Of course they were.
I think you are incorrect. Consider the change in the fine print from the original FRNs to the ones issued beginning in 1934:
ML/NJ
Posted on 12/06/2006 1:51:05 PM PST by grjr21
The family of a late Center City jeweler sued the federal government yesterday seeking the return of 10 extremely rare 1933 gold U.S. coins that could fetch millions each at auction.
The daughter and grandsons of Israel Switt contend the government illegally seized the "double eagle" coins after they brought them to the U.S. Mint to be authenticated in 2004.
The 1-ounce coins, each with a face value of $20, were among more than 445,000 that were minted but never circulated after the United States went off the gold standard in 1933. The entire supply - except for these 10 and at least 10 others known to exist - was melted into bullion.
The government contends the coins - considered the Holy Grail among some collectors - were stolen property of the United States.
Michael White, a spokesman for the U.S. Mint, said government lawyers had not seen the suit and could not comment immediately.
In their court filing, Joan Langbord, 79, who still runs her father's business, I. Switt, on South Eighth Street, and her sons Roy and David noted that the government in the previous seizure of another 1933 double eagle split the proceeds with its owner, Stephen Fenton, after the coin sold for a record $7.59 million at auction in 2002.
In 1944, the government also allowed King Farouk of Egypt to own and export a 1933 double eagle without questioning how it came into circulation, said the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
Nine other coins, which were traced back to Switt, were seized over the years, not returned and melted. The government later also sought - unsuccessfully - the return of the Farouk coin.
The Langbords do not say how Israel Switt obtained the double eagles but said he collected coins and that it was common practice at the time for collectors and jewelers to exchange old coins and gold for new coins at the mint.
"The Langbord family was forced to bring this case to vindicate one of the most basic principles of American law: that the government cannot permanently confiscate property from its citizens without proving its right to do so in court," said their attorney, Barry H. Berke of New York.
"Here, the mint's lawless position is that by merely claiming the coins were somehow removed from the mint unlawfully in the 1930s, they can take the Langbord family's property without proving it in a court of law," said Berke, who represented Fenton in the earlier case. "The mint has taken that position because it knows it cannot prove how the 1933 double eagles left the mint over 70 years ago."
He said the government would not have known about the 10 coins if the Langbords, aware of the Fenton case, had not brought them to the attention of the mint and delivered them for authentication in 2004.
Israel Switt died in 1990 and his daughter found the coins while inspecting a safety deposit box at a Center City bank in 2003, the suit said.
Since confiscating the coins, the government has not filed any legal claim for them, a violation of federal law, said the suit, which seeks a jury trial.
Read the lawsuit via http://go.philly.com/coins
We had a Brinks robbery here. The cruds finally admitted to it as part of a plea for other crimes. The statute of limitations had run out. The take was 10 million dollars. The money was theirs and could not be confiscated.
Just tossing this around. I think "uncirculated" has to be defined better. I believe there are plenty of "uncirculated" coins in the hands of the Public. I think it just depends what door they go out of.
The answer is no - these coins were never released into circulation. They never were supposed to leave the mint. The only way they got out of the mint is that they walked...
I think you are incorrect. Consider the change in the fine print from the original FRNs to the ones issued beginning in 1934:
ML/NJ
Coins made from base metals (copper, nickel, zinc) used to be considered minor coinage and did not have legal tender status, except for debts of small amounts. So a store owner was not obligated to accept 10,000 of these copper cents to satisfy a $100 debt. He was obligated to accept 1000 dimes, however, because these were silver. Now that the government makes all coins from base metals, the rules have probably changed, but that's how things were prior to 1965 when the government started counterfeiting coins.
ML/NJ
Nothing was stolen but a potential 'collectors value'.
George McCanin committed, at worst, a misdemeanor in 1933, and is long dead.
Case closed,
(1) The replacement scenario is purely conjecture
The conjecture is yours. No one was charged with 'smuggling out' the '33 coins, as ~you~ yourself put it.
- investigators have suggested it as a strong possibility since that would have been the obvious way to escape detection.
Makes sense to me, and to you too, or you wouldn't have made the conjecture about smuggling.
(2) They were stolen regardless.
Conjecture on your part. -- Identical gold coins that only vary by the date have an absolutely equal value to anyone but collectors.
If I secretly take a flatscreen from work and replace it with another flatscreen surrpetitiously I have still committed theft and my employer has every right to press charges against me in a court of law for theft.
The flatscreen you substituted for your employers is NOT identical. So yes, your employer has every right to press charges against you in a court of law for theft.
There is no legal right to take someone else's property and then replace it with something that should pass for equal value.
Prove the 'harm' to the government. -- There was none, as they melted the rest of the coins.
(3) The value was not equal.
Not true. 'Collectors value' is subjective, - it exists only in the eye of the collector. -- If the mint had kept ~all~ 400+ thousand of the 1933 coins, and sold them when gold was made 'legal' again, I doubt they would be worth more than 10/20 grand apiece, instead of 7 million plus.
When he stole the coins they were already among the rarest coins on earth.
Then the gov't ~should~ have kept them, for future income.
McCanin was not playing a prank.
Never said he was. He was guilty of a misdemeanor, at best.
he was violating his responsibilities as a Treasury officer and risking his career and his freedom for a reason: ill-gotten gain.
Quite true. He should have been fired, horsewhipped, and given a year in jail. - If convicted.
(4) The 1933 Double Eagles and the 1932 were no longer of equal value starting 9 days before he stole them.
Conjecture on 'value' aside, -- he was a clever petty smuggler , risking a lot for a gain. -- How much gain? No one knows, as the principles concerned with the incident are all dead.
After all, -- nothing was stolen but a potential 'collectors value'.
No, actual coins that did not belong to him were stolen.
Conjecture on your part. Perhaps he substituted some rare 1893 CC double eagles 'worth' a lot in collectors value, - even in '33. -- They now go for $15 thousand or so..
Nope; -- George McCanin committed, at worst, a misdemeanor in 1933, and is long dead. -- Case closed.
He committed at least two felonies: (1) fraud, (2) grand theft. As long as people are still trafficking in the valuables that he stole from the US taxpayer, the case is not closed.
Weird reasoning; -- by your same 'logic', the mint defrauded/stole from the US taxpayer by melting down "the rarest coins on earth."
No. That's the official finding of the Secret Service investigation.
Conjecture on your part. -- Identical gold coins that only vary by the date
Again, it's not conjecture. He stole them.
And "identical coins" that "vary" aren't identical.
The flatscreen you substituted for your employers is NOT identical.
And if McCanin substituted other coins for the coins in question, those coins were not identical either.
The federal government owned all the coins in question, there were no identical coins from another source with which he could have substituted them.
Then the gov't ~should~ have kept them, for future income.
The government cannot by law profit off its own currency as collectibles - think for a minute of the abuses that would engender.
He was guilty of a misdemeanor, at best.
Grand theft is a felony. Do you really labor under the mistaken notion that grand theftis a misdemeanor?
Case closed.
The case is not closed until the stolen proceeds are fully recovered or restituted.
by your same 'logic', the mint defrauded/stole from the US taxpayer by melting down "the rarest coins on earth."
That is circular reasoning. Whether you reduce or increase the money supply the amount of value it represents is unchanged. The only way the government could have profited off of keeping that rare coin intact would be to create a grey market in its own currencies as collectibles. The abuse that would engender would ultimately destroy value for the taxpayewr, not create it.
Taking a step back, I have to say that I am amazed by the tolerance for rank dishonesty shown by several posters on this thread.
A man of honor, a person of principle, would refuse to profit from theft or fraud and would be horrified to have their good name stained by association with McCanin's sordid behavior.
I would be embarrassed to fighting in court trying to repossess stolen goods.
I thought conservatism was ultimately about doing the right thing, whether one profited by it or not.
Arrest them. Those coins were supposed to be melted down.
Just because something is redeemable in gold does not mean it is not legal tender.
Many people are confused by the definition of "legal tender."
All that it means is that proffering it (the currency designated as legal tender) as a payment for any debt, good or service is a valid offer of payment in the eyes of the law.
It does not mean that the creditor or seller of the good or service is required to accept it - like municipal buses that do not accept pennies or convenience stores that do not accept any denomination over $20.
It simply means that by offering the legal tender as payment you have made a good faith offer of value and are not attempting to default on a debt or steal a good or service.
A 1913 FRN note was indeed legal tender and proffering it as payment for a mortgage or loan or food or legal advice or what have you was a valid offer of value in exchange in the eyes of the law.
Including yourself. Legal Tender is something that MUST be accepted when offered to satisfy a debt or the debt is quitted. US law has made exceptions for things like bus fare for reasons of practicality. Your ignorant prattling on this thread has become tiresome to me.
ML/NJ
No, actual coins that did not belong to him were stolen.
Conjecture on your part. Perhaps he substituted some rare 1893 CC double eagles 'worth' a lot in collectors value, - even in '33. -- They now go for $15 thousand or so..
Nope; -- George McCanin committed, at worst, a misdemeanor in 1933, and is long dead. -- Case closed.
He committed at least two felonies: (1) fraud, (2) grand theft. As long as people are still trafficking in the valuables that he stole from the US taxpayer, the case is not closed.
Weird reasoning; -- by your same 'logic', the mint defrauded/stole from the US taxpayer by melting down "the rarest coins on earth."
The conjecture herein is yours.
No. That's the official finding of the Secret Service investigation.
Post it. ~You~ first claimed that the substitution was "conjecture". -- All of us would enjoy seeing "the official finding of the Secret Service investigation."
Conjecture on your part. -- Identical gold coins that only vary by the date are identical for monetary purposes.
Again, it's not conjecture. He stole them.
That is the point at issue. Which doesn't change the fact, -- identical gold coins that only vary by the date are identical for monetary purposes.
And "identical coins" that "vary" aren't identical.
The date alone varies. They are identical in value.
And if McCanin substituted other coins for the coins in question, those coins were not identical either.
They were identical in monetary value.
The federal government owned all the coins in question, there were no identical coins from another source with which he could have substituted them.
Round you go. The previous years coins were identical, monetarily.
The gov't ~should~ have kept them, for future income.
The government cannot by law profit off its own currency as collectibles - think for a minute of the abuses that would engender.
BS. See the US Mints website.
He was guilty of a misdemeanor, at best.
Grand theft is a felony. Do you really labor under the mistaken notion that grand theftis a misdemeanor?
You haven't proved "grand theft". - No one did. Get a grip.
Case closed.
The case is not closed until the stolen proceeds are fully recovered or restituted.
Are you a lawyer?
by your same 'logic', the mint defrauded/stole from the US taxpayer by melting down "the rarest coins on earth."
That is circular reasoning. Whether you reduce or increase the money supply the amount of value it represents is unchanged. The only way the government could have profited off of keeping that rare coin intact would be to create a grey market in its own currencies as collectibles. The abuse that would engender would ultimately destroy value for the taxpayewr, not create it.
BS. -- See the US Mints website.
Taking a step back, I have to say that I am amazed by the tolerance for rank dishonesty shown by several posters on this thread.
Take a step back, get a grip, and see if you have just cause to say we have a "-- tolerance for rank dishonesty shown by several posters on this thread. --"
A man of honor, a person of principle, would refuse to profit from theft or fraud and would be horrified to have their good name stained by association with McCanin's sordid behavior.
There you go again, smearing McCanin on conjecture, -- without a trial, -- and those of us who fail to see felony theft or fraud as the issue.
I would be embarrassed to fighting in court trying to repossess stolen goods.
Establish the goods were 'stolen', or be embarrassed at your hyped up rhetoric.
I thought conservatism was ultimately about doing the right thing, whether one profited by it or not.
And obviously, you thought you get to define "doing the right thing"..
Conservatives realize we live in a free republic, and opinions vary about 'right things'.
From your own link:
The term means that money offered as payment has the backing of the government and must be accepted by a creditor, unless a contract calls for another method of payment.
It really depends on the terms of the loan.
And FRN notes in 1913 were legal tender by the linked definition you provided.
FRN notes in 1913 were backed by the government, specifically the government's gold reserves.
The only difference between the 1913 FRN and the 2006 FRN is that the 2006 is backed by the government's full faith and credit - which includes the government's gold reserves and all the other value besides gold that it possesses - including its borrowing capacity.
Perhaps I'm mistaken (I do NOT know the ins & outs of such law), but I think the phrase "must be accepted" is being confused with "must be TAKEN".
"Accepted" as in "recognized" simply means the money is known to be good legal-tender money.
I don't know that this necessarily means the "seller" MUST *TAKE* the money in whatever form. I mean, wouldn't it then be illegal for a park cashier holding only a $20 bill himself to reject a person who offered a $20 bill for entry to a $7 park?
A person may specify in advance that they are not willing to accept certain forms of payment, even if the payment is legal tender.
I.e. if you want to get into the park, you need to pay in bills of $20 or smaller, if you want to buy soda from this machine you cannot use pennies, if you want to pay this loan off early you'll need to sign over real property since we will not accept cash as a prepayment, etc.
(2) The offers to which you linked show that the Mint is selling, for example, 100 circulated quarters with a canvas coin collecting bag for $35.50.
The quarters themselves are worth $25 face value and the canvas bag, if purchased separately, is $8.95.
So the value of the package is 33.95, and the Mint is charging an extra $1.55 as a service charge for packaging the coins.
That's hardly collectible speculation. The quarters have face value, the collectible bag has value and there is a real cost associated with paying unionized goverment employees to package coins in collectible gift sets.
Give me the section and clause. I can find no such thing. Nor anything remotely resembling what you have stated.
Mr. Switt didn't steal coins valued at $70 million (todays value). He would have stolen, or took possesion of stolen items vauled at $200. 10 $20 coins.
gov't can grab anything they want from you if they can even remotely connect it to drugs or guns and you're left to prove its yours.
While calling another ignorant, you yourself are ignorant. This is not the case at all.
Lets say the government decides your a drug dealer and confiscates your car. Proving it is your car is very easy. Just produce the title and registration. Done. Doing this will NOT get you the car back.
What you have to do is prove that you did not purchase the car with funds derived from an illegal source.
And worse, you are not charged with a crime. They just take the car. The car itself is legally the "criminal" because it "exists" from illegal activity.
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.
