On Feb 13, 11:21 pm, "Arizona Coin Collector"
wrote:
FROM:http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=54792
Fugitive's Safe Deposit Box Yields $400K in Gold
Loomis' company is accused of running a
multi-million dollar real estate Ponzi scheme ...

Stories like this are usually pretty much what they seem to be, prima
facie. That said, all of these allegations by prosecutors remain to
be proved. Prosecutors get their ducks in a row before sending a
trained and educated media spokesperson to meet the press, prosecutors
themselves, of course, being skilled at presentations. Their accuseds
(from any walk of life) typically are not -- and certainly do not have
-- public affairs specialists to make their case for them
contemporaneous with the prosecutor's announcements.

Armed with a search warrant, federal agents opened
the box Friday and discovered 276 gold coins worth
an estimated $413,000. They also found $7,500 in cash.

Consider the gold coins in the safe deposit box. How was their value
determined?
$413.000 divided by 276 coins is about $1500 each. What do Mint State
double eagles go for, the ones "from the days of the California Gold
Rush." What was the inventory, actually, and who evaluated it?

That the accused are suspected of wrong-doing is pretty clear. My own
experience and education tell me to be as cautious about this as I
would be about the grade of a coin in a plastic holder.

During his week-long globetrotting adventure,
federal authorities believe Warren stashed some of
the proceeds from his illegal activity-- including
as much as $5 million in gold.

Again, based on what? What basis do they have for making the claim in
the first place? With "Ponzi Scheme" being a buzz word, any failed
investment can be tarred with the brush. Investments entail risks.

Since 2005, I have been researching "wildcat" banking in the
1830s-1850s and even a Krause press release for their catalog of
obsoletes calls a failed bank a "fraud" -- though we don't apply that
word to failed _farms_ from the same era.

I think that there can be no more easily arguable (though unproved)
case than Bernard Madoff. Yet, the facts are slow to come out.
Hadassah originally claimed a $90 million loss... then a $130 million
gain. (In fact, if this was a "Ponzi Scheme" then should not the
original and long-time investors, such as Hadassah, be required to pay
back the recent victims. I mean, that's how a Ponzi Scheme works,
right? Some people made a lot of money right away. So, what's their
culpability? We never ask. However, I assert that a true scholar and
judge like "Rashi" -- Rabbi Shlomo Itzakh of 12 century Troyes --
could consider that question.) So, too, in this case. If this was a
Ponzi Scheme, then there are early investors who "made out like
bandits" you might say...

Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Rational skepticism."