Posted on 12/06/2006 1:51:05 PM PST by grjr21
http://www.amazon.com/Double-Eagle-Story-Worlds-Valuable/dp/0393059499
Nice book.
I think one sold in 2002 for 7.6 mil. Not bad.
FDR was an avid stamp collector. Did he not receive some rare and valuable error-printings? I thought I recalled some controversy about it.
Reminds me of the gun that killed Jack Ruby... it was slated for destruction at one point, seized as an unregistered firearm. I don't know how that case turned out.
</sarc>
I thought there would be an interesting story behind it and that someone could write a book about it.Well it looks like someone already did.
If Joan and her family were smart they would have just contacted Farouk and let him buy them (black market style)...LOL
They were never put in circulation but were in the possession of the US Mint during the few months between their pressing and their melting down.
Apparently a Mint employee managed to steal some of them before they were melted down.
Basically, every 1933 Double Eagle not in the possession of the US Treasury Department is stolen.
You don't get to keep something just because you didn't know it was hot.
These are stolen goods - the only ground for complaint is that the government has been more lenient with some people who have been caught with them and harsher with others.
The government would probably argue that there were issues of diplomacy there that don't apply to domestic law enforcement.
"...Reminds me of the gun that killed Jack Ruby..."
I believe Jack Ruby died of cancer in prison. You must mean Lee Harvey Oswald. And besides, the gun didn't kill anyone. It was the guy pulling the trigger that did.
You're probably right regarding the coins were never intentionally circulated however this isn't the issue.
The Government has to prove this in court......
They siezed private property without compensation.....If they were stolen goods, then let them prove it in court..
No it doesn't.
The family has to prove in court that their rights were violated.
If someone stole your iPod, say, and somone else later found it and was using it and showed it to you and said: "Hey check out the iPod I found!"
And you examined it and found your stolen iPod's serial number on it and said: "Umm, this iPod is mine. It has the serial number of my stolen iPod engraved in it. I'm holding onto it."
Would you have to prove in court that it was yours before you held onto it?
Not at all.
If the iPod finder disputed your claim they would have to take you to court to recover it.
No one has to preemptively prove in court that their own property is their own property.
Since in this case it was public knowledge that the coins in question belong to the Treasury Dept. by law.
Reread my post.....
I didn't state that the government would have to initiate this in court....
I stated that the government will have to prove this in court.....The family filed the suit.....
Because the goverment stated that all coins were destroyed except for a few that were stolen, let them show the documents in court, the discovery process on this could be fascinating. Additionally, the governments previous action involving the disposition of other coins is inconsistent with "stolen goods".....
It will be interesting to see how this turns out....
The difference between your Ipod and these coins is that the coins are arguably money. Money is fungible so subsequent possessors of stolen money are not required to return it to some supposedly rightful owner. E.g. if someone robs a bank of a bunch of bills of know serial numbers, and the robber buys something from your deli with some of those bills, you as deli owner are not required to return the money to the bank.
ML/NJ
IOW some people are more equal than others, in the eyes of the US Government. So much for the idea of individual sovreignty (as if there were any remaining doubt).
Excellent points. Yes, it was the gun that Ruby used I was thinking of.
I also despise when the media says "a shooter killed 3 people today..."
"A shooter"?!
The press just wants to defame all shooters as murderers.
Not really. The only coin that was treated differently was one obtained by a foreign monarch.
Because of the obvious diplomatic implications of accusing the sovereign of a foreign ally of committing felony theft, and because of that possessor's ability to claim diplomatic immunity, and because the coin was on foreign soil the only way to get it back without provoking an international incident was to treat its export as a mistake by a US official.
The man who wound up possessing that coin was thus able to claim that he acquired it legally and the Tresury Dept. settled out of court - yet never conceded that the possessor had legal ownership.
As far as the US is concerned, Fenton was the victim of a customs official's mistake.
The owner of these coins cannot claim to have a document from the US Customs Service authorizing them to possess these coins the way King Farouk did.
It will make for an interesting case, but all of the strange factors that enabled Fenton to recoup his investment do not obtain here.
They cannot even argue that they invested money in the coins in good faith: these stolen goods fell into their lap.
You make strong points, except for the fact that these coins were never legally money.
They were withheld from circulation and never authorized as currency, remaining the property of the Treasury Department.
They were actually prohibited from serving as currency 9 days before they were even struck.
The fact that they exist at all was a result of a bureaucratic snafu.
Pure blather.
From the very first days of the republic, foreign heads of state and their representatives have enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
Get in the game.
And I'm not sure why you even bring up the notion of "individual sovereignty."
We do not live in a Rousseauist fantasyland where individuals are sovereigns.
That's a concept you will find nowhere in the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.