10-STG 1933 have John Doe in court room now

Government hit a all time low ck the article out
Coin World Oct 19

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not a subscriber so Amos won't let me view the article.

 

Did you click on the link???

 

Yes, and it takes me to a "digital log in page".

 

Ok I will scan what I can and post it!
90% of it copy write protected
but all it said is the government is add 2 more folk to the governments claim
they john Doe 1+2.I think they are just trying to get the langburgs cash to run out

 

I did and the link doesnt work for me.

 

:thumb:
as you can see I can not post a scan just ck Oct 19 issue of Coin world!
but here the link
http://editions.amospublishing.com/WDCN/Default.aspx?d=20091019&pagenum=1&f=1

 

That information is only available to paid subscribers.

 

Why does everything have to be about someone making a dime!!!

 

What does "10-STG 1933 have John Doe in court room now" mean?

Is it some type of code?

 

Well said GSJMSP !!
But I think the courts will see a veiled attempt to waste there time!

 

Then the Mint record will be seen.and then back to 9/ 28 ruling they have to give them back.I hope!!!

 

Who are the Langdons?

 

It was a typo it should be Langbord/ Izzy Swiff

 

first, the issue of the 10 1933 st gaudens. chances are that someone switched some common dates for the ones to be melted, that was deception, something done secretly fraudulently. IMO they should be confiscated.

The second issue the heirs of the estate are not at fault here, they did not participate in the offence, they should not be put at a loss, but they also should not profit from the original deception.

Third, the burden of proof it should be on the government, because otherwise the defendants will be asked to prove a negative, something that is cockeyed imo because the defendants did not bring charges, it would be different if the defendants were the plaintiffs and had lets say, sued the feds to allow them to openly sell the coins in question.

Fourth, The John doe addition, this makes sense also because the original 10 were switched out, it would be possible for another 10 or 200 to also have been switched, and it would be right to settle the issues up front so the legal wheel does not have to be constantly reinvented.

The fourth point relates to the third, if the burden of proof were switched to the accused, how could they prove that some john doe was not involved?

A tangent to all this, regarding the article the op linked to. Most times fair use of copyrighted material is not an issue, the reason being is that it can inspire people to purchase the whole article, but it seems that some holders of copyrighted material do not see any use as being fair use.

So thats my opinion, (up til now). I am not a lawyer but I can tell my left hand from my right.

 

Regarding copyright. Aren't photos automatically copyrighted by the original photographer. People post other peoples photos here all the time.