Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;chip, post: 714351, member: 19122&quot;]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. </p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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?</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>So thats my opinion, (up til now). I am not a lawyer but I can tell my left hand from my right.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in