California federal judge rules against government in 1974-D aluminum cent case

I think his point is that patterns are not officially "issued" and were never officially monetized and aren't really coins. If it isn't a coin, then the Coinage Act doesn't apply. On the other hand, I see your point too. If the government ever tried to confiscate pattern coins, your arguments would be mirrored by the defense and the other poster's arguments by the plaintiff. This is where statutory interpretation comes into play. If there is a legal definition of coin in another statute or case law, it will apply. If not, the courts will look to law dictionaries. And as a last resort, they will use lay dictionaries (more than likely).

I don't see this as one poster being right and the other wrong; I see this as a point where reasonable interpretations could absolutely differ.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One was, that was where the Smithsonian piece came from. Rather than turning it over to the mint for destruction they sent it to the Smithsonian.

You're right. The way the law is written they can do just about anything they want to with respect to gold bullion coins.

This is a good point. The government says they never made them, so how are they government property? (Answer is they used government equipment which makes it conversion, using government property for private gain.)

But there are records of the eagles being released.

By law no pattern made after 1896 is legal to own, but they are out there in the open marketplace, bought sold and listed at auction and the government doen't bat an eye. But legally they cold step in and confiscate them.

Patterns made before 1896 are another matter. Many were sold by the government to collectors and of course a huge number were give to Woodin by the government for the quintuple eagle patterns. These could arguably be legal, but how do you prove the source?

No, the coinage act made all US coins legal tender, patterns are not coins. As far as I know the coinage act of 1965 did not address patterns at all.

Except they are not a legally authorized design/issue.

The Fed didn't exist until 1913.

In the past they have confiscated patterns, and errors as well. At one time they took the position that anything that did not meet the standards and specifications laid down in the coinage act of 1873 was illegal and subject to confiscation, and they did confscate. Later they back off from that position. (The government has been very inconsistent with their enforcement.)

 

Now that is interesting, and I was not aware of this. What legislation was introduced in that period that made them illegal? Is this when the modern versions of the Title 18 statutes that were cited in other threads recently enacted?

 

So how come nobody went after Sam Brown and his (1913) Liberty Nickles? Mint records show that none were produced, not to mention released for circulation, yet 5 show up at the 1920 ANA..........

 

If zero are illegal, it's easy - they are all illegal
If one or more are legal, it's hard - how do you tell them apart?

As for what was done in the 1920s vs. 2010s - different worlds...

 

Do tell Burton.........

 

Each case that reaches a federal appellate court becomes precedent. If case law is created that puts the onus/burden of proof on the collector/owner, then there is a huge problem (not to mention that the courts would effectively be rewriting statutory law and putting the burden of proof on the defendant).

 

The impact of this story, and especially the headline, are misleading. Both sides have now thrown the Hail Mary pass of asking the court to rule in their favor before the evidentiary portion of the case. Burton Strauss is correct above. A motion for summary judgment is saying, "even if the facts are assumed in the most favourable light to the other guy, I STILL win." That is SUPPOSED TO BE tough to get, even though our federal courts like to do them as a caseload management tool.

The court is saying we need to hear evidence about the circumstances under which this coin left the Mint's custody. It's neither obvious it was nefarious nor innocent. It depends. Now we get discovery and maybe a trial on the merits.

 

Did some checking and I was off on the date, it was 1887 not 1896. It was the result of regulations from the Director of the Mint. He tried to use those regulations to prevent the sale of former Director Lindermans collection which contained many patterns. (He was overruled and the sale took place in 1888. Twice in 1910 the regulations were used to confiscate patterns from dealer Capt John Haseltine (patterns dated mainly before 1887) but he was able to successfully argue that there had been no regulations against them before 1887 and that those should be legal. It was so agreed and all of the pieces dated 1887 and earlier were returned to him. The article doesn'd specifically say but I would assume the post 1887 pieces were not returned.

Source: Pollock United States Patterns and Related Issues appx I and II

 

Now lest settle the 1933 double eagle case

 

We have, at least at the trial court level. The "owners" lost and the Government won. The only way that CAN change is by a higher court finding an error of LAW or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appeals courts are not SUPPOSED to second-guess the fact finder, whether judge or jury. Juries especially are given an extreme assumption of correctness. I'm not terribly wild about that idea, but that's the law. Bottom line? It is EXTREMELY unlikely the family will ever possess those 1933 double eagles again. The only remaining tough to call issue is what the Government will do with them - keep them as museum pieces or [gulp!] destroy them. Aside from the obvious security issues, I wouldn't mind seeing all 10 at an ANA show.

The burden of proof is not that important in a "preponderance of the evidence" case, like this one. "Clear and convincing" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard would be another matter. Preponderance means 50% + 1.

Oh, spare me the anti-government screeds, okay? They only make you sound like a moron to me.

 

Name another one then?

You know, the one which does NOT rely upon the taxes of the American People for operation.

The one which "sells" something which they manufacture for "more" than what it cost to manufacture. (Meaning: A Profit after all expenses are accounted for.)

 

But........but..........coins have "never" been monetized, only paper bills issued by the "Federal Reserve Bank". Coins are manufactured and issued by the United States Government and "distributed" by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On one hand, coinage is "created" as official forms of "legal tender" while paper bills, which have no intrinsic value, are "authorized" by the US Government.

To put it a little differently, "coins" are SOLD to the Federal Reserve bank at their stated face value while bills (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) are authorized "by" the US Government to be used as legal tender and in effect purchased "from" the Federal Reserve Bank under a congressionally approved "line of credit".

I really hate to se these comparisons of "monetization" between coins and federal reserve "notes" s8ince one is sold by the US Government while the other is "bought" by the US Government.

 

Something about a Statute of Limitations for procesution of theft has been mentioned in the past since Brown knew that he had stolen these coins and nearly 7 years to the day was when they went up for sale.

I don't think that, at the time, there was a legal precedent set for stolen merchandise and a return to a rightful or lawful owner regardless of when it was stolen.

These damned nickels are an embarrassment what with how the 1933 Saints were/are handled and on more than one occasion, a previous owner of one of the nickels has cited the Coinage Act of 1965 as the basis for the legality in owning and selling the piece.

What can you do? It's ok in one circumstance since the material was minted during off hours by an individual that was authorized to be in the facility while the others were supposed never authorized for release yet some managed to escape as all the melting records account for every last piece?

 

And Swit maintained that he obtained his coins legitimately from a mint cashier........

 

I've heard that too, problem is the time period doesn't begin tille the crime is discovered, so it would have STARTED in 1920 and not run out until 1927. Als that would just protect him from being charged with theft. The stolen property still belongs to the original owner and may be confiscated and returned no matter how long. So the 1913 V nickels could still be confiscated today.

 

Gee, does that mean the (5) V nickels could return back to the mint, because a mint employee minted the nickels and took them out. I even remember a story of the mint employee who was stealing 1 cent coins, they fixed a die, and after the end of shift found some in his lunch box on the way out. The Government has you.