Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sallent, post: 3156019, member: 76194&quot;]I can&#039;t see why all of you are struggling so much to read this decision. It&#039;s all quite simple, really. A typical ruling usually follows this pattern:</p><p><br /></p><p>1: Title, citation, procedural history of the case</p><p>2: Facts of the case</p><p>3: Issues</p><p>4: Decision</p><p>5: Reasoning</p><p>6: Concurrent and dissenting opinions</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s not rocket science, folks. It&#039;s actually a pretty simple read. Bottom of page 31and top of page 32 is the black law (holding) and is then neatly re-stated in the middle of Page 33: namely that the guild is in error as the government does not have to prove the &quot;first discovery&quot; in order to enforce the seizure action. Namely, the fact that the coins are of origin in a country covered by the statute, that is sufficient to sustain seizure, and it is then up to the importer to challenge the individual forfeitures of each coin. Basically, the guild&#039;s interpretation is absurd as it would require the government to have beforehand information on each particular coin as to when and where it was dug before they can act (something which often does not exist, especially if the coins were illegally dug and smuggled out of the restricted countries in the first place). To establish that the coins originated in those countries (were struck there) is enough for the government to act, and the burden then shifts to the importer to prove why the coin does not qualify to be seized.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are a few other irrelevant issues further down in the case, but the bottom of page 31&nbsp; and top of page 32, and middle of page 33, is probably the main thing most of you care about.</p><p><br /></p><p>The rest mostly deals with how the experts for the guild had nothing of relevance to contribute as the guild failed to make the argument that the seized items fell into one of three exempted categories.</p><p><br /></p><p>Took me 10 minutes over breakfast to figure all this out. If you want real complexity, try reading a US Supreme Court decision. Now that can be a bit of a challenge at times, depending which Justice is writing the majory opinion.[/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