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
At the time in PA, $100 or more was felony grand theft.
The question of statute of limitations is moot, since a dead man cannot stand trial on charges.
The real question is whether the coins are the proceeds of a crime, which they incontrovertibly are.
As you well know, paintings that were stolen from murdered Jews in the 1930s are, 70 years later, being ordered returned to their rightful inheritors by law.
In those cases, the buyers did not even know in many cases that they were receiving stolen goods, but they still have to disgorge the stolen goods to their rightful owner by law.
The Langbords knew for a fact that if the coins were authentic they were stolen. And the owner of the coins in 1933 when they were stolen is still the rightful owner today in 2006 - the US Treasury Dept.
And at the end of this, if the govt retains possession of them, will they follow the law that these coins are subject too and melt them down? Or will they auction them off and collect $70 million?
Seems that if we want to be sticklers for the law, the coins should be melted down.
But we all know the real reason the government wants them is they want the millions!
Odd question. I'm an American citizen and a taxpayer, and I benefit when I am able to get back money that was stolen from me.
We do not know.
Seems that if we want to be sticklers for the law, the coins should be melted down.
Not really. The law does not prevent the Treasury Department from monetzing them - as long as it is done on an arm's length basis.
But we all know the real reason the government wants them is they want the millions!
It's not solely a matter of money. It's also a matter of not permitting a slippery slope to occur, reducing Treasury's constitutional authority over the currency it issues.
Additionally, the treasury should not allow the message to be sent that if you defraud the Treasury and steal from it, and can conceal your ill-gotten proceeds long enough, you can enjoy the proceeds of theft.
Rewarding dishonesty is not sound policy.
I meant to say that we do not know whether the Treasury will melt them down or auction them.
you're looking at it from the wrong way.
in the case you described, the government has stolen something and if you can't prove its yours, they keep it.
my comment was in regards to his ipod allegory.
You yourself have said it wasn't Mr. Switt that stole from the Treasurey.
And if these coins were of little to no value above face, would there be any issue? Honestly. There is an issue because they are the most valuable coins in the history of man.
And your still wrong.
If the government suspects you are in possession of an item purchased with money from drug sales, such as a fancy sports car, they can confiscate it from you. You can prove you own it all day long through receipts from purchase, possesion of title, and the vehicle registered and insured in your name. You will still not get it back, regardless of how much evidence you have that you own it.
You have to prove that you purchased the item with money NOT from an illegal source.
He was at best an accessory after the fact, if not a fullblown co-conspirator.
Their first mistake was to trust the government.
They are so rare because so few people have been able to steal currency from a US Mint.
Their market value is a reflection of how valuable the reputation that their continued existence compromised is.
Which shows how imperative it is for the US Mint to go to great lengths to maintain its integrity in the face of this theft by one of its own employees.
But value aside, would Treasury be so strident if the coins in question were only worth face value? I doubt it.
Zer0, you are right.
WA, you are right.
Too bad yall are not talking about the same thing.
Cart before the horse. They are so valuable because they were stolen in the first place. Any coin stolen from the Treasury that had never been circulated publicly would fetch a high price by definition.
If you can come up with an example of a coin that was never put in circulation by the Treasury, but was simply stolen from the Treasury by an employee, and currently trades at face value without having been confiscated then this discussion would make more sense.
The coins are worth much more than the gold they're amde of only ebcause they were stolen.
Here's another definition from MW:
Main Entry: legal tenderNote the inclusion of the word "must." (Unlike some here, I'm not pulling this stuff out of my @$$.) The confusion in your example with the $20 offered for a seven dollar item is that there is no requirement on the part of the seller to make change.
Function: noun
: money that is legally valid for the payment of debts and that must be accepted for that purpose when offered
A little bit of history helps. During the colonial period, and then under the Articles of Confederation, the Colonies/States issued paper money at different rates. Because some of this paper money depreciated rapidly ("Not worth a Continental") the governments that issued this money had to force people to accept it. The laws that force people to accept something they might otherwise not accept are Legal Tender laws.
More recently, when the government began countefeiting silver coins back in 1965, it might have been natural for smart merchants to accept only real silver coins. But they couldn't do this because the government gave legal tender status to the fake coins. People near the Canadian border experience the same situation with Canadian coins but without the legal tender designation. The coins will only be accepted when it is perceived that they have nearly the same or high value than the corresponding US coin.
ML/NJ
Again, I am suggesting that "accept" is NOT equal to "TAKE".
You can recognize it's good money but you don't have to take it, even if you're a seller.
(2) The entire point can be illustrated with a hypothetical:
Vendor A provides Patron B with Good Number 1.
Vendor A would like to be paid in gold.
Patron B instead offers to pay him the full amount in orange juice concentrate and refuses any other accommodation.
Vendor A may now accuse Patron B of theft and sue him in a court of law for restitution.
Next, Vendor A provides Patron C with Good Number 2.
Vendor A would like to be paid in gold.
Patron C instead offers to pay him the full amount in dollars and refuses any other accommodation.
Vendor A has no grounds to accuse patron C of theft nor does he have grounds to sue, since Patron C has proffered legal tender - which constitutes a legally valid offer of payment. Vendor A must accept it or walk away empty-handed.
next, Vendor A gets smart and has Patron D sign a contract stipulating that he will pay Vendor A in gold for Good Number 3.
If Patron D offers to pay him in dollars or OJ or any other non-gold consideration, Vendor A can now sue him for breach of contract, but he cannot formally accuse him of theft since legal tender was offered. However, in this case Vendor A is not obligated to walk away emptyhanded if he does not accept the dollars, since he contracted for a payment besides dollars.
If he had not gotten that contract, he would have had no grounds to sue someone who offered him legal tender.
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.