I don't really want to digress down to the point where it matters whether either of you went to law school, or not, you obviously think that a good faith buyer should eventually acquire a true ownership interest in items that were stolen. But just so I'll know, did either of you ever attend law school anywhere?

[1lovediane]

Originally Posted by birdman42

My, this thread has brought some folks out of the woodwork. 1lovediane and Freddie Maguire, we'd love to hear your thoughts on other matters. Do you have a particular interest in the topic, or did it just rile you?

As to creating "good title" out of thin air, it happens all the time, and with official sanction. Police departments all across the country hold sales of unclaimed recovered property. They post announcements in the local paper, and that's considered plenty of notice. If you were the original owner, how far do you think you'd get with a claim years later of, "Hey, that's my bike."

And that lost luggage place in Scottsboro, Alabama sells all kinds of material that can be positively identified, including cell phones with their unique IDs. Where would a claim against a buyer from there get you?

I'm certainly not condoning theft of material, whether it's from a private or public source, but once you're given an opportunity to reclaim your property, and you choose not to (and inaction is a choice), then I'd imagine you're ceding some of your prior rights. (Does that create "abandonment"? Only a lawyer could say for sure, though I'd bet that some of the non-lawyers on here will weigh in. Disclaimer: IANAL)

The police sale is almost exactly analogous to the NYPL situation:

• They had property (assuming that an item in question actually was in their collection)
• It was taken from them
• They were notified of its whereabouts
• They chose not to act
• A buyer purchased it in good faith (Here's the difference--at a police sale, the buyer can assume that at one point the item was stolen property; with the material we're discussing here, the buyer can assume, unless information is provided otherwise, that the material is clean)

You may believe that Corey, or Barry, or someone else here is in the wrong (even though you have no evidence to that effect), but I don't think the law would agree.

My rock at the hornet's nest,

Bill

a little knowledge is dangerous; the police situation is preceded by court order; consult your lawyer; this is not rocket science; again, my question: how did the lot # 209 Halper auction, 9-99, become consigned to Hunt? Was the winner of the halper lot the grandparent of the hunt consignor? it's witchcraft. and what is the F.B.I. [Federal Bureau of Incompetence] doing with the halper tip? how can we be worried with such sharp people handling this matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank you of course correctly state the common law rule that a thief cannot convey good title even to a bona fide purchaser, but is there not also the possibility that an action by the true owner -- like any other cause of action -- could be barred by a statute of limitations?

EDIT TO ADD For example, based on very quick internet only research. 1. In New York the limitation period for stolen property is three years. The law upholds that an action for recovery of stolen goods (replevin) “against a person who lawfully comes by a chattel arises, not upon the stealing or the taking, but upon the defendant’s refusal to convey the chattel upon demand.” In other words, this law could be interpreted to mean that the clock on the limitation begins ticking when the current possessor refuses to return the object.

[benjulmag]

Thanks for the response and the link to Guggenheim case. I do find it very interesting.

I don't mean to offend by mentioning the instance of stolen WWII art. I brought it up merely to make a legal point. I lost family members in the Holocaust and would never intentionally make reference to that event in a disrespectful manner.

My understanding (or, depending on one's perspective, lack of) of the law is not based, as you imply, on learning how to buy stolen baseball items without having to worry of having to return it at some future date. I would never knowingly acquire an item I have reasonable grounds to believe is stolen, period. What I know about the law is based on my training as an attorney.

Our views of things are based in part on our experiences. Mine, in regard to the way many institutions treat collections entrusted to them, is not overly positive. Much of the Burdick collection (housed in the Metropolitan) has been stolen. Years ago when I was viewing it I noticed the Lajoie card (a really nice example) literally tangling by a single strand of adhesive tape. No one was watching me and had I been so inclined, I could have easily removed it from its page and walked off with it. At the conclusion of my visit, I went to the room attendant, told him of the significant value of that card (at the time $6,000), and implored him to take better actions to safeguard it. He asked me to write him a note to that effect and he would act on it. So I wrote a note identifying the card and its value. Flash forward now six months when a good friend of mine went to view the collection. When I asked him how his visit went, he told me of the strangest occurrence -- that when he viewed the Lajoie, he noticed a note in the page identifying the card as having a value of $6,000. So, six months later, it was still attached to that same single strand but now had a note telling everybody how valuable it was.

Or take the vaunted NYPL. Recently one of its stolen baseball documents was recovered by the FBI. I have been told that close to one year after being informed of the whereabouts of the item, the NYPL has yet to initiate contact to have the item returned.

The point is that many institutions take terrible measures to safeguard their collections, or fail to take reasonable actions to locate their stolen property, or fail to publicize that which is stolen so good faith third party purchasers don't get burned later down the road. Yes, as a collector of 19th century memorabilia, one can argue I have a certain bias toward good faith third party purchasers. But if I'm willing to do my part to pull my head of the sand with that which I am comtemplating acquiring, I don't think its asking too much for institutions to help me by making it easier to identify their stolen items or to know that there is a question of ownership for a particular item.