#fightforfred

A former museum director, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed Mr. Miller has enough documentation to prove ownership, and a reasonable museum would return Mr. Miller’s property. Why does The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum continue to withhold Mr. Miller’s belongings from him?

At the yearly Muster in November 2019, Founding Director of The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum, Captain Norm Olson (SEAL), USN, retired, tried to help Mr. Miller retrieve the property he had loaned to the museum for its opening on Veterans Day, Sunday, the 10th of November 1985. Capt. Olson had become the founding director on the first of February 1985, and wrote in his account of the experience, “During the first few months, I wrote several thousand personal letters to current and former Frogmen and SEALs to enlist their financial support, locate former Teammates, procure artifacts, documents and photographs” (“Retired SEAL Norm Olson Signs on as Founding Director”, Olson, para. 10), one of those letters made its way onto the desk of Mr. Miller.

In February 1985, Mr. Miller, owner of Mid-America Recreation, Moline, Illinois, a retail firearm, gunsmith, indoor shooting range, and firearm manufacturing business, was more than willing to assist Capt. Olson. Prior to March 4, 1985, Mr. Miller in good faith, tagged, crated, and shipped, with his own money, 38 items from his personal collection. These items were sent in accordance with an oral agreement between Mr. Miller and Capt. Olson, who had implied signature authority to bind the museum into an agreement with the understanding that these items were a loan, and would be returned to Mr. Miller at any time upon request. Mr. Miller, committed to the success of the then UDT-SEAL Museum, was pleased to help. 

Mr. Jack Saunders, “a long time Teammate and the [Naval Training] Center’s Naval Special Warfare Recruiting Coordinator [Orlando]” (“Dedication Ceremony on Veterans Day 1985”, Olson para. 2) and friend of Mr. Miller, recently recalled opening the crate Mr. Miller sent to the museum. While Mr. Saunders does not recall a property book at this time, others have recalled seeing a property book that listed all of Mr. Miller’s items and their provenance. On March 4, 1985, Mr. Miller wrote to then "Curator Emeritus of UTD-SEAL Museum”, Chief Jim “Patches” Watson, at the museum to inquire about the shipment, and specifically asked if a 1903 Springfield, made by Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, IL, (Letter-Miller, 1985) had been included by mistake. Receiving no response, one month later, April 15, 1985, Mr. Miller wrote to Watson again, but this time addressed the letter to his home in Vero Beach (Letter-Miller, Jim Watson - Vero Beach, 1985). Again, Mr. Miller received no response.

In July 1985, Mr. Miller and Capt. Olson met, and Mr. Miller’s offer to assist Capt. Olson further was accepted and appreciated. At this time, Capt. Olson had asked the NAVSPECWARCR “for many items, e.g., wetsuit, parachute(s), jungle fatigues, web gear, etc., to outfit mannequins, but to no avail,” (Letter-Meeting, 1985). However, with Mr. Miller’s offer to help, Capt. Olson was “now optimistic that we will have a professional weapons display.” (Letter-Meeting, 1985) Capt. Olson asked Mr. Miller to “formulate a plan to put together a representative family of weapons that accurately depicts the UDT/SEAL from World War II through Vietnam” (Letter-Meeting, 1985). Utilizing Mr. Miller’s personal and professional contacts, letters soliciting help were sent to The National Museum of American History-Smithsonian Institute, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command, Smith & Wesson, Inc, Beretta USA Corp., Bushmaster Firearms, Inc, Colt Industries, Fabrique Nationale Herstal, Gerber Legendary Blades, Heckler & Koch, Ithaca Gun Co, Marlin Firearms, O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc, Remington Arms, Springfield Armory, Strum, Ruger Co, Inc, the U.S. Repeating Arms. Co, and Winchester. “I have been referred to you by Mr. Fred Miller of Moline, Illinois, who has worked with you in the past. He is assisting me in putting together a weapons display and suggested that I contact you as the foremost expert in this field,” (Letter-Olson, Dr. Ezell, Ph.D., 1985) Capt. Olson wrote to Dr. Ezell at the Smithsonian Institute on August 8, 1985.

As the two men worked together, Capt. Olson shared updates and their efforts, separately and combined, began to gain traction. “Fred-I think I forgot to send this ltr-my first. We got the $15k from the F.O. so we’re on our way. Norm.” (PostIt-Olson, 1985) On September 9th, 1985, Capt Olson wrote to Mr. Miller asking for assistance with answering a letter from Smith & Wesson. “Dear Captain Olson: Thank you for the invitation to participate in establishment of the UDT-SEAL Museum. I am now attempting to identify equipment furnished by Smith & Wesson over the years and organize a suitable backdrop for whatever we might be able to provide,” (Lee, 1985) wrote Mr. Dennis Lee, Director-Federal Marketing for Smith & Wesson. Mr. Miller provided the information Capt. Olson requested, and Capt. Olson responded to Mr. Lee. Capt Olson and Mr. Miller worked together throughout the summer of 1985.

On November 10, 1985, the “U.D.T.-SEAL Museum” (Invitation, 1985) officially opened, and Mr. Miller’s property was displayed. Despite tagging all 38 items he had sent to the museum, and all he had done to assist ahead of the opening, there was no association of Mr. Miller to his loaned property on display or recognition of Mr. Miller’s contributions. Even though Mr. Miller had not received any written acknowledgment that the museum had documented his loaned property correctly, Mr. Miller carried on because he trusted Capt. Olson and felt confident with the oral agreement. Mr. Miller considered Capt. Olson a friend, and as a fellow teammate living by the “Navy SEAL standards of excellence…to demonstrate uncompromising integrity”, (Museum, Preserving The Legacy, 2021) why wouldn’t he?

Almost four months after the opening of the museum and nearly a year since Mr. Miller had tagged, crated, and shipped, items from his personal collection for use at the museum’s opening day, he received confirmation of his loaned items in the form of a receipt, “February 24, 1986…The enclosed Receipt for Loan form reflects the approximate date that you made the loan to the UDT-SEAL Museum Association, Inc.” (Receipt-Letter, 1986). The “Receipt for Loans” listed 37 items, many misspelled and poorly defined, for example, “Colt AR-15, SPl semi-auto, Ser. SP---- & SP----” (Receipt, 1986, p. 2). Those two firearms are all original ArmaLite “Greenie” parts except for the lower receivers listed on the document, implying that by this time the tags with the item descriptions Mr. Miller had sent along to establish provenance were no longer attached.

June 10, 1989, approximately four-and-a-half-years after Mr. Miller first shipped his loaned items, and again on April 2, 1990 (Letter-Request, Mr. Miller to the Museum to Return Property, 1990), approximately seven months prior to the expiration of the five-year loan term listed on the “Receipt for Loans” (Receipt, 1986, p. 1), Mr. Miller wrote to the museum at least three times and indicated he did not wish to renew the loan, but he would like to arrange for the return of his items. While Mr. Miller was confident with the oral agreement between him and Capt. Olson, Mr. Miller was concerned that the museum would believe they had a contract and felt it was necessary to comply accordingly. In a letter dated June 10, 1989, Mr. Miller wrote, “I was pleased to loan part of my personal gun and knife collection to the museum for its opening day. The time is approaching to either donate or have the items return[ed] to me. I do not wish to renew the loan agreement at this time. Please make arrangements for the return of my personal items to me as soon as possible. I have written to Chief Watson and have not received a response as of this date” (Letter-Request, 1989).

When Mr. Miller’s letters went unanswered, he began requesting the return of his loaned items in person, and to help guide him in that process was Capt. Olson. Nearly each Muster Mr. Miller attended, Capt. Olson would personally escort and introduce Mr. Miller to the new executive director to retrieve his loaned property from the museum. Mr. Miller spoke with Mr. Balzarini, a former SEAL and president of the UDT-SEAL Museum from 1996 to 1999 (Obituaries, 2018), about his loaned property and requested its return. Mr. Balzarini told Mr. Miller that the museum still did not have many items to display and asked Mr. Miller if the museum could keep his loaned property for a while longer. Despite the lack of response from the museum to Mr. Miller’s written inquiries, Mr. Miller was satisfied with the acknowledgment that the museum still viewed the items as a loan and Mr. Miller as the owner. Mr. Miller agreed to leave the items at the museum and continue the loan.

In the years that followed, Mr. Miller spoke with Capt. Mike, a retired SEAL and executive director of The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum from 2004 to 2012 (Howard, 2015). Capt. Mike told Mr. Miller that if the guns were his he would see to it that Mr. Miller would get his property back. However, upon follow-up, Capt. Mike could not speak with Mr. Miller as he was too busy with the Museum certification. In retrospect, is it possible that Mr. Miller was schmoozed into believing that all was well, when really the intent was to deceive?

Since then, all attempts by Mr. Miller to retrieve his items have gone from bad to worse. Several times Mr. Miller has tried to speak with Ruth McSween, curator from 2005 to present (LinkedIn, 2021). On one occasion, McSween referenced Mr. Miller’s issue by saying something to the effect of, I suppose you want to talk to me about getting your guns back, but then she turned her back on Mr. Miller and walked away. On another occasion, when Mr. Miller went to her office at the museum, she darted behind her office door and locked it. On yet another occasion, she blurted out, “this is not the time, nor the place”. Well, if not at the museum during the yearly Muster when everyone is in town, then when is the time, and where is the place?

Capt. Olson, ever faithful to Mr. Miller, would introduce Mr. Miller to anyone he thought would be able to help get his loaned property returned to him by the museum. Often, those conversations would begin warm and friendly and end with some expressed willingness to help Mr. Miller, but upon follow-up, all discussion on the matter would stop cold. For example, after yet another attempt to speak with someone at the museum about the return of his property, November 7, 2016, Dave Watts, a former SEAL and currently the Vice Chairman of California Board, (Museum, 2021) wrote to Mr. Miller by email, “I would very much appreciate it if you could mail or email me copies of the documentation you have with the Museum about the collection stored and on displayed there. They are important items in the Museum’s collection, and the only documentation the staff has been able to find indicates that it was a donation not a loan. But I will personally review what you can send me and work hard to find a good resolution of this issue. I hope to hear back from you” (Email, 2016). Mr. Miller responded to Mr. Watts’ email by sending hard copies of the requested documentation to Mr. Watts and several people on the board of directors, care of the museum, for review. Mr. Miller received no further communication from Mr. Watts or anyone else.

On another occasion, Mr. Miller received a call from Capt. Olson ahead of that year’s Muster. Capt. Olson was calling to tell Mr. Miller that the museum had a new executive director, a former SEAL, and that he felt confident the new executive director would help Mr. Miller to get his loaned property returned. At the Muster, Capt. Olson met up with Mr. Miller, took him by the arm, and lead him to meet the new executive director, but before Capt. Olson could introduce Mr. Miller, Rick Kaiser blurted out that he had heard about Mr. Miller, and he would not give his guns back without seeing the contract. Kaiser then went to walk away, and Mr. Miller stepped with him to try and further the conversation, but before that could happen Kaiser told Mr. Miller, “If you don’t like it get a lawyer.” 

At the 2019 Muster, Mr. Miller again spoke with Kaiser about having his loaned property returned, except this time Kaiser told Mr. Miller that the museum would “return everything they don’t want.” Additionally, Mr. Miller would need to pay the museum for the storage of his items all these years, as well as pay for the display cases and shipping of his items back to him. After Kaiser told Mr. Miller what would be required for him to get his loaned property back, Mr. Miller stated that it sounded a little severe to which Kaiser replied, “I don’t care, and I don’t care about you either, Fred.”

After this conversation, Mr. Miller caught up with Capt. Olson for the last time. The man who was ever faithful to Mr. Miller and his efforts to have his loaned property returned to him, 34 years after their initial endeavor to set the museum on a path to success, died October 29, 2020. Capt. Olson expressed regret and confusion about the museum not returning Mr. Miller’s loaned property throughout the years. At the 25th Anniversary of the opening of the museum Founding Director Captain Norm Olson (SEAL), USN, retired, having worked diligently to get the museum up and running all those years ago, was not asked to say a few words nor recognized in any way.

“Often called the "quiet professionals" they take on the most dangerous missions, often anonymously, and ask for nothing in return” (Museum, Home, 2021). Mr. Miller has never asked for anything other than the return of his personal property. Quietly keeping the situation with the museum to himself, Mr. Miller did not seek legal counsel until 2020. For Mr. Miller, when dealing with men of honor and integrity, men who live the “Navy SEAL Standards of excellence” (Museum, Preserving The Legacy, 2021), there is no reason for legal intervention. It is important to note that to date, relief has not been found in the law but proved interesting.

In the “Defendant’s [museum] Motion for Sanctions” filed 11/25/2020, the museum refers to Mr. Miller as “Miller” quickly exercising a hierarchy, and framing Mr. Miller as being at its lowest rung instead of calling him “Plaintiff”. This tracks with an experience Mr. Miller had at the museum offices. Mr. Miller knocked on Kaiser’s door and when asked, “Who is it?” Mr. Miller stated his name. From inside the office, he heard someone say, “Who in the hell is Fred Miller?” Another voice from inside the office replied, “He’s a nobody.”

In the same motion, the museum states, “concerning the donation of various automatic weapons.” As previously mentioned, the “Colt AR-15, SPl semi-auto, Ser. SP---- & SP----” have all original ArmaLite “Greenie” parts except for the lower receiver. The original “Greenies,” issued to the Navy in 1966, were full-automatic, whereas the guns that Mr. Miller loaned to the Museum were made up of ArmaLite parts with an AR-15 semi-automatic Colt lower receiver. Anyone of average intelligence, and certainly a former Navy SEAL, would know there are no “automatic weapons” in Mr. Miller’s list of loaned items. It is possible that the museum intended to persuade a potential judge’s perception of Mr. Miller and his property by framing it in this negative light. Is The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum in favor of designating AR-15s full-automatic weapons and limiting ownership?

Continuing with the same Motion, “Miller then left the donated items at the Museum for thirty years and is now attempting to sue for money damages arising therefrom.” Again, the items were always a loan. In a letter from Richard D. Ward, president UDT-SEAL Museum Association, dated "12 May 1985" (note, the envelope is dated 12 May 1986), he writes on UDT-SEAL Museum Association Inc. letterhead, “Dear Fred, In grateful appreciation for your significant contribution of weapons to the UDT-SEAL Museum Association, you have been forwarded under separate cover a “UDT-SEAL Commemorative Fighting Knife” made by the American Historical Foundation. Your unselfish efforts in support of the Museum are well recognized and greatly appreciated. I don’t know if you can realize it, but without the loan of your personal collection, the Museum would be virtually devoid of weapons. Again, on behalf of the Association, I thank you for your support. I hope that this knife will serve as a small token of appreciation for your very big effort toward making the museum a reality. cc: file” (Letter-Ward, 1985*). Additionally, it was a member of the museum staff, Rick Kaiser, that told Mr. Miller to seek legal representation. Prior to Kaiser’s comment to Mr. Miller to “get a lawyer,” over the last 30 years all attempts by Mr. Miller to try to resolve the issue were done discretely and directly with the Museum staff and board members.

The museum motion continues, “Miller’s breach of contract claim, even if it was not factually disputed, was barred by Miller’s failure to bring his cause of action for over 25 years after the statute of limitation expired (Fla Stat S 95.11(2)(b.).” But Mr. Miller never stopped pursuing the return of his loaned property. As previously mentioned, Mr. Miller received an email from Dave Watts on November 7, 2016, and this was the first time Mr. Miller was advised in writing, or otherwise, by the museum that there was an issue with his loan: “the only documentation the staff has been able to find indicates that it was a donation not a loan” (Email, 2016). Instead, Mr. Miller’s attempts to retrieve his property resulted in Mr. Miller being shunned with no explanation, and Mr. Miller was never made aware of any change to the status of his loaned items by the museum. It is interesting to note, in “…Bufano v. San Francisco, 233 Cal. App. 2d 61, 43 Cal. Rptr.223 (1965), an artist sued the city for two of his sculptures that had been held by the city for seventeen years. The court held that a statute of limitations would not begin to run until the owner was on notice that the city claimed the sculptures as its own” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 323).

The State of Florida did not enact statute related to museums until, approximately, 1997: “265.565 Property loaned to museums; obligations to lenders; notice; loan termination; acquisition of title; liens; conservation or disposal”, and at that time defined “Unclaimed property”, and outlined “Obligations of Museums to Lenders”, and “Museum Gaining Title to Property; Conditions”, but 265.565 only applied to: “property loaned to a museum after the effective date of this act”. This is not to say that museums were not without some guidance. First published in 1985, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections is described on Amazon: “Hailed when it was first published in 1985 as the bible of U.S. collections management, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections offers the only comprehensive discussion of the legal questions faced by museums regarding collections.” This book outlines all best practices for museum operations, including, “Collection management policies” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 45). 

“Records of accessioned objects should further reflect the prior history of ownership of each object and all activity of the object (loan, exhibit, restoration, deaccession). Records of objects on loan to the museum should reflect all activity of the objects while under the control of the museum” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 55), which means the museum should have a thorough account of all 38 of Mr. Miller’s items on loan over the last 36 years, including any changes in their ownership status. Ahead of any change in the ownership status, or under common law, if the museum wished to break the bailment status: “The museum should notify the lender that the lender’s legal title to the object is being challenged by the museum and could be lost if the lender remains silent” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 322). “To ensure that the limitations period is triggered, the museum should notify the lender by certified mail, return receipt requested, to prove that the lender received actual notice of the museum’s actions” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 323). Mr. Miller continues to reside at the same home address listed in museum correspondence, and received a request to renew his association membership at that address on the 23 of April 1996 (Letter-Membership, 1996). Also, he still accepts mail at the Mid-America Recreation, Inc. address, the same address listed on the “Receipt for Loans” (Receipt, 1986, p. 1). Contacting Mr. Miller by the United States Postal Service would have taken very little effort, yet Mr. Miller has never received any notice from the Museum related to his loaned property.

“…the court in the McCagg case cautioned that constructive notice may be available only if actual notice is not possible…a museum must be in a position to show that the lender or heirs could not be located after reasonable efforts by the museum to do so” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 324). Even if the Museum utilized the “constructive notice” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p.  325) method and put an ad in a newspaper, as is a common method when the lender can not be found, the Supreme Court “has noted that “due regard for the practicalities and peculiarities” of each case determine whether the constitutional due process requirements for adequate notice and opportunity to appear have been reasonably met. In addition to the Museum’s own records, the following additional sources have been identified as useful for searching for missing lenders: probate records, telephone directories” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 325). Mr. Miller has the same home phone number as he did in 1985. “Under the Constitution of the United States, owners of property must be given adequate notice and opportunity to protect their rights associated with that property” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 324). Have Mr. Miller's constitutional rights been violated?

The museum continues its unwillingness to follow industry best practices or established museum practices and, by doing so, erodes the public trust by taking advantage of its patrons to this day. “For a museum, the IRS considers additions to the collections as a related use, but fund-raising (even when funds will be used to purchase objects for the collections) does not fall into this category. It is not wrong for a museum to accept donations of objects for an auction or for immediate exchange, but such transfers should be carried out in a forthright manner. Donors should be apprised of the intended use, the method of recording the gift should be distinct from an accession, and acknowledgments should be phrased accordingly. Without tax incentives and generous donors, museums could not flourish. A lack of candor on the part of museums in the handling of donations could jeopardize either or both of these benefits” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 60).

In October 2016, a long-time friend of Mr. Miller reached out by email to ask about The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum, “Fred, is the SEAL Museum a good one. Or do guns disappear? I am thinking of donating the Chris Kyle Springfield Commemorative Serial #1” (Email-2016). Springfield Armory had partnered with the Chris Kyle Frog Foundation to create 1000, 1911 TRP Pistol’s, just like the one Chris Kyle used in Fallujah as part of the Chris Kyle Legend Series. Mr. Miller’s friend had the winning bid for Serial No. 1/1000 during a live bidding session at the NRA Annual Meetings in Louisville, Kentucky, on Saturday, May 21, 2016 (Slowik, 2016), and he was interested to donate the pistol as a restricted gift. This meant he was interested in donating the pistol with conditions, those being that the pistol would be displayed at the museum and remain part of the museum’s permanent collection. Mr. Miller, forever loyal to the legacy of the UDT-SEAL, vouched for the Museum and its credibility: “the museum is a fine thing and getting better all the time. As far as I know nothing disappears. I have several items there on display. I am going down to Fort Pierce…November 4 for the annual muster and could take it there for you and get a receipt for it” (Email-Miller, 2016).

Mr. Miller’s friend then shipped the pistol to Mr. Miller, along with a note: “It is an honor to donate Springfield Armory Chris Kyle Commemorative Serial Number 1 to The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum. More than a physical object this gun embodies the sacrifice and heroic service of Seals for our country. May god always bless the warriors in The Teams and our great Nation. With deepest respect, [Name], 10-21-2016” (2016). Mr. Miller received the pistol and shipped it to the museum. Here, the delegation of authority to accept the object becomes unclear. Per museum best practices, the museum would have exercised their collection management policy and accession process ahead of the pistol arriving at the museum, but now that the pistol was on-site it was even more important to “question provenance; take advantage of art-loss registers to be sure the proposed acquisition is not listed as missing; make reasonable efforts to probe for indications of trouble (the level of efforts should be commensurate with the value of the material); keep records of all steps taken in the acquisition process, and publicize the acquisition of all objects of significance” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, pp. 80-81). At the very least, they should have contacted the owner, but that is not what happened.

Mr. Miller arrived at the Muster to find the pistol had been put into the raffle. November 3, 2017, he wrote: “I am in Ft. Pierce at the yearly muster. I [need] for you to call and email a man named Rolf, deputy director of the museum. Tell him you had no intentions of donating the pistol as a raffle piece. It was sent to the museum to honor Chris. It [is] up for raffle tomorrow. Call asap. Rolf (###)… Also email Rolf @ …Also send a email and call Kaiser the man we sent the gun to. You donated in honor of Chris. Not for auction. Fred” (Miller, 2017). The two men tried to remedy the situation, clarify, and set right the purpose of the restricted gift, but to no avail: “I’m in California. I called Rolf and explained that the gun was for the collection. He said that the gun was in the raffle, and he couldn’t guarantee that it could be removed” (Email-2017). Later, Mr. Miller asked Kaiser why he put the Chris Kyle pistol into the raffle, and Kaiser told him that: “it didn’t fit our criteria”, and, “we needed new windows for the museum”. If the National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum only intended to raffle it off as a fundraiser, then it was to be returned to the owner. “The museum has a responsibility to inform the donor if it does not intend to use the offered property for a related use, so that the donor is not misled as to tax consequences…the integrity of the individual empowered to accept the object and the museum’s integrity are at stake” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 408).

Lastly, Mr. Miller was the transferee not the owner: “When a museum acquires an object, therefore, attention should be given to the “completeness” of title. The museum should understand exactly what right it is acquiring and whether there is proper documentation of these rights” (Malaro &  DeAngelis, 2012, p. 64). The museum did no such thing when accepting the Chris Kyle pistol, and thirty-two years prior Capt. Olson foresaw how critical it was to honor the public trust in this way, “The Admiral’s Sister Beth, who had married Prescott Bush, brother of former President Bush, made it clear that they would not donate the Admiral’s memorabilia to the Museum, but they would loan it to a privately controlled organization for display in the Museum…Their concerns were well-founded, as most government museums have a reputation for often storing donated artifacts for future barter and many times selling them for profit” (Captain Norm Olson (SEAL), 2021). Is it possible the reason why The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum has been so adamantly opposed to returning Mr. Miller’s property all these years is because some of the items no longer exist in the museum’s collection? Have items from Mr. Miller’s personal property been sold, stolen, or raffled?

The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum sits on 17 acres of Florida coastland owned by the State of Florida, and pays $0 property tax (Craft, 2021) on a parcel valued at over $7.7 million dollars, (Franklin, 2021) “…a museum that was established through private philanthropy but that receives substantial subsidies from the government”, can be both private and public. “Section 501(c)(3) provides an exemption from federal income taxes for organizations that are formed and operated exclusively for charitable…purposes. If such organizations also can demonstrate that they receive a substantial part of their support from governmental units or from the general public, they qualify as “publicly supported” charities” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 406). It is possible The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum is a publicly supported charity that accepts government support from the State of Florida, but also from the federal government, specifically, from the United States Navy in the form of donated culturally-significant objects. Due to the use of public and government funding, as well as industry best practices: “Experience demonstrates that museums should favor openness regarding their collection records” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 481). It seems access to museum records related to Mr. Miller’s property, and more importantly, access and return of Mr. Miller’s property to Mr. Miller based on those records should be possible.

“As a general rule, objects found in the collections [items that lack any significant documentation] are distinguishable from unclaimed loans [old loans – the owners are unknown or cannot be located with relative ease]. There is no evidence that objects found in the collections entered as loans, and their continued undisturbed possession by the museum usually supports a presumption of a valid initial transfer of ownership. This means that anyone disputing this presumption has the “burden of proof.” (In simple language, the claimant must come forward with better proof of ownership than the museum.) In the case of unclaimed loans, however, there was clearly no initial transfer of ownership to the museum, and if the museum hopes to retain the material, it has the burden of proving why the lender has lost the right to claim the property. In this latter case, the museum now has the more difficult task, and this distinction makes a crucial difference” (Malaro & DeAngelis, 2012, p. 391).

In February 1985, Mr. Miller, in good faith, shipped 38 items from his personal collection to The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum under an oral agreement, which constitutes an unending bailment continuing to be in effect between him and museum Founding Director Capt. Olson. Mr. Miller tagged each of his items, establishing provenance, and when they were unpacked at the then UDT-SEAL Museum, accounts from people over the years indicate that the loaned items were entered into a property book kept at the museum. In the early days, Mr. Miller also saw the property book and his listed items. Thus, Mr. Miller’s loaned property has no reason to be deemed lacking documentation. Additionally, Mr. Miller sent no less than 3 letters before beginning in-person requests to have his property be returned to him. Capt. Olson, founding director, THE person who always tried to help Mr. Miller retrieve his property, was ignored by all future members of the staff and board of The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum. Since the opening of The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum, Mr. Miller has attended Muster regularly, and when he attended he always tried to talk to someone about his loaned property. Thus, the loaned items were never unclaimed property, nor could they be considered an old loan with an owner who could not be found.

It seems the museum simply chose to not give Mr. Miller’s items back to him due to the quality and scope of Mr. Miller’s collection, which is what Capt. Olson and Mr. Miller originally set out to provide: “a representative family of weapons that accurately depicts the UDT/SEAL from World War II through Vietnam” (Letter-Meeting, 1985). Mr. Miller was THE right person to ask. He had those items in his collection because of his personal interest in firearms and history, and had been a collector since the age of nine. No one else could have provided, and no one else stepped up to provide, a collection of firearms, and knives, to help the museum in the early days have a “professional weapons display” (Letter-Meeting, 1985). This holds true today. In the email from Dave Watts (currently the Vice Chairman of California Board (Museum, 2021)), he states the reason for needing documentation about Mr. Miller’s loan (which Mr. Miller provided) is that “they are important items in the Museum’s collection” (Email, 2016). Mr. Miller has been proactive in trying to retrieve his property and all attempts have resulted in Mr. Miller being schmoozed, deceived, ignored, and shunned. It’s possible The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum recognized the quality and scope of Mr. Miller’s collection and set out to assume ownership through betrayal.

Mr. Miller was in the unique position to answer Capt Olson’s call that winter of 1985. A firearm enthusiast since the age of nine, turned life’s work, Mr. Miller had those items to loan to the museum because of his affinity for firearms and their history. Each piece of his collection has a unique story, for example, museum inventory item: “85.85.2 One (1) H/K Suhl Luger Parabellum, Ser. #---” (Receipt, 1986, p. 1), in Mr. Miller’s own words: “That gun came from Normandy Beach…it was picked up by somebody after the beachhead was taken. I went to high school with the boy that found it, ‘cause it was in his back yard. That particular pistol was made for the Luftwaffe…and it crashed in this boy’s backyard, and it stayed back there well…till about 1955. I believe he said he came to the United States in 1955”, the “85.85.4 One (1) Smith & Wesson 45, MOD 1917 revolver, Ser #----” (Receipt, 1986, p. 1), in Mr. Miller’s own words: “…it was left over from WWI…I bought that one out of the back of a comic book”, and “85.85.28 One (1) Blaster’s knife (very rare)” (Receipt, 1986, p. 4) “I’ve owned that knife since 1968, and it was given to me by one of my UDT instructors, Tom Blais”. It is long overdue that The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum return Mr. Miller’s personal property.

#fightforfred

Please share Fred's story, and follow us on social media for updates.