Posted on 08/26/2005 2:50:46 PM PDT by RoyalsFan
They will only pay $20.67/ounce.
NO! Coins with eagles. Not statues with lemmings, dangnabit. Where's my TV Guide again?
Good idea; let her keep one of them. If only I were king.
Not much for "priceless" coins, but more than she'll get now. 'Tis a pity all around.
Why has the government the right to place them on display, yet she hasnt the right to sell them.
I agree she shouldnt have shown the mint all 10, That was stupid and she probably should have sent them out of the country for sale. As for the Statute of Limitations , if her father stole them it surely has run out. Nope she was screwed by the government --plain and simple. Why should one person have the coin re-issued and yet all others were found to be contraband? Thats BS and we all know it.
"The US Government shouldn't have any claim on them at all"
Once it's stolen, it's the thief's property, eh?
"Why has the government the right to place them on display, yet she hasnt the right to sell them."
Because they were stolen from the U.S. Mint.
Was their a trial? Doesn't their have to be proof they are stolen? Due process?
"Was their a trial? Doesn't their have to be proof they are stolen? Due process?"
Yes, yes, and yes. Hell, this woman's father was the fence for the thief!
It's kind of an inescapable logical conclusion - they were never released to anyone outside the Mint, so the only way they coould have left the Mint was if someone stole them, they left the Mint - ergo, they're stolen.
By the way, that argument is somewhat suspect because there is at least one of these coins that is legally owned by someone with the government's knowledge. That precedence already exists, so now they are going to put the horse back in the barn?
"If ONE exists it was STOLEN, why can it be traded and these cannot?"
Because there was a ton of litigation involved, and a settlement. Incidentally, one of the conditions of the settlement was that any further 1933 double eagles that surfaced would be seized.
Bottom line: these coins were in the possession of the fence, and then the fence's daughter tries to cash in.
"How can Pirate booty be kept? I think it was stolen!"
Wrong. Admiralty law holds that shipwrecks (with certain exceptions) are considered abandoned property. Also, most "pirates" were actually "privateers" with letters of marque that made their actions legal as far as the issuing government was concerned.
"How can the US keep Oklahoma, it was Stolen!"
No, it wasn't. There were several treaties that opened Oklahoma to settlement.
>>>Once it's stolen, it's the thief's property, eh?<<<
What a freaking 100% correct all the time phrophet you are!
Please Name the Thief!
You are also one hell of a Judge and Jury as well, 100% right all the time!
TT
"If there is evidence, then this should be dealt with in court. I don't think the government should be able to take property, because they say that the only way someone could own one is through illegal means."
The woman's father confessed to being the fence for the other stolen coins back in 1944, and that he had never had legitimately owned any 1933 double eagles.
Suddenly, another ten 1933 double eagles surface in his estate.
Must've slipped his mind, I guess.
By the way, that argument is somewhat suspect because there is at least one of these coins that is legally owned by someone with the government's knowledge. That precedence already exists, so now they are going to put the horse back in the barn?"
As a condition of the settlement that resulted in the one coin being legal, the government agreed that it would be the ONE legal coin--all others would automatically be contraband.
"Please Name the Thief!"
George McCann.
Israel Switt--the woman's father--confessed to being McCann's fence in 1944.
I didn't read that Father confessed, is that in another article? By the way, why the resistance to doing things throught the courts? If there is proof there is proof. I can't come to your house and take something, even if it is one of a kind and I never took it off my property, can I? I have to follow the proper procedures. That should apply to the government even more.
Taxation is theft once, the government going off of Constitutionally mandated gold and silver currency and replacing it with fiat pieces of paper, whose value they can alter at will, is theft a second time, and the great gold confiscation of 1933 is theft a third time. The government has little moral authority to talk about stolen property, especially regarding gold money.
I read that and it's nice that the government threw in the last bit about "all others" but I'm not sure they can legally enforce that. How come that coin is now legal and these ones aren't? Because they said so. Unless there is some reason they made an exception in that case that doesn't apply to this case, I have a hard time agreeing 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.