portrait of wally value
To support this statement, Dr. Leopold observes that his 1972 book lists Dr. Rieger in the provenance of other Schiele paintings, a point to which the Government has not responded. Wally III, 2002 WL 553532, at *17. See Muzii, 676 F.2d 919; United States v. Warshawsky, 818 F. Supp. "); Amended Memorandum of Law of Plaintiff United States of America and Claimant Estate of Lea Bondi Jaray in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment ("Joint Mem. [and] I am loath to decide this case without having all facts and theories considered. (5/14/09 Levin Decl. (Id.) The Museum next contends that even if Welz stole Wally, the Painting ceased to be stolen when Bondi settled the claims she brought against him before the Restitution Commission and thus regained her gallery. 58:15-17.) Southwell testified that the document was typed on Bondi's "L.B.J." United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267 (1997). (Joint Counter 56.1 Stmt. . When she subsequently discovered that Dr. Leopold had acquiredWally for himself, she asked Hunna to shame him publicly into returning the Painting, being reluctant to litigate the matter because "[i]t is probably very hard to have lawsuits in Vienna against a medical doctor residing in Vienna because the judges always take the side of the resident of Vienna, and if the lawsuit is lost, I have lost my picture forever." Relying on documents to which the Leopold objects as inadmissible, the Government asserts that Bondi indeed presented her claim to Wally to the Belvedere, to no avail. However, a possessor lacks the requisite confidence to acquire title by prescription "if, at any time during the prescription period, the possessor had any objective reason to doubt his claim, or if he was negligent in maintaining his belief of lawful possession." Briefly, Austrian law presumes the good faith of a possessor, and a claimant must show evidence indicating a "high probability" of bad faith to destroy the possessor's confidence in good title. ¶ 77.) ), Assuming the law of the case does not bar application of the Act of State doctrine at this stage, the Museum has not shown that the doctrine compels dismissal here. United States Forces Deliver Wally to the BDA, Broda also wrote to Dr. Otto von Demus ("Demus"), Director of the Bundesdenkmalamt, the Austrian Federal Office for the Preservation of Historical Monuments (the "BDA"), seeking that entity's assistance in locating Rieger's Schiele collection. . The story of a Nazi-looted painting, Egon Schiele's “Portrait of Wally,” that was discovered on the walls of the Museum of Modern Art in 1997, triggering a historic court case that pitted the Manhattan District Attorney, the United States Government and the heirs of a Viennese gallery owner against a major Austrian museum and MoMA. Nor, with respect to acquisition by prescription, did he perform an adequate investigation after he acquired Wally. Here, it is undisputed that Wally "belonged to" Bondi. X at LM 1411.) Under Austrian law, a bona fide purchaser for value can acquire title "at a public auction from a tradesman authorized to carry on such trade," regardless of whether the seller actually owned the property in question, but only if the purchaser has a good faith belief that the owner is the seller from the time the contract governing the transfer is completed to the time of the actual property transfer. 2002 WL 553532, at *24 ("All parties concede that Dr. Leopold's knowledge can be imputed to the Leopold Foundation by reason of his having been the Museological Director at all relevant times."). But until last year the 1912 painting was locked up in New York, caught in a legal battle between the Austria museum and the Jewish family from whom the Nazis seized the painting in 1939. Leopold agreed to help, but in 1954 he purchased the painting for himself. (citing United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37, 56 (2d Cir. at 294. It is well-settled that in the pre-CAFRA context, the Government may use hearsay evidence to make its threshold showing of probable cause. at LM 1663.) 202 (2000), are constitutional. . Dr. Leopold thus "concluded that Mrs. Jaray had sold the picture to Dr. Rieger" because his heirs sold it to the Belvedere. Since the 73-year-drama surrounding the painting’s ownership eventually cost D’Arcy his reporter’s job at National Public Radio, he also appears as one of … Authenticity may be established in a number of ways, including through testimony of a witness with knowledge of the proffered item, see Fed.R.Evid. He admittedly knew that Bondi claimed the painting but never asked her how she lost it. c. Dr. Leopold's Knowledge may be imputed to the Museum. Decl. Wally I, 105 F. Supp. (O/A Tr. Whether Dr. Leopold knew Wally was stolen. (RL Opp. Antique Platter, 991 F. Supp. That Kallir put the word "bought" in quotes indicates that he either suspected or had been told otherwise, and the remainder of the sentence clearly indicates that Welz tookWally "against [Bondi's] will." According to Dr. Leopold, he told Bondi to contact the Belvedere or hire an attorney, but she prevailed on him to speak personally with Belvedere representatives. It offers no authority indicating that laches even applies to a civil forfeiture action brought by the United States, and for good reason, as Supreme Court precedent makes this a dubious proposition. Portrait of Wally ( 51 ) IMDb 6.8 1h 30min 2013 7+ The story of a Nazi-looted painting, Egon Schiele's "Portrait of Wally," that was discovered on the walls of the Museum of Modern Art in 1997, triggering a historic court case that pitted the Manhattan District Attorney, the United States Government and the heirs of a Viennese gallery owner against a major Austrian museum and MoMA. Judge Mukasey rejected this argument, holding that "CAFRA does not apply to forfeiture proceedings commenced before August 23, 2000." 11). ¶¶ 17-18, 22.) N at LM 3832). (Id. (RL Decl. Datierung: 1912. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. Thus, the Government asserts, Dr. Leopold's failure to include Dr. Rieger, his heirs, or the Belvedere, despite the fact that their purported ownership had not been reported in the 1966 Kallir catalogue, shows that he knew they never owned Wally. The Museum seeks an order striking the Seizure Warrant whereby Wally was seized at the outset of this action, granting the Museum's claim toWally, and releasing the Painting to the Museum. The Schiele works, including Wally, were shipped to New York in September of 1997. (Konwitschka Decl. 9144 (PAC), 2007 WL 576124, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Yet another problematic aspect of the settlement was highlighted by Tom Freudenheim, a longtime American museum professional, in his July 27 article for the Wall Street Journal---What Is Lost When Works Are Trophies. The Museum's contention that Dr. Leopold acquired Wally either as a bona fide purchaser or by prescription ultimately fails because he too had reason to doubt the Belvedere's ownership and never performed an investigation sufficient to assuage that doubt. It further contends that Austrian law is unclear as to Wally's ownership. . N at LM 3832-33.) ), While the Government and the Museum dispute whether this transaction was voluntary, there is no doubt that Welz became an official member of the National Socialist German Workers, or Nazi, Party shortly thereafter. It does not, however, assert that the Belvedere hurried to complete the transaction. See United States v. Spencer, 439 F.2d 1047, 1049 (2d Cir. "Injustice upon injustice upon injustice" is how one interviewee describes the saga behind Portrait of Wally , a 1912 painting by Egon Schiele of his mistress Valerie "Wally" Neuzil. See, e.g., United States v. Giles, 300 U.S. 41, 48-49 (1937) (defendant's use of innocent intermediary did not insulate him from conviction for falsifying bank records). Dabei kehrte das Bild erst im Sommer 2010 nach Österreich zurück, zuvor hatte sich um das Porträt ein jahrelanger Rechtsstreit entsponnen: 1998 war es nach der Schiele Ausstellung im Museum of Modern Art beschlagnahmt worden und verschwand in … The Museum contends that the painting referred to as "His Wife's Portrait" in the Receipt and Agreement was Wally. ¶ 17.) ), Dr. Leopold responded in a letter dated October 16, 1957, saying that Hunna's letter "concealed many important facts" and giving the following account of his 1953 meeting with Bondi and subsequent events. However, the attached schedule does not list Wally but rather "His Wife's Portrait." I recall well the citywide celebrations in … ¶ 5.) Because the 1966 Kallir Catalogue already listed Emil Toepfer and Dr. Leopold, no revision was necessary. 11; 3/10/08 Levin Decl. ¶ 131; LM 56.1 Stmt. Over the course of this transaction, Bondi asked Dr. Leopold where Wally was. (LM Opp. This same language directly contradicts the Museum's suggestion at oral argument that it should be held to a lesser burden than preponderance of the evidence should the Government show probable cause to believe Wally forfeit. The Museum asserts that Wally's transfer was prompted by lawyers for the Rieger heirs, who sought restitution of their client's interests, not Bondi's. ¶ 20.). Nor is there any indication that the BDA knew Wally was stolen, and, as Judge Mukasey noted, even if it had, it cannot be deemed to have been Bondi's agent due to "divided loyalties." A small 1912 painting by the Austrian artist Egon Schiele, Portrait of Wally is perhaps the best-known representation of his model, lover, and co-conspirator Walburga ‘Wally’ Neuzil. (Id. Also, although it speculates that the Restitution Commission may have addressed Wally's ownership during Bondi's restitution proceeding, the Museum has submitted no evidence supporting this assertion. 19:17-18, Oct. 16, 2006; accord Joint 56.1 Stmt. However, in his letter, Mueller also expressly notes that "[a]s far as I know, it was determined at the time that the Schiele picture `Portrait of his Wife' listed under 3. belonged to the Jaray collection. The Museum again argues that applying the NSPA to Wally is unconstitutional because Wally was not stolen but rather is subject to a genuine ownership dispute. 1. 28, 2007; Joint 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10.) “Portrait of Wally”, Egon Schiele’s tender picture of his mistress, Walburga (“Wally”) Neuzil, is the pride of the Leopold Museum in Vienna. The Museum argues that under both United States and Austrian law, even if Welz stole Wally, the Painting was longer stolen by the time the Museum acquired it. ¶ 52A.) L-3 Commnc'ns Corp. v. OSI Sys., No. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. (O/A Tr. - [Narrator] It's hard to imagine how the Nazis, who were murdering people by the … ¶ 122; 5/14/09 Levin Decl. The Commission noted that "[d]uring the course of the evidentiary procedure no facts of the case could be determined that showed that [Bondi] would have sold [the Gallery] without being persecuted due to the national socialist seizure of power." Cf. DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 836 F.2d 103, 112 (2d Cir. (Id. Wally III, 2002 WL 553532, at *20. A showing of authenticity is sufficient if "a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification." ), The Museum objects that this provision could not have applied to Wally because on its face it applied to "restitution from Germany and Austria to Italy, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland, and from Germany to Austria," and Wally never left Austria. ¶ 85.) She resisted, explaining that the Painting was part of her private collection and had never been part of the gallery. He began studying medicine in 1945 and earned his doctorate in 1953, when he also married his wife, Elisabeth. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. (LM Counter 56.1 Stmt. 9940 (MBM), 2002 WL 553532, at *33 (S.D.N.Y. "Spatola v. United States, 925 F.2d 615, 618 (2d Cir. First, the Museum argues, as it did in Wally I and Wally III, that even if Welz stole Wally, the Painting ceased to be stolen by operation of law when United States forces recovered it after World War II. (LM Mem. (LM Counter 56.1 Stmt. 32.) This showing is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Dr. Leopold knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that Wally was stolen. ¶ 125.) (Id. Ex. This ruling was predicated on the following passage from the Second Amended Verified Complaint: Similar logic precluded any finding of implied agency between Bondi and the BDA because "like the armed forces, the BDA did not know Wally was stolen." ¶ 9. It also points to numerous letters from Bondi indicating that although she knew where Wally was, she consciously chose not to sue for it because, as she wrote in a May 16, 1965 letter to Kallir, "if the litigation was lost, the picture would irrevocably be taken from my possession. 219.). Appx. Furthermore, as the Government observes, the Partial Decision's reference to Welz's failure to "conduct himself in a fair and generous manner" with regard to "a Biedermier table and a Schiele" might well indicate that the Commission was distinguishing these items from property belonging to the Gallery and thus subject to appropriation under the Aryanization laws, in which case the reference to a Schiele would not necessarily imply that Bondi had submitted a separate claim for it in those same proceedings. As explained below, I find that abstention is not warranted, there is no genuine dispute that Wally was, and remains, stolen, and the Museum's laches defense and constitutional objections are without merit. (Id. See id. Director Andrew Shea. Additional resources: “Two Schiele Drawings Ordered Returned to Heirs of Nazi Victim, ” The New York Times, April 6, 2018. 12, 2002) (hereafter "Wally III"). ¶ 13.) ¶ 70.) However, before proceeding with the exchange, Dr. Leopold again spoke with Garzarolli, who reiterated that Bondi had never claimed Wally from the Belvedere. ¶ 5.) ¶¶ 54-57), the Belvedere did not possess Wally long enough to acquire the Painting by prescription before it encountered a suspicious fact. They are described as "[p]aintings purchased during the war by Frederic Wels, Salzburg, from the confiscated collection of Dr. Heinrich Reiger (deceased), former Jew of Vienna, and recovered from his collection in Salzburg." 14 at US 000156. Ex. Lucente v. Int'l Bus. The Museum argues that in the years between the close of World War II andWally's 1997 importation, either the Belvedere or Dr. Leopold acquired title to the Painting. ¶ 21.) (Joint 56.1 Stmt. Ex. at *9. (Joint 56.1 Stmt. There is no reference to the Rieger heirs ever having owned Wally. After years of extensive discovery following the issuance ofWally III, the parties now move for summary judgment. (Id. Ex. 1991). As the Museum admitted at oral argument, this document is not "a case winner by any means." Egon Schiele's `Portrait of Wally,' a painting stolen by Nazis, hung in the Museum of Modern Art until a historic lawsuit put it back in the hands of its rightful owners. What average rating did they give to Portrait of Wally … The Museum does not dispute his observation that the Act of State doctrine is intended to prevent courts from inquiring into the validity of foreign acts where doing so would "embarrass or hinder the executive in its conduct of foreign relations" and that this concern is not implicated here, where both the executive branch actively seeks adjudication of its claim and Austrian law favors restoration of ownership.Id. ¶ 80.) The Court...ruled that the Government had made a probable cause showing that Leopold knew "Wally" was stolen property when it was imported into the United States. ), That winter, Bondi told him she was coming to Vienna, and, at her behest, Dr. Leopold arranged a meeting between Bondi and Garzarolli. ¶ 84.) . when he demanded a `Biedermeier table and a Schiele from [Bondi].'" (See Joint 56.1 Stmt. In making this determination, the Court balances the "interests of the respective forums and of international policy." Around June 8, 1948, Lieutenant Colonel McKee ("McKee") of the RDR wrote to the United States Forces, Property Control and Restitution Section, attaching a list of Rieger collection paintings acquired by Welz but still missing. Welz did not compensate her for the Painting. Moreover, even if a laches defense could apply, the Museum does not contest that the United States timely filed suit. Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed. Directed by Andrew Shea. Therefore, the Government has met its threshold burden of showing probable cause to believe Welz stole Wally from Bondi by demanding it from her at a time when she could not refuse. Ex. Legislation (Id. Accordingly, I will not exercise my discretion to dismiss this action on the basis of international comity. (See 5/14/09 Levin Decl. Nor do they dispute that Wally was among the seized property. 24 n. ¶ 24; Lambert Resp. Additionally, the statement has been authenticated by Bachert as having come from the files of the Galerie St. Etienne and is admissible as an ancient document under Rules 901(b)(8) and 803(16). at 232. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. is a shield of equitable defense rather than a sword for the investiture or divestiture of legal title or right. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. "); Declaration of Romana Schuler sworn to October 5, 2004 ("Schuler Decl. ¶ 51.) Making all reasonable inferences in the Museum's favor, as I must when assessing whether to grant the Government's summary judgment motion, these arguments and the evidence supporting them raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Museum has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Leopold lacked the requisite scienter to render Wally forfeit. Dr. Leopold Revises Wally 's Provenance. This interpretation is unduly restrictive. 11 at LM 0213.) "); Response by Plaintiff United States of America and Claimant Estate of Lea Bondi Jaray to Claimant Leopold Museum's Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement ("Joint Counter 56.1 Stmt. but always by mutual agreement with, and with the consent of the [Museum]." Mark Feeney Boston Globe. Egon Schieles Bildnis „Wally“ aus dem Jahre 1912 zählt zu den bekanntesten Bilder des österreichischen Malers und ist der Stolz des Museums Leopold in Wien. . (Id. Under the Austrian law, "a possessor of property may acquire title to that property if the possession is based on legal title (purchase or exchange) and extends throughout the statutory period accompanied by the possessor's belief that the possession is lawful." 2d at 293 ("It seems obvious that stolen property, recaptured by the police, no longer has the status of stolen goods but, rather, is held by the police in trust for, or for the account of, the owner. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. Both the Government and the Museum have thus offered conflicting evidence to support their respective positions on Dr. Leopold's knowledge with respect to Wally. The artist inscribed only "EGON SCHIELE, 1912" on the work. at *15. ¶ 130.) . "); Declaration of Dr. Peter Lambert in Response to Declaration of Dr. Peter Knowitschka sworn to March 26, 2009 ("Lambert Resp. . Ex. (See id.). 219). Today is National Voter Registration Day! 1997) (applying probable cause standard to civil forfeiture action under NSPA) (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Property Located at 15 Black Ledge Drive, Marlborough, Conn., 897 F.2d 97, 101 (2d Cir. (Id.) (Id.) The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. (Joint 56.1 Stmt. Even if admissible, this uncorroborated entry, prepared by an unknown individual years after the event in question, is insufficient to counter Bondi's multiple written statements indicating she was not paid for the Painting and the Restitution Commission's acknowledgement that Welz had improperly "demanded a Biedermeier table and a Schiele from [Bondi]. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. ), On or about May 16, 1947, Robert Rieger, Dr. Rieger's son, engaged attorneys Dr. Oskar Mueller ("Mueller") and Dr. Christian Broda ("Broda") to help him and his niece, Tanna Berger (collectively, the "Rieger heirs"), recover property the Nazis had taken from their family. However, the Commission also observed that "based on the evidentiary procedure to date, [it] has not come to the conclusion that [Welz] conducted himself improperly or that he did not adhere to the rules of honest dealings." (RL Decl. Portrait of a Lady was missing for 22 years until gardeners cleared ivy from a gallery wall. (citing United States v. Benson, 548 F.2d 42, 44-46 (2d. aa. "); Opposition Declaration of Rudolf Leopold sworn to June 4, 2008 ("RL Opp. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. Wally was among the paintings the RDR delivered to the BDA at this time. Specifically, the [Third] Complaint alleges that, under Military Decree Number 3, "the allied forces seized all of the property of suspected war criminals, regardless of whether it was stolen, Aryanized, or legitimately acquired." Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you. Sometime between 1987 and 1990, when he was helping his grandmother "tidy the bureau," he discovered the Bondi Statement, along with other papers belonging to his grandmother and to Bondi, "in the lower drawer of the two main drawers" of the bureau. . (3/10/08 Levin Decl. Based on her correspondence and an unsigned statement found in her bureau more than twenty years after her death, the Government offers the following disputed account of her post-war efforts to recoverWally. 55:19-56:4; Joint 56.1 Stmt. Jane Kallir began working for her grandfather at the Gallery St. Etienne in 1977. ¶ 1.) So Portrait of Wally was the subject of a long-running legal battle, precisely because of this reluctance of the museum in Vienna that held it to return it to the people who were claiming it. A fact from Portrait of Wally appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? ¶ 3.) As noted above, all of her letters, as well as the Bondi Statement, indicate that Welz took Wally from Bondi's apartment after she told him that it was her private property apart from the Würthle Gallery. 90%. (LM Counter 56.1 Stmt. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Indeed, when she discovered that Dr. Leopold had gotten Wally from the Belvedere, Bondi asked Hunna to retrieve it from him. ¶ 127.) (Joint Opp. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. D at JK 000997-98.) Having disposed of the Museum's abstention arguments, I now turn to the parties' substantive arguments. Dr. Leopold therefore was obliged to do additional investigation.") 16.) 2-4; LM Opp. ¶ 9.) (LM Counter 56.1 Stmt. See United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1940) ("It is well settled that the United States is not . ), ii. (LM Mem. (Joint 56.1 Stmt. . ¶ 70.) (3/10/08 Levin Decl. Indus. The Government has thus shown probable cause to believe the Museum and the MOMA jointly imported Wally, and the Museum offers no evidence indicating otherwise. (Id. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. ¶ 62. First, the book contains an essay on Rieger that contains the following language (translated from German): "In addition to two paintings ["Cardinal and Nun" and "Lovers"], Dr. Rieger later owned a substantial collection of Schiele's drawings and watercolors, which was exhibited at the `Neue Galerie' in 1928." . The Museum maintains, and the Government disputes, that Bondi soldWally to Welz as part of the Würthle Gallery in 1938, more than a year before she left for England, in exchange for 200 Reichsmarks. 19.) Ex. (Id.) (RL Decl. ¶ 1. 1989)). (Id.). Ex. (3/10/08 Levin Decl. ¶ 41.) Portrait of Wally (2012) Critic Reviews - Cinafilm has 27 reviews of Portrait of Wally from critics. ¶¶ 61, 68-69. 2d at 294. Mem. However, the Estate's claim would be predicated on whether it has title under Austrian law, and Judge Mukasey has already decided that "under [Austrian law], Bondi's ownership claim survives." (Id. Dr. Garzarolli's December 3, 1957 letter to Hunna corroborates this account insofar as it asserts that Bondi twice visited the Belvedere without mentioning any claim to Wally and that the Painting had been restituted to the Rieger heirs. Wally I, 105 F. Supp. Tr. At the commemorative ceremony on July 29 that celebrated the $19-million settlement of the legal dispute, Andre Bondi, representing the family receiving the financial compensation from the painting's current owner (the Leopold Museum, Vienna), spoke movingly of his father Henry's efforts to right a historic wrong: David Marwell, whose museum hosted the event, highlighted one lesson to be learned from "Wally": She can teach us about justice, even justice that comes after more than seven decades: how fidelity to basic values...and no small measure of hard work can help to get some things right. Ex. Furthermore, like Kallir's October 31, 1966 letter discussed above, these documents do nothing to controvert Bondi's explicit and repeated statements that Welz came to her apartment and tookWally, which was never part of her gallery, against her will. Ex. ¶ 13.) 17-18); and (3) as evidenced by the Bondi Statement, Bondi visited the Belvedere and claimed ownership of Wally, thereby providing an independent objective reason for the Belvedere to doubt it owned the Painting (Joint Mem. (See 3/17/00 Lambert Decl. 1982). Should the Government establish probable cause to believe Wally is forfeit, the burden shifts to the Museum to prove otherwise, and the Government need provide admissible evidence only after the Museum has met that burden.See id. (Joint 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 25.) (3/10/08 Levin Decl. Kirkpatrick Co. Inc. v. Envtl. at LM 1255.) He further testified that he had lived in the 2 Lambolle Road residence for several years in the late 80's and early 90's and that Bondi's belongings remained there long after her death in 1969. (Joint 56.1 Stmt. Unfortunately, I am unable to examine the accuracy of this statement." Ex. Bondi's October 3, 1957 letter to Hunna and a letter she wrote to Kallir on March 14, 1958 indicate that the transfer occurred in 1938. Topics to be covered include the protracted litigation over its ownership and the broader implications of that vexing case. . Id. Ex. Full Review. The parties shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than October 14, 2009 how they propose to proceed. D at JK 00058; LM 56.1 Stmt. In addition to specifying agreed-upon agents for "import/export formalities" in Europe and the United States, the 1997 Agreement provided that "the transportation shall be organized by the [MOMA] . Portrait of Wally "Portrait of Wally" isn't just about stolen art: It's about cultural skulduggery, political sleaze, institutional hypocrisy and the virtues of persistence. (LM Opp. The Government and the Estate further assert that claimant the Leopold Museum (the "Museum"), knowing Wally was stolen or converted, nonetheless shipped it into this country in violation of the National Stolen Property Act ("NSPA"), 18 U.S.C. (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Ex. 1990) (affirming admission of document authenticated as ancient document under hearsay exception); 5 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 803.18 ("[I]f a document meets the requirements for authentication under Rule 901, statements in it are excepted from the hearsay rule by Rule 803(16).").