The Mint really took it back...

YOU, do not know that. You would like to believe that this is what happened but you really do no know.

As such, stating that this particular coin was "stolen" is NOT an absolute. Only a presumption to which, the presumption is "required" to be toward the accused party unless "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

One "Federal Judge" already stated as much. (Ref: http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-co...nst-government-in-1974-d-aluminum-cent-c.html )

However, the US Government, with their wealth simply filed more and more motions to dismiss the original complaint thereby costing the plaintiffs more and more legal fee's.

The case was never concluded, merely settled with the presumption that continuing the effort would end up costing more than the coin was worth.

To me, that does not state, for a fact, that the coin was "stolen" as ruled by the Federal Judge in San Diego:

"On March 26, Judge William Q. Hayes issued an opinion where he denied the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint, stating “it is plausible that a Mint official, with proper authority and in an authorized manner, allowed Harry Lawrence to keep the 1974-D aluminum cent. Drawing reasonable inferences, it is plausible that Harry Lawrence lawfully obtained possession of the aluminum cent, giving Plaintiffs superior claim of title to the aluminum cent.”

The two men contend that because the government gave the coin to Harry Lawrence and that Randall Lawrence had undisturbed control of the coin for the past 34 years, this creates a presumption of title and requires the recognition of ownership rights of the coin."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Boys, boys........none of us owned the piece. Why the passion? I can understand your positions but we're out of it. Bigger fish in this and we ain't among them. And I'm loath to argue the 'law'.........it's futile among goobers..........they'll stonewall you every time.

 

I'm surprised that you've stooped to attack @baseball21 since my experience shows that the very last argument to present, when insurmountable and logical arguments have been presented, is to attack the poster's integrity.

Of course, I won't hold it against you. I'd just encourage you to present better arguments. And if you don't like what @baseball21 posts, then just ignore them.

BTW, the term "argument" is in no way intended to create an argumentative environment as any programmer knows that functions, such as this discussion, require arguments to be presented before the function can be satisfied.

 

They do it all the time on Law and Order.........

 

I find absolutely nothing wrong with the golden rule.

 

...He who has the gold makes the rules?

 

Lee
Not an absolute ?
#1 the coin was deemed real correct ?
Minted by the US MINT in Denver correct ?
#2 the coin was graded by a TPG correct?
The TPG said yup real deal correct ?
#3 the coin was in the position of the family correct?
As the coin was given to a late family member correct?
#4 the coin in question was never released by the US Mint or government correct?
So how do you suppose it got from point A to point B with out being stolen from the mint?
You can spar with all sorts of legal poppycock.....that facts remain the same.....the coin was removed from the mint, the coin is property of the US Government . They want their property back..... end of story.

 

Nobody owns the golden rule.........it's what is the right thing to do.

 

I don't either, it just doesn't hold any weight when it comes to legal proceedings

 

I see a Karma lighting bolt about to strike....... and it ain't going to hit us.

 

Have had many a 'bolt' hit me in the keester........

 

That's why you're split Ken?

 

A political bias seems to be underlying much of the arguing which is taking place so stop it. No political rants in either direction. Last warning. Ken is trying to help keep everyone in the game, so calm down the rhetoric and level. Jim

 

Of course at any time the government can still decide that they want to confiscate it and do so.

The mint had been striking steel cents in 43 so it was possible to have leftover steel planchets that could accidentally be struck in 1944. But Denver had not been striking anything in aluminum so there was no place for the planchet to legitimately come from within the mint. it would have to have been brought in from outside by someone.

One of the mules WAS recovered from circulation. That one they consider legtimate, the others they have declared to be government property. As far as I know though they have never made any overtures to recover them from the man that owns them.

The government maintains that it is still government property as well. They just haven't taken steps to recover it. Let the current holders try and put it up for public auction and that may change.

The mint DID strike a coin in aluminum of the proper size for a cent. But only in 1972 and only at San Francisco (1971 Nepal 2 Pice in proof). The planchet was 18.5 mm pure aluminum. The 1 , 2, and 5 pice coins for this issue are the ONLY aluminum coins the mint has struck for other countries.

Yes Philadelphia did make aluminum cents, but they were NOT handed out as gifts to the Congressmen. They were distributed to the Congressmen so they could see what the new cents would look like. The Mint requested their return but 12 pieces did not come back. They weren't gifts, they were actually stolen by the congressmen. So the congressman didn't have the authority to give away the Toven coin.

The government maintains that they did NOT have any struck at Denver. The is no record of any order to do so or any record of a shipment of planchets to Denver. There is also no reason they would need to run tests at Denver

The statute of limitations keeps you from being able to press charges, but it does not transfer ownership. If Izzy Switt was still alive today they could not charge him with the theft of the double eagles, but they could still recover them as being stolen government property. Ownership of stolen property always remains with those it was stolen from.

At one time the government did go after them as not being legal because they didn't match the standards set forth in the revised statutes of 1874.