Great story about recently discovered gold coin stash in California

[MarkFeld]

[Oh, Good! Something I can answer :acclaim:Congress: 43% (of a total of 435) :kidaround:Senate: 60% (of a total of 100) :sumo:House of Reps: 37% (of a total of 535) (2/3 Rule )

 

I believe that does NOT include lawyers who call themselves something else (i.e., a lawyer who worked for a Fortune 500 company or one who worked for a private equity firm).

 

The number of politicians who are lawyers compared to their % in the workforce is very sizeable compared to those who worked for pharmaceutical, energy, manufacturing, or other areas of the economy.

 

I think you should look at the Post before yours.

 

I was typing mine as yours went to print !!

 

It does, in fact, include all members with a Law Degree, and regardless of whether they call themselves Ranchers/Doctors/Soldiers/ CowPlop Tossers, or anything else.

 

I like people challenging me. It is like the smell of Napalm in the morning.....

 

I hereby callenge that statemernt - please provide acceptable (to me) analogies between your being challenged and the smell of Napalm.

[CSdot]

I understand where you are coming from, you are probably law abiding but don't like to be intimidated by authorities. There are ways to fight back legally, I have seen plenty of people though who did not have the law on their side when they ended up in court. Video surveillance has become a good tool both for documenting crime as well as police who overstep their authority.

 

I had a couple dozen acres in northern Vermont once; the threat was more from a dangerous felon who was a neighbor than the sheriff/state police who were pretty useless. It made it impossible for me to make good use of the land.

 

Probably the lawyers advising have seen scores of cases like this that did not work out that great. There was a major currency collection that was found in Massachusetts a few years ago, in a barn if I remember right. It is still tied up in the courts. Too bad the courts allow things to drag on for so long. Maybe our legal system is just too broken for remedy, and needs an overhaul.

 

Absolutely agree with this assessment as well. We no longer have swift justice and the lawyers are typically the only ones to make out financially. Companies carry "slush" funds on the books just to settle frivolous lawsuits. It's cheaper than litigating it. It's really a shame.

 

IMO, this is one of the big problems when you have lawyers making laws. Most politicians are lawyers. It's like the fox running the hen house.

 

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I have to believe the couple that found the hoard needed time to seek the correct counsel before moving forward. Being in a remote area, the search could have taken months until they felt comfortable with a lawyer. Then months while the lawyer peforms the due diligence on both the previous land owners and trying to understand discretely how a hoard of coins came to be buried in the ground. It doesn't surprise me that from the time they found the coins early last year, until the time the were graded and in holders took the better part of one year.

 

Most politicians are lawyers"? Really? Upon what did you base that statement? Thanks.

 

Oh, Good! Something I can answer

 

Congress: 43% (of a total of 435)

Senate: 60% (of a total of 100)

House of Reps: 37% (of a total of 535) (2/3 Rule )

 

If the question is what profession/training is most represented by those who become politicians, these numbers seem to support the legal profession as the answer.

 

I wonder when it shifted from gentleman farmer to lawyer as the most popular politician profession?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

[Oh, Good! Something I can answer :acclaim:Congress: 43% (of a total of 435) :kidaround:Senate: 60% (of a total of 100) :sumo:House of Reps: 37% (of a total of 535) (2/3 Rule )

 

I believe that does NOT include lawyers who call themselves something else (i.e., a lawyer who worked for a Fortune 500 company or one who worked for a private equity firm).

 

The number of politicians who are lawyers compared to their % in the workforce is very sizeable compared to those who worked for pharmaceutical, energy, manufacturing, or other areas of the economy.

 

I think you should look at the Post before yours.

 

I was typing mine as yours went to print !!

 

It does, in fact, include all members with a Law Degree, and regardless of whether they call themselves Ranchers/Doctors/Soldiers/ CowPlop Tossers, or anything else.

 

I like people challenging me. It is like the smell of Napalm in the morning.....

 

I hereby callenge that statemernt - please provide acceptable (to me) analogies between your being challenged and the smell of Napalm.

 

The challenge usually blew up in my face, because I was usually wrong.

Having been wrong about Napalm once (never again, brother ),

I equate a challenge with the toughest task I once faced, and the smell of Napalm never left me. So, I try very hard now to be on the side of Righteousness.

[GoldFinger1969]

It does, in fact, include all members with a Law Degree, and regardless of whether they call themselves Ranchers/Doctors/Soldiers/ CowPlop Tossers, or anything else.I like people challenging me. It is like the smell of Napalm in the morning.....

 

You sure about that ? I believe Members can list whatever their profession is.

 

Someone who's a laywer may elect to call themselves a 'community organizer' for example.

[Kevin J Flynn]

Here is something I found online: "On July 20th, at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, the jury reached a verdict in the ten day trial regarding the title of ten 1933 Double Eagles ($20 gold coins). The coin collecting community was horrified that a jury unanimously ruled that these ten coins were stolen from the U.S. Mint and are thus the property of the U.S."

https://www.coinweek.com/commentary/coin-rarities-related-topics-the-jury-verdict-in-the-case-of-the-langbord-1933-double-eagles-20-gold-coins/

Has the government said what they'll do with them ?

 

I had heard from a reliable source that the 1933 gold coins would not be melted, no matter what the outcome.

 

IMO, the entire argument that the 8 1933 twenty dollar gold coins entered the public illegally through a Mint employee is absurd. Obviously the jury did not understand that most of our famous coins entered that way. Second, I believe there was testimony at trial to the effect that he was investigated during the 1940s for suspicion by the secret service, but nothing was done. IMO, such testimony was irrelevant and would have a tendency to predudice the jury to a presumption of guilt, rather than evidence, or the lack there of.

 

 

 

[19Lyds]

ABC News carried a similar story: http://abcnews.go.com/US/10m-calif-gold-coin-hoard-found-yard-stolen/story?id=22764360

 

Maybe the lawyers and "researchers" could have done a better job answering a number of questions before the dealers started their promotion tours.

 

And maybe newspapers should not quote people who do not know what they are talking about. This is the previously mentioned ineffable twaddle, repeated on ABC.

Nah Tom!

 

The more "hype" they create, whether its vetted or not, the more hits they get to their pages and the more money they make!

 

This facts are simply NOT that difficult to obtain but why bother since hysteria is a much better mistress than fact.

[GoldFinger1969]

I had heard from a reliable source that the 1933 gold coins would not be melted, no matter what the outcome.

 

Of that I am pretty sure. The govt stands to make millions (tens of millions ?) in auction fees and/or taxes if all 10 are sold, whether they are monetized or not.

 

IMO, the entire argument that the 8 1933 twenty dollar gold coins entered the public illegally through a Mint employee is absurd. Obviously the jury did not understand that most of our famous coins entered that way. Second, I believe there was testimony at trial to the effect that he was investigated during the 1940s for suspicion by the secret service, but nothing was done. IMO, such testimony was irrelevant and would have a tendency to predudice the jury to a presumption of guilt, rather than evidence, or the lack there of.

 

Unfortunately, juries tend to be comprised of people who can afford to spend weeks or months away from their normal routine, which usually includes individuals who are less knowledgable than the normal workforce.

 

To me, there's nothing difficult in understanding that exchanges were quite common in the 1920's and 1930's and that's most likely how Switt got the coins. But if that got lost in translation or was mixed in with a longer presentation, then I can understand how someone would focus on the 1940's investigation and think "I'm not sure how he got the coins but there was some kind of theft because an investigation followed a decade later."

 

I served on a jury once and the inability to concentrate on the key points and facts and stop daydreaming and focusing on irrelevancies astounded me. Afterwards, the defense lawyer said he was banking on me understanding the mathematics of the accident (it was a construction accident) because he had little faith in the others being able to comprehend how it was key to the defense and central to the case.

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Good questions about statutue of limitations and who can claim the property.

 

We see sucken treasure in the ocean from over 300 years ago being claimed by other countries and winning.

 

We see valuable art stolen from 50 to 100 years ago being returned to the rightful owner. We see coins stolen, for example from DuPont being returned to their owner.

 

I doubt there is any statutue that would preclude property that was believed to be illegally taken from being returned to its rightful owner.

 

At the same time, there are everyday people who search for coins, gold, silver, and other lost valuables with metal detectors and other tools. Obviously this is lost property. Should the law of finding treasures also apply to them? I do not see posts to local newspapers of found treasures.

 

On who can claim property. I remember when the 1969-S was discovered, and at the same time, there was the trial of Goodman I believe who made illegal 1969 doubled dies. The U.S. Mint illegally confiscated five specimens of the 1969-S Lincoln cent doubled die, which were later melted.

 

Seems like to comes down to who is in charge, and if they choose to go after questionable coins, and their interpretation of the law. The 1974-D Alum was once a target for confiscation, now they are more lenient on them.

 

In 1887, right before the former Director of the Mint Linderman's estate sale, the current Director had the secret service stop the auction stating the coins were obtained illegally. It is believed that some of the coins were confiscated, while others were permitted to be sold.

 

 

On this current subject, I am currently writing a book about apprasing your own collection. I use this situation to state that before you go public with something like this or selling your coins, if they are vailable, and you make a profit, make sure you understand all of the consequences.

 

Kevin

[Kevin J Flynn]

I had heard from a reliable source that the 1933 gold coins would not be melted, no matter what the outcome.

Of that I am pretty sure. The govt stands to make millions (tens of millions ?) in auction fees and/or taxes if all 10 are sold, whether they are monetized or not.

 

Isn't it also in part credibility, they permitted the single specimen through on the belief that it was the coin that was accidently shipped overseas to the collecton of King Farouk of Egypt. The Mint receive half of the 8 million it sold for. Someone paid 8 million on the belief it was the only specimen permitted to be legally owned and sold. If the Mint permitted these coins to be legally owned, do they set a precident, and also devalue the coin that was previously sold?

 

[MarkFeld]

I had heard from a reliable source that the 1933 gold coins would not be melted, no matter what the outcome.

Of that I am pretty sure. The govt stands to make millions (tens of millions ?) in auction fees and/or taxes if all 10 are sold, whether they are monetized or not.

 

Isn't it also in part credibility, they permitted the single specimen through on the belief that it was the coin that was accidently shipped overseas to the collecton of King Farouk of Egypt. The Mint receive half of the 8 million it sold for. Someone paid 8 million on the belief it was the only specimen permitted to be legally owned and sold. If the Mint permitted these coins to be legally owned, do they set a precident, and also devalue the coin that was previously sold?

 

I don't recall the precise language used when the 1933 Saint was auctioned. But my recollection is that it was ambiguus with respect to any promises not to legalize other examples in the future. Besides, it appears that ultimately, it's the court's decision, anyway.

[jpcienkus]

I understand where you are coming from, you are probably law abiding but don't like to be intimidated by authorities. There are ways to fight back legally, I have seen plenty of people though who did not have the law on their side when they ended up in court. Video surveillance has become a good tool both for documenting crime as well as police who overstep their authority.

 

I had a couple dozen acres in northern Vermont once; the threat was more from a dangerous felon who was a neighbor than the sheriff/state police who were pretty useless. It made it impossible for me to make good use of the land.

 

Probably the lawyers advising have seen scores of cases like this that did not work out that great. There was a major currency collection that was found in Massachusetts a few years ago, in a barn if I remember right. It is still tied up in the courts. Too bad the courts allow things to drag on for so long. Maybe our legal system is just too broken for remedy, and needs an overhaul.

 

Absolutely agree with this assessment as well. We no longer have swift justice and the lawyers are typically the only ones to make out financially. Companies carry "slush" funds on the books just to settle frivolous lawsuits. It's cheaper than litigating it. It's really a shame.

 

IMO, this is one of the big problems when you have lawyers making laws. Most politicians are lawyers. It's like the fox running the hen house.

 

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I have to believe the couple that found the hoard needed time to seek the correct counsel before moving forward. Being in a remote area, the search could have taken months until they felt comfortable with a lawyer. Then months while the lawyer peforms the due diligence on both the previous land owners and trying to understand discretely how a hoard of coins came to be buried in the ground. It doesn't surprise me that from the time they found the coins early last year, until the time the were graded and in holders took the better part of one year.

 

Most politicians are lawyers"? Really? Upon what did you base that statement? Thanks.

 

Do I need to anwer your question now or will Mr. Curlis' data suffice?

[MarkFeld]

I understand where you are coming from, you are probably law abiding but don't like to be intimidated by authorities. There are ways to fight back legally, I have seen plenty of people though who did not have the law on their side when they ended up in court. Video surveillance has become a good tool both for documenting crime as well as police who overstep their authority.

 

I had a couple dozen acres in northern Vermont once; the threat was more from a dangerous felon who was a neighbor than the sheriff/state police who were pretty useless. It made it impossible for me to make good use of the land.

 

Probably the lawyers advising have seen scores of cases like this that did not work out that great. There was a major currency collection that was found in Massachusetts a few years ago, in a barn if I remember right. It is still tied up in the courts. Too bad the courts allow things to drag on for so long. Maybe our legal system is just too broken for remedy, and needs an overhaul.

 

Absolutely agree with this assessment as well. We no longer have swift justice and the lawyers are typically the only ones to make out financially. Companies carry "slush" funds on the books just to settle frivolous lawsuits. It's cheaper than litigating it. It's really a shame.

 

IMO, this is one of the big problems when you have lawyers making laws. Most politicians are lawyers. It's like the fox running the hen house.

 

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I have to believe the couple that found the hoard needed time to seek the correct counsel before moving forward. Being in a remote area, the search could have taken months until they felt comfortable with a lawyer. Then months while the lawyer peforms the due diligence on both the previous land owners and trying to understand discretely how a hoard of coins came to be buried in the ground. It doesn't surprise me that from the time they found the coins early last year, until the time the were graded and in holders took the better part of one year.

 

Most politicians are lawyers"? Really? Upon what did you base that statement? Thanks.

 

Do I need to anwer your question now or will Mr. Curlis' data suffice?

 

It sufficed for me and indicated that most politicians are not lawyers. But does it suffice for you?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It does, in fact, include all members with a Law Degree, and regardless of whether they call themselves Ranchers/Doctors/Soldiers/ CowPlop Tossers, or anything else.I like people challenging me. It is like the smell of Napalm in the morning.....

 

You sure about that ? I believe Members can list whatever their profession is.

 

Someone who's a laywer may elect to call themselves a 'community organizer' for example.

 

I'm easy. You can be right and win.

 

I don't google. I have a bad habit of reading the Congressional Record. I am sure I am wrong. I am sorry.

 

I hope your not an Attorney, though, because if you are and didn't know what ATS means before you asked the question, boy are you in trouble around here (excused if you failed certain 2nd yr. classes, though)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Oh, and that is "you are" not "your"- I don't want my Friend of the Court Brief thrown out.

[jpcienkus]

I understand where you are coming from, you are probably law abiding but don't like to be intimidated by authorities. There are ways to fight back legally, I have seen plenty of people though who did not have the law on their side when they ended up in court. Video surveillance has become a good tool both for documenting crime as well as police who overstep their authority.

 

I had a couple dozen acres in northern Vermont once; the threat was more from a dangerous felon who was a neighbor than the sheriff/state police who were pretty useless. It made it impossible for me to make good use of the land.

 

Probably the lawyers advising have seen scores of cases like this that did not work out that great. There was a major currency collection that was found in Massachusetts a few years ago, in a barn if I remember right. It is still tied up in the courts. Too bad the courts allow things to drag on for so long. Maybe our legal system is just too broken for remedy, and needs an overhaul.

 

Absolutely agree with this assessment as well. We no longer have swift justice and the lawyers are typically the only ones to make out financially. Companies carry "slush" funds on the books just to settle frivolous lawsuits. It's cheaper than litigating it. It's really a shame.

 

IMO, this is one of the big problems when you have lawyers making laws. Most politicians are lawyers. It's like the fox running the hen house.

 

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I have to believe the couple that found the hoard needed time to seek the correct counsel before moving forward. Being in a remote area, the search could have taken months until they felt comfortable with a lawyer. Then months while the lawyer peforms the due diligence on both the previous land owners and trying to understand discretely how a hoard of coins came to be buried in the ground. It doesn't surprise me that from the time they found the coins early last year, until the time the were graded and in holders took the better part of one year.

 

Most politicians are lawyers"? Really? Upon what did you base that statement? Thanks.

 

Do I need to anwer your question now or will Mr. Curlis' data suffice?

 

It sufficed for me and indicated that most politicians are not lawyers. But does it suffice for you?

 

most

 

/mōst/

 

determiner & pronoun

 

determiner: most; pronoun: most

 

1. superlative of many, much.

 

2. greatest in amount or degree.

 

"they've had the most success"

 

Based on this definition, the greatest amount of higher education degrees in the Congress and Senate are Law Degrees, so yup, most of them are lawyers.

[GoldFinger1969]

Isn't it also in part credibility, they permitted the single specimen through on the belief that it was the coin that was accidently shipped overseas to the collecton of King Farouk of Egypt. The Mint receive half of the 8 million it sold for. Someone paid 8 million on the belief it was the only specimen permitted to be legally owned and sold. If the Mint permitted these coins to be legally owned, do they set a precident, and also devalue the coin that was previously sold?

 

I don't know if the government signed a statement that they would NEVER consent to monetizing and/or allowing any other 1933's to be legally sold. I'm not sure they could make that promise (they got sideswiped by the Treasury Export Letter so who's to say what evidence another 1933 owner might have ?) and there's always European sales/deals to contend with (though they seem to be mostly very well underground). Maybe they just promised to fight any other 1933's to the best of their ability -- dunno.

 

The owner of the coin probably assumed the risk and if he is wealthy enough to have donated it to the Federal Reserve Bank of NY my guess is the value is immaterial to his net worth. He might even be happy there are going to be 10 more to circulate since having only 1 coin -- and not even in Midtown (it's down in the Wall Street area) -- makes it very inaccessible for many people.

[MarkFeld]

I understand where you are coming from, you are probably law abiding but don't like to be intimidated by authorities. There are ways to fight back legally, I have seen plenty of people though who did not have the law on their side when they ended up in court. Video surveillance has become a good tool both for documenting crime as well as police who overstep their authority.

 

I had a couple dozen acres in northern Vermont once; the threat was more from a dangerous felon who was a neighbor than the sheriff/state police who were pretty useless. It made it impossible for me to make good use of the land.

 

Probably the lawyers advising have seen scores of cases like this that did not work out that great. There was a major currency collection that was found in Massachusetts a few years ago, in a barn if I remember right. It is still tied up in the courts. Too bad the courts allow things to drag on for so long. Maybe our legal system is just too broken for remedy, and needs an overhaul.

 

Absolutely agree with this assessment as well. We no longer have swift justice and the lawyers are typically the only ones to make out financially. Companies carry "slush" funds on the books just to settle frivolous lawsuits. It's cheaper than litigating it. It's really a shame.

 

IMO, this is one of the big problems when you have lawyers making laws. Most politicians are lawyers. It's like the fox running the hen house.

 

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I have to believe the couple that found the hoard needed time to seek the correct counsel before moving forward. Being in a remote area, the search could have taken months until they felt comfortable with a lawyer. Then months while the lawyer peforms the due diligence on both the previous land owners and trying to understand discretely how a hoard of coins came to be buried in the ground. It doesn't surprise me that from the time they found the coins early last year, until the time the were graded and in holders took the better part of one year.

 

Most politicians are lawyers"? Really? Upon what did you base that statement? Thanks.

 

Do I need to anwer your question now or will Mr. Curlis' data suffice?

 

It sufficed for me and indicated that most politicians are not lawyers. But does it suffice for you?

 

most

 

/mōst/

 

determiner & pronoun

 

determiner: most; pronoun: most

 

1. superlative of many, much.

 

2. greatest in amount or degree.

 

"they've had the most success"

 

Based on this definition, the greatest amount of higher education degrees in the Congress and Senate are Law Degrees, so yup, most of them are lawyers.

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

[GoldFinger1969]

I hope your not an Attorney, though, because if you are and didn't know what ATS means before you asked the question, boy are you in trouble around here (excused if you failed certain 2nd yr. classes, though)

 

Took the LSAT's 27 years ago and that's it.

[jpcienkus]

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

 

Frankly Mark, I didn't know if it was a Majority (>50%) or not. I just knew that the highest concentration of degree was "law". It doesn't really matter, I was just having some fun with you. Good to see you on the boards in your spare time. I got a call from Heritage this week asking if there was anything they could do for me, which I thought was nice.

 

Good to see you around. Do you have a law degree?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

 

Frankly Mark, I didn't know if it was a Majority (>50%) or not. I just knew that the highest concentration of degree was "law". It doesn't really matter, I was just having some fun with you. Good to see you on the boards in your spare time. I got a call from Heritage this week asking if there was anything they could do for me, which I thought was nice.

 

Good to see you around. Do you have a law degree?

 

I think this disagreement should be evaluated in a legal manner.

 

A majority in the venue being discussed is not 51%.

 

A good Attorney would have prepared for such an erroneous interpretation of the Facts.

 

Thus, a qualifier was inserted in the Data presented for consideration...namely "2/3 Rule :ohnoez:".

 

The Defendant, Mr. jpcienkus having failed to interpret this conundrum correctly, and having improperly interpreted 37% as a majority of Members,or control of the House of Representatives, by virtue of the 2/3 Rule, leaves me no alternative but to find for Mr. Feld.

 

It is unfortunate that the Defendant failed to use Blacks when explaining a definition, and chose a source not acceptable to the Bench.

 

The Witness for the Defendant, Mr. Goldfinger, is required to pay Court Costs, for his disrespectful answers, designed to interrupt the Proceedings with endless questioning and unsolicited argumentative (without merit) commentary.

 

:acclaim:

[RWB]

The Linedrman sale was postponed, but all the coins were returned. The Attorney General's office said the Director and others acting at his instruction had no cause. I think his language was something like "Go suck a rotten egg" or -- well mauybe the quote is a little off.

 

A similar thing happened in 1910.

[jpcienkus]

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

 

Frankly Mark, I didn't know if it was a Majority (>50%) or not. I just knew that the highest concentration of degree was "law". It doesn't really matter, I was just having some fun with you. Good to see you on the boards in your spare time. I got a call from Heritage this week asking if there was anything they could do for me, which I thought was nice.

 

Good to see you around. Do you have a law degree?

 

I think this disagreement should be evaluated in a legal manner.

 

A majority in the venue being discussed is not 51%.

 

A good Attorney would have prepared for such an erroneous interpretation of the Facts.

 

Thus, a qualifier was inserted in the Data presented for consideration...namely "2/3 Rule :ohnoez:".

 

The Defendant, Mr. jpcienkus having failed to interpret this conundrum correctly, and having improperly interpreted 37% as a majority of Members,or control of the House of Representatives, by virtue of the 2/3 Rule, leaves me no alternative but to find for Mr. Feld.

 

It is unfortunate that the Defendant failed to use Blacks when explaining a definition, and chose a source not acceptable to the Bench.

 

The Witness for the Defendant, Mr. Goldfinger, is required to pay Court Costs, for his disrespectful answers, designed to interrupt the Proceedings with endless questioning and unsolicited argumentative (without merit) commentary.

 

:acclaim:

 

For the record, I didn't use the word majority in my initial post on the matter. I am relieved to know that Mr. GoldFinger will be paying my court costs...

[MarkFeld]

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

 

Frankly Mark, I didn't know if it was a Majority (>50%) or not. I just knew that the highest concentration of degree was "law". It doesn't really matter, I was just having some fun with you. Good to see you on the boards in your spare time. I got a call from Heritage this week asking if there was anything they could do for me, which I thought was nice.

 

Good to see you around. Do you have a law degree?

 

Thank you and ditto. Yes, I got a law degree, but never practiced a day. I went into the coin business about a week after (I am happy to say I passed) my bar exam.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

 

Frankly Mark, I didn't know if it was a Majority (>50%) or not. I just knew that the highest concentration of degree was "law". It doesn't really matter, I was just having some fun with you. Good to see you on the boards in your spare time. I got a call from Heritage this week asking if there was anything they could do for me, which I thought was nice.

 

Good to see you around. Do you have a law degree?

 

I think this disagreement should be evaluated in a legal manner.

 

A majority in the venue being discussed is not 51%.

 

A good Attorney would have prepared for such an erroneous interpretation of the Facts.

 

Thus, a qualifier was inserted in the Data presented for consideration...namely "2/3 Rule :ohnoez:".

 

The Defendant, Mr. jpcienkus having failed to interpret this conundrum correctly, and having improperly interpreted 37% as a majority of Members,or control of the House of Representatives, by virtue of the 2/3 Rule, leaves me no alternative but to find for Mr. Feld.

 

It is unfortunate that the Defendant failed to use Blacks when explaining a definition, and chose a source not acceptable to the Bench.

 

The Witness for the Defendant, Mr. Goldfinger, is required to pay Court Costs, for his disrespectful answers, designed to interrupt the Proceedings with endless questioning and unsolicited argumentative (without merit) commentary.

 

:acclaim:

 

For the record, I didn't use the word majority in my initial post on the matter. I am relieved to know that Mr. GoldFinger will be paying my court costs...

 

"...I didn't know if it was a majority...", thus qualifying your intent of the use of the word "most", and relying on an unacceptable source, instead of Blacks.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

Based on that definition, I agree. And if you are saying that is what you intended to convey, rather than that a majority are lawyers, I will take your word for it.

 

Frankly Mark, I didn't know if it was a Majority (>50%) or not. I just knew that the highest concentration of degree was "law". It doesn't really matter, I was just having some fun with you. Good to see you on the boards in your spare time. I got a call from Heritage this week asking if there was anything they could do for me, which I thought was nice.

 

Good to see you around. Do you have a law degree?

 

Thank you and ditto. Yes, I got a law degree, but never practiced a day. I went into the coin business about a week after (I am happy to say I passed) my bar exam.

 

...and earning you, belatedly, the Title of "Smartest Person in the Class" for walking away.

[wdrob]

Oh, Good! Something I can answer

 

Congress: 43% (of a total of 435)

Senate: 60% (of a total of 100)

House of Reps: 37% (of a total of 535) (2/3 Rule )

 

I will challenge you. Your numbers make no sense unless it is another country you are referencing.

 

Congress is made up of the two houses; The Senate and The House of Representatives..

 

The House of Representatives is set by law to 435 members

The Senate of the United States is comprised of 100 members (2 from each state) with the Vice President being the 101'st if you want to get technical.

 

That adds up to 535 total not 635.

 

Maybe I just don't understand your sophisticated mathematics.

 

That maybe sewage your smelling as napalm has a distinct jellied gasoline smell to it.

 

 

[CSdot]

I had heard from a reliable source that the 1933 gold coins would not be melted, no matter what the outcome.

 

Of that I am pretty sure. The govt stands to make millions (tens of millions ?) in auction fees and/or taxes if all 10 are sold, whether they are monetized or not.

 

IMO, the entire argument that the 8 1933 twenty dollar gold coins entered the public illegally through a Mint employee is absurd. Obviously the jury did not understand that most of our famous coins entered that way. Second, I believe there was testimony at trial to the effect that he was investigated during the 1940s for suspicion by the secret service, but nothing was done. IMO, such testimony was irrelevant and would have a tendency to predudice the jury to a presumption of guilt, rather than evidence, or the lack there of.

 

Unfortunately, juries tend to be comprised of people who can afford to spend weeks or months away from their normal routine, which usually includes individuals who are less knowledgable than the normal workforce.

 

To me, there's nothing difficult in understanding that exchanges were quite common in the 1920's and 1930's and that's most likely how Switt got the coins. But if that got lost in translation or was mixed in with a longer presentation, then I can understand how someone would focus on the 1940's investigation and think "I'm not sure how he got the coins but there was some kind of theft because an investigation followed a decade later."

 

I served on a jury once and the inability to concentrate on the key points and facts and stop daydreaming and focusing on irrelevancies astounded me. Afterwards, the defense lawyer said he was banking on me understanding the mathematics of the accident (it was a construction accident) because he had little faith in the others being able to comprehend how it was key to the defense and central to the case.

 

I am a name partner at decent size multi-state law firm and I can say from experience that 98% of cases settle not because the lawyers think the jury will do the right thing, but rather because they fear that the jury will get it wrong.

[joes2001]

To tell you the truth, I don't care if this couple sells the coins or they get challenged by the gov't or someone else (unlikely now). But, you have to admit that this story is kind of fishy. Don't you think? The only photos we saw were some coins in dirt inside of 2 or three cans. We didn't see all the cans, nor did we see a lot of the coins laid out on a table. Maybe this story was fabricated by some individual, individuals or a firm in order to get publicity, and then they could sell some coins from a supposed hoard. Many of these coins are probably common, and you have to admit that they will get more for these coins than without such a hoard pedigree. After all, the couple is anonymous, so we can't verify this story or anything. Sorry, i'm just naturally very skeptical

[MarkFeld]

To tell you the truth, I don't care if this couple sells the coins or they get challenged by the gov't or someone else (unlikely now). But, you have to admit that this story is kind of fishy. Don't you think? The only photos we saw were some coins in dirt inside of 2 or three cans. We didn't see all the cans, nor did we see a lot of the coins laid out on a table. Maybe this story was fabricated by some individual, individuals or a firm in order to get publicity, and then they could sell some coins from a supposed hoard. Many of these coins are probably common, and you have to admit that they will get more for these coins than without such a hoard pedigree. After all, the couple is anonymous, so we can't verify this story or anything. Sorry, i'm just naturally very skeptical

 

You're skeptical, in part because "The only photos we saw were some coins in dirt inside of 2 or three cans. We didn't see all the cans, nor did we see a lot of the coins laid out on a table"? So what?

 

The story doesn't sound "kind of fishy" to me, just unusual.

[jpcienkus]

To tell you the truth, I don't care if this couple sells the coins or they get challenged by the gov't or someone else (unlikely now). But, you have to admit that this story is kind of fishy. Don't you think? The only photos we saw were some coins in dirt inside of 2 or three cans. We didn't see all the cans, nor did we see a lot of the coins laid out on a table. Maybe this story was fabricated by some individual, individuals or a firm in order to get publicity, and then they could sell some coins from a supposed hoard. Many of these coins are probably common, and you have to admit that they will get more for these coins than without such a hoard pedigree. After all, the couple is anonymous, so we can't verify this story or anything. Sorry, i'm just naturally very skeptical

 

Why is it fishy because you didn't get to see everything? This is a private find, made public, but IMO, that still doesn't entitle us to know every intimate detail.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that someone buried ~$30K worth of gold coins in the ground? There could be so many reasons for doing so.

 

Being skeptical is a good thing at times, but looking for a conspiracy at every turn must be tiring.