U.S. Mint seizes priceless coins

[Working Man]

joab, my concern is that down the line if a legal owner chooses to sell
said coin, but after a few generations can't prove he owns it legally, will they
"confiscate" that one too?

Should he/she have to prove they are the legal owner or should the
government have to prove it has been illegally obtained?

I have no problem with the return of stolen property just make sure it was
stolen.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Should he/she have to prove they are the legal owner or should the
government have to prove it has been illegally obtained?

That's a "question of title". In many cases questions of title don't have black-and-white answers, and they are decided by civil courts in a lawsuit. These decisions are not always satisfying; if they were satisfying, then they would be obvious and we wouldn't need a court to decide them.

From the small set of facts I know about the present case, it does sound like the US Mint probably has clear title to them. The coins were never to have been released, and everyone knows it. In the case of war trophies, there are a lot more questions which give soldiers a lot better claims. In the case of a soldier "forgetting" to return his 1911 from WWI, well, it's still government property unless it was released. Again, it's not a satisfying outcome, but a lot of civil legal outcomes are not satisfying. What can you do. In the example of the WWI-era 1911, it's the individual grunt who risked his life in a dispute vs. "the goverment", a huge entity with boundless resources and a history of squishing the little guy. So we emotionally think "the family ought to be able to keep the 1911." But let's say you reverse the roles: 80 years ago, the government took something of little value from a poor farmer, and now it is found that that thing is worth a lot of money, and the farmer's ancestors sue to recover it. Of course we would support the farmer's ancestors. But legally, the emotionally sympathies don't really change the law.

This woman was a greedy fool who just threw away more wealth than could be spent by her descendants for several generations.

It pains me to think about it!

 

[joab]

I wasn't sure if you were talking about her or the legal coin

The article stated that this particular DE is the only one legal to own.
I would imagine that there is paperwork associated with it, as there should be.

Anyone who owned it would be kinda dumb not get the title with a big ticket item like this

Before you can sell a car you must first ,somewhat, prove that it is not stolen by providing a title or a house with a deed

 

[R.H. Lee]

Any number of things could have happened. Maybe he was given them by someone in an official capacity at the mint-a government employee-prior to the time they were not released and their possession became prima facie evidence of theft. The mint says it cannot prove they were stolen; ergo they have no claim on them. BTW, how did King Farouk come into possession of the coin that sold for $7 million?

Anyway, the lesson is, don't willingly let government get involved in your private business.

 

[joab]

The mint says it cannot prove they were stolen;

No, the thief's daughter's lawyer said that the mint could not prove that they were stolen

Maybe he was given them by someone in an official capacity at the mint-a government employee-prior to the time they were not released and their possession became prima facie evidence of theft.

the rare coins, which were never put in circulation, had been taken from the Mint "in an unlawful manner" in the mid-1930's and now were "recovered."

If they were never put into circulation that would mean that they were never authorized to leave the mint.
If they were given to him by a crooked government employee then he was receiving stolen property

Anyway, the lesson is, don't willingly let government get involved in your private business.

Or don't steal from the government and then ask them what your plunder is worth

 

[Trebor]

The mint says it cannot prove they were stolen

Who says "The mint says it cannot prove they were stolen" ? The only quote like that in the article was by the lawyer for woman. I wouldn't regard him a spokesman for the mint. The mint can't say for sure HOW they were stolen, but since does a victim of a crime have to know all the details of how a theft occurred to still claim status as the victim?

(Odds are they were bootlegged out by an employee. They could also have been unlawly converted by someone higher up in the mint. Unless that person had the authority to disburse coins, that were not legal tender and were still mint property though, that transfer still would not have been legal)

The mint has always claimed these coins were removed illegally. They were NEVER issued as currency so, by defination, any removal from the mint was illegal.

Guys, this isn't govt abuse. The government is trying to recover property that was stolen over 65 years ago. They had the title then and they have the title now.

Now, if the woman can show that these coins were somehow removed from the mint legally,that's another story. Having read the book about the history of these coins, I'd say the odds are against her. Most likely someone smuggled them out of the mint and sold them, illegally, to her dad. Just because they've stayed in the family since then doesn't give her clear title.

I will agree that she has a shot at keeping them. The previous case showed that the exact circumstances of how these got out of the mint are just murky enough that a jury may side with her. I think the burden of proof's on her though to show how she could have acquired them legally. The mint has the evidence that would have to be overcome to show how they were never legally released.

 

[joab]

Personally, the more I think about it and after eading another posters comment

I think this is a calculated way of getting legally paid for the coins, based on the Farouk decision

A percentage of something is better than all of nothing.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Here's an interesting piece of information:

"New York, NY – On July 30, 2002 Sotheby’s and Stack’s will offer for sale for the first time, on the behalf of the United States Government, the most valuable gold coin in the world, the fabled and elusive 1933 Double Eagle twenty dollar gold coin.

This is the first time that the United States Government has authorized private ownership of a 1933 Double Eagle.

After it was struck in 1933, President Roosevelt, in one of his first acts as President, took the United States off the gold standard in an effort to help the struggling American economy out of the Great Depression. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were ordered destroyed, but ten specimens are known to have escaped into private hands.However, as they had never been oficially “issued” as United States coinage, they cannot be legally owned.

As a result, nine of the ten specimens were seized by, or turned in to, the United States Secret Service in the 1940s and 50s and were subsequently destroyed.

The remaining 1933 Double Eagle, which will be offered, surfaced in 1996 and was seized by the United States Secret Service. The coin was returned to the United States Mint as a result of the Department of Justice’s settlement of a forfeiture action, and in that landmark legal settlement, this one coin became the only 1933 Double Eagle now or ever authorized for private ownership by the United States Government.

The coin will be sold in a single lot auction at Sotheby’s York Avenue premises in New York on July 30, 2002, and carries an estimate of $4/6 million.

“This storied coin has been the center of international numismatic intrigue for more than seventy years, said Mint Director Henrietta Holsman Fore. “The Mint has certified the authenticity of this legendary 1933 Double Eagle. We will officially transfer full, legal ownership of the coin to the highest bidder at this historic sale.”

“We expect that this coin may become the most valuable coin in the world and one of the most sought-after rarities in history” said David Pickens, Associate Director, United States Mint.

David Redden, Vice Chairman of Sotheby’s, and Lawrence R. Stack, Managing Director of Stack’s, said, “The story of this coin is one of the great numismatic mysteries of all time whose final chapter will be written with this auction. Currently held at United States Gold Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the coin has an intriguing history which includes seizure by the United States Government, a five-year trial with a landmark resolution and a possible connection to a royal Egyptian Collection dispersed in the 1950s. It is an enormous privilege to be asked by the United States Government to undertake the sale of the ‘Holy Grail’ of the coin collecting world.”
http://www.coinresource.com/pr_mint/DoubleEagle1933.htm

So where did these two come from????? Answer me that.

 

[R.H. Lee]

OTOH, Wikipedia says a 'number' of coins were 'stolen'. And 10 coins were found to be in possession of the son a a Jewish jeweler in Philadelphia in August 2005. Who knows....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_U.S._20_dollar_gold_coin

 

[rock jock]

For those of you that think its OK to steal, and then keep the stolen goods as long as you don't get caught for a long long time, remind me to never lend anything to you.

 

[answerguy]

OTOH, Wikipedia says a 'number' of coins were 'stolen'. And 10 coins were found to be in possession of the son a a Jewish jeweler in Philadelphia in August 2005.

I wonder why Wikipedi felt it was necessary to mention the religion of the jeweler?

 

[Joejojoba111]

I really, really have to ask - how many people here honestly think it would be easy to steal gold from the US Mint? Show of hands?

Was this a para-military raid like BARs and Thompsons, and a few hundred gangsters in co-ordinated fashion? Then where are all the dead bodies of the dead and wounded in the gigantic battles?

Or maybe it was one of those Hollywood super-duper cat-burglers, right? In black spandex with cat-like reflexes? Yea, you saw it in a movie, so it must be true.

What the heck are people smoking???

The entire argument of the Mint is based on second-hand heresay!!!!!!!!! You support this?

BTW: thx for posting that link, didn't know it was legal to own gold once again, in this great 'free' country.

 

[joab]

It was 1933 Joe

how much detection equipment do you think was available.

How hard would it be for the guy in charge of inventory to skim a little off the top of the pile.

How hard would it be for anyone in the counting room to skim a little.

Bigger things than that have been stolen from higher security buildings

Ask Fawn Hall

 

[joab]

The entire argument of the Mint is based on second-hand heresay!!!!!!!!! You support this?

It's actually based on a verifiable order to destroy the items and to not allow them into circulation.

 

[Kamicosmos]

***, does this mean the Fedgov can go and start confiscating registered WW2 bringback M1A1 Thompson SMGs and BARs from their owners because they once said 'Property of US Government' on them?

Dunno about that, but I read a story a couple years ago. I don't remember all the details, so pardon any errors:

A man found a wrecked Corsair in a swamp in NJ, or maybe it was Maryland. Anyways, he goes through all the procedures to procure it from the gov't, as is typical in WWII and other military wrecks. he then spends 20 years and bookoo bucks restoring the Corsair. When he goes to get an airworthiness cert, the gov't suddenly claims that the aircraft was still registered as gov't property, because it was a Air Nat Guard aircraft. When it crashed, it wasn't ever officially transferred back to the US gov to be listed as lost. Or something like that. maybe he bought it from the state, then the feds found out...I forget.

But, the point is, this Corsair was sitting on the bottom of a swamp for 40 years, and was worth $0. the gov't had already visited the craft when it crashed to recover weapons, instruments, etc, so it was abandoned by the gov't. But, now that it is literally priceless, or at the very least worth a couple million, they want it back, citing some kind of state/fed paperwork mess up.

I'll go do some research on it and try to find the stories...

Edited to add: Still looking for this story, but it reminded me of a P-61 in China. It was a static display at an airport, or a park, and an Air Force guy noticed it. (It had run out of fuel and landed behind enemy lines) US Gov offered China all kinds of money to get it back. China said no, we found in our country, go away. I believe the US then filed something with Geneva claiming the aircraft as a POW and wanted it released! I'll look for that one as well...

 

[joab]

he goes through all the procedures to procure it from the gov't

There is an obvious difference in theses two cases

 

[Joejojoba111]

"It was 1933 Joe

how much detection equipment do you think was available.
How hard would it be for the guy in charge of inventory to skim a little off the op of the pile.
How hard would it be for anyone in the counting room to skim a little.
Bigger things than that have been stolen from higher security buildings
Ask Fawn Hall"

Ahh, the good old days before the invention of the wall. Old times, ahhh. Yea seriously, who would expect the US Mint to have tight security over a room full of gold? Well, any person in the world would expect it. It's not like it's the US Mint and gold coins, oh wait - that's exactly what it's like.

What about pens and paper? Or did they only use pencils back then? Come on, seriously, no-one even though to count how many coins they made? No-one wrote it down? How about the police, did they not have means to record items stolen? What a haphazard system our grandparents grew up in.

This whole story stinks to high heaven, unless a whole lot of credible evidence comes out soon.

 

[Kamicosmos]

There is an obvious difference in theses two cases

not really, actually it is quite similar. We have another case of a person 'stealing' gov't property. But in reality, The gov't is claiming 'Hey, that's our airplane, thanks for finding it.' after they already wrote it off the books.

Kinda like these coins...they can't prove they were 'stolen', just that they 'lost' them. Much like the airplane. Like I said, I need to find the story about the airplane to get the details straight.

 

[gc70]

I am somewhat surprised at the number of posters supporting the woman's claim of ownership of the coins. And the tone of the posts suggests that much of the woman's support comes more from a spiteful attitude toward the government than a belief in the righteousness of her claim. I wonder how many of the woman's supporters would feel differently if anyone other than the government was on the other side of the dispute.

 

[rock jock]

And the tone of the posts suggests that much of the woman's support comes more from a spiteful attitude toward the government than a belief in the righteousness of her claim.

Bingo.

You see, if the govt. does something, it is by definition wrong, always and without exception. For an understanding of this type irrational mentality, please reference psychological profiles of hate groups.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You see, if the govt. does something, it is by definition wrong, always and without exception. For an understanding of this type irrational mentality, please reference psychological profiles of hate groups.

Of course. But then, there's the off-chance that some of us still believe that the burden should be on the prosecution, that a presumption of innocence should exist, and that asset forfeiture (basically what this is) is wrong.

Of course, most of us are not statists, so I'm not surprised with your lumping us with "hate groups."

Me? I think the Mint should have to go to court and prove that the coins belong to them, that they were stolen, whatever.

That's the right way to do it, regardless of how much of their story you're inclined to believe. Really -- if it's that cut and dried, the court case shouldn't take long...

 

[gc70]

Interesting points, Derek.

First, I'm not a statist.

Second, I agree that the Mint -should have- had to go to court to prove ownership.

However, the woman voluntarily gave possession of the coins to the Mint. At that point, the Mint ceased to face the burden of proving ownership to get the coins because they already had them. Now, the burden of going to court to prove ownership rests with the woman. And her own actions placed her in that position.

 

[Trebor]

I really, really have to ask - how many people here honestly think it would be easy to steal gold from the US Mint? Show of hands?

It is believed to have been an inside job. For certain people in the mint, at that time, it would have been relatively simple to smuggle out a few coins. Read the book, "Illegal Tender." They talk about other cases where employees had been caught stealing currency or proofs. Some of those thefts had been ongoing for quite some time before they were discovered. The accountability just wasn't as good as they thought it was at that point in time.

Btw, they had suspects for who could have stolen the Double Eagles, but by the time investigation started, one of the prime suspects had already died (IIRC). The investigation didn't start until several years after the coins were stolen because the theft wasn't discovered until the Mint found out the coins were on the market.

 

[Trebor]

Second, I agree that the Mint -should have- had to go to court to prove ownership.

Why? The paper trial and the historical record shows the coins were never circulated. Heck, they were never declared to be legal tender. Technically, they aren't U.S. Coins but are Gold Discs with an embossed design.

In any event, the Mint was prepared to go to court to prove ownership the last time a '33 Double Eagle turned up. The thing is, the ownership issue would have been resolved in criminal court, not civil court. The FBI had charged the person in possession of the coin with a federal felony. The ultimate title of his, and any other '33 Double Eagles, would most likely have been determined, one way or the other, in his trial. Both sides finally decided to settle out of court though. The Fed's dropped the charges and the man reliquished title the coin. In return though, he received half the proceeds of the auction of the coin.

However, the woman voluntarily gave possession of the coins to the Mint. At that point, the Mint ceased to face the burden of proving ownership to get the coins because they already had them. Now, the burden of going to court to prove ownership rests with the woman. And her own actions placed her in that position.

She had to do it. She would have faced felony charges otherwise. The Feds would have been just as willing to charge her as they did the last owner of a '33 DE that turned up. They'd even have the advantage this time in that she in particular could not have pleaded ignorance to the story behind the coins.

Notice she did not "voluntary surrender" the coins to the Mint. She brought them in for "Authentication." She knew they'd be confiscated, but this way she could turn them over the the government without actually giving up her claim of ownership. That's what her lawsuit is about. If she can win title in court, their hers. And, if she loses, she isn't going to face charges or go to prison because she already turned the coins in.

Btw, she had to turn in all the coins, or none of them. She couldn't split the difference and turn in some and hold some back. The FBI knew that her father had owned up to 11 of the coins at one point. He claimed to have sold them all, but lacked records. If she turned one (or more) in to the governement, how long do you think it would have been before they got a seach warrant and looked for the others? If they found she had them, that would be it for her. She'd be too busy fighting the federal felony charges to launch a civil suit to claim ownership. Besides, she'd have to sell them as illegal contraband to ever get any money out of them and she'd run the risk of arrest and prosecution at every turn.

 

[joab]

This whole story stinks to high heaven, unless a whole lot of credible evidence comes out soon.

Since in your world smart alec and juvenile answers seem to pass for logic I see there is no need to bother with you.

The fact is that the coins were stolen from the mint..
That has been common knowledge for a few years.

But now because they are recovered from somebody that probably wasn't involved in the theft or cover up they suddenly might not have been stolen after all.

How then did they get from where they were supposed to be to someplace they were not supposed to be