Posted on 12/14/2006 3:31:06 PM PST by BradJ
The mint should pay.
Posession might be nine points of the law, but the only reason I can think of, they wanted to initiate a process by which they will become the legal owners of the coins. Sounds like a stretch, but as contraband they could only have sold them on the black market. If they become "legal" again they can be sold and resold and public auction.
Retroactively saying that any gold which was not surrendered is "illegally" obtained?
They play by the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
They wouldn't be "among the most valuable coins" if there weren't SOME in circulation.
I saw something from 1975, don't know if it was an aluminum penny or a plated penny. They were handed out as promotional items at an Offshore Technology Conference.
Thanks to all who replied to my inquiry. I learned something from all of you and that is great.
Hard to fault them for their intelligence. By getting them authenticated, and then raising a fuss, they were able to get ONE coin auctioned and it made them almost 4 million dollars, LEGALLY, without ever having to worry about getting caught.
Not bad for stolen property. I think they aren't as stupid as it seems.
During the early 1970s, the price of copper rose to a point where the penny almost contained more than one cent's worth of copper. This led the Mint to test alternate metals, including aluminum and bronze-clad steel. Aluminum was chosen, and over 1.5 million of these were struck and ready for public release before ultimately being rejected. About a dozen aluminum cents are believed to still be in the hands of collectors,[citation needed] although they are now considered illegal, and are subject to seizure by the Secret Service. One aluminum cent was donated to the Smithsonian Institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_(United_States_coin)
The lady loaned the mint the property. It is clear that the lady expected the mint to return them and the mint clearly lead her to believe that they would be returned.
No, stolen property does not become unstolen with the passage of time. If someone steals your car, and hides it in a storage locker for 5 years, they don't get to keep it. The SOL does not begin to run until the facts giving rise to the cause of action are known. In this case, if the US found out that this family had the coins, and did nothing about it for 5 years, or whatever the SOL is, then the statute ran out. But if an employee stole the coins, hid them in his closet, and then they passed to his grandchildren, the SOL would have "tolled" all that time, until the facts that allowed the rightful owner the ability and right to sue for their return were known.
Where the statute of limitations comes in is like this: when someone possesses your property wrongfully, you have a right of action to correct that. If it is land, you have an action in trespass, and your SOL is usually about 10 years. If a neighbor pours some cement on your front yard, and parks his car there, and you don't file suit to get him out within 10 years, your neighbor now owns the land.
If the property is personal property, the action is for "conversion". Your SOL is usually something like 3 or 4 years BUT, and this is a big BUT you have to know who has converted your property before you can file your action. If you don't know, then you can't exactly sue the entire world.
So, the end result is, if someone steals your property, and you don't know who it was, it is still your property until you find out who it was, or find who has it now. When you find it, you still have a few years to file suit to get it back.
Good point, I thought about that after I was in bed.
And families of those that died in the Holocost also have been getting back works of art.
"They didn't take the property, the lady gave them the property."
"The lady loaned the mint the property. It is clear that the lady expected the mint to return them and the mint clearly lead her to believe that they would be returned."
Assuming you are correct as to the lady's expectations, then IF she was the true owner of the property, and she was tricked into giving it up, that would be "larceny by trick". However, if the Mint is the true owner, the facts as to what the lady thought really don't amount to a hoot in H@ll.
A person is generally permitted to recover his or her own property from one who wrongfully possesses it by "self-help", as long as there is no breach of the peace. Tricking someone does not breach the peace.
Good comment.
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.