Posted on 08/25/2005 9:52:28 AM PDT by LibWhacker
"Looks like the majority of responses so far are from FReepers unclear on the concept of "property"."
That was a little oblique. Are you saying the government was justified?
Because I am. The owner cannot provide a legitimate provenance, therefore likely came by the coins nefariously--either actively or indirectly. Liken it to Holocaust booty which has taken a half century to recover, for descendants. Just because someone has something of value in his possession for a long time, doesn't mean that it becomes his, at some point. Time actually has no meaning, if it was taken.
They have admitted nothing of the sort. The person quoted in the article regarding proof was the lawyer of the coin dealer, not the Govt. "But Berke said Mint officials couldn't prove the coins had been stolen, or were subject to forfeiture. "
BULL!!!! The coins weren't melted down because the US "went off the gold standard!" It was because the private ownership of gold coins and bullion was outlawed by FDR!
Mark
Excellent!! Please notify me via freepmail when you've secured one ounce of 1933 Double Eagle gold coin and I will promptly make arrangements for delivery and payment. In fact, I'll make you a deal. Just .9675 ounces will do.
I've seen you make that assertion elsewhere on FR. Can you provide a web link for your claims. If true that implies that there is downward pressure on the price as new stocks are brought on line.
Of course there is upward pressure from a number of places. These include India and China which have larger numbers of middle class and rich who historically like gold (jewelry and coin), the needs of the two new gold backed indexes (not sure what the fractional reserve is on GLD and IAU, but it's high) the E-Gold online currency (which is a 100% reserve currency) and the possible needs for the gold brokers who have had gold lent to them by central banks to cover their short positions as prices begin to rise.
I think it's been pretty well established that the central banks (including the Fed) hate gold and have secretly (it slipped out) been selling to keep the price down for a few years now. That can't go on indefinately, either.
(The latest plan it to raid the IMF.)
That's assuming no 'nuclear' events, like large OPEC members wanting payment in gold for their oil, or a linkage of some currencies to gold for foreign exchange as Bretton Woods provided for prior to Nixon's change. These things are all being discussed in the Islamic world. Google "gold dinar" for more info.
How much you wanna bet some upper level bureacrat with a bad comb over gets them for their own private collection.
Bastards.
March 29, 1944
Secret Service interview Ira Reed and James Mcallister in which Mcallister stated he bought 5 coins from Israel Switt (Gold dealer with history of violations of 1934 Gold Reserve Act)
March 30, 1944
Secret Service interview Israel Switt who admitted a one time possession of 9 - 1933 Double Eagles. 5 sold to Mccallister, 2 to Ira Reed and 2 to Abe Kosoff. Switt professed no recollection of his source for the coins but admitted to being a frequent visitor of the Philadelphia Mint.
I wouldn't bet against you. I'd lose.
Wow. Selective recall, anyone?
The due process reminder can't be insinuated into the argument often enough, imo.
I tend to agree with those who say these coins were stolen in the first place and that, therefore, the gentleman's children ought not to be allowed to claim ownership. However, that's neither here nor there; due process is an absolute right, even for criminals (and their children), and the gov't is clearly trying to circumvent that requirement in this case, imho.
Plus I have a nagging suspicion that there ought to be some kind of statute of limitations on this kind of "loss." Nothing more obscene than the Spanish crown trying to claim rights to a galleon full of looted treasure 500 years after it went down.
Just damn!
So? Berke is the lawyer for the coin dealer. What would you expect him to say? If it comes to trial, Berke will say the same thing to a jury. That doesn't make it the truth.
What? Taking advantage of this person's stupidity? Stealing is stealing.
I'm just guessing... Isn't it possible that property would reasonably have been considered abandoned at the bottom of the sea after some passing of time? I hardly think anyone would say the 1933 Gold Eagles were abandoned at any point (and certainly at no time before they left the mint).
Speaking of which ... Anyone here know Lawyerspeak well enough to translate? Is "forfeiture" the same as seizure of stolen property? IOW, is this mouthpiece legally correct, but deliberately misleading the meaning?
Try not to be so clever...it's not working.
You know we're not talking about a nine-year-old humidifier from WalMart.
We're talking about rare or even unique items of surpassing or even extraordinary value. And yes, if you are holding something of special value that was once mine, you'd better be able to account for it.
I think Spain and its insurers even argued against that. But yes, I'm in agreement with you on this; I don't think Switt's kids have a leg to stand on. They're going to go to court and lose it all there -- unless the gov't cuts a deal with 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.