A high-stakes dispute over ten pieces of gold’: Court reclaims gold coins for U.S. government[tr]

WaPo ^ | 08-02-2016 | Ben Guarino

[NRx]

[Full title: ‘A high-stakes dispute over ten pieces of gold’: Court reclaims priceless Double Eagle coins for U.S. government]

When the coins were struck in 1933, the United States Mint must have understood the golden pieces were the last of a dying breed.

What the minters could not have foreseen was the saga of thievery and legal limbo that would unfold over the next 90 years, centered on 10 of the gold coins that bore Lady Liberty on the front and a soaring eagle on the reverse.

At the time they were minted, the gold pieces had a face value of $20. Today, the ’33 Double Eagles are estimated to be worth about $10 million a pop. If you can sell them, which, as evidenced by a ruling Monday by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Uncle Sam is loath to let happen.

The last Double Eagle, so named because it was worth twice the $10 coin also inscribed with an eagle, was the result of a meeting between two American icons. At the dawn of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt asked renowned sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens to design a new Double Eagle gold coin, inspired by the elaborate currencies from Greek antiquity. It would be one of the final projects for the famous artist. Saint-Gaudens died in 1907, the same year the design headed to the United States Mint.

To Roosevelt, the Saint-Gaudens design was sheer brilliance. In a pose befitting Athena, Lady Liberty strides atop a mountain wielding a torch and tree branch. To the Mint, the intricacies were a numismatic migraine. The coins were incredibly difficult to produce, and did not stack well on their high edges. Roosevelt ordered the presses to move forward anyway.

[NRx]

As loathe as I am to side with the Feds in a property dispute, I think in this case they are right. As far as I can tell no one is disputing that the coins are stolen property. It is a long established principal, both legally and morally, that a victim of theft is entitled to the return of their property. I don't think that should change because in this case the victim was the government. If you are trying to hang on to what everyone knows is property stolen by one of your ancestors, and you are reduced to arguing in court that you should be allowed to keep it because the victim of the crime failed to file some paperwork in a timely manner, then all I can say is your moral compass is not working.

[Mr. Douglas]

I think you are correct.

And the lesson here is this: If you ever find gold like this, melt it down.

[Red Badger]

Correct.

Time does not diminish the crime.......................

[DiogenesLamp]

As far as I can tell no one is disputing that the coins are stolen property. It is a long established principal, both legally and morally, that a victim of theft is entitled to the return of their property. I don't think that should change because in this case the victim was the government.

Nor do I, but if the statute of limitations for stolen property is seven years for everyone else, then the same rule ought to apply to the Government.

I'm tired of different standards for the powerful.

[Talisker]

And the lesson here is this: If you ever find gold like this, melt it down.

LOL, each coin is worth ten million dollars! The gold in it is a pittance in comparison.

[PapaBear3625]

And the lesson here is this: If you ever find gold like this, melt it down.

Or get it out of the country, to a place where the US government can be told to pound sand.

[Bogie]

However, this underscores how much real finite assets are a better investment than currency based assets.

Actually it's as good a view of the fascism, communism, and propaganda mind games of governments, that you will ever find.

[NRx]

“but if the statute of limitations for stolen property is seven years for everyone else, then the same rule ought to apply to the Government.

I’m tired of different standards for the powerful.”

In most cases the statute of limitations only shields people from criminal prosecution, not an obligation to return stolen property. I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong here, but I don’t believe there is any statute of limitations that negates the rights of property owners to the return of stolen property. There have been lots of cases of stolen art work that has been missing, in some cases for decades, that when found has been ordered returned to its rightful owners. This principal has also been applied to property looted by the Nazis.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Of course, you are right. But don't you find it silly, vis a vis your statement, If you are trying to hang on to what everyone knows is property stolen by one of your ancestors, and you are reduced to arguing in court that you should be allowed to keep it because the victim of the crime failed to file some paperwork in a timely manner, then all I can say is your moral compass is not working.

This is PRECISELY the argument being made by the extremists regarding illegal aliens and "dreamers." Those parents stole their presence in the country, yet now demand that their progeny be able to retain possession of the stolen residence.

[factoryrat]

How dare these American peasants try to take and hold the democrat-socialist king Roosevelt’s gold!

Their first mistake was making the fed and their sheriffs aware of their existence.

Their second mistake was announcing to anyone in the US of their very existence.

Their third mistake was assuming that the government would NOT try to confiscate them, and imprison the owners.

[Boogieman]

“I don’t think that should change because in this case the victim was the government.”

The government are thieves, and stealing from thieves is a victimless crime, as far as I’m concerned.

[Bogie]

There ya go, Swiss banks would salivate over those collectibles.

And they can wait until there is no more Rome.

[Bogie]

So long as a person is born here.

[NRx]

You are making a good argument for the repeal of the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, it is there and until repealed it is part of the Constitution.

I can see where that made sense in the wake of Civil War and emancipation, but it is obsolete and contrary to common sense in the modern world. It needs to be repealed. Now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

How does the government know they were stolen? Could a person not simply have swapped out a different year coin into the pile? After all, at the time the federal government was going to melt them down into gold bars and destroy them any way.

[PGR88]

Two parts of this article jumped out at me

By 1933, coins made of gold had lost their luster, at least to the newly elected Franklin D. Roosevelt.

that's a major understatement - basically a LIE. FDR ordered CONFISCATION of US citizens gold, so he could devalue the currency i.e.) steal the savings and wages of American citizens. First of many American statists and socialists using the power over currency to steal from citizens.

The family gave the coins over to the Secret Service for authentication.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. As Bluto said in Animal House (later US Senator Blutarksy): "you F***ed up! You trusted us!"

[NRx]

It’s a long story, but the bottom line is that neither side is disputing that the coins were stolen.

[CondorFlight]

The government would have made more if it allowed the people to sell the coins, and then pay income tax on the proceeds.

Instead, the IRS threw away a chance for a few million in revenue.

[zek157]

that $200 in 1933 gold is now worth ~$18000 at melt value.

Not exactly worthless, but fractionally less than $100M.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong here, but I don’t believe there is any statute of limitations that negates the rights of property owners to the return of stolen property.

I have myself pondered this point, and it occurs to me that while there may be no clearly defined law saying such, the practical experience of most is that if a case is too old, you are simply out of luck.

So far as the government is concerned, I am cognizant of the Trail of Tears and that stolen property having never been returned or compensated.