Here's the question: Let's say the government loses and is ordered to surrender the coins to the Langbords. If the government refuses, who can force them to do so?
I'm not convinced the government will give these coins up, period, no matter what happens in court. Sure, they'd prefer to do it with a legal decision backing them, but who polices the police in this case? Who can force the government to do something it doesn't want to do? >>
I belive that issue was addressed in a prior thread.
The appellants are executors of the estate of James A. Stack who died after his appeal was taken. Mr. Stack was a collector of rare coins. His collection included a twenty dollar gold piece, dated 1933, of an issue minted by the United States. The Treasury Department notified him that this coin had been stolen from the United States, that he was not entitled to retain it, and that a Secret Service agent would call upon him to receive it. In June 1945, Mr. Stack delivered the coin to such agent under protest and with an express reservation of the right to institute legal proceedings for its recovery.
I'm not sure if that is the total case back from 1951 because it was appealed and ruled on in 1953 by the NY supreme court. I couldn't find that part of the ruling.
The end result was he never got the coin back though.
<< <i>have them amend the estate assets and tax them for the $69 million they forgot to list >>
Heh. That would make the coins legal AND provide the cash to make the buyer of the Fenton piece whole. Of course, with 11 (plus who knows how many more) extant and legal to own instead of one, they're hardly worth $6.9 million a piece...
<< <i>There could have been some shenanigans going on but I'd wager the coins were not stolen.
given the history of Izzy Switt isn't it more likely that something WAS going on?? >>
C'mon, just because Izzy served a year in federal prison for illegal dealings in gold doesn't mean he did anything wrong in this case. >>
We have a customer who collects paper money who, many, many years ago, was convicted of burglary. He served his sentence, and is now gainfully employed.
During the police investigation of the burglary charges, they tried to seize his paper money collection as "probably stolen." After all, if he commited one crime, he must be guilty of other crimes, right?
He was able to produce recepts for everything. It was returned to him.
TD
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.
I hope the Langbords win. The government is just being an a$$ as usual. They should go back to picking on Barry Bonds, now that Vick is free. I do not know why anyone should hope the government wins in this case. They have acted like a bully since day one on these coins.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
Everybody read the thread about the British government seizing 6700+ safety deposit boxes just because some of them probably contained illegal assets.
TD
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.
I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people.
The government has had ample chances to save a few of these coins for the American people and in almost every case they chose to simply melt them. Hoping that the Langbords lose so that the public will somehow benefit is wishful thinking IMHO...
would also add that even if the government wins the case, I certainly HOPE they would NOT melt the coins. They are a numismatic treasure and should remain in places where they cannot be transacted, but can be viewed.
Who here believes that the government will do what is best for the people of this country?
Thanks again Santion II for the update!
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people.
The government has had ample chances to save a few of these coins for the American people and in almost every case they chose to simply melt them. Hoping that the Langbords lose so that the public will somehow benefit is wishful thinking IMHO...
would also add that even if the government wins the case, I certainly HOPE they would NOT melt the coins. They are a numismatic treasure and should remain in places where they cannot be transacted, but can be viewed.
Who here believes that the government will do what is best for the people of this country?
Thanks again Santion II for the update!
QN >>
The Mint's technical lab has for many years kept two of every coin made for reference purposes, in case it is ever called upon by the Secret Service to testify in a counterfeiting case.
In the normal course of business, it received two 1964-D silver dollars.
When the curator of the Smithsonian's National Numismatic Collection found out about them circa 1970, it requested one or both of them for the NNC.
The Mint responded by melting both specimens.
TD
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.
The Mint's technical lab has for many years kept two of every coin made for reference purposes, in case it is ever called upon by the Secret Service to testify in a counterfeiting case.
My point exactly...Makes perfect sense to me!
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
With respect to the question obout what happens if the government loses and simply decides to not return the 10 double eagles to the Langbords, I did comment about this in an earlier thread.
The Mint and Treasury Dept. are part of the Executive branch of the federal government. The court hearing the lawsuit is part of the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch does have power independent of the Executive branch and can exercise this power (issuing contempt citations, and upon a finding of contempt, fining and incarcerating the offending person). Its orders can be enforced by the US Marshal officers detailed to the federal courts.
If a showdown between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch arises through a Mint/Treasury not returning the ten double eagles if ordered by the court to do so, the early 1800's US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison issued by Justice Marshall would apply. That case, in a nut shell, says that of the three equal branchs of the federal government [Executive, Judicial and Leglislative], the Judicial branch has the final say and wins over the other two branchs. Thus the Supreme Court is "the law of the land", absent a revolution that topples the federal government.
<< <i>If a showdown between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch arises through a Mint/Treasury not returning the ten double eagles if ordered by the court to do so, the early 1800's US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison issued by Justice Marshall would apply. That case, in a nut shell, says that of the three equal branchs of the federal government [Executive, Judicial and Leglislative], the Judicial branch has the final say and wins over the other two branchs. Thus the Supreme Court is "the law of the land", absent a revolution that topples the federal government. >>
Assuming that the Court would be unwilling to overturn or modify Marbury as a blatant example of rampant judicial activism.
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
Justice Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case saw an opportunity to place the judicial branch of the federal government into a position whereby it was a little bit more "equal" than the legislative branch and executive branch.
200+ years later it seems taken for granted that the US Supreme Court has the final say. An example of the rule espoused in Marbury v. Madision still having life in the 21st century is, some would say, the Supreme Court decision that ended the dispute of whether Al Gore or George W. Bush won the 2000 election.
With respect to the question obout what happens if the government loses and simply decides to not return the 10 double eagles to the Langbords, I did comment about this in an earlier thread.
The Mint and Treasury Dept. are part of the Executive branch of the federal government. The court hearing the lawsuit is part of the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch does have power independent of the Executive branch and can exercise this power (issuing contempt citations, and upon a finding of contempt, fining and incarcerating the offending person). Its orders can be enforced by the US Marshal officers detailed to the federal courts.
If a showdown between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch arises through a Mint/Treasury not returning the ten double eagles if ordered by the court to do so, the early 1800's US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison issued by Justice Marshall would apply. That case, in a nut shell, says that of the three equal branchs of the federal government [Executive, Judicial and Leglislative], the Judicial branch has the final say and wins over the other two branchs. Thus the Supreme Court is "the law of the land", absent a revolution that topples the federal government. >>
The Judicial branch has final say? OVER THE PRESIDENT? The Constitution disagrees with that. What self-serving legal nonsense.
<< <i>Justice Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case saw an opportunity to place the judicial branch of the federal government into a position whereby it was a little bit more "equal" than the legislative branch and executive branch.
200+ years later it seems taken for granted that the US Supreme Court has the final say. An example of the rule espoused in Marbury v. Madision still having life in the 21st century is, some would say, the Supreme Court decision that ended the dispute of whether Al Gore or George W. Bush won the 2000 election. >>
That wasn't "against" or "over" the Executive branch. Final say over the other branches my ass.
n the normal course of business, it received two 1964-D silver dollars. When the curator of the Smithsonian's National Numismatic Collection found out about them circa 1970, it requested one or both of them for the NNC.
The Mint responded by melting both specimens.
Excellent. Tom also alludes to an interesting point for collectors: The Smithsonian has an independent custodial responsibility, not shared by the US Mint, BEP, etc. Had one of the 1964-D dollars possessed by the Technology Office been transferred to the Smithsonian, we could today see and examine the coin…maybe avoiding controversy instead of promoting it.
Mint officials have, in the past, acted capriciously and with wanton disregard to the nation’s heritage. It was not “‘bad luck” that destroyed half-a century’s engraving artwork in 1910, rather it was the short sighted arrogance and self-importance of Director Andrew. (An opinion.) There are other documented examples.
Assuming that the Mint does still set two of each coin aside for its reference collection, have you ever seen any accounting for this anywhere in Mint records? I assume that there are meticulous records of the assay coins pulled from the production line, but what about the two reference coins? Do they simply ignore them? TD
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.
The 2000 election was not placed before the supreme court for decision by either the executive or legislative branch. However, when the supreme court ruled, that was it. No one, including Bush, Gore, the two political parties, Congress, the Executive Branch (Clinton or any of the members of the cabinet), or the media, or the general public tried to do anything else.
The Supreme Court has the final say, including the final say over disputes between the branchs of government. It does not rampage like a bull in a china shop and does not act unless a case is placed before it. It defers to the President or Congress when appropriate [i.e. the President's role as the leader of the country in international relations, including war; and Congresses' role in finscal matter], but in the end, when it rules, its rulings are the final say.
I've seen no reference in old or modern (up through the early 1990s) documents to these being retained. I have seen (and given copies to some Ike dollar folks) destruction lists of experimental coins dated long after the coins were struck. (12-sided small Ikes, a 2-cent piece, and some others.)
[Coins for the annual assay commission were randomly pulled from production, usually after review by the adjustors. They were closely accounted for since they were part of the annual mintage.]
There is extensive evidence these coins were stolen from the mint before it was authorized to release them. The Secret Service investigated the matter thoroughly before it went after the coins of Flanagan, Eliasberg, Stack and others. Most of them did not contest the seizures. Those that did lost in court. So we should cheer for the Langbords to gain a huge financial windfall?
As long as the owners pay their Inheritance taxes, with penalties and interest, like anyone else with a multi-million dollar inheritance... I say let the coins live.
1) There is extensive evidence these coins were stolen from the mint before it was authorized to release them. 2) The Secret Service investigated the matter thoroughly before it went after the coins of Flanagan, Eliasberg, Stack and others. 3) Most of them did not contest the seizures. 4) Those that did lost in court. So we should cheer for the Langbords to gain a huge financial windfall?
1) That is what the Court is to decide. If you examine all of the currently available documents (including ones the Court might exclude at trial), it appears that how and when the coins left the Philadelphia Mint is ambiguous. 2) It also appears that the Treasury Agents did an incomplete investigation since the reports are missing many subjects that seem obvious to anyone who knows US Mint procedures for the period. 3) All objected to the seizures and assumed their coins would be returned. They were given paper receipts, and a decade later summarily notified that their coins had been destroyed. 4) Barnard lost his case, but the logic was so flimsy that current litigation barely mentions it.
Check the article in Coin World last Summer (ANA issue) for additional information on these muddy waters.
There is ZERO evidence the coins were stolen. The Mint NEVER reported a loss and back in 1933 if $500 of gold went missing there would be all kinds of reports. They were most likely exchanged, but that is not stolen, especially when a Mint employee is trading them for a different date.
The government lost no gold and yes some coins got out. That is what the suit is all about. But to say they were stolen is not correct.
It will be a couple more years, but I am very interested in watching this play out.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>I've seen no reference in old or modern (up through the early 1990s) documents to these being retained. I have seen (and given copies to some Ike dollar folks) destruction lists of experimental coins dated long after the coins were struck. (12-sided small Ikes, a 2-cent piece, and some others.)
[Coins for the annual assay commission were randomly pulled from production, usually after review by the adjustors. They were closely accounted for since they were part of the annual mintage.] >>
I've seen records where the Smithsonian inventories receipt of the Mint coins (the two 1933 $20s weren't recorded until later in 1934). But nothing about the Mint actually setting them aside for the Smithsonian.
<< <i>TThey were most likely exchanged, but that is not stolen, especially when a Mint employee is trading them for a different date. >>
No one suggests the coins were "stolen" -- they were always alleged to have been exchanged. However, the legality of this exchange is what is being questioned.
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
If someone took a 27-D double eagle from a dealer's case and left a 27-P in it's place, does that constitute an "exchange" and the 27-D now belongs to him?
<< <i>If someone took a 27-D double eagle from a dealer's case and left a 27-P in it's place, does that constitute an "exchange" and the 27-D now belongs to him? >>
I think a better example would be if I was a cashier and saw a 1914-D cent in the register and I replaced it with a cheap Zincoln. And even that could be suspect because in early 1933 no one would have likely known that FDR would put the kibosh on gold ownership and make it a future rarity. At the time it was like trading in one piece of "modern crap" for "modern crap" of a different date and same face value.
The 2000 election was not placed before the supreme court for decision by either the executive or legislative branch. However, when the supreme court ruled, that was it. No one, including Bush, Gore, the two political parties, Congress, the Executive Branch (Clinton or any of the members of the cabinet), or the media, or the general public tried to do anything else.
The Supreme Court has the final say, including the final say over disputes between the branchs of government. It does not rampage like a bull in a china shop and does not act unless a case is placed before it. It defers to the President or Congress when appropriate [i.e. the President's role as the leader of the country in international relations, including war; and Congresses' role in finscal matter], but in the end, when it rules, its rulings are the final say. >>
HA! They had the final say on Bush v. Gore because we permitted it AND their decision was correct. We aren't sheep you know...although many in the legal profession think the courts are God. They are not, they are composed of men just as corrupt and fallible as anyone else. I'll tell you right now that kook decisions would be ignored or overthrown.
Comments
<< <i>There could have been some shenanigans going on but I'd wager the coins
were not stolen.
given the history of Izzy Switt isn't it more likely that something WAS going on?? >>
C'mon, just because Izzy served a year in federal prison for illegal dealings in gold doesn't mean he did anything wrong in this case.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>I think what may work against the Langbords is that they voluntarily turned in the coins to the government. >>
I agree, that was not the best action for them to take.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>
<< <i>The Government still has the coins. >>
Here's the question: Let's say the government loses and is ordered to surrender the coins to the Langbords. If the government refuses, who can force them to do so?
I'm not convinced the government will give these coins up, period, no matter what happens in court. Sure, they'd prefer to do it with a legal decision backing them, but who polices the police in this case? Who can force the government to do something it doesn't want to do? >>
I belive that issue was addressed in a prior thread.
<< <i>This is like watching two masters playing a game of chess.
Thanks for the update! >>
You insult chess with that comment. Chess is honest, this is not. I equate it to two drunks trading insults, I believe that's more accurate.
Free Trial
linky
The appellants are executors of the estate of James A. Stack who died after his appeal was taken. Mr. Stack was a collector of rare coins. His collection included a twenty dollar gold piece, dated 1933, of an issue minted by the United States. The Treasury Department notified him that this coin had been stolen from the United States, that he was not entitled to retain it, and that a Secret Service agent would call upon him to receive it. In June 1945, Mr. Stack delivered the coin to such agent under protest and with an express reservation of the right to institute legal proceedings for its recovery.
Consequently the time for removal started to run not later than June 29th and the petition for removal filed on July 24th was untimely.
The end result was he never got the coin back though.
give them back
thry have comparables for $6.9 million
have them amend the estate assets and tax them for the $69 million they forgot to list
with taxes and late fees/penaltys, they could still get their $25-30 million and help pay their lawyers salaries
<< <i>have them amend the estate assets and tax them for the $69 million they forgot to list >>
Heh. That would make the coins legal AND provide the cash to make the buyer of the Fenton piece whole. Of course, with 11 (plus who knows how many more) extant and legal to own instead of one, they're hardly worth $6.9 million a piece...
<< <i>
<< <i>There could have been some shenanigans going on but I'd wager the coins
were not stolen.
given the history of Izzy Switt isn't it more likely that something WAS going on?? >>
C'mon, just because Izzy served a year in federal prison for illegal dealings in gold doesn't mean he did anything wrong in this case.
We have a customer who collects paper money who, many, many years ago, was convicted of burglary. He served his sentence, and is now gainfully employed.
During the police investigation of the burglary charges, they tried to seize his paper money collection as "probably stolen." After all, if he commited one crime, he must be guilty of other crimes, right?
He was able to produce recepts for everything. It was returned to him.
TD
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
TD
The government has had ample chances to save a few of these coins for the American people and in almost every case they chose to simply melt them. Hoping that the Langbords lose so that the public will somehow benefit is wishful thinking IMHO...
would also add that even if the government wins the case, I certainly HOPE they would NOT melt the coins. They are a numismatic treasure and should remain in places where they cannot be transacted, but can be viewed.
Who here believes that the government will do what is best for the people of this country?
Thanks again Santion II for the update!
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people.
The government has had ample chances to save a few of these coins for the American people and in almost every case they chose to simply melt them. Hoping that the Langbords lose so that the public will somehow benefit is wishful thinking IMHO...
would also add that even if the government wins the case, I certainly HOPE they would NOT melt the coins. They are a numismatic treasure and should remain in places where they cannot be transacted, but can be viewed.
Who here believes that the government will do what is best for the people of this country?
Thanks again Santion II for the update!
QN >>
The Mint's technical lab has for many years kept two of every coin made for reference purposes, in case it is ever called upon by the Secret Service to testify in a counterfeiting case.
In the normal course of business, it received two 1964-D silver dollars.
When the curator of the Smithsonian's National Numismatic Collection found out about them circa 1970, it requested one or both of them for the NNC.
The Mint responded by melting both specimens.
TD
My point exactly...Makes perfect sense to me!
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
With respect to the question obout what happens if the government loses and simply decides to not return the 10 double eagles to the Langbords, I did comment about this in an earlier thread.
The Mint and Treasury Dept. are part of the Executive branch of the federal government. The court hearing the lawsuit is part of the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch does have power independent of the Executive branch and can exercise this power (issuing contempt citations, and upon a finding of contempt, fining and incarcerating the offending person). Its orders can be enforced by the US Marshal officers detailed to the federal courts.
If a showdown between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch arises through a Mint/Treasury not returning the ten double eagles if ordered by the court to do so, the early 1800's US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison issued by Justice Marshall would apply. That case, in a nut shell, says that of the three equal branchs of the federal government [Executive, Judicial and Leglislative], the Judicial branch has the final say and wins over the other two branchs. Thus the Supreme Court is "the law of the land", absent a revolution that topples the federal government.
<< <i>If a showdown between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch arises through a Mint/Treasury not returning the ten double eagles if ordered by the court to do so, the early 1800's US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison issued by Justice Marshall would apply. That case, in a nut shell, says that of the three equal branchs of the federal government [Executive, Judicial and Leglislative], the Judicial branch has the final say and wins over the other two branchs. Thus the Supreme Court is "the law of the land", absent a revolution that topples the federal government. >>
Assuming that the Court would be unwilling to overturn or modify Marbury as a blatant example of rampant judicial activism.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>Assuming that the Court would be unwilling to overturn or modify Marbury as a blatant example of rampant judicial activism. >>
Of course, if you think about it, the Marbury decision was a rather glaring early example of judicial activism itself.
200+ years later it seems taken for granted that the US Supreme Court has the final say. An example of the rule espoused in Marbury v. Madision still having life in the 21st century is, some would say, the Supreme Court decision that ended the dispute of whether Al Gore or George W. Bush won the 2000 election.
<< <i>Just logged on after a weekend away.
With respect to the question obout what happens if the government loses and simply decides to not return the 10 double eagles to the Langbords, I did comment about this in an earlier thread.
The Mint and Treasury Dept. are part of the Executive branch of the federal government. The court hearing the lawsuit is part of the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch does have power independent of the Executive branch and can exercise this power (issuing contempt citations, and upon a finding of contempt, fining and incarcerating the offending person). Its orders can be enforced by the US Marshal officers detailed to the federal courts.
If a showdown between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch arises through a Mint/Treasury not returning the ten double eagles if ordered by the court to do so, the early 1800's US Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison issued by Justice Marshall would apply. That case, in a nut shell, says that of the three equal branchs of the federal government [Executive, Judicial and Leglislative], the Judicial branch has the final say and wins over the other two branchs. Thus the Supreme Court is "the law of the land", absent a revolution that topples the federal government. >>
The Judicial branch has final say? OVER THE PRESIDENT? The Constitution disagrees with that. What self-serving legal nonsense.
Free Trial
<< <i>Justice Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case saw an opportunity to place the judicial branch of the federal government into a position whereby it was a little bit more "equal" than the legislative branch and executive branch.
200+ years later it seems taken for granted that the US Supreme Court has the final say. An example of the rule espoused in Marbury v. Madision still having life in the 21st century is, some would say, the Supreme Court decision that ended the dispute of whether Al Gore or George W. Bush won the 2000 election. >>
That wasn't "against" or "over" the Executive branch. Final say over the other branches my ass.
Free Trial
The Mint responded by melting both specimens.
Excellent. Tom also alludes to an interesting point for collectors: The Smithsonian has an independent custodial responsibility, not shared by the US Mint, BEP, etc. Had one of the 1964-D dollars possessed by the Technology Office been transferred to the Smithsonian, we could today see and examine the coin…maybe avoiding controversy instead of promoting it.
Mint officials have, in the past, acted capriciously and with wanton disregard to the nation’s heritage. It was not “‘bad luck” that destroyed half-a century’s engraving artwork in 1910, rather it was the short sighted arrogance and self-importance of Director Andrew. (An opinion.) There are other documented examples.
TD
The 2000 election was not placed before the supreme court for decision by either the executive or legislative branch. However, when the supreme court ruled, that was it. No one, including Bush, Gore, the two political parties, Congress, the Executive Branch (Clinton or any of the members of the cabinet), or the media, or the general public tried to do anything else.
The Supreme Court has the final say, including the final say over disputes between the branchs of government. It does not rampage like a bull in a china shop and does not act unless a case is placed before it. It defers to the President or Congress when appropriate [i.e. the President's role as the leader of the country in international relations, including war; and Congresses' role in finscal matter], but in the end, when it rules, its rulings are the final say.
[Coins for the annual assay commission were randomly pulled from production, usually after review by the adjustors. They were closely accounted for since they were part of the annual mintage.]
1) That is what the Court is to decide. If you examine all of the currently available documents (including ones the Court might exclude at trial), it appears that how and when the coins left the Philadelphia Mint is ambiguous.
2) It also appears that the Treasury Agents did an incomplete investigation since the reports are missing many subjects that seem obvious to anyone who knows US Mint procedures for the period.
3) All objected to the seizures and assumed their coins would be returned. They were given paper receipts, and a decade later summarily notified that their coins had been destroyed.
4) Barnard lost his case, but the logic was so flimsy that current litigation barely mentions it.
Check the article in Coin World last Summer (ANA issue) for additional information on these muddy waters.
The government lost no gold and yes some coins got out. That is what the suit is all about. But to say they were stolen is not correct.
It will be a couple more years, but I am very interested in watching this play out.
<< <i>I've seen no reference in old or modern (up through the early 1990s) documents to these being retained. I have seen (and given copies to some Ike dollar folks) destruction lists of experimental coins dated long after the coins were struck. (12-sided small Ikes, a 2-cent piece, and some others.)
[Coins for the annual assay commission were randomly pulled from production, usually after review by the adjustors. They were closely accounted for since they were part of the annual mintage.] >>
I've seen records where the Smithsonian inventories receipt of the Mint coins (the two 1933 $20s weren't recorded until later in 1934). But nothing about the Mint actually setting them aside for the Smithsonian.
<< <i>TThey were most likely exchanged, but that is not stolen, especially when a Mint employee is trading them for a different date. >>
No one suggests the coins were "stolen" -- they were always alleged to have been exchanged. However, the legality of this exchange is what is being questioned.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>If someone took a 27-D double eagle from a dealer's case and left a 27-P in it's place, does that constitute an "exchange" and the 27-D now belongs to him? >>
I think a better example would be if I was a cashier and saw a 1914-D cent in the register and I replaced it with a cheap Zincoln. And even that could be suspect because in early 1933 no one would have likely known that FDR would put the kibosh on gold ownership and make it a future rarity. At the time it was like trading in one piece of "modern crap" for "modern crap" of a different date and same face value.
<< <i>Wolf359.
The 2000 election was not placed before the supreme court for decision by either the executive or legislative branch. However, when the supreme court ruled, that was it. No one, including Bush, Gore, the two political parties, Congress, the Executive Branch (Clinton or any of the members of the cabinet), or the media, or the general public tried to do anything else.
The Supreme Court has the final say, including the final say over disputes between the branchs of government. It does not rampage like a bull in a china shop and does not act unless a case is placed before it. It defers to the President or Congress when appropriate [i.e. the President's role as the leader of the country in international relations, including war; and Congresses' role in finscal matter], but in the end, when it rules, its rulings are the final say. >>
HA! They had the final say on Bush v. Gore because we permitted it AND their decision was correct. We aren't sheep you know...although many in the legal profession think the courts are God. They are not, they are composed of men just as corrupt and fallible as anyone else. I'll tell you right now that kook decisions would be ignored or overthrown.
Free Trial