| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 2,861 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
235 Posts |
Is there any way to get a copy of the Complaint filed? I sure would like to see the jurisdictional basis for this lawsuit and how the plaintiff will overcome the Motion to Dismiss based on the doctrines of sovereign immunity and official immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act specifically excludes intentional torts, which in this case I assume is conversion (wrongful taking of property). The plaintiff must allege he or she had lawful possession of the coins and that an agent of the United States took them. The government's defense, I assume, will be that it has the superior claim of title to (ownership of) the coins and will present testimony that the coins were never authorized to be released to the public. The government will show they were either embezzled by an employee who then released them or stolen outright by a third party. (The Dept of Justice does not adhere to Washington's example of always telling the truth when the truth is detrimental to its case). The only hope for the plaintiff then, I am guessing, is to rebut the claim of theft by showing the government released them by mistake and the party to whom they were release was unaware of the mistake. Since this transaction occurred more than 70 years ago, the plaintiff's evidence is likely to be excluded as hearsay unless he can produce a document establishing good-faith mutual mistake. The case make a good bar examination question. I doubt whether it is important enough to be heard by the US Supreme Court.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1203 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Bryan1315
the facts still remain the same, if the Mint say's they never released the coins and the only way they could ever be outside of the mint is if they were stolen then they are the Mint's property until they give up ownership of the utems.
I happen to believe that it all depends on your definition of "facts" and the remote possibility that the mint is telling the truth about the non-issuance of these coins. If you happen to believe all the mint tells you then there is no problem with your argument. But if, as in the past, the mint is less than honest about what they did, or will do, you are on shakey ground.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Hopefully this family can produce proof of ownership, if not they will lose without a fight,, and even then the Ice is thin,,The simple fact is that these coins were recalled by official power, since they were not returned they are illegal to possess.
The Government has no such burden since the Government designed, and enacted the prohibition against owning Gold coinage,,These coins do not belong to the mint, they belong to the Government.
Rick
|
|
Valued Member
United States
235 Posts |
I believe that the recall of gold coins (and gold certificates) in 1933 did not apply to coins that were a part of a coin collection or used in jewelry. The plaintiff might argue, if he was in legal possession of the coins because of a good-faith mutual mistake of fact (as I mentioned in my prior post), that he was not obligated to turn in the coins in 1933 because they were part of a coin collection or acquired for jewelry -- I think the person who obtained them was a jeweler.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
The simple fact is the coins are not in Jewelry,, have never been in jewelry ,,so what was the intent ?
They were held for 73 years ,, through all of the speculation about how many were in private hands, through the legalization and auction of another,, those two events constitute the intent of the ones holding them,, they knew they were illegal to own.
Rick
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1203 Posts |
When did we start saying one is guilty or not guilty based on their intentions? Gosh the thought police are hard at work these days, so anything is possible I guess. So it will be wait and see who might be telling the truth, and if it does get into court, anything is possible.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Belgium
2078 Posts |
Maybe the family should emigrate to Switzerland and become Swisse nationals They have some fabulous laws  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Dan,, Intent is a valid tenant of the judicial process,,and has always been there.
If they actually try and employ the variance posted by Houston,, then intent will be the affirmative defense.
Rick
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by OldDan
When did we start saying one is guilty or not guilty based on their intentions? Gosh the thought police are hard at work these days, so anything is possible I guess. So it will be wait and see who might be telling the truth, and if it does get into court, anything is possible.
Dan, intent is a major factor in law. It can make all the difference in the world if a person is accused of murder versus involuntary manslaughter. However, this will be a civil case rather than a criminal trial and the intent of the family who held the coin will probably not be a major issue except in the original means of gaining possession of the coins which, as Houston Guy stated is gonna be pretty hard to prove that they were obtained legally. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1203 Posts |
I'm sure that both you Fred as well as Rick know a lot more about the legal angle than I do, but it remains to be seen just how much proof the mint has that the coins were taken illegally. It is documented that any number of these coins were issued with signed bills of sale, and then called back when the law was passed to remover gold from the so called 'standard'.
Like was mentioned, the law was for gold that was not in collections or used as a collectable, and as such was not under this ruling. So those coins that were "issued" and then ask to be returned which were not to be used as a collection would have been the only coins that were illegal to own. The other coins were legal then as well as now, from where I stand.
Guess we will wait and see what the government uses for proof that they are stolen property, and what documentation the owners have as to their being issued to them from the mint.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
143 Posts |
Last I knew there was a statute of limitations on theft. Surely these disappeared more than 10 years ago.
What makes these exempt?
|
|
Member
United States
3242 Posts |
Why don't we add 1913 nickle only 5 known coins,that had to be stolen! but I post this thread before about the 1933 they were not stolen they were saved buy and old jeweler and his family found them after he had passed next thing the government will want is all the type coins they do not have in there traveling coins like the 1933s
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
It has been well-established that any 1933 St. Gaudens Double Eagles are illegal since they were made illegal before they were issued. If any were issued either by intent (illegally) or accident (i.e., slipped through the cracks), they still are illegal. Hence, the St. Gaudens are not and cannot be made legal unless some sort of amnesty law is created and passed by legislative action, something which has not been contemplated. http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/...OPIC_ID=7050The statute of limitations for theft is irrelevant since nobody is being prosecuted for theft. What is applicable is ownership of stolen property. If stolen property is ever recovered, it remains the property of whomever it was stolen from, in this instance the US Government, even if the period of time is measured in decades or centuries. Comparison of the 1933 St. Gaudens DEs with other, older coins is pointless since the '33s are not covered under the legalization of coins prior to 1933 (probably intentionally with this cutoff date due to the problems caused by the apparently purloined pieces). Further, the King Farouk specimen which became legalized was an isolated incident. Further specimens are not going to be given the same treatment since they did not go through the same international diplomatic channels as did the Farouk specimen. http://coins.about.com/od/famousrar...ld_Eagle.htmAll that said, are there yet undiscovered 1933 St. Gaudens Double Eagles floating around in underground high level private collections? Probably. And they will probably remain underground indefinitely in the same manner stolen artwork is passed from rich collector to rich collector until such items surface intentionally or inadvertently. I don't see the Switt family having any chance at all unless they've come up with a new angle. Maybe invoking National Security.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I agree, no matter if they have 100 bill of sales the fact still remains that it was deemed illegal to own so that really doesn't matter. They made them and then before they were ever released in any way were deemed illegal to own so no matter how they got out they shouldn't have because they were at the time of them getting out they were illegal to own. As I said before this isn't a very popular answer for the collector in me but still doesn't change the facts no matter how much I would like a collector rather than the Government to own these coins but I really do not see it happening. they released one for sale and I doubt they will ever release any more, if they do I bet the guy who purchased the one and only legal coin's lawyer would fight it as best of his ability because as long as his client owns the one and only specimen that is legal to own that makes him worth that much more money
Edited by Bryan1315
12/08/2006 9:05 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Morgan Fred
It has been well-established that any 1933 St. Gaudens Double Eagles are illegal since they were made illegal before they were issued. If any were issued either by intent (illegally) or accident (i.e., slipped through the cracks), they still are illegal. Hence, the St. Gaudens are not and cannot be made legal unless some sort of amnesty law is created and passed by legislative action, something which has not been contemplated. http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/...OPIC_ID=7050
The statute of limitations for theft is irrelevant since nobody is being prosecuted for theft. What is applicable is ownership of stolen property. If stolen property is ever recovered, it remains the property of whomever it was stolen from, in this instance the US Government, even if the period of time is measured in decades or centuries.
Comparison of the 1933 St. Gaudens DEs with other, older coins is pointless since the '33s are not covered under the legalization of coins prior to 1933 (probably intentionally with this cutoff date due to the problems caused by the apparently purloined pieces). Further, the King Farouk specimen which became legalized was an isolated incident. Further specimens are not going to be given the same treatment since they did not go through the same international diplomatic channels as did the Farouk specimen.
http://coins.about.com/od/famousrar...ld_Eagle.htm
All that said, are there yet undiscovered 1933 St. Gaudens Double Eagles floating around in underground high level private collections? Probably. And they will probably remain underground indefinitely in the same manner stolen artwork is passed from rich collector to rich collector until such items surface intentionally or inadvertently.
I don't see the Switt family having any chance at all unless they've come up with a new angle. Maybe invoking National Security.
Very well expressed Fred ,, I agree !! Rick |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 2,861 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 12/07/2006 11:56 am
