Posted on 09/17/2009 10:35:27 AM PDT by BGHater
I also agree that the full article doesn't mention any specific evidence that good old granddaddy Switt stole the coins.
However, for those who haven't read the full article, it sounds as if perhaps granddaddy Switt wasn't as pure as the driven snow and that the government had long suspected him of illegal dealings involving corrupt cashiers at the Mint.
Those, of course, are suspicions and the government should still have to prove its case -- but I'll bet there is some evidence from back in the 1930's.
According to the article:
The Secret Service, which polices currency crimes, has argued that all of the double eagles that escaped government control passed through the hands of Mr. Switt, working with a corrupt cashier at the Mint. A Mint spokesman declined to comment on the case because of the litigation.
According to a history of the coins by Alison Frankel, a journalist with The American Lawyer, a United States attorney decided not to prosecute Mr. Switt in the mid-1940s, saying the statute of limitations had passed.
Ms. Frankel wrote in her 2006 book “Double Eagle: The Epic Story of the World’s Most Valuable Coin” that Mr. Switt was “a thoroughly nasty piece of work,” and that a dealer who traded with him called him a “gold coin bootlegger” who continued to sell gold coins long after the practice had been prohibited. The book details the government’s contention that Mr. Switt worked with a corrupt Mint cashier.
Somebody contemporary who is familiar with the facts has, in her judgment, decided that old granddaddy Switt was "a thoroughly nasty piece of work."
Make the government prove it. I just ordered a copy of Ms. Frankel's book from Amazon. Sounds like interesting reading.
And I'm just saying . . . if none of these coins were supposed to leave the mint . . . and if the government suspected back in the 1930's that Mr. Switt (himself not a Mint employee) had managed to acquire some through illegal dealings with a corrupt U.S. Mint cashier but didn't have enough evidence to prosecute . . . then it seems a little, shall we say, "convenient", that it just happens to be a descendant of Mr. Switt who finds the coins in a family safe deposit box?
Being the contrarian here;
The printed these up wrong, so they kept them at the mint. They were not released. Instead, someone stole them from the mint.
Now, the descendents of a person who worked at the mint find 9 of them in a safe deposit box.
How could they possibly have gotten these things legally?
This isn’t like the government trying to seize your gold after you’ve purchased it on the open market.
Sure, we can talk about all the ways these people could have gotten rich from this, but if they were stolen from the mint, why should they get rich?
It is interesting that, in general, if property that is known to be stolen shows up, the law requires it be returned to the person who had it stolen, even if the person who now has it paid someone else for it.
Or is there really a question as to whether these coins were stolen from the mint? It doesn’t seem there is such a question, from the article.
In most states, the judge must have used the path for an extended period (usually about seven years or more) and the landowner must have known about the judge's use.
Even then, the judge would normally have received only an easement to use the path for access unless his/her use was exclusive during the period of adverse possession.
Sounds like there are probably some interesting facts tucked away in the pleadings and discovery.
statute of limitations applies to punishment for a crime. It wouldn’t necessarily apply to returning stolen property.
You know this can’t turn out well for them. If they end up with “title”, the next step will be the government claiming that the coins were part of an estate, which was subject to estate taxes (federal and state).
They will probably argue for interest and penalties. Maybe they will argue that the people were criminal in their filings, if they knew about the coints.
By the time we are done, they will probably be turning the coins over as part of some plea bargain.
:-)
I understand.
But, at the time, it was all over the national news.
The judge was receiving death threats.
I think the original landowner was on O’Reilly or Hannity.
Here it is:
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_7501264
Maybe you can clarify the legal details, but it definitely happened.
“Sticky fingers” was quite a problem amongst the Mint employees back in the day, according to both books about the coins. Just ‘pocket change,’ though...
The man is still an idiot for assuming the Mint would treat him honestly.
Will the government next seize some or all safety deposit boxes under the guise of searching for more stolen property?
It appears a lot of the uproar was over: (a) rejection of evidence that suggested the Judge had created a path on the land AFTER filing the lawsuit to bolster his claim to the land; (b) the fact the judge giving the ruling had once served as a judge in the same district as the Judge who won; and (c) pretty convincing the evidence that the Judge knew the land wasn't his, knew the law, used the land for the requisite period of time, and used the law to his advantage (all of which isn't illegal, but certainly makes him a bad guy in my eyes).
People were incensed that adverse possession could exist in this day and time, particularly when a powerful former mayor of Boulder appeared to knowingly take advantage of a young, non-lawyer couple. There's some evidence they had been warned about the Judge's use and simply decided to be "good neighbors", letting the Judge use the land to access his backyard, etc.
As a result of the uproar over the decision, I read that Colorado amended its adverse possession laws. They now appear to require color of title and payment of taxes. I'm guessing that's new. In addition, the case was appealed and rather than risk the appeal the Judge settled for a strip of land at the back of the property, ranging from 5' to 9' wide, instead of the 34% of the property originally awarded to him.
Very concise and to the point.
Thank you.
I remember the uproar and a good portion of it was based, indeed, on the fact the it was a former judge and within his own (fomer) district.
Really, there was nothing redeeming about the judge’s behavior or the law that was applied (abused, misused?).
Glad to see that it was resolved, but still hate to see any interloper awarded any booty.
I’m glad my memory was not faulty on this one.
I’m beginning to forget such things.
I have a better idea. Why don't you initiate a court action challenging the title to the U.S. currency I have in my wallet? Let me know how that works out for you.
False. The Statute of Limitations is not in play here. If you are in possession of stolen property (again, if that is the case here), there is no time limit. Stolen property is stolen property, one, seven, or a hundred years into the fututre.
Read the whole thread. I already addressed this specific topic in detail.
Try to find your way back into the real world, boyo.
Yes, young lady.
In the US Code, only murder and treason are not subject to statute of limitations, iinm.
But that requires at least a preponderance of the evidence.
Which is exactly what virtually everyone on this thread is saying: if the ‘lucky’ finder of the coins, the current holder of the property, is to have it/them seized, then the seizure should be lawfully executed. The Mint did not bother with a lawful seizure; it merely said, ‘Sorry, Charlie’, and kept the property.
I have a number of gold coins in my safe deposit box, some inherited; I have title to none. Does that mean I don’t own them?
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.