[1rudeboy]

It's not your property if you don't have title to it. And the title to an item that was stolen (if that's what happened) does not magically transfer itself to you just because a lot of time has passed.

[SAJ]

In the US Code, only murder and treason are not subject to statute of limitations, iinm.

[ClearCase_guy]

It's not your property if you don't have title to it.

Do you have title to the US currency in your wallet? No? Then hand it over.

[Sherman Logan]

True enough.

However, the government had no evidence whatsoever, at least as far as the article mentions, that the Langboards' did not have title to the coins.

They just assumed their title was invalid and responded accordingly.

IOW, the government did not go through any due process hearing to show why its title was superior to that of the Langboards.

the title to an item that was stolen (if that's what happened) does not magically transfer itself to you just because a lot of time has passed.

I don't believe this is true. Isn't there a common-law principle whereby unchallenged possession for some period of time constitutes title? Since just about all title to real estate is based on conquest (theft) or force of some type, if you go back far enough, don't we admit that legitimate title passes with sufficient time?

A great many American Indian tribes have (accurately) pointed out that their land was stolen, often in direct defiance of treaties. Yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of support on FR for handing the USA, or even large chunks of it, back to them.

[Sloth]

And the title to an item that was stolen (if that's what happened) does not magically transfer itself to you just because a lot of time has passed.

Well, aside from land.

[MSF BU]

I have a number of gold coins in my safe deposit box, some inherited; I have title to none. Does that mean I don’t own them?