Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Family looses ownership fight with U.S. Government over raredouble-headed gold coins.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Family looses ownership fight with U.S. Government over raredouble-headed gold coins.

    I'm interested in hearing what M-Taliesin has to say about this.

    I believe that even though the statute of limitations had expired, and the one in possession was beyond prosecution, if the coins were indeed stolen, then they should be returned to their rightful owner.

    On the other hand, the Government's argument was that the coins "were likely stolen." That doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the Government doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the man's daughter doesn't mean they were stolen, either.

    This one's the kicker, however: "The jeweler had been investigated for illegally possessing gold coins in the 1930s and '40s, but Switt was never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired."

    If he was investigated for illegal possession some 70 years ago, why weren't the coins confiscated way back then? If the coins are worth $7 Million each, I'd appeal on the grounds the Government vacated their claim 70 years ago when they chose not to recover the coins back then.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I'm interested in hearing what M-Taliesin has to say about this.

    I believe that even though the statute of limitations had expired, and the one in possession was beyond prosecution, if the coins were indeed stolen, then they should be returned to their rightful owner.

    On the other hand, the Government's argument was that the coins "were likely stolen." That doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the Government doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the man's daughter doesn't mean they were stolen, either.

    This one's the kicker, however: "The jeweler had been investigated for illegally possessing gold coins in the 1930s and '40s, but Switt was never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired."

    If he was investigated for illegal possession some 70 years ago, why weren't the coins confiscated way back then? If the coins are worth $7 Million each, I'd appeal on the grounds the Government vacated their claim 70 years ago when they chose not to recover the coins back then.

    Wow, so never mind all that "reasonable doubt" stuff. If we claim that they were "most likely stolen" then that is good enough.

    If he was investigated for "illegal possession" during the 30's or 40's it may not have been for those exact coins. The Federal government claimed that gold coins were illegal for Americans to posses at all back then. Gold was presumably made illegal to own back in 1933 (One of many crimes that FDR perpetrated against our Republic) It was not repealed until the 70's.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Yeah, better not let let a little old lady possess $7M coins.

    Better seize them and put them in Ft. Knox, where they are worth----$1500 each.

    Gotta get those two ounces of gold. Gold only. The government isn't exactly going to sell coins that aren't supposed to exist.

    It would be hilarious if the Treasury tried to auction them and everybody refused to bid because they were stolen from the little old lady.

    Scratch that. Knowing Treasury, they'll probably carry the coins on the books as assets worth $14M, even if they can't sell them for that. Bookkeeping gimmick, you know.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Better seize them and put them in Ft. Knox, where they are worth----$1500 each.
    You do know that what little gold that is still left in Ft. Knox belongs to the private banks, right?...

    In terms of pure dollar value, the morphine stockpiles in Ft. Knox has more value than the gold owned by the US Government there...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    You do know that what little gold that is still left in Ft. Knox belongs to the private banks, right?...

    In terms of pure dollar value, the morphine stockpiles in Ft. Knox has more value than the gold owned by the US Government there...
    I was thinking about evidence that suggests a good amount of the gold at Ft. Knox might not be .999, a good amount being perhaps...wait for it...coin-melt.

    Kinda like the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Those last two coins had to rejoin their melted fellows to lift the curse.

    Wait! Did the Federal Reserve just disappear? Maybe?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-22-2011 at 03:04 AM.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    I just have to wonder what sort of a jury would side with the government on that case. Unless it was beyond a doubt the coins were stolen, the property should not have gone to the government. The historical value far outweighs the commodity.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    I just have to wonder what sort of a jury would side with the government on that case. Unless it was beyond a doubt the coins were stolen, the property should not have gone to the government. The historical value far outweighs the commodity.
    Recently a mentally challenged man was convicted of resisting police or some such. Cops came to his home on a neighbors report of somebody kicking in his front door. He ran and hid in his bathroom. (Yeah, I can't understand why someone with a child-like mentality would be afraid of storm-troopers pounding into the house. Go figure.)

    The jury convicted him. But, sent a note to the judge to the effect the defendant had been wronged and asked for leniency in sentencing.

    My take: 1) The jury didn't know they could nullify. 2) The judge possibly lied during the jury instruction telling the jury something along the lines that if they found the defendant had behaved in such-and-such manner, then the law had been violated and their duty was to convict.

    News Story: http://lufkindailynews.com/news/loca...cc4c03286.html


    I found it here: http://www.theagitator.com/
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-22-2011 at 09:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Recently a mentally challenged man was convicted of resisting police or some such. Cops came to his home on a neighbors report of somebody kicking in his front door. He ran and hid in his bathroom. (Yeah, I can't understand why someone with a child-like mentality would be afraid of storm-troopers pounding into the house. Go figure.)

    The jury convicted him. But, sent a note to the judge to the effect the defendant had been wronged and asked for leniency in sentencing.

    My take: 1) The jury didn't know they could nullify. 2) The judge possibly lied during the jury instruction telling the jury something along the lines that if they found the defendant had behaved in such-and-such manner, then the law had been violated and their duty was to convict.

    News Story: http://lufkindailynews.com/news/loca...cc4c03286.html


    I found it here: http://www.theagitator.com/
    I wonder if judges do this because many were prosecutors at one time. It's why I don't like to refer to it as a "justice" system it is simply a processing plant of human meat that makes sure it fully grinds them up before they are done with them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    My only witness of a judge/panel (not quite a jury) operation when I had inside knowledge of what was really going on was rather eye-opening:

    1. The prosecutor lied through his teeth, knowingly.

    2. The judge's instructions to the panel were exemplary, and above-board.

    3. The defense's actions were largely limited to waffling. Whether by incompetence or design is uncertain.

    4. Four witnesses for the prosecution lied through their teeth, under oath, while on the stand.

    5. The panel decided against the defendant, unanimously, despite the paltry, but inescapable evidence of the defendant's innocence presented to all throughout the procedure.

    Justice? No way in hell.

    That experience, combined with the abundance of releases based on DNA evidence and similar issues, opened my eyes to the fact our system of justice is way out of date and easily corrupted by either intent, ignorance, inexperience, or any combination thereof.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •