we tried to come up with a "Hamilton" reference
but have not seen the show
The Crane family has, for decades, had in their possession -- if not their outright ownership -- the "Hamilton Letter," which Alex wrote to no less than the Marquis de Lafayette 1780.
Ownership, however, seems to be disputed, and Massachusetts claims that as a "public record," it owned and once possessed the letter, which it alleges was five-finger discounted by a "kelptomaniac cataloger" at the Commonwealth's Archives back in the 1940s. The Cranes argue they purchased the letter "from a reputable antiques dealer in Syracuse," are bona-fide purchasers for value, and that the letter has been with the family ever since.
Until the day, that is, that the feds, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a Virginia federal court, grabbed it. The Cranes had put the letter up for sale at a Virginia auction house. According to the Cranes, the Massachusetts federal court that considered the forfeiture action held argument on who owed what, but that "[n]o testimony was taken, nor exhibits entered into evidence." The court ruled for Massachusetts.
The First Circuit affirmed. Under Massachusetts law, the letter was once a Massachusetts "public record," the Commonwealth cannot lose ownership merely because a private party bought it.
Next up, the Crane's cert petition, which argues that the First Circuit misunderstood Massachusetts' public record laws, and that as an "innocent owner" under the federal forfeiture statute.
But, you ask, where's the takings arguments? After all, the Question Presented pleads the Fifth Amendment front and center:
Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause permits the establishment of a new category of property for forfeiture purposes in the form of a perpetual “public record,” thereby, allowing the Government to seize the Letter from Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis De Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780 (“Hamilton Letter”), after said Hamilton Letter was no longer possessed by any governmental entity, without any evidence produced or demonstrating the Hamilton Letter was ever stolen, to avoid standing of the Petitioners.Whether the innocent owner defense should have applied since Petitioners held the Hamilton Letter through a bona fide purchaser for value.
The petition itself, however, doesn't really make takings arguments but limits the claims to those noted above and this: "This Court should grant review, hold that the Takings Clause should not be expanded to include a new category of property, exempt from forfeiture protections, and reaffirm that the federal courts bear 'the duty to safeguard and enforce the right of every citizen.'" Pet. at 22 (citation omitted).
Nonetheless, a very interesting case, wouldn't you agree? More on the First Circuit's ruling here ("Alexander Hamilton letter at center of legal fight returned").
Follow along here or on the Court's e-docket.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Boss v. United States, No. 21-2061 (U.S. Jan. 3, 2022)
