Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Mark Feld, post: 715204, member: 11467&quot;]Addressing your points in order:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>First, it was accepted practice at that time for customers to be able to exchange their gold coins for others of different dates. Deception might or might not have been involved. And the coins might have left the mint legally. Frankly, there is simply no way to prove that, one way or the other.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Second, whether Izzy Swift obtained the coins legally or illegally, if it can&#039;t be proved either way, the family should be able to retain ownership of them.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Third, I agree that the burden of proof SHOULD be on the government, but things might not end up that way, even though they appear to be at the present time.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Fourth, the disposition of the burden of proof should not have any bearing on what the Langbord side has to prove with respect to any John Doe&#039;s that might be added to the lawsuit.[/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