United States v. Letter From Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis de Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780
| Citation | 498 F.Supp.3d 158 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-cv-11121-JGD |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. LETTER FROM ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO THE MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE DATED JULY 21, 1780, Defendant. Aldrich L. Boss, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Stewart R. Crane, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through the Massachusetts Archives, Claimants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Carol E. Head, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
This civil forfeiture case concerns an ownership dispute over a letter dated July 21, 1780 from Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis de Lafayette (the "Letter") notifying Lafayette of British troop movements in Rhode Island. The United States of America brings this action for civil forfeiture of the Letter, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). The United States contends that the Letter is a public record belonging to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Commonwealth") that was stolen from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Archives ("the Archives") at some point between 1938 and 1946. It was allegedly purchased by R.E. Crane in around 1945, and resurfaced in 2018, when Crane's heirs sought to sell it at auction. The Letter was seized by, and remains in the possession of, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the "FBI") in Boston, Massachusetts.
The United States alleges that the Letter is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) because there is probable cause to believe that the Letter is property which is derived from proceeds traceable to the interstate transportation of stolen property, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315. (See Docket No. 1, Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem (the "Complaint") ¶¶ 19-22). The Estate of Stewart R. Crane, by and through its personal representative, Aldrich L. Boss, ("the Estate"), filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in the Letter, pursuant to Rule (G)(5)(a)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. (See Docket No. 15, the "Estate Claim"). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts also filed a verified claim alleging an ownership interest in the Letter. (See Docket No. 14, the "Commonwealth Claim").
This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Strike the Claim of the Claimant Aldrich L. Boss as Personal Representative for the Estate of Stewart R. Crane (Docket No. 24) and memorandum of law in support thereof (Docket No. 25, the "USA Mem."), and the Estate's Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff United States of America's Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, Dated May 15, 2019 (Docket No. 28) and memorandum of law in support thereof and in opposition to the USA Motion to Strike (Docket No. 29, the "Estate Mem."). The Commonwealth has also filed a memorandum of law in support of the USA's Motion to Strike and in opposition to the Estate's Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 34, the "Commonwealth Mem."). For the reasons detailed herein, the USA's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 24) is ALLOWED and the Estate's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 28), is DENIED as moot.
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and the parties’ submissions and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.1 The property in dispute is a letter penned by Alexander Hamilton on July 21, 1780 during the Revolutionary War. (Complaint ¶ 1). The Letter was addressed to Lafayette and relayed information concerning British troop movement that could "menace the French fleet and army" in Rhode Island. (USA Mem. at 3). Massachusetts General William Heath forwarded the Letter to the President of the Council for the State of Massachusetts, enclosing with it a letter of his own dated July 25, 1780, and asking the Council to send troops to support the French allies in Rhode Island. (Id.; see also Commonwealth Claim ¶ 4). According to the records of the Massachusetts Council, the request for aid was received on July 26, 1780, and prompted the Council to send military reinforcements to Rhode Island. (Commonwealth Claim ¶ 4). The Commonwealth asserts that "[a]s items from a Massachusetts General in the Continental Army directed to the Massachusetts Counsel, General Heath's correspondence and the enclosed [Letter] were duly received and retained by an administrative division of the Massachusetts government in the normal course of its recordkeeping." (Id. ).
The Letter was apparently in the custody of the Archives as early as 1880, as evidenced by an index of the Archives’ collection during that time. (USA Mem. at 4). The Letter also appeared on the table of contents and attendant name index for Volume 202 of the Massachusetts Archives Collection (SC1/Series 45x), which listed materials contained in the Archives Collection in the mid-19th century. (Commonwealth Claim ¶ 7(b)). It is also undisputed that the Letter remained in the Archives’ possession until at least the 1920's when the Letter was "chosen for reproduction on the basis of [its] historical significance and use" and a photostat copy of the Letter was created and bound within a facsimile of Volume 202 of the Archives’ collection. (USA Mem. at 4; see also Commonwealth Claim ¶ 7(c)). All parties agree that sometime following the creation of the photostat copy, the Letter left the possession of the Archives.
The United States alleges that the Letter, along with other historical documents, were stolen from the Archives between 1937 and 1945 by a former employee. (Complaint ¶ 5). The United States claims that a former Archives employee, who was arrested in 1950, sold various stolen items, including the Letter, to rare document dealers throughout the country. (Id. ¶ 9). On February 27, 1950, the then-Attorney General of Massachusetts sent letters to the New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago police departments alerting them of the theft of the stolen documents and listing "some of the more important and valuable documents" that were compromised. (Commonwealth Claim ¶ 8). The Letter was not specifically named in this correspondence. (Estate Mem. at 5). The thefts were also reported in newspapers both locally and nationally, although, again, the Letter was not specifically referenced among the items listed as stolen. (Commonwealth Claim ¶ 8; Estate Mem. at 5).
The Estate questions whether the Letter was stolen, and instead suggests, without factual support, that the United States and the Commonwealth have "invent[ed] a theft" in order to "cover-up the incompetent management" of the Archives. (Estate Mem. at 1-2). The Estate alleges that R.E. Crane, grandfather of Stewart Crane, purchased the Letter from a reputable rare documents dealer, John Heise Autographs, in Syracuse, New York, in or around 1945. (Id. at 6). The only evidence of this purchase is a post-marked envelope from John Heise Autographs, which the Estate claims contained the Letter which was sent to R.E. Crane in Pennsylvania following his purchase. (Id. ). The United States and the Commonwealth challenge the sufficiency of this proof. The Estate contends further that upon R.E. Crane's death, the Letter was transferred to his son, Robert F. Crane, Sr., who in turn, conveyed the Letter to his son, Stewart Crane, whose Estate held the Letter until it was seized by the FBI in 2018. (Id. at 7).
Following Stewart Crane's death in 2018, his family contracted with an auction house to sell the Letter along with other historical documents. (Estate Mem. at 7). A researcher at the auction house located a copy of the Letter on the archival website, Founders Online, which listed the Letter as "missing" from the Archives. (Complaint ¶¶ 12, 16).2 The auction house then contacted the Archives, and the Archives confirmed that the Letter was stolen from its collection. (Id. ). Upon this discovery, the auction house contacted the FBI, and the Letter was seized shortly thereafter. (Id.; see also Estate Mem. at 7).
Additional facts will be provided below as appropriate.
The United States seeks to strike the Estate's claim to the Letter on the grounds that the Estate lacks standing to intervene in this action. "Standing is a threshold consideration in all cases, including civil forfeiture cases." U.S. v. One-Sixth Share of James J. Bulger In All Present & Future Proceeds of Mass Millions Lottery Ticket No. M246233, 326 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 2003). "In forfeiture cases, the property is the defendant and therefore defenses against forfeiture can only be brought by a third-party intervenor ... who generally must have independent standing." U.S. v. $8,440,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 719 F.3d 49, 57 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing One-Sixth Share of James J. Bulger, 326 F.3d at 40 ). "By virtue of the roots of in rem jurisdiction in admiralty law, the procedures for intervention in civil forfeitures are governed by the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims." One-Sixth Share of James J. Bulger, 326 F.3d at 40-41 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2) (1994) (amended 2000)); see also U.S. v. $80,020.00 in U.S. Currency, 57 F. Supp. 3d 143, 145 (D.P.R. 2014) (). Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i) provides that the United States may move to strike a claim or answer at any time before trial for failing to comply with Rule G(5) or (6) or "because the claimant lacks standing."
"When faced with a motion seeking to strike a claim ... the burden is on the party contesting the forfeiture (the claimant) to establish standing by a preponderance of the evidence." $8,440,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 719 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis De Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780
...rescript, granted the government's motion to strike the Estate's claim. See United States v. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis de Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780, 498 F. Supp. 3d 158, 175 (D. Mass. 2020). The court concluded (as relevant here) that the Letter was a public record, ......
-
United States v. Letter From Alexander Hamilton to Marquis De Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780
...to strike the Estate's claim. See United States v. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis de Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780, 498 F.Supp.3d 158, 175 (D. Mass. 2020). The court concluded (as relevant here) that the Letter was a public record, which could be owned only by the Commonwealt......