U.S. Mint seizes priceless coins

[Trebor]

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.

The U.S. Navy still claims title to any sunken Naval vessel or wrecked U.S. Navy aircraft. It doesn't matter if it's in the bottom of the ocean or if you bring it up and restore it. Unless the Navy specifically granted you title, it is theirs and they will confiscate it or prosecute you if you disturb it. They do have precedent and the force of law behind them.

The Navy does occasionally grant title to wrecks. The last time I remember this happening was when they let a salvage firm recover several F4F Wildcats from the bottom of Lake Michigan that were lost during WWII training flights. The Navy kept one (or two?) planes to restore for their museum and let the salvage company sell two others to pay for the salvage operation. Those planes have a clear title and can be resold, etc, without fear.

Now, this is aside from all the aircraft sold off as surplus at the end of the war or those given away or sold as military aid that eventually were brought back. The Navy surrendered title to the new owners in those cases. It's just that for wrecks, even though it's a wreck at the bottom of the ocean, the Navy still says it's theirs. (I don't believe the Air Force follows this policy, btw. They could if they wanted, but I've never heard of them giving anyone grief over the recovery of a warbird)

 

[joab]

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.

Not really. you have a case of a woman in possession of coins that she could in no way be in possession of legally and that are the subject of a longstanding FBI investigation (see Trebor's post #39).
On the other hand you have a man who salvaged an abandoned aircraft and went through proper channels to gain lawful ownership of the aircraft and had reasonable belief that he was entitled to the aircraft.
(If the facts of your story are as you remember them)

He has a case for possession of the aircraft, she has 10 stolen coins

 

[gc70]

Trebor, you may be absolutely correct about the legal ramifications and strategy in this case. However, my point was to the folks that are complaining bitterly about the government "just taking" the woman's coins.

In this case, you have property and two parties claiming the property. In any lawsuit, the party having possesion of the property will be the defendant and the party wanting possession will be the plaintiff.

For the folks who claim that it is wrong for the government to "just take" the coins, consider that Trebor may be correct and the woman wanted the government to take possession of the coins so that she could be the plaintiff in a lawsuit rather than the defendant.

 

[rick_reno]

Regarding the salvaged planes - my neighbor has a Cobra helicoptor, complete with 20 mm rotating cannon on the front. When I asked him how he got it he said there are only 8 of them in private hands that are legal - and if you've got one that was pieced together from scrap the govt will make you cut it up. He explained that he got it when they released ownership and let him buy it, all he had to do to it was get the bullet holes patched.

 

[c_yeager]

Interesting issue on what the mint can do with the coins though.

They were *ordered* to destroy the coins. How is it that they can now disobey that order and keep/sell them now? Doesnt the law require that these coins head for the furnace?

If the mint is allowed to keep or sell these coins that creates an insane conflict of interests. The mint can creat rare coins whenever it wants to. In fact, the mint was ultimately responsible for these 10 coins, and should be held accountable for losing them.

 

[joab]

should be held accountable for losing them.

What are they gonna do dig up everybody and have a trial?

I do agree that in accordance with the order they should be destroyed, but we know they won't be cause then you would have people screaming about how many poor kids the money from auction could have fed or how many artificial legs it could have bought for wounded Iraqi vets.

I think the greater good could be served by selling the coins and cutting the old lady in for a finders fee, which I believe was her plan in the first place

 

[Trebor]

In any lawsuit, the party having possesion of the property will be the defendant and the party wanting possession will be the plaintiff.

That may be true in a civil case. The problem for her is that ownership would NOT have been decided in a civil case. She would have had to defend herself against felony charges. She rightly did NOT want to be the "defendant" in that situation.

Now, by relinquishing the coins, she can sue to try to gain title. Even if the government is the defendent in the civil case, and the burden of proof is on her, she's still in a better position than if she was facing felony charges.

 

[Trebor]

Regarding the salvaged planes - my neighbor has a Cobra helicoptor, complete with 20 mm rotating cannon on the front. When I asked him how he got it he said there are only 8 of them in private hands that are legal - and if you've got one that was pieced together from scrap the govt will make you cut it up. He explained that he got it when they released ownership and let him buy it, all he had to do to it was get the bullet holes patched.

I can believe that. There's all sorts of oddities and "one time exceptions" regarding military property that's supposed to be demilled that winds up legally in the hands of civilians.

I've heard of the handful of Cobras before and, while I don't remember the details, they are legal. And, no more will be released.

There's also at least one or two legally owned T-38's out there that slipped through the system. Normally they are cut up when sold.

The government normally doesn't allow surplus Humvee's to be sold in operable condition. However, a few years back the Marines traded some Humvees, with title, to a contractor in exchange for some work. The Marines were told "don't do that again," but those vehicles are legal to own. (They may not be street lega, but that's another issue)

Heck, there's even a F-4 Phantom in civvie hands. That one took a special act of congress to make legal though. It's the property of a museum that operates it.

 

[c_yeager]

I think the greater good could be served by selling the coins and cutting the old lady in for a finders fee, which I believe was her plan in the first place

If this actually happens the mint could be come the most profitable agency in the government. Think about it. All they have to do is screw up a batch of state quarters and "destroy" them, while allowing a dozen or so to leak out. 10 years later when the illegal coins inevitably surface they simply claim their rights to the coins and auction them at a massive profit. They can simply create their own rare coins and then reclaim them at any time. Thats an awesome business model.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Fascinating how so many here are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Those coins were "made illegal" by presidential edict. That edict also denied American citizens the right to own gold bullion. It so happens that is the SAME gold the founders declared in the Constitution to be THE ONLY lawful money (well, that and silver) in this country.

So tell me again, who stole what from whom? Just because FDR's actions have the color of law, does that make them legal and proper? Because the US dollar is no longer 'as good as gold,' the value of same has declined by something like 98% since FDR's famous executive order. That value has been effectively stolen- FROM YOU- thanks to the same edict which 'made' these coins 'illegal.'

lpl/nc

 

[cracked butt]

So tell me again, who stole what from whom? Just because FDR's actions have the color of law, does that make them legal and proper? Because the US dollar is no longer 'as good as gold,' the value of same has declined by something like 98% since FDR's famous executive order. That value has been effectively stolen- FROM YOU- thanks to the same edict which 'made' these coins 'illegal.'

That's a position I can agree with.

One of my first thoughts when I read the article was "why didn't she hammer the coins into some sort of solid gold trinkets and sell them on Ebay?" :banghead:

 

[woerm]

re: 1933 double eagles

What has not yet been mentioned is the fact that dozens if not hundreds of the things (1933 DE) were issued to various poentates (most in the ME) by FDR/Truman et al vis State Dept fiat (the letters requesting and orders disburssing are in the Archives, unless Sandy Berger got those too) and those routinely wound up in the collector's market.

the Feds know this and *still* prosecute US citizens when they manage to get hold of the occasional 1933 double eagle

also note

every single Pederson/Peterson (the thing that turns a 1903 Springfield into a semi auto) device that you see in various mags is in fact stolen Gov't property.

A friend of my Dad's saw the order in Fort Sam circa 1924/25 to destroy all Pederson/Peterson things including mags and ammo.

they made a big bonfire in the Quad and tossed the stripped pieces into it. I understand the same thing happened at just about all the major Army arsenals

One presumes the armorers kept back a few choice peices.

Those 'destroy them all' orders don't guarantee anything. That is amplified if the 'thing' is small and portable.

r

 

[mercedesrules]

"Fascinating how so many here are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Those coins were "made illegal" by presidential edict. That edict also denied American citizens the right to own gold bullion. It so happens that is the SAME gold the founders declared in the Constitution to be THE ONLY lawful money (well, that and silver) in this country.

So tell me again, who stole what from whom? Just because FDR's actions have the color of law, does that make them legal and proper? Because the US dollar is no longer 'as good as gold,' the value of same has declined by something like 98% since FDR's famous executive order. That value has been effectively stolen- FROM YOU- thanks to the same edict which 'made' these coins 'illegal.' "

Thank you, Lee. Some members only care about what is "legal", not what is just.

 

[mercedesrules]

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

In other news, President Kennedy has been shot.

 

[rock jock]

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

I agree with that. But, that is not the sentiment that is being expressed.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Ownership

Uh who owns the money in your pocket?

At the very least, it used to be legal to collect coins. Who owns them? Can they be taken by the government whenever it decides?

When FDR made ownership of gold illegal for the common man, could it be that was an unconstitutional order, a taking, maybe?

Before the revolution, the several colonies had been through way more than a few banking and currency crises. That's one of the reasons the founders only granted the power to coin money to the new US Government. I don't recall anywhere granting the power to declare or establish legal tender. They also had no desire for a central bank. The founders had a huge distrust of bankers.

Legal tender laws are one of the first steps involved in establishing worthless "fiat" money. IOW, fiat money means that money is worth what the government tells you it's worth. To establish how well this works a 1900 nickel could buy more than a current Federal Reserve Note dollar can buy now. The next question to ask is just where did all this disappearing wealth go? For the answer, all you have to ask is just who/what is it that creates inflation?

 

[Joejojoba111]

woerm "What has not yet been mentioned is the fact that dozens if not hundreds of the things (1933 DE) were issued to various poentates (most in the ME) by FDR/Truman et al vis State Dept fiat (the letters requesting and orders disburssing are in the Archives, unless Sandy Berger got those too) and those routinely wound up in the collector's market.

the Feds know this and *still* prosecute US citizens when they manage to get hold of the occasional 1933 double eagle"


Woerm, please, pay attention. It is clearly against the nature of this threat to provide credible evidence, doing so or requesting others to do so will mandate Joab to call you names.

Your 'facts' and 'evidence' are clashing with the official story, please don't rock the boat.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I still think that possession of the coins by the heir of the decendent constitutes a rightful claim of provenance. Especially in absence of incontrovertible proof of theft. "Everybody knows............" etc. et yada just doesn't meet the burden.

 

[woerm]

Jo

Hey, it's just the facts man, just the facts.

I try not to argue w/ the data in front of me.



r

<<snip
jox3111
Your 'facts' and 'evidence' are clashing with the official story, please don't rock the boat.

 

[Baba Louie]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1046288235244

Whoever said that "Possession is 9/10's of the law?" never went up against Uncle Sam when he's got egg on his face, eh?

Switt was shady, and knew people in the Mint. The Depression was on, people were looking to make money. The Gov't was looking at ways to make money. Laws or edicts were announced making certain things illegal... It's an old story, ask Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s progeny. Some of them become politicians even...

Can you imagine that some of the citizens back then who were not Socialist Democrats and didn't think much of the new President and his order to confiscate all gold might have had a tad, wee bit of rebellious "Up Yours" attitude to laws that they consider unjust? (Isn't that the Nature of a whole lot of True Americans?)

The Payback, as usual, is a Bear. 'Twill be interesting to see how this plays out in the media, the Courts and with a Republican administration mindset at large (tho' shrinking fast I fear).

Should more than one be made legal tender, the dollar value of the sole surviving coin, er, being legal tender and all, might even drop due to the newfound LACK of rarity.

Pity.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Lol. The names change, but the world stays pretty much the same, doesn't it? Damned gold dealers, undermining good society

"By the 1940s Switt had become a wealthy man, though he still did business with some unsavory characters in New York. His own record was spotty: He had been arrested in 1934 at the Philadelphia train station, carrying a suspiciously heavy briefcase. City police officers seized the briefcase and found it filled with old gold coins. Switt was charged with, and eventually convicted of, illegal possession of gold. MacAllister, a more reputable dealer, called Switt "a gold coin bootlegger."

I wonder, all the attention focused on the coins, I just wonder if maybe it would have been more profitable to steal the mould... Everyone was looking at the coins.

 

[ravinraven]

"(the government -- us!)"

ROTHLMFAO. Right. Us!

rr

 

[JohnBT]

They just don't make them like that anymore.

 

[rock jock]

I still think that possession of the coins by the heir of the decendent constitutes a rightful claim of provenance. Especially in absence of incontrovertible proof of theft. "Everybody knows............" etc. et yada just doesn't meet the burden.

Actually, the government has more proof that these were stolen than you probably would have if your house was robbed.

 

[joab]

What has not yet been mentioned is the fact that dozens if not hundreds of the things (1933 DE) were issued to various poentates (most in the ME) by FDR/Truman et al vis State Dept fiat (the letters requesting and orders disburssing are in the Archives, unless Sandy Berger got those too) and those routinely wound up in the collector's market.

Do you have a link to this info