The King Farouk coin was apparently one of the 20 or so STOLEN by George McCann in conjunction with his alleged accomplice, Israel Swit.
The coin was apparently purchased privately in the mid 1940s after Swit sold it in 1933 or 1934, at which time the Egyptian government went to the State Department to obtain an export license, which was issued in error.
When the Treasury Department found out about it they prepared a letter to the Egyptian Goverment demanding the coin back as it was stolen property.
The State Department (through whom any such requests had to go) quashed the letter on the grounds that Farouk was too important a Western ally to piss off over what the State Department considered to be such a trivial matter.
Fact: The Treasury Department NEVER stopped considering the Farouk coin to be stolen property.
Fact: When the coin returned to the United States in the 1990s, the Treasury Department and Secret Service seized the coin and arrested those who had it on the grounds that they possessed and were trafficking in stolen property.
Fact: It was only after extensive legal maneuvering that this SOLE example of the 1933 Double Eagle was monetized and allowed to go up for auction. This decision was reached for this coin and this coin only because the State Department had erred and issued an export license for it in the 1940s, giving validity to the claim that the US Government had recognized the coin as being authentic and legal to own.
Fact: Even though this particular coin could not be positively identified as being the one from Farouk's collection, the US Government accepted that premise in the court case that settled the final disposition of the coin.
Fact: The legal disposition for that coin and that coin only has NO bearing on the legal disposition of the remaining Double Eagles, which were, and still are, stolen property.
"Just ask Mike Irwin there, forcing people to hand over all their privately held gold isn't theft"
You DO know what the definition of theft is, don't you?
Wait, let me answer that.... obviously... no.
Theft is depriving someone of something without compensating them for it. Americans were compensated for their gold with notes issued by the Government (yes, yes, I know, FIAT CURRENCY, FIAT CURRENCY BLAH BLAH SQUWAK!!!). Notes that were accepted as legal tender for public and private transactions, just as previously issued bank notes had been. The only difference between a paper $20 note and a gold $20 coin was the composition and the fact that you could no longer exchange that note for an equal monetary value of either gold or silver. As a medium of trade they purchased the exact same quantity of goods or services.
"So - just pay the us.gov back the $20 for each coin and it's all fair and square."
Incorrect. Once again, these coins were never monetized nor were they released for circulation. There is no way to "purchase" them from the Government.
Not sure, not sure at all, why people are having such a ferociously hard time comprehending the rather simple facts surrounding the disposition of these coins, and why it must be perfectly OK to steal, or profit from stolen property, as long as it's "da man" who's getting screwed.
Morality and ethics?
Wow.
