1933 Gold $20's housed in "ziploc" bags!

With all due respect, these are pretty strong opinions from someone who does not have all the facts.

First off, there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. Unless they were "stolen" in the last several years or so, then no one can be convicted of theft.

Second, there was a period of time (I had heard weeks, but not sure) when Mint employees (and perhaos others) could buy them - legally - in 1933. As far as I know, they were then caught up in the FDR gold ban. However, coin collectors were exempt.

So, as I see it, those coins were purchased legally and kept legally unless and until proven otherwise. The government does not agree and well might have its way, but that does not change the facts.

P.S. - as for this idea of the coins not being "issued" or "monetized", I am not quite sure what the process is, but I doubt the Sec. of the Treasury stands over the coins and blesses them like the Pope. I imagine that a coin is authorized, struck, then delivered, and all of that represents issuance and monetization. The Mint is hanging its hat on the claim that the last of those three steps was never performed, but that is disputed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess we'll all see how the government handles the situation.

The way I see it, anyway they go, someone gets hurt, and they have (it seems) literally found themselves left holding the bag - oh, I crack me up.

I have heard the previous, and perhaps future, owner of these coins has hired the same lawyer that handled the first situation.

 

A point frequently overlooked is that we still have a legal system in this country, and it must be adhered to. The coins do not become the property of the mint because the mint declares it. If the private property laws in the country mean anything, the mint will have to go to court, and both sides can present their evidence. Then, a jury can determine legal ownership. Hopefully, for coin collectors everywhere, the mint will have to at least prove their assertion in court by presenting evidence, and will not be able to arbitrarily confiscate property from a private citizen.

 

Yes, my opinions are strong but I think I have more facts than you. First of all, I said it was MY opinion and not a legal opinion. If you have read about this in more than one publication, you should know that these were part of a group of pieces sureptitiously purchased from a mint employee.

It is obvious from the reaction that my original post has garnered that most of you disagree with me. I really don't like the mint, the quality of their customer sevice, the fact that collectors of U. S. coins are pretty much held hostage by them, or their high-handed arbitrariness in many matters. In this case however, I think they are right. The public was given a chance to turn in all of the recalled coins.

Now, go ahead and whine and do all the legal nit-picking (it appears many lawyers are collectors who participate on this board) you want. Make all of the negative personal comments you want. I've said my last on this.

 

snjebay - you are correct that your opinions are strong. But as it has been pointed out by others, they happen to be legally incorrect. That doesn't make you a bad person. Some people are comfortable with government confiscation of property without due process, but most of us are not.

 

I understand what you are saying, BUT, this is legally grey. Coins ARE the government's property TECHNICALLY - not morally or ethically, but technically. The government can make it illegal to own: gold, silver, platinum, whatever they wish. If it's illegal to own, the government can confiscate it. Now, I know there are lawyers that salivate at that type of statement because when property is confiscated they go running to court and make tons of money. Anyway... this is way off topic and I already said in my previous post that I was not going to continue with it.

 

90% of what I know about the government did, in fact, originate from school house rock.

"I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill..."

So I'm probably in over my head in this topic, but what I do know is that there is a difference between 'can' and 'try'. The government can try to do a lot of things, but they are not always successful. Not to sound like Indiana Jones, here, but my personal opinion is that these coins belong in a museum anyway - as did the first one - so that everyone can benefit from seeing it as a symbol of our history.

I guess the way I derived to that opinion was thinking about what Doug said about the 23 that were recovered. If you are going to allow this person, like the last person, to benefit off of NOT returning them - shouldn't you also go back, and like-compensate those good citizens (or their heirs) who you managed to recover those 23 from, too? Where does it stop?

 

sjnebay - coins are NOT the property of the government. I think you would be hard-pressed to come up with the statute verifying that. The government cannot take property as their own of any kind without compensating the owner. Maybe the Mint will win their court battle, but they do have a consititutional obligation to comply with the legal system and go to court over the matter. It just isn't their decision to make. I know Roosevelt pulled a fast one while Congress was asleep, but it probably won't be so easy the next time. All I can suggest is read the Constitution.

Anyway, you are correct that this is way off topic. I'll just end by warning any readers not to believe this sort of thing without checking it out.

 

Cloudsweeper and I disagree on all but one point. Look back at history and decide for yourself.

 

<<
Yes, my opinions are strong but I think I have more facts than you. First of all, I said it was MY opinion and not a legal opinion. If you have read about this in more than one publication, you should know that these were part of a group of pieces sureptitiously purchased from a mint employee.
>>

Please cite your source.

 

Unless you happen to be the guy who "surrepetitiously purchased these from a mint employee" back in 1933, I would seriously doubt that you or anyone else can prove that these twenty coins, and EXACTLY these twenty coins are the same as those you are talking about.

~AJ

 

You are always entitled to your opinion, but if your opinion is that the moon is made of green cheese, it is a wrong opinion plain and simple.

As for the issue at hand, you said that the holders of the coins should or could be arrested for receiving stolen property. This is incorrect due to the statute of limitations on such crimes.

You also said quite emphatically that these coins were never issued - that is also wrong (in my opinion, based on the reasons I have) or at least in dispute.

All opinions are welcome here, but if facts are mistated or ignored, expct a spirited discussion. It is all done in the interests of educating people.

 

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand that it isn't up to the Mint to decide whether the coins were stolen and/or a crime committed. It is up to a court. This is basic American law. Not hard to understand at all for anyone who got past the 6th grade. Until the Mint and the prosecutor present their evidence to a judge and jury, they are not entitled to the coins. In fact, if any crime has been committed so far, it is probably by the Mint for taking property without permission or compensation.

 

If you're going to seize something as "recovered stolen property," you first have to prove it was stolen. The Mint and Treasury Department struggle with that. I believe their records say that they determined by weight that they destroyed all 1933 Double Eagles, except the two in the Smithsonian. Clearly, they did not. Simply changing your story to "then those coins must have been stolen" is not enough for a court of law. You must prove the circumstances of the theft. And they can't. The Mint would have a much better case against the owners of the 1913 Liberty Head nickels, but they never proceed against them.

 

Actually there is evidence that there were ways that the coins could have left legally.

Actually Swit never said who or how he acquired the coins so we don't know if he got them from a mint employee. There are reports that the Sec of the Treasury had a supply of these so he may have gotten these from a high Treasury official.

Correct there was a window of time when they could have been legally purchasd from the Cash window at the Mint and the Treasury buildings.

And Third, the Treasury Dept OFFERED these coins for sale to collectors by direct mail in early 1933. Now maybe Izzy's family can't prove that he acquired them in one of these ways, but I doubt that the Mint can prove that he didn't.