Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 2484738, member: 29643&quot;]This is a misunderstanding of the application of precedent. Judges, on the whole, are supposed to avoid setting precedent in law, as doing so can often be considered as politically motivated. As such, when decisions are made that have no precedent, they&#039;re often categorized in a way to avoid setting precedent.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the case of the 1933 Double Eagle, they&#039;ve been confiscated continuously by the US Government since Mar 1944 or so. The only reason the Farouk coin was never confiscated was it was already out of the country and in King Farouk&#039;s possession. The key element of why the Farouk case doesn&#039;t really establish precedent was the 29 Feb 1944 export license issued to a representative of Egypt by the Treasury Secretary. Essentially, the license, an official US Government document, established that the coin could be removed from the country, but didn&#039;t *really* release ownership of the coin. This is why the split auction proceeds agreement was made. Fenton could never sell the coin without consent of the US Government, but the Government _also_ had illegally confiscated it. The agreement to a single sale via auction seemed a reasonable compromise.</p><p><br /></p><p>In that decision, it established that the only legally released copy of the 1933 Double Eagle is the Farouk-Fenton piece. Any other coins sold by or possessed by Israel Switt would be considered stolen property. Just because Switt died doesn&#039;t grant his daughter (Joan Langbord) any legal authority to ownership of stolen property.</p><p><br /></p><p>If the Langbords were offered any compensation, that would be insane. Why should/would the US Government reward Switt for distributing stolen US property?[/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