gosh darn, not to quibble, but it was 83 years ago today, not 80.
What is always left out of these scare stories is there was no aggressive enforcement whatsoever. And realistically how could there be?
"And realistically how could there be?"If the government does something similar down the road, the "gold certificates" portion would seem to be enforceable, sadly. There are a lot of people with gold EFT's, there's "Goldstar" type holdings as well as Perth Mint certificates. I'm not sure how they could legally force Perth Mint certificate owners to turn over their certificates...but under the current system in which people are being thrown in jail and/or having their money confiscated under "structuring" laws, which are highly subjective- I have faith that the PTB if so determined could snatch anyone's holdings under the flimsiest of contrived legalities."Certificate holding" wording in particular is concerning because there is a paper trail, held by third parties- that can make it easy for government to track down people holding such certificates.So in that regard, if they legally deem even the holding of "certificates" of gold by citizens to be illegal(like back in 33')...they have the paper trail to track down said people/holdings.We've all heard that you should hold your gold personally, but there are many incentives(taxes, storage, etc.) to "own" gold via a variety of "certificates"- and I think that wording would catch a lot of people in their confiscation net.
There would be no need for enforcement in citizen's private homes as any bullion held would be worthless upon attempted use/conversion to cash. How can one use something in public trade that is banned from private ownership?
"How can one use something in public trade that is banned from private ownership?"Setting aside border crossing issues, you can assume that there will always be countries that are gold friendly where you can monetize gold(I know, "monetize gold" sounds redundant, but just sayin').
Were there any prosecutions or confiscations? Court cases?
... a New York attorney, Frederick Barber Campbell, had on deposit at Chase National over 5,000 troy ounces (160 kg) of gold. When Campbell attempted to withdraw the gold, Chase refused, and Campbell sued Chase. A federal prosecutor then indicted Campbell on the following day (September 27, 1933) for failing to surrender his gold. Ultimately, the prosecution of Campbell failed, but the authority of the federal government to seize gold was upheld, and Campbell's gold was confiscated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Prosecutions_related_to_Executive_Order_6102
Have any of you actually read the EO?The EO permits toy to keep 5 1ox coins.Belief is the enemy of knowing
WRONG: people could still have gold dust, gold nuggets and gold jewuely.
Please. I was referring to the EO wording.
Notice the wording---- All "persons" shall......Now go look up the "government" definition of "person".Back then, anyone who knew they were not a person, kept their gold, and they knew how to KEEP it. Campbell's gold was taken because he didn't know how to proceed correctly against the foreign owned, bankrupt corporation known as United States.It was on purpose that FDR did not use words like, man, woman, people......He used "person" because he knew what that word defined and knew most would fall for it. Just like the present times.