| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 2,760 |
|
CCF Advertiser
United States
1533 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
634 Posts |
I'll never understand why the government has to be so petty about such things.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5239 Posts |
Interesting, of course, but it has no impact on me since I would never be buying this or any patterns,
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5172 Posts |
Very sad.
I hope that the coins would at least be sent to museums and not for melting. But either way it's honestly rather silly.
|
|
CCF Advertiser
 United States
1533 Posts |
I would hate to be that lawyer that gave them the advice to send them to the treasury. PCGS could have authenticated them and they would all have sold at auction before the Treasury department even knew about them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
There are dozens of cases more worthy of SCOTUS' attention. At least this doesn't set a precedent.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Quote:
PCGS could have authenticated them and they would all have sold at auction before the Treasury department even knew about them. Not a chance that would happen. The former owner of the only known 1974-D aluminum cent found out the hard way when he received a Cease and Desist letter from Treasury right before the coin was supposed to be auctioned. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7618 Posts |
I bet the Family won't be using THAT lawyer anymore!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
The theft of wealth from individuals by the Government under absurd pretense (punishing individuals for an alleged crime not committed by them, and 90+ years ago) is nothing new; what surprises me is that the Court would refuse writ. It is the "stolen goods shall bear no financial fruit" doctrine in extremis; that the mere possession of something, having been judged to be unlawfully taken any number of years ago, makes you complicit in its theft and therefore answerable to the crime simply because you now possess that item. We have seen this recently applied to land (Government refusal to recognize unlawful confiscation of property from Native Texians/pre-annexation Texan settlers), cars (such as the 50+ year old stolen classic car which was taken from its current owner, who had restored it from a junkyard, and returned to descendant of the original owner) and once again gold coins.
By the logic in force here, anything the Government determines has been stolen or illegally obtained can be confiscated from citizens at any time, with no recompense, without regards to relevant local or state laws, and without regards to statutes of limitation; and the Court's refusal to hear the case means that if the circuit courts split, the outcome may vary by jurisdiction with no means of reconciling the split.
This case may have long-standing consequences for collectors of ANY US coin pattern issues, errors, trial strikes, etc. since at any time the Government could decide they were really "stolen" or were never intended to be released to the public, and simply take them from your possession and there would not be anything you could do about it short of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a trial with no avenue of appeal past the circuit courts. Meanwhile, the Government is free to then turn around and sell these issues for profit and legitimize them in such a manner.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
979 Posts |
This is a crying shame. This is bigger than just the 1933 double eagles. Now the government can use this to take any coin they deem to have left the mint illegally ie 1913 Liberty nickels. If I owned 1 of the nickels I would hide it and not let it out of my sight for any reason. This also applies to error coins as well since we all know the government does not make mistakes. They will claim that they do make errors on coins and will demand they all be returned since the left the mint illegally. Well I am off to write a letter to SCOTUS and hide part of my collection. I also believe that they will demand the family pay all of the governments legal fees. It is not enough for the government to take what is not theirs they have to screw the family as well. Edited by ckrakowski
04/19/2017 9:13 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
979 Posts |
Hey Alpha it does set precedent since the government will use this to go after not only errors that they will claim left the mint illegally but also the 5 most famous nickels of all time. Yes I am talking about the 1913 Liberty nickels. They can now claim they left the mint illegally and demand their return. |
|
Moderator
 United States
54280 Posts |
There are a boatload of coins that were made illegally - and should be the property of the Mint.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5394 Posts |
There are probably a bunch more 1933 Double Eagles out in the wild. What an interesting case this has been over the last decade.
The Langbords were not given the best of advice when they turned the pieces over to the Government. I am sure that the family and the lawyer representing them wished for a similar result to that of the Fenton Case .
I hope that the Treasury eventually offers the coins for display in various museums or even sells them in the numismatic market.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
Quote:
Hey Alpha it does set precedent since the government will use this to go after not only errors that they will claim left the mint illegally but also the 5 most famous nickels of all time... If SCOTUS takes no action, the lower rulings stand, but those rulings are not necessarily imposed nationally, and with no formal statement on the merits of the case, later cases may be ruled differently. It's true that this case is closed, and other courts might use this ruling in later cases. But SCOTUS has the final word -- in the event they agree to hear a case, and they are most inclined to do that when there is disagreement among the circuit courts. If a circuit court holds that the 1913 nickels are legally/privately held, SCOTUS might hear that case, in which case they would set a precedent. In this case, SCOTUS did not, and that's the precedent I was referring to: the national/final kind, not the local/unsettled kind. Edited to add: Now that I wrote that, I see that I probably misused the word "precedent" originally. I'll shut up now. Edited by Alpha2814
04/19/2017 10:16 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
309 Posts |
Leave the law to the lawyers. And remember, "possession is nine tenths of the law".
|
|
Valued Member
United States
294 Posts |
The family should have never sent them in to be "authenticated." There are always quiet ways to dispose of such coins.
|
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 2,760 |
Posted 04/19/2017 5:30 pm
