Lawsuit Filed Over 1933 Double Eagles

Like Houston said, we can only speculate at this time. But, based on other examples, I don't see how they can keep the coins. If you unknowingly buy a stolen item, you have to return it once the police let you know it was stolen. Now the issue of getting your money back is another issue, but I don't know if the family actually paid anything for the coins. If it is established that they were stolen from the mint, then they should go back to the mint since they are not legally theirs. But possession is 9/10ths of the law and whenever you have lawyers involved everything is up in the air, so who the heck knows what will happen. I'll get out my popcorn and enjoy the show, as I'm sure it will be one.

Although I'm still waiting to hear about a 1964D Peace dollar. Who knows, If the 1933 Double Eagles are legal, will a 1964D Peace dollar surface and be deemed legal to own. I'm just digressing.

This has Supreme Court written all over it! (But, of course, they will probably refuse to hear it and simply let a lower court ruling stand.)

I cant count the number of post's that have been started on this forum alone much less all the other forums out there and each time there are a number of very good arguments for both sides but 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 in question (like they did the first time). It is just like if a pawnshop or an individual for that matter buys something and then later on down the road the cops come and tell them the item they bought is stolen they do not get reimbursed for the amount they purchased the item for because it wasn't the persons to sell that they bought it from, it was owned by the one it was stolen from and the people that had possession of the item is just out of luck, well thats the same thing with these coins, unless they can prove they purchased these coins directly from the mint then they belong to the Mint no matter who they bought them from afterwards. Then you have to throw in the fact that these are Illegal to own Period! same way if a drug dealer gets caught with 100 pounds of marijuana, the police sure isn't going to reimburse them the money he has spent on the illegal drugs, and lets face it, illegal is illegal no matter if it be drugs or in this case coins, both are illegal to own. The collector in me doesn't like these facts but facts are facts and I believe it would be harder for the people to prove that they did purchase the coins from the mint than the Mint to prove that they didn't.

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.

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

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