Posted on 08/26/2005 2:50:46 PM PDT by RoyalsFan
You can argue that point all day I am not buying it.
If they were never issued and the govt. denies her the right to them the govt. has no right to them either. They should be destroyed.
This reminds me of a treasure seeker searching for years at great expense to find a lost treasure only to have it stolen by the govt.
"I didn't read that Father confessed, is that in another article?"
Yes. There's also an great book that discusses this whole case, the title's "Illegal Tender."
"By the way, why the resistance to doing things throught the courts?"
When the daughter of a confessed fence turns in goods her dad was fencing to the people it was stolen from, it's kind of open-and-shut.
"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?"
That's exactly the point. These coins were stolen from the Philadelphia Mint--i.e., from the US Government--by George McCann. These coins are known to be stolen. EVERYONE in the coin collection business knows that they're stolen.
"If they were never issued and the govt. denies her the right to them the govt. has no right to them either. They should be destroyed."
That is what they intend to do.
The government obviously lost the first case and then tried to sew it up by making new rules.
If they lost the first case how can they just make new rules?
The answer is of course: the Govt can do anything they like they make the rules.
Are there any cases where this is true? Almost every shipwreck I've heard of resulted in some party (usually gov't) claiming the property was theirs. A case happened recently coins or some property found was claimed by the British Crown.
"Bottom line: stolen property doesn't become legitimate through inheritance."
So I guess we should give the United States back to the Indians.
So if it's open and shut, why not have a trial? Would that be so terrible? Can we stop having trials for all criminals who are guilty "open-and-shut?" Think of the money we could save. How about no elections in safe districts?
"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?"
The key issue here is that these coins were owned by the fence--who lied to the Secret Service in 1944, saying he didn't have any more of these coins.
How come someone legally owns one of these coins then? What's the difference between that case and this case?
The exceptions revolve around warships owned by a national government.
For example, every now and then the Japanese talk about salvaging the battleships they sank off Singapore in 1941.
The British Government says "Hell no!" every time it comes up (among other things, they are considered war graves).
Sounds like the mint and the Secret Service made a lot of mistakes.
ROTFLMAO!
"What's the difference between that case and this case?"
There was just enough question about the provenance of that one coin because it was owned by King Farouk, and he did visit Philadelphia at the time the coins were minted. It was not uncommon to present a single coin to a visiting head of state as a token of respect.
>>>The answer is of course: the Govt can do anything they like they make the rules<<<
Yeah I know, they steal my Gold all of the time.
"Sounds like the mint and the Secret Service made a lot of mistakes."
The investigation was actually quite brilliant. The only reason McCann walked was that by the time the charges were formally filed, the statute of limitations had run out.
"So if it's open and shut, why not have a trial? Would that be so terrible? Can we stop having trials for all criminals who are guilty "open-and-shut?" Think of the money we could save. How about no elections in safe districts?"
If your father stole something of mine, and you bring it in to me for authentication as being my stolen property, the conversation would end with gunfire.
This woman got off much more lightly.
So, this head of state might have been given one of these coins and owned it legally? So other heads of states might have been given these coins and they might have been sold to a dealer in the U.S.? The real reason the settlement was made in the other case is because it involved the head of a foreign state, not some U.S. citizen who is of no concern. I still don't see why you are so against a trial, especially when the government is taking property.
You're absolutely right! We've just moved and I recall unpacking a book about this particular coin.
I went and looked and it's titled:
Illegal Tender : Gold, Greed, and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle
by David Tripp
Calling Mr. Burglar, calling Mr. Burglar. Will Sandy the Burglar please report to the US Mint. There is property that needs to be put in your pants pockets.
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.