@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on his own.
Thanks for the info. I do read publicly available information on this case, but not all information is on the public record so I appreciate your posts here.
someone should take out a big ad in a Washington Newspaper simply just printing this! perhaps MR. pres. would take it to heart???? (oh what is that??? you must be kidding) me?????)
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
—————-
Tampering with Evidence
Definition
Tampering with evidence is an offence and there are statutes proscribing tampering with evidence, fabricating evidence, and the concealment or destruction of evidence for the purpose of impairing its availability as evidence in an investigation or official proceeding. At common law, suppression, fabrication, or destruction of physical evidence amounts to obstruction of justice.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
I'm curious s to why the 2001 settlement was viewed as a defeat? I thought that the Fenton piece (which was or was alleged to be the Farouk coin), could be distinguished from other examples, due to the granting of an export license.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
I'm curious s to why the 2001 settlement was viewed as a defeat? I thought that the Fenton piece (which was or was alleged to be the Farouk coin), could be distinguished from other examples, due to the granting of an export license.
I've always thought the Farouk verdict was illogical. It basically amounted to "2 wrongs make a right". The Mint wrongly sold a coin to Farouk's agent. Then customs, not knowing it was a "stolen coin" issued an export permit.
If I stole the Mona Lisa and got an ignorant customs official to issue an export license, would I be allowed to keep the painting?
The coin was either "stolen" or "not stolen". If "stolen" then it must be seized and returned to the rightful owner no matter what happened after the theft. If "not stolen" then the export license is irrelevant.
here other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
I doubt doing background searches indicates anything about the relative strength of the case. You would/should always do your due diligence. I would expect it is fairly routine.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
here other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
I doubt doing background searches indicates anything about the relative strength of the case. You would/should always do your due diligence. I would expect it is fairly routine.
There would not have been a settlement in 2001 had the government been certain
of its strength in the case.
here other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
I doubt doing background searches indicates anything about the relative strength of the case. You would/should always do your due diligence. I would expect it is fairly routine.
There would not have been a settlement in 2001 had the government been certain
of its strength in the case.
That's a different argument...and a different case.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
I'm curious s to why the 2001 settlement was viewed as a defeat? I thought that the Fenton piece (which was or was alleged to be the Farouk coin), could be distinguished from other examples, due to the granting of an export license.
I've always thought the Farouk verdict was illogical. It basically amounted to "2 wrongs make a right". The Mint wrongly sold a coin to Farouk's agent. Then customs, not knowing it was a "stolen coin" issued an export permit.
If I stole the Mona Lisa and got an ignorant customs official to issue an export license, would I be allowed to keep the painting?
The coin was either "stolen" or "not stolen". If "stolen" then it must be seized and returned to the rightful owner no matter what happened after the theft. If "not stolen" then the export license is irrelevant.
The coin(s) were never stolen, in my view. There may have been a less than stellar mint employee who facilitated a fair exchange, but there is no record of theft. And I believe it wasn't until a decade later (after release) that there was any issue with these coins being exchanged or listed for sale or auction.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint &
If I stole the Mona Lisa and got an ignorant customs official to issue an export license, would I be allowed to keep the painting?
The coin was either "stolen" or "not stolen". If "stolen" then it must be seized and returned to the rightful owner no matter what happened after the theft. If "not stolen" then the export license is irrelevant.
The coin(s) were never stolen, in my view. There may have been a less than stellar mint employee who facilitated a fair exchange, but there is no record of theft. And I believe it wasn't until a decade later (after release) that there was any issue with these coins being exchanged or listed for sale or auction.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint &
If I stole the Mona Lisa and got an ignorant customs official to issue an export license, would I be allowed to keep the painting?
The coin was either "stolen" or "not stolen". If "stolen" then it must be seized and returned to the rightful owner no matter what happened after the theft. If "not stolen" then the export license is irrelevant.
The coin(s) were never stolen, in my view. There may have been a less than stellar mint employee who facilitated a fair exchange, but there is no record of theft. And I believe it wasn't until a decade later (after release) that there was any issue with these coins being exchanged or listed for sale or auction.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint &
If I stole the Mona Lisa and got an ignorant customs official to issue an export license, would I be allowed to keep the painting?
The coin was either "stolen" or "not stolen". If "stolen" then it must be seized and returned to the rightful owner no matter what happened after the theft. If "not stolen" then the export license is irrelevant.
The coin(s) were never stolen, in my view. There may have been a less than stellar mint employee who facilitated a fair exchange, but there is no record of theft. And I believe it wasn't until a decade later (after release) that there was any issue with these coins being exchanged or listed for sale or auction.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
It could be theft if the coins were not authorized to be available to be exchanged. Did Tripp testify that there were no records authorizing release of the coins to the cashier?
Where are the charges for theft or receiving stolen property ? Seems to me if the government's assertion that the coins were stolen were, in fact legitimate; there would be charges filed. Not so much as a "search warrant" was ever issued, .... going on 87 years.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Where are the charges for theft or receiving stolen property ? Seems to me if the government's assertion that the coins were stolen were, in fact legitimate; there would be charges filed. Not so much as a "search warrant" was ever issued, .... going on 87 years.
Had they spot checked the bags before melting they would have discovered the exchange or if smoeone did notice they didn't act on it.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Your helper in the store sells a pack of gum for 50 cents. Buyer pays with a Morgan dollar and gets fitty cents back. Helper pockets the Morgan after the customer leaves and puts 4 quarters in the till. Theft or not?
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Sorry, but I don’t think that’s relevant - customers could legally exchange coins at the Mint. What I think is up for debate is whether, based on the timing, an exchange of coins would have been legal. Perhaps we agree, but just don’t know about that timing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Your helper in the store sells a pack of gum for 50 cents. Buyer pays with a Morgan dollar and gets fitty cents back. Helper pockets the Morgan after the customer leaves and puts 4 quarters in the till. Theft or not?
Not the same situation at all. In your example, EVERYTHING is legal to possess. You have to start with the sale of something NOT authorized for sale.
Suppose a museum has a painting appraised for $10 million. Suppose I give the night watchman $15 million and he gives the museum the $15 million. Theft or not?
The whole situation simply boils down to whether the coins were legally available for sale (trade). If they were, no theft. If they were not, it is theft because the person who sold it, even though they didn't profit from it, had NO LEGAL RIGHT to sell (trade) the item.
@thefinn said:
They should have negotiated a deal before revealing the coins. U.S. government gets 5, we get 5.
Trying to negotiate a deal would have amounted to revealing the coins. And that likely would have led to other problems.
Agreed. I'm not sure what the criticism of the family is all about.
The ONLY criticism of the family and the honest and good faith thing they did comes from folks like me. I disagree with how they handled what they had in their possession. That's all. Knowing the outcome it is easy to second guess them and make suggestions. We would not be having this conversation if the government would have returned the coins. We would be having this discussion if they would have sent the government just one coin as I would have done.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Sorry, but I don’t think that’s relevant - customers could legally exchange coins at the Mint. What I think is up for debate is whether, based on the timing, an exchange of coins would have been legal. Perhaps we agree, but just don’t know about that timing.
That's exactly what I said. If they were not legal to sell (trade), it is theft even though there was a $20 for $20 trade. If they WERE legal to sell, it is not a theft even if the government changed their mind an hour later. [No backsies in legalese.]
See my museum example. If the Mona Lisa is valued at $1 billion, the night watchman can't sell it to me for $10 billion, even if ALL $10 billion goes to the museum. He is simply not legally authorized to make the sale.
@thefinn said:
They should have negotiated a deal before revealing the coins. U.S. government gets 5, we get 5.
Trying to negotiate a deal would have amounted to revealing the coins. And that likely would have led to other problems.
Agreed. I'm not sure what the criticism of the family is all about.
The ONLY criticism of the family and the honest and good faith thing they did comes from folks like me. I disagree with how they handled what they had in their possession. That's all. Knowing the outcome it is easy to second guess them and make suggestions. We would not be having this conversation if the government would have returned the coins. We would be having this discussion if they would have sent the government just one coin as I would have done.
I know your position and the ethical/legal dilemma it creates.
It would be illegal (though hard to prove) for the family to keep the coins knowing they were illegal to possess. Period. They did the honest, etheical thing and people are criticizing them for it.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Your helper in the store sells a pack of gum for 50 cents. Buyer pays with a Morgan dollar and gets fitty cents back. Helper pockets the Morgan after the customer leaves and puts 4 quarters in the till. Theft or not?
Not the same situation at all. In your example, EVERYTHING is legal to possess. You have to start with the sale of something NOT authorized for sale.
Suppose a museum has a painting appraised for $10 million. Suppose I give the night watchman $15 million and he gives the museum the $15 million. Theft or not?
The whole situation simply boils down to whether the coins were legally available for sale (trade). If they were, no theft. If they were not, it is theft because the person who sold it, even though they didn't profit from it, had NO LEGAL RIGHT to sell (trade) the item.
May not be the same situation, but a case could still be made for theft if one wanted to split hairs over it.
@jmlanzaf said: "If the Mona Lisa is valued at $1 billion, the night watchman can't sell it to me for $10 billion, even if ALL $10 billion goes to the museum. He is simply not legally authorized to make the sale."
First, your example is EXTREMELY FLAWED. Their is ONLY ONE Mona Lisa!
Let me suggest this example. What if there were lots of 1933 $20 struck. What if someone at the mint got a hold of twenty of them - either given out/sold over the counter or switched after the melt order. Then he went downtown and sold them at a profit. No one was the wiser UNTIL his heirs or the owners of other examples tried to get them authenticated. Depending on the actual events, on one hand it was legal on the other it was not.
The case has been settled and there is no way to know whether the outcome for the family was just. Therefore, we'll never know the ACTUAL legality/illegality of anything. That makes just about EVERY opinion/scenario VALID.
YAWN!
PS We all know that OWNERSHIP of stolen goods does not transfer.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Your helper in the store sells a pack of gum for 50 cents. Buyer pays with a Morgan dollar and gets fitty cents back. Helper pockets the Morgan after the customer leaves and puts 4 quarters in the till. Theft or not?
No, although there might be a store policy which forbids it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Your helper in the store sells a pack of gum for 50 cents. Buyer pays with a Morgan dollar and gets fitty cents back. Helper pockets the Morgan after the customer leaves and puts 4 quarters in the till. Theft or not?
No, although there might be a store policy which forbids it.
Pretty common at banks and tellers are fast learners.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "If the Mona Lisa is valued at $1 billion, the night watchman can't sell it to me for $10 billion, even if ALL $10 billion goes to the museum. He is simply not legally authorized to make the sale."
First, your example is EXTREMELY FLAWED. Their is ONLY ONE Mona Lisa!
Let me suggest this example. What if there were lots of 1933 $20 struck. What if someone at the mint got a hold of twenty of them - either given out/sold over the counter or switched after the melt order. Then he went downtown and sold them at a profit. No one was the wiser UNTIL his heirs or the owners of other examples tried to get them authenticated. Depending on the actual events, on one hand it was legal on the other it was not.
The case has been settled and there is no way to know whether the outcome for the family was just. Therefore, we'll never know the ACTUAL legality/illegality of anything. That makes just about EVERY opinion/scenario VALID.
YAWN!
PS We all know that OWNERSHIP of stolen goods does not transfer.
It does not matter whether there were 1 or 100. For "Mona Lisa" substitute Picasso etching (1 of 500). It's the same point. You can NOT legally sell something that you are not authorized to sell no matter how "fair" the price is. If I sell your $10,000 car for $1 million and give you the $1 million, it is still not a legal sale. [Though you will NOT complain.]
@jmlanzaf said: "It does not matter whether there were 1 or 100. For "Mona Lisa" substitute Picasso etching (1 of 500). It's the same point. You can NOT legally sell something that you are not authorized to sell no matter how "fair" the price is. If I sell your $10,000 car for $1 million and give you the $1 million, it is still not a legal sale. [Though you will NOT complain."
Why are you posting with yourself? What you've been saying is acknowledged by everyone here: "PS We all know that OWNERSHIP of stolen goods does not transfer." You cannot legally sell something that is not yours either, OK?
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "It does not matter whether there were 1 or 100. For "Mona Lisa" substitute Picasso etching (1 of 500). It's the same point. You can NOT legally sell something that you are not authorized to sell no matter how "fair" the price is. If I sell your $10,000 car for $1 million and give you the $1 million, it is still not a legal sale. [Though you will NOT complain."
Why are you posting with yourself? What you've been saying is acknowledged by everyone here: "PS We all know that OWNERSHIP of stolen goods does not transfer." You cannot legally sell something that is not yours either, OK?
PS The Picasso example is perfect.
LOL. I'm not arguing with myself. People have been suggesting that a sale by a Mint employee makes the sale legal. That is only true IF IF IF (and I don't really know), the Mint employee was authorized to make the sale.
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
I'm not so sure it matters. For my purposes, the fact that nobody really knows is enough to negate the importance of those matters. "We never intended to release them, so they are not legal in private hands....don't care how you got them."
"Don't care that I negligently left my garage door open. You stole my rake!"
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime.
I'll accept that....but this wasn't a criminal case. It was a civil case fighting over a piece of property. (Which, I'll admit, is worth a lot more than my rake).
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime.
I'll accept that....but this wasn't a criminal case. It was a civil case fighting over a piece of property. (Which, I'll admit, is worth a lot more than my rake).
It’s still up to an accuser, not the accused, to prove what’s being alleged.
With respect to this, which you wrote “I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.” - If it is alleged that you stole something (an object, clothes, whatever), should you have to prove you didn’t steal, rather than that the accuser have to prove that you did? What if you simply paid cash, years ago, have no receipt and can’t provide proof of purchase? Should you lose your possession under those circumstances? Fortunately, that’s not (usually) the way it works.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime."
Not anymore in this country.
There are many fairly recent examples (taboo here) where we are told that the accusers have a "right" to be believed.
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime.
I'll accept that....but this wasn't a criminal case. It was a civil case fighting over a piece of property. (Which, I'll admit, is worth a lot more than my rake).
It’s still up to an accuser, not the accused, to prove what’s being alleged.
With respect to this, which you wrote “I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.” - If it is alleged that you stole something (an object, clothes, whatever), should you have to prove you didn’t steal, rather than that the accuser have to prove that you did? What if you simply paid cash, years ago, have no receipt and can’t provide proof of purchase? Should you lose your possession under those circumstances? Fortunately, that’s not (usually) the way it works.
I'm not a lawyer, so discussing the law probably qualifies me as an idiot.
But I think that when all of the talking, evidence, and wrangling is done, if neither side (honestly, really), has the weight of evidence on their side it may end up being a toss-up. Flip a coin. (Pardon the reference).
But, working on the government's side in this case is 50+ years of CLAIMING they were still government property, along with a demonstrated "holy crusade", (as someone earlier called it), to reclaim them whenever the opportunity presented itself. That may have made for a near impossible feat for the family to overcome, with no records, or witnesses, or documentation on their side, and only possibilities, maybe's, and possibly's to fall back on.
Just saying that all this talk about a few day window, or clerk's having access, and other such complaints, are ignoring the evidence that the mint/government/evil empire have claimed ownership for quite some time! If you can't prove the "maybe's", it was quite possibly a lost cause to begin with. (And to the OP question, expert witnesses be damned).
My contention has been the same, for the same reason it will always be. We are THE PEOPLE. Those are OUR coins. They were released much the same way they were in previous years before Roosevelt "signed" away our right to transact with them. And gold was allowed to be kept, for collector purposes, in the aggregate of $200. Ten times twenty. It's written in the order.
And I suspect a fair enough transaction or two were made... and was made back in '33 during that window when old traded for new with no questions asked.
No matter though. Government 1, the people: 0 .... and one was fit for a king.
Our citizens are better stewards of such numismatic pieces than elected officials are.
The law should provide protection , in that regard.(for the people) and not Be representative of The People. And instead of an iron fist.... well it's too late for their understanding numismatics , and reasoning ... with respect to rule.
They called one of our own a thief. That's debatable and has always upset me. I believe Izzy was a modern coin geek at the time of his exchange. And and while true numismatists were collecting classics, he had foresight.
Nobody ever questioned the count or dates. Proof before melting that accounting was by weight... not date.
And he knew the law could protect him. That's what I think. So he squirreled ten away and peddled another ten , most likely, (or tried to get them to collectors ). And he may have lied to G-men years later , claiming he didn't have them.
The only gold theft in 1933 was when Roosevelt confiscated our gold and handed over the title to our Treasury's gold to a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve). Every other supposed "crime" of the era pales in comparison. One has to wonder why the US Treasury cares so much about this particular issue (1933 double eagles). A lot of "errors" have escaped the mint nefariously and they aren't hunted down. So why the big focus on the 1933 Double Eagles ? I think it has something to do with the Federal Reserve and their holding of the title to pre-1933 gold. My personal (totally unsubstantiated) theory on the anonymous buyer of the one "legal" 1933 Double Eagle is that it was Alan Greenspan.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle could leave the mint but the possibilities for perfectly legal but unusual or atypical ways are almost limitless. It's a near certainty these left the mint legally and appear in the books somewhere but there's no way to know at this time with any certainty how they left. Stealing gold from the mint was never easy and Swit certainly wasn't given them by some miscreant.
If they had been stolen then there would be a theft report or some book wouldn't add up. These were simply confiscated by the government to justify their banning of gold for 40 years. They were stolen because they took a cut for the Farouk specimen and promised there would be no more.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle could leave the mint but the possibilities for perfectly legal but unusual or atypical ways are almost limitless. It's a near certainty these left the mint legally and appear in the books somewhere but there's no way to know at this time with any certainty how they left. Stealing gold from the mint was never easy and Swit certainly wasn't given them by some miscreant.
If they had been stolen then there would be a theft report or some book wouldn't add up. These were simply confiscated by the government to justify their banning of gold for 40 years. They were stolen because they took a cut for the Farouk specimen and promised there would be no more.
It is not legal nonsense. The question is over whether they were ever released for sale. It isn't about being money or anything nebulous. There is a real question there.
And they were immediately declared "stolen" leading to the 85 year hunt for the missing coins.
Edited: 75 years when the existence of the coins was first discovered
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle could leave the mint but the possibilities for perfectly legal but unusual or atypical ways are almost limitless. It's a near certainty these left the mint legally and appear in the books somewhere but there's no way to know at this time with any certainty how they left. Stealing gold from the mint was never easy and Swit certainly wasn't given them by some miscreant.
If they had been stolen then there would be a theft report or some book wouldn't add up. These were simply confiscated by the government to justify their banning of gold for 40 years. They were stolen because they took a cut for the Farouk specimen and promised there would be no more.
If I swapped my old Chrysler for your new Chrysler, the car inventory won't show a missing coin.
The coin count was correct but only because beat up old coins were replaced for the brand new ones.
Would anyone feel differently if the people who bought the coins knew the executive order was coming and were trying to profit from the artificial rarity?
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle could leave the mint but the possibilities for perfectly legal but unusual or atypical ways are almost limitless. It's a near certainty these left the mint legally and appear in the books somewhere but there's no way to know at this time with any certainty how they left. Stealing gold from the mint was never easy and Swit certainly wasn't given them by some miscreant.
If they had been stolen then there would be a theft report or some book wouldn't add up. These were simply confiscated by the government to justify their banning of gold for 40 years. They were stolen because they took a cut for the Farouk specimen and promised there would be no more.
It is not legal nonsense. The question is over whether they were ever released for sale. It isn't about being money or anything nebulous. There is a real question there.
And they were immediately declared "stolen" leading to the 85 year hunt for the missing coins.
The coins weren’t immediately declared to be “stolen” and the hunt for them didn’t start 85 years ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle could leave the mint but the possibilities for perfectly legal but unusual or atypical ways are almost limitless. It's a near certainty these left the mint legally and appear in the books somewhere but there's no way to know at this time with any certainty how they left. Stealing gold from the mint was never easy and Swit certainly wasn't given them by some miscreant.
If they had been stolen then there would be a theft report or some book wouldn't add up. These were simply confiscated by the government to justify their banning of gold for 40 years. They were stolen because they took a cut for the Farouk specimen and promised there would be no more.
It is not legal nonsense. The question is over whether they were ever released for sale. It isn't about being money or anything nebulous. There is a real question there.
And they were immediately declared "stolen" leading to the 85 year hunt for the missing coins.
The coins weren’t immediately declared to be “stolen” and the hunt for them didn’t start 85 years ago.
Well, technically 75 years ago when their existence was discovered.
Comments
What was the dispute with one of the attorneys? Langbord attorney or Government attorney?
In the case of the inquiries made by the government attorneys I was informed of
this by a friend, Harry Forman. Harry’s view, which matched mine, was that the
government knew that it had a weak case or the inquiries would not have been
made. The government attorneys viewed the 2001 settlement as a defeat and
pulled out all the stops for the later trial. Zoins is free to research the matter on
his own.
Thanks for the info. I do read publicly available information on this case, but not all information is on the public record so I appreciate your posts here.
someone should take out a big ad in a Washington Newspaper simply just printing this! perhaps MR. pres. would take it to heart????
(oh what is that??? you must be kidding) me?????)
Definition
I'm curious s to why the 2001 settlement was viewed as a defeat? I thought that the Fenton piece (which was or was alleged to be the Farouk coin), could be distinguished from other examples, due to the granting of an export license.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
made by the government attorneys I was informed of
I've always thought the Farouk verdict was illogical. It basically amounted to "2 wrongs make a right". The Mint wrongly sold a coin to Farouk's agent. Then customs, not knowing it was a "stolen coin" issued an export permit.
If I stole the Mona Lisa and got an ignorant customs official to issue an export license, would I be allowed to keep the painting?
The coin was either "stolen" or "not stolen". If "stolen" then it must be seized and returned to the rightful owner no matter what happened after the theft. If "not stolen" then the export license is irrelevant.
here other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
I doubt doing background searches indicates anything about the relative strength of the case. You would/should always do your due diligence. I would expect it is fairly routine.
The 1933 $20’s are a holy cause for the Treasury.
There would not have been a settlement in 2001 had the government been certain
of its strength in the case.
That's a different argument...and a different case.
...> @jmlanzaf said:
The coin(s) were never stolen, in my view. There may have been a less than stellar mint employee who facilitated a fair exchange, but there is no record of theft. And I believe it wasn't until a decade later (after release) that there was any issue with these coins being exchanged or listed for sale or auction.
An overzealous mint employee exchanging them would constitute theft.
Theft of what? To the mint, one date (in an exchange) would be of the same value as another.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It could be theft if the coins were not authorized to be available to be exchanged. Did Tripp testify that there were no records authorizing release of the coins to the cashier?
Where are the charges for theft or receiving stolen property ? Seems to me if the government's assertion that the coins were stolen were, in fact legitimate; there would be charges filed. Not so much as a "search warrant" was ever issued, .... going on 87 years.
They should have negotiated a deal before revealing the coins. U.S. government gets 5, we get 5.
Had they spot checked the bags before melting they would have discovered the exchange or if smoeone did notice they didn't act on it.
Other dates were melted too, no?
If they were not legally released, the value exchange is irrelevant. [Assuming that is true. Some would argue they were legal to be exchanged.]
I can't legally sell concert tickets to my friends the day before they hit the market. I can't sell Black Friday specials at Walmart the day before the sale takes affect. It is "theft" even if exchanged for currency.
Trying to negotiate a deal would have amounted to revealing the coins. And that likely would have led to other problems.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agreed. I'm not sure what the criticism of the family is all about.
Your helper in the store sells a pack of gum for 50 cents. Buyer pays with a Morgan dollar and gets fitty cents back. Helper pockets the Morgan after the customer leaves and puts 4 quarters in the till. Theft or not?
Sorry, but I don’t think that’s relevant - customers could legally exchange coins at the Mint. What I think is up for debate is whether, based on the timing, an exchange of coins would have been legal. Perhaps we agree, but just don’t know about that timing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not the same situation at all. In your example, EVERYTHING is legal to possess. You have to start with the sale of something NOT authorized for sale.
Suppose a museum has a painting appraised for $10 million. Suppose I give the night watchman $15 million and he gives the museum the $15 million. Theft or not?
The whole situation simply boils down to whether the coins were legally available for sale (trade). If they were, no theft. If they were not, it is theft because the person who sold it, even though they didn't profit from it, had NO LEGAL RIGHT to sell (trade) the item.
The ONLY criticism of the family and the honest and good faith thing they did comes from folks like me. I disagree with how they handled what they had in their possession. That's all. Knowing the outcome it is easy to second guess them and make suggestions. We would not be having this conversation if the government would have returned the coins. We would be having this discussion if they would have sent the government just one coin as I would have done.
That's exactly what I said. If they were not legal to sell (trade), it is theft even though there was a $20 for $20 trade. If they WERE legal to sell, it is not a theft even if the government changed their mind an hour later. [No backsies in legalese.]
See my museum example. If the Mona Lisa is valued at $1 billion, the night watchman can't sell it to me for $10 billion, even if ALL $10 billion goes to the museum. He is simply not legally authorized to make the sale.
I know your position and the ethical/legal dilemma it creates.
It would be illegal (though hard to prove) for the family to keep the coins knowing they were illegal to possess. Period. They did the honest, etheical thing and people are criticizing them for it.
May not be the same situation, but a case could still be made for theft if one wanted to split hairs over it.
@jmlanzaf said: "If the Mona Lisa is valued at $1 billion, the night watchman can't sell it to me for $10 billion, even if ALL $10 billion goes to the museum. He is simply not legally authorized to make the sale."
First, your example is EXTREMELY FLAWED. Their is ONLY ONE Mona Lisa!
Let me suggest this example. What if there were lots of 1933 $20 struck. What if someone at the mint got a hold of twenty of them - either given out/sold over the counter or switched after the melt order. Then he went downtown and sold them at a profit. No one was the wiser UNTIL his heirs or the owners of other examples tried to get them authenticated. Depending on the actual events, on one hand it was legal on the other it was not.
The case has been settled and there is no way to know whether the outcome for the family was just. Therefore, we'll never know the ACTUAL legality/illegality of anything. That makes just about EVERY opinion/scenario VALID.
YAWN!
PS We all know that OWNERSHIP of stolen goods does not transfer.
No, although there might be a store policy which forbids it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Pretty common at banks and tellers are fast learners.
It does not matter whether there were 1 or 100. For "Mona Lisa" substitute Picasso etching (1 of 500). It's the same point. You can NOT legally sell something that you are not authorized to sell no matter how "fair" the price is. If I sell your $10,000 car for $1 million and give you the $1 million, it is still not a legal sale. [Though you will NOT complain.]
@jmlanzaf said: "It does not matter whether there were 1 or 100. For "Mona Lisa" substitute Picasso etching (1 of 500). It's the same point. You can NOT legally sell something that you are not authorized to sell no matter how "fair" the price is. If I sell your $10,000 car for $1 million and give you the $1 million, it is still not a legal sale. [Though you will NOT complain."
Why are you posting with yourself? What you've been saying is acknowledged by everyone here: "PS We all know that OWNERSHIP of stolen goods does not transfer." You cannot legally sell something that is not yours either, OK?
PS The Picasso example is perfect.
LOL. I'm not arguing with myself. People have been suggesting that a sale by a Mint employee makes the sale legal. That is only true IF IF IF (and I don't really know), the Mint employee was authorized to make the sale.
I'm with @jmlanzaf here.
Forget all of the timing of when coins were moved where, what opportunity for a transaction existed, and what the Govt. could and couldn't prove.
I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.
And since nobody REALLY knows what went down, it really shouldn't be to surprising that the "injured party" (i.e. Uncle Sam), won the case.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
If you have my rake, I say it was not given or sold to you, and you can't prove it was....I think most courts and jurors would make you give me back my rake.
I mostly agree here. The only thing I can't really say with any authority is whether or not the coins were ever "legally" available at the Mint because I'm not sure what the requisite protocols are to make them "legal" to sell. Is there ever paperwork filed? Is there an official transfer to the Exchequer or Cashier? I just don't know how that works.
If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm not so sure it matters. For my purposes, the fact that nobody really knows is enough to negate the importance of those matters. "We never intended to release them, so they are not legal in private hands....don't care how you got them."
"Don't care that I negligently left my garage door open. You stole my rake!"
I'll accept that....but this wasn't a criminal case. It was a civil case fighting over a piece of property. (Which, I'll admit, is worth a lot more than my rake).
It’s still up to an accuser, not the accused, to prove what’s being alleged.
With respect to this, which you wrote “I think the whole case came down to the Government CLAIM that they were stolen. At that point, it's not so much their responsibility to prove that fact....it's more the job of the current holders to prove they were NOT.” - If it is alleged that you stole something (an object, clothes, whatever), should you have to prove you didn’t steal, rather than that the accuser have to prove that you did? What if you simply paid cash, years ago, have no receipt and can’t provide proof of purchase? Should you lose your possession under those circumstances? Fortunately, that’s not (usually) the way it works.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "If someone is accused of a crime, it’s not their burden to prove that they didn’t commit it. It’s the burden of the accuser to prove that the accused committed the crime."
Not anymore in this country.
There are many fairly recent examples (taboo here) where we are told that the accusers have a "right" to be believed.
I'm not a lawyer, so discussing the law probably qualifies me as an idiot.
But I think that when all of the talking, evidence, and wrangling is done, if neither side (honestly, really), has the weight of evidence on their side it may end up being a toss-up. Flip a coin. (Pardon the reference).
But, working on the government's side in this case is 50+ years of CLAIMING they were still government property, along with a demonstrated "holy crusade", (as someone earlier called it), to reclaim them whenever the opportunity presented itself. That may have made for a near impossible feat for the family to overcome, with no records, or witnesses, or documentation on their side, and only possibilities, maybe's, and possibly's to fall back on.
Just saying that all this talk about a few day window, or clerk's having access, and other such complaints, are ignoring the evidence that the mint/government/evil empire have claimed ownership for quite some time! If you can't prove the "maybe's", it was quite possibly a lost cause to begin with. (And to the OP question, expert witnesses be damned).
My contention has been the same, for the same reason it will always be. We are THE PEOPLE. Those are OUR coins. They were released much the same way they were in previous years before Roosevelt "signed" away our right to transact with them. And gold was allowed to be kept, for collector purposes, in the aggregate of $200. Ten times twenty. It's written in the order.
And I suspect a fair enough transaction or two were made... and was made back in '33 during that window when old traded for new with no questions asked.
No matter though. Government 1, the people: 0 .... and one was fit for a king.
Our citizens are better stewards of such numismatic pieces than elected officials are.
The law should provide protection , in that regard.(for the people) and not Be representative of The People. And instead of an iron fist.... well it's too late for their understanding numismatics , and reasoning ... with respect to rule.
They called one of our own a thief. That's debatable and has always upset me. I believe Izzy was a modern coin geek at the time of his exchange. And and while true numismatists were collecting classics, he had foresight.
Nobody ever questioned the count or dates. Proof before melting that accounting was by weight... not date.
And he knew the law could protect him. That's what I think. So he squirreled ten away and peddled another ten , most likely, (or tried to get them to collectors ). And he may have lied to G-men years later , claiming he didn't have them.
In the end.... it's over.
The only gold theft in 1933 was when Roosevelt confiscated our gold and handed over the title to our Treasury's gold to a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve). Every other supposed "crime" of the era pales in comparison. One has to wonder why the US Treasury cares so much about this particular issue (1933 double eagles). A lot of "errors" have escaped the mint nefariously and they aren't hunted down. So why the big focus on the 1933 Double Eagles ? I think it has something to do with the Federal Reserve and their holding of the title to pre-1933 gold. My personal (totally unsubstantiated) theory on the anonymous buyer of the one "legal" 1933 Double Eagle is that it was Alan Greenspan.
This is all legal nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the mint is just a factory. They merely produce coins, not money. At no point does a coin somehow morph into "money". For ALL practical purposes a coin becomes money when it is legally presented to purchase something and is not fraudulently accepted. No wand is waved over them nor are the blessed by the powers that be.
As a factory there are many roads in and many roads out. Not only is product removed from this factory in countless ways but so too is garbage, equipment, men, and materiel. Product goes out in many ways and while each coin is dated it hardly proves it left the mint the year that is stamped on the coin. They often release new coins right with the old inadvertently and it could have even left the mint in 1932. Everything they mix in with the coinage isn't intentional and isn't a W-mint quarter.
We are only aware of the normal and typical ways that a 1933 double eagle could leave the mint but the possibilities for perfectly legal but unusual or atypical ways are almost limitless. It's a near certainty these left the mint legally and appear in the books somewhere but there's no way to know at this time with any certainty how they left. Stealing gold from the mint was never easy and Swit certainly wasn't given them by some miscreant.
If they had been stolen then there would be a theft report or some book wouldn't add up. These were simply confiscated by the government to justify their banning of gold for 40 years. They were stolen because they took a cut for the Farouk specimen and promised there would be no more.
It is not legal nonsense. The question is over whether they were ever released for sale. It isn't about being money or anything nebulous. There is a real question there.
And they were immediately declared "stolen" leading to the 85 year hunt for the missing coins.
Edited: 75 years when the existence of the coins was first discovered
If I swapped my old Chrysler for your new Chrysler, the car inventory won't show a missing coin.
The coin count was correct but only because beat up old coins were replaced for the brand new ones.
Would anyone feel differently if the people who bought the coins knew the executive order was coming and were trying to profit from the artificial rarity?
The coins weren’t immediately declared to be “stolen” and the hunt for them didn’t start 85 years ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well, technically 75 years ago when their existence was discovered.