I agree with you law is law, if its up front and written down then it should be abided by, I am with you fully there. Here is a gray area that I am actually reading more into this and there hasn't been any proof of theft other then the fact 400,000 were to be melted down in the 1940s due to the gold standard being swept away by the Feds. So in turn they suspect a theft but can't prove it. The family is claiming this was gifted to the guy by the Mint for some years of service or something to that effect. So what we have here is a split where the actual witness and parties in place are not able to defend themselves. More reading I found out 10 years ago another gentleman in the midwest found the same type of coin, 3 of them in the midwest and the government deemed it his property. So I am lost here, if it was to be melted, the whole of the circulation why in one case was it okay to let them keep the property but in this one its not? This a state to state jurisdiction thing and the MINT being local to this last case had a bit more of a say of theft due to him being employed there?

The compensation side is a no go, they just lost money on the court battle and I guess the Mint will do what it pleases now with the coins, probably hold it or sell it to a collector.

My reasoning on the statute of limitations is the theft side, they are deeming the judgement of an action of original theft as the reason this property is theirs. But it can't be validated by either party so how can a judgement be made? If they are claiming theft the reason which is the case then I am lost on how a judgement can lay claim to who is the actual property owner. For all we know the President gave this guy the coins lol.

I totally get your point though, I view it the same but something smells rotten to me about this case, more because a collector before sold the same coin in the past and no forfeiture came about. I think the Feds are viewing that these coins shouldn't exists but one does in a collection that I found online