Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Troodon, post: 208179, member: 4626&quot;]Reading right now a book titled &quot;Double Eagle,&quot; by Alison Frankel.&nbsp; Highly recommend it, it&#039;s a very entertaining read, and not just for the information directly related to the 1933 double eagles.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I understand it, the Treasury&#039;s case revolves around the fact that besides the two double eagles given to the Smithsonian, and arguably the one bought by King Farouk (since an export license was granted, it could be argued it left the country legally), no double eagles ever legally were issued or left the Mint, therefore any and all other 1933 double eagles are by default&nbsp; property of the United States Treasury.&nbsp; The onus isn&#039;t on the government to prove a theft in this case; if they were never legally issued then there was never a time when they weren&#039;t US property (think of it by this example: if your car goes missing and a week from now someone is driving around it who claims they bought it from someone they didn&#039;t know, the government needs to prove that he stole it in order to be charged and convicted of grand theft auto.&nbsp; However, even if he&#039;s not convicted, or even charged, the car is presumed to still belong to you unless someone can prove they legally acquired the car from you.&nbsp; If you never sold it or voluntarily turned over the title to anyone, it is presumed to still be yours.&nbsp; If anyone else wants to claim ownership of the car, the burden of proof is on them to prove they legally acquired the car from you, not on you to prove that they didn&#039;t.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Everyone who brings up &quot;innocent until proven guilty&quot; is mistaking criminal law with civil property law.&nbsp; The descendants of Switt are not being accused of the theft of the double eagles.&nbsp; The government is merely asserting the double eagles are US governement property, and in the absense of evidence that shows that Switt acquired the double eagles from the Mint legally, they are presumed to still be property of the government.&nbsp; In this case the law by default favors the original property holders unless a legal transfer can be proved.&nbsp; Else like in my example, someone can drive off with your car, claim they bought it from you, and be legally alllowed to keep it unless you can prove they stole it from you.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not a lawyer, but to me it sounds like the government has the stronger case here in this instance.</p><p><br /></p><p>(Keep in mind this is not necessarily my opinion on the law, just my interpretation of the government&#039;s interpretation.&nbsp; I&#039;ve heard good arguments on the other side too, and I&#039;m presonally undecided right now...)</p><p><br /></p><p>The theory of the three week window when the double eagles theoretically could have been purchased may be a defense, but other records seem to show that none were ever made avialable that way publicly (though it remains possible that Switt may have had connections with a mint employee to buy them unofficially, but still legally).&nbsp; Still that argument&#039;s a bit of a stretch.[/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