U.S. sitting on $17 billion in unclaimed war bonds (bankrupt states vs bankrupt Treasury)

WP ^ | 11/28/09 | David Cho

[TigerLikesRooster]

U.S. sitting on $17 billion in unclaimed war bonds

MANY REQUESTS FOR REPAYMENT

Matching claimants to certificates a mighty task

By David Cho

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The seemingly endless stacks of filing cabinets inside a West Virginia warehouse could hold the answer to an unsolved mystery: Who owns nearly $17 billion in lost government bonds?

The unclaimed treasure represents the amount of U.S. bonds that have matured but not been redeemed. Many of these outstanding bonds date to World War II, but over the years the certificates were forgotten in cellars, lost in fires or tossed out in the trash. Unless they are found, the U.S. government can keep the loans, interest free.

In the wake of publicity surrounding a lawsuit on the missing bonds earlier this fall, the government has been deluged with requests from people wondering whether they are entitled to repayment.

/snip

A group of state officials claim that Treasury's efforts have fallen short and have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Jersey to take over the hunt for the bondholders. The states contend they are better equipped for the search -- and have laws that grant them the authority to take for themselves unclaimed proceeds from the bonds.

The state officials calculate that California and New York could get as much as $1.6 billion. Virginia and Maryland stand to reap more than $300 million each and the District could get as much as $81 million. The states that have joined the lawsuit so far are Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oklahoma. Treasury has decided to fight the case to keep the states out of its pockets.

[TigerLikesRooster]

States and Treasury, both pretty short on money. In the coming legal battle, a chunk of $17billion would end up in the pocket of members of American Bar Association.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[elpadre]

My US Savings Bonds resulting from many years of payroll deductions are drawing 4%. Why would I want to redeem them?

[FlyVet]

For instance, I have an online account I hadn't messed with in over a year.

So, Online Account sent me a notice that I hadn't messed with it for a year, and I needed to mess with it so that I didn't subject it to gubmint confiscation.

However, our gubmint is not competent and honest enough to send such notice. Unless of course you are in arrears for money you owe gubmint.

Gubmint would rather just not inform you that they are about to take your money by default.

And you want your gubmint to run your "health" care system?

You DUmmies. You DUmmies.

[sergeantdave]

This is easy. If the federal government refuses to redeem the bonds, seize all federal property in the state, including the property of federal bureaucrats, judges and politicians, and sell it at a public auction. I’d also include all property on federal military bases.

[tbw2]

Farm land would become much cheaper if the conservation easements could be bought back or annulled. We’d become an export economy again if the sulfur free coal under the “National Monument” Clinton created could be mined, and we could drill for oil off the East and West coasts.

[VanShuyten]

This is a notice to all of you who either purchased War Bonds or had parents who did so. The government is looking to renege on its obligation.

Do any Freepers know if there is a national registry of bondholders?

[meatloaf]

Treasury has it. Years ago I knew a guy who worked in the bind group.

[Mister Muggles]

Don’t worry...these THIEVES will figure out some way to change the rules, rig the game in their favor so they can keep the money...

[HangThemHigh]

"Don’t worry...these THIEVES will figure out some way to change the rules, rig the game in their favor so they can keep the money..."

Sigh. You have much to learn grasshopper.

They have already spent the money. Repayment of the bonds will require tax money. Think SS lockbox.

[sergeantdave]

“Farm land would become much cheaper if the conservation easements could be bought back or annulled.”

You bring up one of my peeves. Shackling land with a conservation easement is illegal because it allows one person to dictate how that land must be used, in theory, for all time regardless of how many hands it may pass through. This nonsense is called the “dead hand doctrine,” where the hand of the dead may reach through time and dictate how land is used.

The dead hand doctrine was used by the European church and nobility to create a serfdom. It was a primary reason that people left Europe and settled in America, because land was free to use and not encumbered.

All conservation easements should be challenged in court claiming “dead hand doctrine.” There is nothing in constitutional law that allows conservation easements.