| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 2,226 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
Regardless of technicalities, the circumstances under which things happened were DIFFERENT....now there is no similar restriction on ownership, and its more an issue of rarity. IMO, the gov't is just being greedy as usual.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
I have no doubt that Switt obtained them through less-than-legitimate means and that will forfeit any right that his heirs think they may have to the coins. All they are going to wind up with is a six figure legal bill That may be the naked truth to the situation--but since the heirs may not have the same intent, I cannot help but root for the underdog.  So, if the government wants these coins so badly, perhaps they should be forced to melt them upon receipt?  Or--make them permanent donations to museums for the public to enjoy. After all, Americans paid for these--they should be theirs. They should not be in some bureaucrat's "private collection", away from public view. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1082 Posts |
If it can be proven that Switt got them in less than legal circumstances, then the 1933's should be forfeited to the government, but only under the proviso that the government shall not melt them down -- they should be kept as government property, but exhibited. That way, the value of the legitimized one is kept intact.
The family should get back the same number of gold coins of other years, as nod2003 says.
However, this may all be easier said than done -- the burden of proof rests with the government to prove that Stitt got them unscrupulously -- just saying he did doesn't cut it.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189117 Posts |
Quote:
Or--make them permanent donations to museums for the public to enjoy. If we are indeed a government of the people then this is the best choice. However, I know that "the government" in this story is actually a handful of self-serving bureaucrats. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Quote:
Or--make them permanent donations to museums for the public to enjoy. That is exactly what should happen to them IMO. I say send one to the ANA museum in Colorado Springs, the ANS museum in New York, the Newman Money Museum in St Louis(hey, a guy has to have hope )and distribute the rest to any other public displays at the US Mints and Federal Reserve Banks. Quote:
but only under the proviso that the government shall not melt them down I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the Gold Reserve Act was rescinded in the 1970s, these coins would no longer be required to be melted down. Edited by biokemist6
06/01/2009 5:17 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Germany
1064 Posts |
The US mint cannot just take things from people. They could claim that all the money in the world is theirs, and claim it was obtained illegally, and not having to prove it, this could lead to a lot of damage.
If they can PROVE anything, then let them try. I doubt they will win. Mainly because there is no evidence on either side as to how they were obtained. But who cares, that was a long time ago. Maybe the whole economy will be revived (okay, being stupid, but keep with it) because of all of this. What will the mint do anyone, melt them? For what purpose? They are a part of US history in themselves. Let them exist, let them be worth as much as someone is willing to pay for them.
perhaps some of the money should go somewhere useful. Maybe they can put it towards the building of the Bush library, I hear that isn't going to well. (Please no!)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1231 Posts |
It will come down to which side has to prove how the 10 coins left the mint. Can the government prove they were stolen or can the Langbords prove they were purchased through the clerks window at the mint.
I don't think either can prove what they need to. The government can make this take forever in the courts filing appeals.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
615 Posts |
1. Family was stupid for giving them to the mint!! I would have taken them outside the US and sold them. Problem solved.
2. Statue of limitation has to be over and the person taking the coins would be dead. They had to trade out for them at the window or the counts would have been off. So the jeweler is guilty of keeping gold when it was illegal to do so. Yet, every US gold coin is in the same boat as they all should have been melted (unless they were outside the US).
I think the family should get to keep the coins. I don't see how the mint gets to just hold the coins, but again the family was stupid.
-SFWUSC
|
|
Valued Member
United States
254 Posts |
The 1933 double eagles were technically never issued as legal tender. Now while it is possible that someone came to the cashier's window to buy or exchange for the coins during the 3 or so weeks between when they were minted, on or around March 15, to April 5 when Franklin issued the ban on private possession of gold, Mint records do not indicate that any such transactions took place. Yes, it is certainly possible that an exchange took place but was not recorded however, Mint records from the period evidently show in great detail many such exchanges with other coins having taken place.
Also, since they are considered to be stolen property of the U.S. Mint, I doubt any statute of limitations would apply.
Regardless of whether you believe they are stolen property or not, you have two significant issues to deal with:
1. I believe 9 coins were previously confiscated by the secret service in the 1940's from private hands and melted during the 1950's. If I recall correctly, the only thing these people received in exchange was a receipt indicating they were confiscated but no monetary compensation. If these 10 coins are legitimized, how do you explain/make restitution to the heirs of the people who had their coins confiscated some 60 years ago.
2. After the 2002 auction, the U.S. government declared that this auctioned coin will be the only legitimate/legal tender 1933 double eagle that will ever exist should additional specimens turn up at a later date. The government should not go back on this promise.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1082 Posts |
Quote:
Maybe they can put it towards the building of the Bush library, I hear that isn't going to well. Actually, they are stuck deciding whether it will be a one-holer or a two-holer. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6326 Posts |
I voted Govt. keep them......but I agree with the "amicable settlement" thing........and most importantly the "museum" idea.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
74 Posts |
I understand the legality behind this. The coins were never issued and are the property of the government. Also since they were never issued it is illegal to own one. Now this would be cut and dry if they hadnt auctioned one off to be owned by private parties. I find that to be unfair and shady on the governments part.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
I would have taken them outside the US and sold them. Problem solved. Hehe...the sneak in me likes this option, although I'm too ethical. Hold a big auction in a place like Dubai, take that money and hide out in Zug, Switzerland lol. Problem solved. |
|
Valued Member
United States
82 Posts |
I like the museum idea, but it will never happen. Some greedy unethical crook in government will get their hands on them before then.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
508 Posts |
Hi there. I am not sure if it is kosher to post outright links to the PCGS message board or not. I will not do so as I don't want to be reprimanded. If you are interested in the legal case, go to -=> pcgs website -=> message boards -=> US coins -=> search-=> and enter "Langbord". 'Langbord' is the name of the family involved with the lawsuit against the government. There is a user by the name of Sanction II who posts detailed updates of the legal proceedings. You do not have to be a registered member to do so. As with all legal cases involving millions of dollars, it is quite detailed. I have not read all of the reports, but I pay attention and am interested as an 'armchair lawyer'. Many of the posts I've seen on this board have shown a lack of knowledge on the case. The initial poll itself is poorly worded. The most thorough research I have seen about the case have been posted by the user named on the above mentioned message board. -wheatiefan |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 2,226 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/01/2009 3:09 pm
