Integral Aspect of the Larger Nazi Plan for the Complete Destruction of European Jewry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 19-351 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, a foreign state, and STIFTUNG PREUSSICHER KULTURBESITZ, Petitioners, v. ALAN PHILIPP, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF THE FLORIDA HOLOCAUST MUSEUM, RABBI JOSHUA KALEV, RABBI TOIVE WEITMAN, THE SÃO PAULO MEMORIAL OF JEWISH IMMIGRATION AND THE HOLOCAUST, AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF CULTURE AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY (IDPCSS) AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- DONALD S. BURRIS, ESQ. JOSHUA MAGIDSON, ESQ. Counsel of Record ANDREW SASSO, ESQ. BURRIS & SCHOENBERG LLP MACFARLANE FERGUSON & 12121 Wilshire Blvd. #800 MCMULLEN P.A. Los Angeles, CA 90025 625 Court Street, Suite 200 (310) 442-5559 Clearwater, FL 33756 [email protected] (727) 441-8966 [email protected] Of Counsel: CLARISSA RODRIGUEZ, ESQ. VERÔNICA S. AMARANTE, ESQ.* GABRIEL ZUGMAN, ESQ.* (*Members of the Brazilian Bar) ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................... 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 8 I. The “expropriation exception” of the FSIA should abrogate Petitioners’ sovereign im- munity, as Respondents’ claims concern property seized in violation of interna- tional law ................................................... 10 A. The economic pressure placed on Ger- man Jews in the 1933–39 period must be considered an aspect of the Holo- caust .................................................... 11 B. Genocide is a violation of interna- tional human-rights law from which no derogation is permitted .................. 13 C. Congress intended the time frame dur- ing which the Welfenschatz was sold to be considered integral to the Holo- caust .................................................... 15 II. The fact that the German entity expropri- ated the Welfenschatz from its own citi- zens should not affect the outcome of this appeal ........................................................ 17 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page III. International comity cannot shield Petition- ers from liability, as the German State cannot provide an adequate and available alternative domestic remedy to the Re- spondents’ claims ......................................... 20 A. Invoking the defense of international comity in this case would impose an undue burden on plaintiffs seeking re- dress of Nazi persecution .................... 20 B. The plain meaning of the FSIA and the interpretation of its terms’ mean- ing reject the use of the international comity defense in connection with tak- ings claims ........................................... 22 C. Petitioners’ actions leave serious doubt as to the adequacy and availa- bility of alternative remedies .............. 24 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 26 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Fed- eration, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............... 23, 24 Committee of U.S. Citizens in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................... 14 Fischer v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................................... 23 Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) ............ 14 Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam, 517 F. Supp. 2d 322 (D.D.C. 2007) .............................................. 15, 16 Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 894 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ........................................... 23, 25 Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ......................................... 14, 19 Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital Ltd., 572 U.S. 134 (2014) ........................................................ 22 Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) ................................................................... 6, 21 Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................... 9, 13, 14, 21 Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .................................................. 10, 15 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a) .............................................. passim 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) ......................................... passim iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page 28 U.S.C. § 1605(h) ...................................................... 16 28 U.S.C. § 1605(h)(2)(A)(ii) ................................ passim 28 U.S.C. § 1605(h)(3)(B) ............................................ 17 28 U.S.C. § 1605(h)(3)(C) .................................. passim Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 102 Stat. 3045 (Dec. 9, 1948) .............................................................. 12, 14 Fla. Stat. § 1003.42 (2020) ............................................ 8 Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Im- munity Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 114-319, 130 Stat. 1618 (2016) ............................. 15, 16,17, 18 Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-308, 130 Stat. 1524 (2016) .................................................. 17, 18, 19 Holocaust Victims Redress Act, Pub. L. No. 105- 158, 112 Stat. 15 (1998) .......................................... 18 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 Oppenheim’s Int’l Law 851 ..................................... 13 Brief of Holocaust and Nuremberg Historians as Amicus Curiae, No. 19-351 ..................................... 11 Draft Convention on the Crime of Genocide art. I(II), E/447 (1947) .................................................... 12 (Draft) Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Re- lations of the United States, § 455 ......................... 23 H.R. Rep. 94-1487 (1976) ............................................ 17 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page R. Jackson, Final Report to the President on the Nuremberg Trials (Oct. 7, 1946) ............................. 13 Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1943) ....................................................................... 12 Recommendation Concerning the Welfenschatz (Guelph Treasure) (Mar. 20, 2014) ......................... 25 Reporter’s Note 9 (Am. Law Institute, Tentative Draft No. 2, 2016) .................................................... 23 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations of the United States, § 102 comment k (Am. Law Institute 1987) ......................................................... 14 Steven Fogelson, The Nuremberg Legacy: An Unfulfilled Promise, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 833 (1990) ....................................................................... 19 Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz, What Is the Guelph Treasure? (2020) ......................................... 25 U.N. ESCOR, 8th Sess., 72nd mtg. (Oct. 12, 1948) .................................................................. 12, 15 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 53, May 23, 1969, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 39/27, 8 I.L.M. 679 ................................................................ 14 1 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE1 All of the amici curiae are individuals or organiza- tions which are interested in the preservation of the rule of law and in redressing violations of this rule by any governmental institution, partly to provide relief to the historically aggrieved parties, and at least of equal importance, to work toward ensuring, to the ex- tent possible, that such violations are not repeated by current or future governmental entities. Amici all have an important interest in ensuring that the Court af- firm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia, as to do otherwise would impose an undue burden on survivors of the Holocaust and their heirs seeking justice for the persecution they suffered, and because they are concerned by the Petitioners’ ar- guments which downplay the extent to which Nazi per- secution of German Jews predated the outbreak of the Second World War. Three (3) of the amici are institutions or individu- als committed to the preservation of historical and cul- tural patrimony. All of the amici (both directly and indirectly) have evidenced a significant interest in pre- serving the memory of the Holocaust and those mil- lions who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime. 1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or counsel for a party made a monetary contri- bution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No one other than amici curiae or their members made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. All counsel for the parties have consented to the filing of amicus briefs through communications filed with the Clerk of the Court. 2 Furthermore, the museum amici and the two distin- guished religious leaders all represent