Old currency and presumption of guilt

Big discussion about this going on at APS.

These coins were never released for public circulation given the events of the 1930s.

Those that did get out were stolen by a worker in the mint.

The Mint didn't "steal" the coins. It seized items that were taken illegally from the Mint. This has been standing Mint policy since the 1940s, when it was first realized that some of them got out.
 
You'd have to be a really dumb bunny to send thousands of dollars worth of gold in to any agency of the government, regardless of the form it was in.

Interesting how this incident is waking some people up to how thoroughly we've been ripped off since FDR's devaluation of the dollar.
 
I see some interesting contradictions here.
The Mint says the coins, which never entered circulation, are public property and is holding them at a fort
Click to expand...
and
The gold Double Eagle is so rare that in 2002 a single coin reached a price of $7.59m at auction
Click to expand...
So who sold this one in 2002?
A number of coins disappeared from the Mint in 1937, when nearly 500,000 coins were recalled and destroyed
Click to expand...
Uh .. wait a minute: "a number of coins"? What exact number is that? Or are they really saying - we do not know how many there were, how many were "melted", and how many went missing? ;)
Israel Switt admitted to selling nine of the gold coins in the 1940s but he was never charged with those sales
Click to expand...
Let me guess; he had a "get out of prosecution or jail free" stamp in his passport?
The profits of the last Double Eagle to be auctioned were split between the US treasury and the seller, Stephen Fenton.
Mr Fenton was arrested by Secret Service agents when he tried to sell the coin in a New York hotel
Click to expand...
Another "get out of jail free card"? And then they "split the profits" of a very expensive piece of "public property" with this guy?
The Mint says it will not auction the coins but is still deciding what to do with them
Click to expand...
I bet.
--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
You know, when I first started on this thread, I was of the mind that the Mint was within it's rights. I suppose legally, they still are.

However, ethically, there is a pencil necked bureaucrat somewhere in that agency that needs to act like a gentleman and give the lady back her coins. It is a sad day when theft is sanctioned by law and used to deprive the trusting of their property.

This is no different from the widow who brings her dead husband's WWI M1911 to a gunstore for an appraisal and walks out with $50 and a grateful feeling that that old gun isn't making her home unsafe anymore. This kind of theft is reprehensible whether it is legal or not. It is the most despicable form of thievery, and I find it particularly deplorable that the US Mint would join in.
 
I would have no problem if the mint wanted the lady to reimburse the federal government for the face value of the allegedly must-have-been-stolen coins... if the mint can show reasonable evidence that the coins must have been stolen. Since 500,000 were recalled (recalled from where? federal reserve banks? private banks?), that seems virtually impossible.

All the mint is going to do with them is melt them down, anyway.
 
If half a million coins left the mint, even if they were not universally released into circulation - any number could have been aquired in exchanges. Including foreign individuals or banks etc before this "recall".

This means that the government must prove that the coins in the possession of this lady have "never left the United States", since they are seizing them basically on the grounds that they are the fruits of a crime.

If they were not incountry during the prohibition, in the possession of a foreign national, and only reimported afterwards, there was no crime.
------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
This government, like any other government, can do what it wants, when it wants, to whom it wants, as deep as it wants and if you don't like it, there's the door! Ask any beurocrat! :D
 
If half a million coins left the mint, even if they were not universally released into circulation - any number could have been acquired in exchanges. Including foreign individuals or banks etc before this "recall".
Click to expand...
There was no recall. They were never authorized to leave the mint. There fore any in circulation, except one, would have to have been obtained through theft
The one is the Farouk-Fenton DE that was mistakenly released to an Arab leader, the U.S. subsequently petition for it's return but it disappeared until the late '90s
I would have no problem if the mint wanted the lady to reimburse the federal government for the face value of the allegedly must-have-been-stolen coins... if the mint can show reasonable evidence that the coins must have been stolen.
Click to expand...
There is no face value as the coins were never authorized to go into circulation
It is a sad day when theft is sanctioned by law and used to deprive the trusting of their property.
Click to expand...
The theft was committed 70 years ago by a person in a position of trust. The government merely recovered property that it is common knowledge was stolen

Pertinent links to follow
 
Quote:
A number of coins disappeared from the Mint in 1937, when nearly 500,000 coins were recalled and destroyed
Click to expand...

How were they recalled if they were never issued?

I see this as the same type of action as the the recent SCOTUS giving developers the right to take your property. Only difference is that the developers are suppose to pay you something for it. Suppose to..... :barf:
 
There is no face value as the coins were never authorized to go into circulation
Click to expand...
The Mint paid for the gold, did it not? If the coin can be proven to be stolen, the lady ought to repay either the face value or the value of the raw gold. It's not like she'd be giving up a significant percentage of the total sale.
 
How were they recalled if they were never issued
Click to expand...
They were never issued into circulation, this is known verifiable undisputed fact

The Mint paid for the gold, did it not?
Click to expand...
Yes they did, Switt did not. That's what makes it theft.

If the coin can be proven to be stolen, the lady ought to repay either the face value or the value of the raw gold.
Click to expand...
So if I stole a John Wayne commemorative Winchester Colt combo when they were issued should I now be entitled to any and all monies over the original MSRP even though there was an open FBI/Secret Service investigation of the the theft all this time.

If a missing Picaso shows up in the hands of the thieve's daughter should she only be responsible for the price of canvas and paint?

It's not like she'd be giving up a significant percentage of the total sale.
Click to expand...
No, but it would be a lot like fencing stolen property for profit


Is this theft only acceptable because it was from the government?
 
I see this as the same type of action as the the recent SCOTUS giving developers the right to take your property. Only difference is that the developers are suppose to pay you something for it. Suppose to..
Click to expand...
Did the father's or grandfathers of the people in Kelo actually steal the land that they were forced off of.
Did they have a county cartographer redraw lines to gain property illegally, did some county clerk falsify records for them so that they could get the land from the government through theft or fraud?

That's the only difference
 
Did the father's or grandfathers of the people in Kelo actually steal the land that they were forced off of.
Click to expand...
Not to derail, but ummmm YES, WE DID. Wht's left of the Indian Nations is testimony to that fact.

No need for replies to this one.....just couldn't let it pass.
Rich
 
Nope.....we gave them Beads and "reservations", spelled D-e-s-e-r-t N-o-o-n-e E-l-s-e W-a-n-t-e-d. ;) Regardless, it was not done by negotiation, but at the point of a gun.
Back to the original thread....really. My apologies for the sidetrack.
Rich
 
Carry on....really.
Click to expand...

Why?
This a much more interesting and relevant discussion than whether some old bat gets to keep her father's ill gotten booty or whether it should be returned to the original victim

we gave the Beads and "reservations", spelled D-e-s-e-r-t N-o-o-n-e E-l-s-e W-a-n-t-e-d
Click to expand...
If we gave them something for their land then it wasn't stolen they were just out traded.
And weren't they originally given most of Oklahoma until they sided with the south and owned slaves.

I ask because I heard that from a teacher and I haven't bothered to research it on my own.
 
And weren't they originally given most of Oklahoma until they sided with the south and owned slaves.
Click to expand...
Joab-
Yup, you could make the argument that we treated the Indians fairly, according to their values; Hitler said the same of the Jews, I'm sure.

Really cold cut to the Chrerokee, though. PRIOR to any Civil War they endured the Trail of Tears to OK, simpy because Poh White Trash demanded their farms, without payment, and Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court....in short, there's precious little "payment" for genocide.

'Nuther thread, please.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top