| Author |
 Replies: 50 / Views: 5,907 |
|
|
|
CCF Advertiser
United States
1533 Posts |
By splitting the proceeds of the sale, they legitimized the Farouk coin. If they do this to these, there will be 11 coins. You'd need to show provenance in order to not have your coin confiscated.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Thanks, mac. I'm just guessing that the feds confirmed the legality of the Farouk specimen at one point, and cannot go back on that one, but have since changed their mind. Is that about right?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
I wonder if the government just let them have those coins and didn't spend a massive fortune in courts, attorneys, etc. could they have used the money to fight crime?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
More crucially, Judge Thomas Hardiman, writing for the majority, concluded in the opinion that the coins had been U.S. property all along. Therefore the 90-day deadline that normally pertains to forfeited items did not apply to the coins — the Langbords could not have forfeited U.S. property, the government argued, only surrendered it." This was a mistake. At the time the forfeiture procedure was requested the coins had NOT been determined to be government property and the deadline for the response in the forfeiture request was reached before the jury trial decided they were government property. If the government had responded to the forfeiture proceeding request they could have held the coins pending the outcome of the trial. By not responding, the law REQUIRED the government to return the coins, and further under the law the government would have been forbidden to take further action to reclaim the coins. The trial should have never taken place. That was the decision of the district court appeal that vacated the findings of the jury trial. Now in this appeal they are saying the forfeiture law does not apply because the coins were government property all along. Maybe they were (I don't think so), but that was not determined until later after the penalties of the forfeiture law should have applied. This would be like arresting someone and putting them in jail, then investigating his background to see if we can find something to charge him with. (While ignoring a writ of Habeas Corpus) Then finding something and using that as justification for having kept him in jail all that time. Edited by Conder101
08/03/2016 6:48 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
interesting read and very interesting coins. I enjoyed going through this thread and reading all the opinions. here are the actual coins in question..  Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
513 Posts |
Quote:
The Farouk specimen is legal and in private possession Is the Farouk specimen in the United States? Or is it outside U.S. jurisdiction and the guv'mint is just waiting to get their hands on it? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5832 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
968 Posts |
Quote:
Is the Farouk specimen in the United States? Or is it outside U.S. jurisdiction and the guv'mint is just waiting to get their hands on it? No, it is definitely legal. I think it is the only one that the government has specifically allowed to be privately owned. In short, the government confiscated it then later sold it at auction. Since they were the ones to put it up for auction they can't really claim ownership now. My hope is that the same thing eventually happens with these 10 assuming that the government wins once all appeals are exhausted. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
Dirty deeds and they are done dirt cheap! Our government in action. Being a disabled vet and former federal employee I think I hate the feds worse than anyone. They leaned on me before and I had to hire a lawyer to protect myself. The feds would steal a penny from a baby. They would spend ten million bucks to save 50 cents if they got the opportunity to screw a citizen. It is an evil thing we have created.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Is the Farouk specimen in the United States? Last I knew the owner had it on long term loan to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for public exhibition. Pretty smart actually He owns it, but the Fed is responsible for storage, protection, and insurance. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
Quote:
Dirty deeds and they are done dirt cheap! Right on. And one of my favorite AC/DC songs too! ;o) As a psychologist, I specialize in disability evaluations with veterans who have been denied a benefits claim for PTSD and other mental disorders. I also worked for several years at the VA conducting disability evaluations and trying in vain to push VA central office to improve the quality of such evaluations nationwide. So I hear ya regarding the federal government's failings. There are a lot of good, sincere people who work for the VA and other federal agencies, but the nature of the bureaucracy is such that managers often subject the hard-working employees to the "No good deed goes unpunished" rule, which doesn't exactly help with attracting and retaining the best and brightest. And my hat's off to you sir, for your willingness to sacrifice it all to protect the rest of us and our great nation.  ~ Mark |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
Quote:
This was a mistake. At the time the forfeiture procedure was requested the coins had NOT been determined to be government property and the deadline for the response in the forfeiture request was reached before the jury trial decided they were government property. If the government had responded to the forfeiture proceeding request they could have held the coins pending the outcome of the trial. By not responding, the law REQUIRED the government to return the coins, and further under the law the government would have been forbidden to take further action to reclaim the coins. The trial should have never taken place. That was the decision of the district court appeal that vacated the findings of the jury trial. Now in this appeal they are saying the forfeiture law does not apply because the coins were government property all along. Maybe they were (I don't think so), but that was not determined until later after the penalties of the forfeiture law should have applied. This would be like arresting someone and putting them in jail, then investigating his background to see if we can find something to charge him with. (While ignoring a writ of Habeas Corpus) Then finding something and using that as justification for having kept him in jail all that time. Wow. Talk about a well-informed analysis!  Thank you Conder. I'm not only learning a ton about coins here, but I'm getting a legal education to boot. Not a bad deal for the price of admission.  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2668 Posts |
|
|
CCF Advertiser
United States
1533 Posts |
The Farouk coin was one the government fought bitterly over. The settlement was to auction it off with the government getting half the proceeds. As the government was a party to the sale, the new owner has a legal claim on it. This coin was legitimized through this process. None of the coins were released by the mint, so none of the others can claim this. If they went this way on all the others, it would create a weird situation where you would own an illegal coin unless you could show provenance dating to a government sale. This would be like a title or deed to a house proving you legitimately own it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
968 Posts |
I don't get the hate for the government on this one. Everything I've read says the coins were stolen with the help of at least one mint employee. The government may do a lot of stupid things, but how is trying to recover stolen property one of them?
|
| |
Replies: 50 / Views: 5,907 |
First Page
Posted 08/03/2016 6:34 pm
