Dealer agrees to return N.C. copy of Bill of Rights
By HOLLY HICKMAN, Associated Press Writer
September 12, 2003 3:27 am
Posted on 9/12/2003, 3:45:14 PM by Constitution Day
Dealer agrees to return N.C. copy of Bill of Rights
By HOLLY HICKMAN, Associated Press Writer
September 12, 2003 3:27 am
RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina's legal battle for custody of a 225-year-old original copy of the Bill of Rights is moving toward a successful end.
The document, stolen from the state Capitol in 1865, is believed to be one of the 14 original copies of the Bill of Rights. The FBI recovered it in an undercover sting operation in Philadelphia earlier this year.
State Attorney General Roy Cooper has argued that the document was stolen from the state Capitol in 1865 by a Union soldier from Ohio. The federal government has sided with the state, and two experts have certified that the document is North Carolina's copy. Archivists say that makes it worth up to $30 million.
But a federal judge must first rule who gets the document.
A Connecticut antiques dealer has withdrawn his claim to the document and has agreed to donate it to the state.
U.S. Attorney Frank Whitney said in federal court Thursday that Wayne Pratt agreed to the deal, and that the government dismissed the civil forfeiture case filed to determine who owned the document.
However, an attorney for another man argued his client should be acknowledged as co-owner of the document, along with Pratt.
Attorney Mike Stratton also said his client, Robert Matthews, deserved a $15 million tax deduction for a charitable contribution when the donation is made.
Whitney said that Matthews has no claim on the document because Pratt was the dealer and had the right of possession.
The state said the document was originally stolen, and that Matthews cannot claim charitable contribution for what he does not own.
"The document was never stolen from North Carolina," Stratton said after the proceedings. "The Union won the war, so the document was property of the Union and could be auctioned off. The document was stolen from Mr. Matthews when the government made this Ashcroftian seizure."
Judge Terrence Boyle did not immediately issue a ruling related to Matthews' claim.
Stratton said he would appeal any decision that did not compensate Matthews adequately.
"They want to hijack this document," Stratton said in court. "They ought to read it before they do that."
FBI agents seized the document March 18 from Pratt, who claimed he legally owned it and who apparently was trying to sell it to the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
Pratt owns antique stores in Woodbury, Conn., and Nantucket, Mass.
"The document was never stolen from North Carolina," Stratton said after the proceedings.
"The Union won the war, so the document was property of the Union and could be auctioned off.
The document was stolen from Mr. Matthews when the government made this Ashcroftian seizure."
So didnt the statute of limitations run out?
You've gotta admit - the quote I posted above sounded like that good ole "Wlat" logic, didn't it?
The statute of limitations only applies to criminal prosecution for theft in this case. The original thief cannot be prosecuted for theft (besides the fact that he is dead). Anyone in possession of the item cannot be criminally prosecuted for being in possession of a stolen item. But the item itself remains stolen property and can be seized and returned to its rightful owner no matter how much time has passed. It just that nobody will go to jail over it.
......following that logic the United States would be well within their rights to loot the Iraqi National Museum and auction off it's contents......not to mention all that gold and oil that's over there....
What should have been an honorable civic duty has turned into legal mess. Money does strange things to people.
If I ever do, I will post them here on FR.
CD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.