Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Treashunt, post: 172469, member: 6763&quot;]Ruben:&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; I could not agree with you more!&nbsp; I have been shouting about this case and the previous one (with the Farouk coin) for years.&nbsp; Since, in the Farouk case, the government could not prove that the coin&nbsp; was NOT the Farouk coin, they settled, and the owner agreed to split the proceeds with the government.&nbsp; Those morons (the government) still insisted that the coin be &#039;monetized&#039; by receiving an additional $20 in cash in order to &#039;legally monetize&#039; the coin. $3.5 million wasn&#039;t enough for those idiots.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sorry, but this really steams me. The fact that traditionally anyone could have gotten samples of the new year&#039;s coins from the mint, simply by exchanging coins, and legally getting new samples has been stated and then ignored.</p><p>&nbsp;If the coins were stolen, in this case a large number of them, where is the auditor&#039;s report stating that 10 or 20 ounces of gold is missing? </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Where? No where, there is no such report. Is there any report of theft? No, Shortage? No.</p><p>&nbsp;Everything is a presumption of theft, or guilt.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Enough, leave them alone.[/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