33 Double Eagle at the Federal Reserve in NY?

I thought so but I didn't want to sound stupid....something I do far too much of

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Asking questions isn't stupid , most of us learn something new here all the time , I'm always asking questions .
rzage

 

My understanding is the government got half of the hammer price (the commision all went to the auctioneer). The $20 was a token amount the government wanted so they can claim it was monetized and thus legally issued.

The person it was seized from wanted the coin... the government wanted to assert its position that they have the sole right to declare what US coins are legally issued, and which or not... the government realized they had a tricky case, and so offered to settle. Basically the agreement was that the government got to declare the coin their property, and got to decalre it was legal to own because they said so and not because their hand was forced... in exchange for that concession they were willing to give up half its auctioned value (minus $20 for issuance).

So whether or not a 1933 double eagle is legal to own... it's the government's position it is not, except for this one exception they made... has still never been tested in court. Maybe it will be, over the 10 Switt coins... I'd think that would set an important precendent for other patterns, rarities, etc. that the US Mint has produced that may still be hiding out there. Be a good court case to pay attention to!

 

Its not an issue really of it being legal tender. It is not legal tender. There is an issue of theft, and I think they are protected under the takings clause under the fifth amendments

 

1804 Dollar, not the 1933 $20 St. Gaudens.

 

I stand corrected, got my kings confused.

 

OK - I admit it and will come clean. It was really laziness. I knew what he ment, so the typo and just ignored it.

I am just SOOOO lazy .....

Ruben

 

Precisely... the issue is a property matter. By default, the last possesor who can prove ownership is by default the legal owner, which in this case would be the government. The Switts' dispute hinges on the fact the government never proved a theft of the coins, but that doesn't matter. The burden of proof, if they hope to get the coins back, is to prove that the ownership had legally been transferred somehow from the government to Israel Switt. There are some that theorize it was possible to get them from the cashier's window at the Philadelphia Mint... if they can prove that, that's probably their only hope of getting them back.

In the Farouk case the argument was that since the government issued a export license for the coin, it could be argued that the government conceded that they no longer owned it. That argument might have worked (but since the matter was settled out of court, it was never legally tested).

 

I don't know about that. I was thinking about it the other way around. The fact that the Swifts processed the coins physically gives them default legal rights unless the government can PROVE that the coins were stolen.

As an aside, the government is not protected by the 5th amendment like citizens are. And the government can't just take peoples property based on the claim that it was gained through theft or other illegal means, because if that is what the Government can do, and it can't under the takings clause of the 5th amendment, Bettleman, Exxon, the Kennedy's and the Bronfman, and most mom and pop businesses are all in major trouble.

Ruben

 

Can you PROVE the ownership of any of the paper money in your wallet? No? Then the government would like you to send it all back to them.

And if it can be shown that is was POSSIBLE for the coins to have been distributed that way, I think that would put the burden of proof back on the government to prove that they were actually stolen. Because if it was POSSIBLE that there was a way they COULD have been distributed, then how can you say these coins were stolen unless you can prove that they didnt leave by that method. And if you cant prove that, then the Swit family should get them back because you can't confiscate as stolen property that you can't prove was stolen.

 

No problem , when I was a kid I thought he was a made up person , because whenever my parents asked me to do some chore and I didn't do it fast enough my Mother would say , " who do you think you are , King Farouk , sure sounded like a cartoon or made up name to me .
rzage:hatch::hammer:

 

I don't really think it works that way... and you should be glad it doesn't. Otherwise I can get in your car when nobody's looking and drive off with it, claim you told me I could have it, and insist it belongs to me unless you can prove that I stole it.

The fact that you have the car title and didn't sign it off to me proves the car is still yours, unless I can prove you made some arrangement to transfer the car over to me and just hadn't given me the title yet. Even if it can't be proven I stole it, you can get your car back.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly confident property law works under these principles. It's not the same thing as if the government was accusing the Switts of stealing the coins where they have the presumption of innocence... that would be a criminal matter. In a civil property manner the presumption in this case would be: the government owned them as of 1933, they never transferred the property to someone else, so unless the Switts can prove otherwise (a receipt would be excellent proof along those lines!) the coins are presumed to still be the government's property.

Otherwise like in my example, I could take your car, claimed you said I can have it and would sign the title over to me later... prove you didn't make such an arrangement and that I stole it (or someone else stole it and gave it to me), or I get to keep the car.

Or in the real case; the government doesn't have to prove the coins were stolen to keep them; the Switts have to prove they're not or they don't get them back. The burden of proof is on the Switts, not the government.

If any lawyer thinks I'm wrong on this, feel free to correct me.

Er... I don't know what your basis is for your asserition that the government that is bound by the Constitution isn't also protected by the Constitution. After all, the whole purpose of the Constitution is to lay out what rights that the government and the people have and don't have.

It is is the government's assertion that the coins are their property in the first place. If the government can own property, then they have the same rights and protections for their property as any individual does. Else what's to stop people from getting in a government owned tank and driving off with it... insisting the government can't take it back unless they can prove it was stolen?

The government did not seize the coins based on the claim they were stolen... they seized the coins based on the claim that they are government property when they were minted, and since the government never transferred the property to anyone else, they still are, unless and until someone can prove otherwise. (None of your examples of items that were never government property apply, sorry, and the government does in fact have property rights just like individuals do. Well, not "just like," but they do have some.) Again if this isn't the case... I'm getting myself a tank, and it's mine if they can't prove I stole it (I'll just say some general told me I can have it, and the burden would be on them to prove otherwise, right?).

 

Actually that is the law unless you file stolen car report.

A car has a title or ownership. Most possessions do not. Aside from that, this is the government who is making the accusations.

Individuals do not need to have receipts to prove they own something. Merely there possession of it is presumptive evidence of its ownership.

The government is explicitly prevented to seizing it in this case by the 5th amemendment, even more so that a private party.

Even a private party in the case of say, stolen artifacts, Nazi paintings stolen from Jewish homes, etc....all these have to go through due process to prove they were stolen goods in the first place. The Government is not even doing that. They just seized the coins, although the Swifts were stupid enough to send them to the mint.

Again, cars are like Real Estate and have a title holder.

Because it doesn't. It is not protected to have freedom of speech either. Government employees are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns and much more. The Government is not a person, or even a corporate person. It has no rights. It has responsibilities and duties. Its power and authority is completely the providence of the people.

No they don't. This is like the conversations of the Mint and profits. Government property is not the same as private property AT ALL, and is a whole other segment of law. What is Government Property has been an enormously perplexing legal question since before the Constitution was ratified.

There are various Sherman tanks around the country that are in that status right now. But you can't walk onto an Army base and take a tank because explicit in statutory law and under the UCMJ

 

Well not a legal expert and so no point for me to continue arguing on the basis of opinion and belief.

But the government has the coins (possesion in 9/10 of the law and so forth...) for now at least. There is no legal precendent (an actual test in court) for whether or not the government (specifically, the Treasury Department) has a right to declare whether coins they produce are legal to own or not... the Switt case will be the first. The one double eagle the government considers legal to own was settled out of court. For what they've considered illegal to own, they've seized them, and nobody fought them over it; or the possesors voluntarily turned them over, and not challenged it; or the government decided to turn a blind eye and not bother proseucting it.

Either way it turns out it will be a landmark case, setting a precendent for the first time as whether or not the government has the right to determine which of the products are legal to own or not... will be an important decision as it will set a precendent for other rarities that may not have been officially issued (and patterns, and other such things).

On the government's side, they claim that none of the 1933 double eagles were ever legally issued, and that all of them were always government property, and remain so, whehter they can prove the theft of them or not.

On the Switt's side, they claim that there is a theoretically possibility that they could have been legally issued, and the government has never proven they were ever stolen in the first place, therefore they should get them back unless and until the government can prove they were stolen.

(BTW, on a technical note, the government didn't precisely seize them... the Switts had turned them over to the government for authentication, then the government refused to return them with the declaration that they are not legal to own. Still a seizure in the sense they deprived the Switts of the ownership of them, but they didn't burst into their house and confiscate the coins or anything like that.)

Who's right? We can argue back on forth on this as to what the law and Constitution says, and how to interpret it, but until it's tested in a court of law, there's no way to tell how it all stands up under a legal test.

I look forward to finding out, one way or the other. Keep your eyes open as to how this case turns out; it'll be a very important one!