Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Troodon, post: 443943, member: 4626&quot;]Precisely... the issue is a property matter.&nbsp; By default, the last possesor who can prove ownership is by default the legal owner, which in this case would be the government.&nbsp; The Switts&#039; dispute hinges on the fact the government never proved a theft of the coins, but that doesn&#039;t matter.&nbsp; The burden of proof, if they hope to get the coins back, is to prove that the ownership had legally been transferred somehow from the government to Israel Switt.&nbsp; There are some that theorize it was possible to get them from the cashier&#039;s window at the Philadelphia Mint... if they can prove that, that&#039;s probably their only hope of getting them back.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the Farouk case the argument was that since the government issued a export license for the coin, it could be argued that the government conceded that they no longer owned it.&nbsp; That argument might have worked (but since the matter was settled out of court, it was never legally tested).[/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