Old currency and presumption of guilt

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.
Click to expand...
Market value remuneration of allegedly stolen government-produced goods should be forbidden. The only reason these coins are worth so much is that the government recalled them in the first place. The government shouldn't be able to profit from a recall and subsequent theft.

If I were on a jury in a case where a private citizen testified that he wanted to melt a $1000 gun into scrap metal, but it was stolen before he could do so, I'd be inclined not to agree to as much as $1000 in compensatory damages. But that is much grayer than the case of the government inflating the price of an item through recall, only to have some stolen (presumably because of the recall-induced inflation).
 
Market value remuneration of allegedly stolen government-produced goods should be forbidden.
Click to expand...
Really, see I think that theft from the government should be forbidden
The government shouldn't be able to profit from a recall and subsequent theft.
Click to expand...
Theft is theft. The theif would not have stolen them if not for the recall, which would make the coins more valuable and worth stealing.
But that is much grayer than the case of the government inflating the price of an item through recall,
Click to expand...
They were not recalled in order to inflate the price. They were government property that was never aithorized to leave the goverment facility.
Why is this any different than me stealing property from your home
If I were on a jury in a case where a private citizen testified that he wanted to melt a $1000 gun into scrap metal, but it was stolen before he could do so, I'd be inclined not to agree to as much as $1000 in compensatory damages.
Click to expand...
My property is my property, I'm free to do with it as I please. Theft is theft you are not free to steal as you please.
And the price of the Duke rifle alone would bring more than $1000
 
It's not different from private theft if you add all the qualifications:
- The coins were discovered 70+ years later, in the possession of someone who has a right to a presumption of innocence, and who could not possibly have been the original thief.
- The original owner made the coins, and the original owner had intended the coins to be worth $20 each.
- The original owner wanted to melt them down to $20 worth of unformed gold (or something nearly $20... I don't know exactly how the gold standard worked), but the theft prevented that conversion/devaluation.
 
The only reason these coins are worth so much is that the government recalled them in the first place. The government shouldn't be able to profit from a recall and subsequent theft.
Click to expand...
I think I'm beginning to understand this sorry situation:

The government made the coins.
The government prohibited the coins from being distributed.
The government allowed a few of the coins to be "stolen."
The government kept the coins off the market for 70 years to run up their value.
A lady finally sends some of the coins to the government for authentication.
The government "steals" the coins from the lady to sell them for a big profit.

Yeah, I think I get the whole scheme now. And a few other things are beginning to click into place, like the gunman on the grassy knoll, the Jewish-banker cabal secretly running the world, and the clandestine alliance between the government and space aliens.

-----

Stealing is wrong, even if it is stealing from the government that you hate.
 
"who has a right to a presumption of innocence, and who could not possibly have been the original thief."

She's not been charged with any crime, nor will she be.

She was found to be in possession of stolen property, which was, as stipulated by law, seized.

There's also some "confusion" about how these coins could have been "recalled" from circulation.

They were NEVER in circulation.

Where's the recall, then?

These coins were made at the mint in Philadelphia, and were taken to DISTRIBUTION CENTERS prior to their release into circulation.

When Roosevelt removed the United States from the gold standard, these coins were RECALLED from the DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.

You don't really think that on the day that a new issue is released the doors of the mint open wide and it rains money all across the freaking country, do you?



"The government shouldn't be able to profit from a recall and subsequent theft."

OH! I get it! Any one of US should be able to profit from theft, at the expense of everyone else, right?

If that's the case, mind if I make a midnight visit to your house and clean it out? You shouldn't have a problem with my profiting from stolen property as long as the government doesn't get involved, right? Who cares if it's your property, doesn't matter to me, it's all profit.


You know, it really gets tedious at times, reading all the hooting and bleating of the "HOLY **** IT'S THE GOVERMENT SO IT'S IMMEDIATELY EVIL! EEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!" crowd.

Mindlessness in action, not unlike the anti gunners...
 
Oh, and if anyone wants to know why the situation with the Farouk coin is different...

In the 1940s, Farouk's emissaries in the United States came across one and asked for an export license.

The license was issued by a low-level clerk, and before anyone realized just what the coin really was, it was out of the country.

In essence, by a mistake, the goverment ligitimized a SINGLE coin, but NOT the entire issue.

The government also tried numerous times to get the coin back, from Farouk's goverment and, after Farouk was deposed, from the successor goverment, which disposed of Farouk's many and varied collections of valuable items.
 
In essence, by a mistake, the goverment ligitimized a SINGLE coin
Click to expand...
Like Momma used to say, History Is as History Is Told. Out of the entire run, we are now to believe that only One got out "legally"....of course, that One was returned "legally" only after 50% Tariff.

Mike-
I hate to do this to you.....but you made the claim; now back it up:
Source Please.
Rich
 
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!
Click to expand...

Exactly, Kyote. In 2005, any entity of "The Government" from the city council on up the food chain to the U.S. Government operates on the following philosophy:

"F you, wer'e The Government. We'll do whatever we want and you'll like it."

Not exactly what The Founders had in mind, I would hazard a guess.
 
Rich,

I never said that the coin got out LEGALLY. However, the issuance of an export license for the coin significantly clouds the legal issue.

http://www.coinresource.com/guide/exhibit/DoubleEagle1933.htm

Here, I'll even quote the relevant section...

"In early 1944, prior to the government’s discovery of the missing 1933 Double Eagles, the Royal Legation of Egypt presented a 1933 Twenty Dollar Double Eagle to the Treasury Department, seeking a license to export the coin to Egypt for King Farouk’s collection. The export license was required for virtually all gold coins under the extensive gold restrictions that had been in effect since March of 1933. Not yet recognizing the significance of an unissued 1933 coin, the Department of the Treasury inadvertently issued the export license and the King Farouk specimen was exported out of the United States."


The Treasury department has, in its own writings and statements, numerous times indicated that it was a mistake that this coin was authorized for export.

In fact, here, take a look at the U.S. Mint's website, starting in the entries for February 23, 1944: http://www.usmint.gov/auction/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=theTimeline

By issuing the export license a single coin, it's possible (not certain, but possible) that the lawsuit brought by the dealer in 1996 could have been successful based on the claim that since the license had been issued, the coin was released by the government, and it had no further claim to that particular coin.

Between 1944 and 1996 numerous other 1933 Double Eagles were removed from private hands, including at least one that went to litigation (see Mint timeline entry for August 12, 1947, specific details unknown, I don't have acess to Lexis-Nexus).

It seems to be that no solid precedent exists that would have covered any court cases involving the King Farouk Double Eagle.

As I noted, the government legitimized, to some degree, the coin when it allowed the export license, even inadvertently, yet its actions in reclaiming others show a strong adherence to the claim that none of these coins is in circulation legally.
 
"I don't think they envisioned thieves being rewarded by being made multi-millionaires either."

Well, to be perfectly fair, the person who was in possession of the coins before their seizure doesn't appear to be a thief.

I'm not sure how old she is, but she probably was a small child when her father came into possession of the coins.

However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the coins were expropriated unlawfully, essentially stolen, and they remain stolen property.

Simply because she's a generation removed from the event doesn't mean that she can automatically expect free and clear title, especially given continuing pronouncements by the government that it would seize any 1933 Double Eagles that appeared, regardless of the disposition of the King Farouk coin.
 
Well, to be perfectly fair, the person who was in possession of the coins before their seizure doesn't appear to be a thief
Click to expand...
Yes it was a simplification, but if I said the children of thieves then I would have been asked if the Kennedys and Bushes should return their wealth


The Farouk Double Eagle quite possibly was issued the export license because the clerk was not aware that it was a 1933, not all Double Eagles were recalled the ones in circulation were still legal tender
 
I also firmly believe that she, or her lawyers, knew that the coins would be seized.

Basing her strategy on the Farouk-Fenton decision, she figured to legitimize her collection by having them confiscated by the government and then auctioned and split the profits.

What she did not figure into her plan was that the Farouk Fenton was legitimized through a clerical oversight and that none of the other possessors of stolen 1933s were allowed to keep their plunder
 
"I also firmly believe that she, or her lawyers, knew that the coins would be seized."

I've been wondering about that myself, actually.

Perhaps knowing that the Farouk coin was finally released for auction and the proceeds split with the guy who offered it for sale, it could have been a calculated ploy on their part to try to force the same sort of resolution.
 
Suppose Roosevelt's presidential proclamation 2039, which effectively took U.S. currency off of the gold standard, was considered unconstitutional. Wouldn't that mean that subsequent actions (including refusal to issue, and then melting the coins) were also unconstitutional? Would that affect the legality of owning a gold coin that was allegedly "stolen" from the mint? Would it affect the proper adjudication of this situation?
 
Would that affect the legality of owning a gold coin that was allegedly "stolen" from the mint?
Click to expand...
No.

Whether Roosevelt's debasement of the country's money was, or was not, constitutional would effectively have no bearing on this case.

Whether the coin was not distributed by executive order, or was simply in a sack at the mint, it's theft is still theft. The fact that the coin's distribution was prohibited by executive order simply makes it absolutely obvious that it was stolen, as that was the only way for it to have left the Mint.
 
Suppose Roosevelt's presidential proclamation 2039, which effectively took U.S. currency off of the gold standard, was considered unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Was it ruled as unconstitutional?

I believe it was 1933, two years after England did, not 1939
 
I have a question that doesn't seem to have been answered yet, what about the statute of limitations? Can they still sieze stolen property after the SOL has elapsed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top