Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

John D Harris · 06-09-2002, 05:20 PM

As the case worked its way through the courts, a federal judge in Texas in 1993 ordered the government to pay $10m in damages for refusing to give the objects back. That verdict was overturned by a federal appeals court, which ruled that the paintings belonged to the US army under a post-war treaty.

What did the parties signing to treaty agree too? Is keeping of the paintings in violation of the treaty? If there is no violation, there exists no double standard.

06-09-2002, 05:20 PM	#6
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	As the case worked its way through the courts, a federal judge in Texas in 1993 ordered the government to pay $10m in damages for refusing to give the objects back. That verdict was overturned by a federal appeals court, which ruled that the paintings belonged to the US army under a post-war treaty. What did the parties signing to treaty agree too? Is keeping of the paintings in violation of the treaty? If there is no violation, there exists no double standard. __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts