Give them back of their own valition. There is a difference between doing the honourable thing and having some trailer park judge order you to do it
US Judge Orders Russia to Preserve Jewish Texts
- Thread starter Tyr
- Start date
I haven't seen anything to indicate that the dusty boxes of old comic books in question do not in fact belong to the Russians.
I think it's the Tongons, but if you want to refer to them as Nazi's. who am I to say your wrong.
btw.. you're wrong
you didn't perchance get the same level of education on law, history and geography (depth and breadth) as Eaglesmack did you?
I thought so. That explains alot
Probably because you haven't bothered to look. This story has been widely reported. I'm sure if you took the time to visit Google you could find the following...
"The collection was formerly held by Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, a leader of Chabad-Lubavitch who was born in Russia but forced by the Soviets to leave in 1927. He took the documents to Latvia and later Poland, but left them behind when the Nazis invaded and he fled to the U.S. The collection was seized and taken to Germany, then recovered by the Soviet Army in 1945."
and...
"Lamberth agreed to take the case in U.S. court because he said both the Nazi seizure and the Russian government's appropriation of the archives violated international law."
Clearly the international law of salvage applies here, I believe it's covered under British Admiralty Law, the comics were clearly abondoned in some shipping mishap or other only to be subsequently lawfully salvaged at some point. Can the good Rabbi prove previous ownership? You know misrepresentation of ownership is not that uncommon in art fraud cases. Interesting reading nevertheless.
Why should somebody be fired for doing their job? If you don't like what he has done, you have two choices - accept it or work to change the law.
And who is the owner in this situation?
Prove it.
Oh and just because you follow a paticular religion doesn't default you to being the owner.
I didn't steal it, I am fighting in the courts to claim that the TV should be mine due to an emotional or related connection to that paticular model. If the courts hand me your parents TV based on that reasoning, you can't charge me for theft.
Maybe I didn't explain that part clearly.
And how did you come to that number of 300 years? What if it was 299? Why not 25 years? 50 years?
Then again, if you want to use 300 as an example of when something has historical significance, the report only claims they date back to the 18th century..... that could be from 201 years ago to 300 years ago, give or take 9 years or so. So if the documents dated back to only 1710, then they're only 299 years old and not really historically significant are they?
But then again, all of that is quite subjective, which was the point I was originally trying to make. You may think something 300 years old should only have historical significance.... but something that dated back to say, the 60's or WWII wouldn't?
This is where more flaws come into your argument. Your parents TV that I claim to the courts holds significance to me, historically, could have been one of the very first models of television, which in itself would have some pretty big significance if you ask me..... it's not 300 years old, but someday it might be.
But once again, who gets the right to claim ownership and based on what? Your parents might have paid for the tv.... and Russia might have paid for these documents. But if I or this Jewish community claims that their more important to us..... we should simply be given it?
I don't think so.
Why? Things getting too complicated for you to defend?
You didn't answer the question.... if you can't answer the question and want to avoid questions by making smart ass remarks about someone doing drugs, then why am I even bothering to pay any attention to you?
Stop being so childish.
I'll ask it again.... what other valid reasons do these people have for claiming ownership other then following the same religion?
But if that is the case, then once again, who is the rightful owner of these items? Who has been taking care of these items for so long now?
This is a typical adoption situation. Mother A gives child up for adoption (or Mother A looses child somehow) - Mother B comes along and adopts/Decides to take care of child. Years go by and the child is almost an adult. Suddenly mother A decides to get involved and claims they should have a say on how the child should continue their lives, when clearly Mother A didn't give a rats ass about the child until now, all the while Mother B put all the time and sacrafice into protecting, educating and rasing the child.
Who has the right? In my view, Mother B. In this situation, Russia. If these guys really wanted these items for historical siggy, then why are they only wanting them now that Russia plans to sell/auction them off?
A money grab, plain and simple.
I never said it was next Sunday..... who's the one smoking what now? Try and stay on track.... focus, focus..... geez. It aint' complicated.
The natives have been fighting since forever over territory claims. And why do crime victims delay before searching out help? That's an obvious answer.... but what do you have to base this group as being anything similar to a victim in this situation? How has Russia victimized these people?
Because Russia has documents that come from the same religion as they do? How does this directly victimize these people? Or are you planning to blame them for all the bad things that happened to the Jews in WWII and therefore that is enough justification to give them whatever they want?
It is explained within the post you quoted. If you included the rest of what I said to that line of text, you might actually understand.
Last edited:
Hey, it's not their fault if he didn't take them along with him, that's his own screwup.
If I have to leave my home due to some emergency and I don't bring certain things with me.... they are abandoned. When something is abandoned it's no longer anybody's property unless someone claims them..... in a case like that, it's first come first serve. Unfortunatly, it's now Russia's property.
If the evil Nazis or the Soviety Union actually ripped them from his hands/robbed him, then you might have a case..... but since in the above you just quoted, it states that he left them there when he fled to the US..... he abandoned them there, regardless of the reasons why he did.... he did.
They are now Russias'..... case closed as far as I see it. If Russia wants to donate/give these items to this group, I don't see a problem with that..... but nobody has the right to attempt to take them away from them.
You want to go sue someone.... sue the Nazis. Oh wait.... lil' late for that now I suppose.
Nothing you've said so far in this thread makes any sense to me.
A Texas federal judge ordering a sovereign country to do something is not the job of a foreign judge.
>> They are not comics and, according to international law, they do not belong to the Russians.
Are you a lawyer who has studied and has experience in "International law"?
>> Lamberth agreed to take the case in U.S. court because he said both the Nazi seizure and the Russian government's appropriation of the archives violated international law.
Refer to point above, addendum: Israel has broken "International law" on so many occasions and many lawyers would argue that their right to exist is in direct conflict with International law precident.
Sooo. In theory and in accordance with International law, we should force Russia to "return" some documents to Israel and then leave Israel to their own devices without International support. Oh, but wait, they're most likely in violation of International law and many believe to be in possession of WMD (or in my own preferred pre-2001 lingo, nuclear weapons.)
This news story is a joke. Judge Royce Lamberth of Texas has no right in any law that I've been able to locate obligations to any sovereign entity.
I don't have to. That is what courts of law are for.
Again, the court.
You would have to ask the judge that (or somebody else that was in the court room)
According to the judge, not the Russians
Not according to the judge. Seeing as he has a law degree and an apparent understanding of international law (and doesn't sit in front of his computer smokin' doobies) I can accept his take on this, especially since I don't have first hand knowledge of all the facts presented.
I understand that smoking pot makes one tend to ramble?
Perhaps it would help if you confined your comments to topics you understand. You have described looting and looting is a crime.