Options
Family sues US mint for return of double eagles
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
PHILADELPHIA - A family claims in a federal lawsuit that the U.S. Mint illegally seized 10 gold coins, among the rarest and most valuable in the world, that the family had found among a dead relative's possessions.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, alleges that the Mint violated the Constitution and broke federal forfeiture laws by refusing to return the 1933 coins to the family after confirming their authenticity.
The plaintiffs are seeking immediate return of the "double eagle" coins, said their attorney, Barry H. Berke.
Joan S. Langbord discovered the coins in a safe deposit box belonging to her deceased father, longtime Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, in 2003. She and her sons, Roy and David, are named as plaintiffs in the suit.
In 2002, a 1933 double eagle was sold for $7.59 million - the highest price ever paid for a coin. After a legal battle, the coin dealer was permitted to sell it at auction on the condition he split the proceeds with the Mint.
The suit states that the Langbords were aware of that settlement and contacted the Mint to disclose the coins' existence and "attempt to reach an amicable resolution of any issues that might be raised."
Government officials authenticated the coins but refused to return them and said they must have been stolen from the Philadelphia Mint in the early 1930s because they had never been in circulation, according to the lawsuit.
Switt, who died in 1990, told Secret Service agents in 1944 that he had possessed and sold nine 1933 double eagles, according to the Mint. All were tracked down by the government and destroyed between 1944 and 1952.
Mint officials have said that the coins are so rare that their value could not be calculated. A Mint spokesman declined to comment, saying that the Mint had not yet been officially served.
Defendants named in the suit include the Mint, the Treasury Department, and officials in those agencies.
"The Mint's lawless position is that by merely claiming the coins were somehow removed from the Mint unlawfully in the 1930s, they can take the Langbords' property without proving it in a court of law," Berke said.
Double eagles were first struck in 1850. They are so named because they had a face value of $20, twice the amount of gold coins known as eagles.
The 445,500 coins from 1933, designed by famed sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, were melted into gold bars after President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard.
Two of the coins, which feature a flying eagle on one side and a figure representing liberty on the other, were permitted to be spared from the melting pot and are at the Smithsonian Institution, but a handful of others also mysteriously survived.
The coins at the center of the lawsuit were briefly displayed this summer for an American Numismatic Association's convention in Denver. They have been secured at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, alleges that the Mint violated the Constitution and broke federal forfeiture laws by refusing to return the 1933 coins to the family after confirming their authenticity.
The plaintiffs are seeking immediate return of the "double eagle" coins, said their attorney, Barry H. Berke.
Joan S. Langbord discovered the coins in a safe deposit box belonging to her deceased father, longtime Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, in 2003. She and her sons, Roy and David, are named as plaintiffs in the suit.
In 2002, a 1933 double eagle was sold for $7.59 million - the highest price ever paid for a coin. After a legal battle, the coin dealer was permitted to sell it at auction on the condition he split the proceeds with the Mint.
The suit states that the Langbords were aware of that settlement and contacted the Mint to disclose the coins' existence and "attempt to reach an amicable resolution of any issues that might be raised."
Government officials authenticated the coins but refused to return them and said they must have been stolen from the Philadelphia Mint in the early 1930s because they had never been in circulation, according to the lawsuit.
Switt, who died in 1990, told Secret Service agents in 1944 that he had possessed and sold nine 1933 double eagles, according to the Mint. All were tracked down by the government and destroyed between 1944 and 1952.
Mint officials have said that the coins are so rare that their value could not be calculated. A Mint spokesman declined to comment, saying that the Mint had not yet been officially served.
Defendants named in the suit include the Mint, the Treasury Department, and officials in those agencies.
"The Mint's lawless position is that by merely claiming the coins were somehow removed from the Mint unlawfully in the 1930s, they can take the Langbords' property without proving it in a court of law," Berke said.
Double eagles were first struck in 1850. They are so named because they had a face value of $20, twice the amount of gold coins known as eagles.
The 445,500 coins from 1933, designed by famed sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, were melted into gold bars after President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard.
Two of the coins, which feature a flying eagle on one side and a figure representing liberty on the other, were permitted to be spared from the melting pot and are at the Smithsonian Institution, but a handful of others also mysteriously survived.
The coins at the center of the lawsuit were briefly displayed this summer for an American Numismatic Association's convention in Denver. They have been secured at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky.
0
Comments
<< <i>I sure hope the plaintiffs win. >>
I used to think this way until I read the book "Illegal Tender". They may still get them due to our broken court system, but there is no way Switt got these legally.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Joe
If someone steals something, then passes it down a few generations, even if the current generation did nothing wrong, isn't it still stolen in the first place?
Isn't this like paintings that were taken in WW2 that are being taken away from current owners and given back to the families of those they were taken from? Only difference is the government in place of the original families.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Isn't this like paintings that were taken in WW2 that are being taken away from current owners and given back to the families of those they were taken from? Only difference is the government in place of the original families. >>
These were minted, but not yet issued. There was no law against exchanging older $20 gold pieces for newer $20 gold pieces, 'specially if you had a friend at the Mint. People did it all the time. A jeweler might want a nice shiny one for a necklace.
Stolen is such a terrible word, "exchanged" is much better. Keep in mind, they kept minting these double eagles after the gold ban went into effect. Why? Because no one told them to stop.
If the cashier's box were these were kept wasn't short any gold coins at the time, you might have a tough case in front of a jury to say these were stolen.
Joe
when will they start deciding to reclaim
errors
patterns
1913 nickels
...
<< <i>It sets a bad precedence
when will they start deciding to reclaim
errors
patterns
1913 nickels
... >>
I'd say it would also set a bad precedence if the mint loses.....let's just sue the government for everything.....land, money, etc etc etc. Oh, wait, we already do because we've allowed frivolous lawsuits to happen anyway.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>It sets a bad precedence
when will they start deciding to reclaim
errors
patterns
1913 nickels
... >>
That is apples to oranges compared to the 1933 Saint. Hard for them to call a 1913 Liberty Nickel stolen when they have no record to show they were even made. Same for errors and most patterns were traded to Woodin back in the early 1900's by the mint.
Many 1931 and 1932 Saints were also stolen and distributed by Switt. But since some are legal and there is no way to distinguish them, they do not go after these coins.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
You really have to laugh at this story. I mean, how STUPID could these people be? I don't mean to be rude, but sending those coins to the Mint is the most hilariously stupid move anyone could have dreamed up ...
Surely they knew that these coins were notorious contraband - presumed to be stolen, and illegal to own. Even if the heirs were clueless (which I doubt), the slightest bit of research would have turned up a wealth of information. Did they really think the Mint would say, "Oh, that's nice. Here, you can have them back now."
The only person who has a right to sue is the owner of the one monetized and legalized Farouk specimen. That buyer paid $7+ MM for the rights to a unique coin, and now the Government is parading ten more of them all over the country. Clearly that devalues the one monetized specimen ... its "uniqueness" (outside the two in the Smithsonian) is now severely compromised.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
That may or may not be true at all. It has been said there was a definate window of time where someone could have gone to the mint and purchased these coins from the window for face value which was perfectly legal.
Also, why does the treasury dept. have such a bug up their butt about 1933 double eagles and not several other very rare US issues that were also never legally released for circulation.
<< <i>This is one case I hope the government wins. This is a clear example of an individual with connections receiving special treatment (being allowed to buy the coins long after the recall.) The average American had no opportunity to own these coins. >>
I agree with you.
Stolen is stolen. Time doesn't make it right.
Chapter 1: Discover coins
Chapter 2: Contact same attorney which sued in 2002.
Chapter 3: Take attorney's advice, go to Mint with coins.
Chapter 4: Look horrified as Mint siezes coins
Chapter 5: Sue the government
Chapter 6: Run up legal bills on both sides
Chapter 7: The settlement
Joe
I do believe that they were exchanged for other double eagles.
I also believe that it is total nonsense that the mint can claim they were never issued.
I hope that the coins get returned to the family.
The purchaser of the Stack's/Sotheby coin can sue the mint for damages.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
This type of case is one which will be won or lost, in large part due to the quality of the work product of the lawyers, primarily the lawyers for the Plaintiffs. Since no witness are alive that can take the witness stand and testify to the events in 1933 concerning how these coins left the hands of the mint/govt and ended up in the hands of Mr. Switt, circumstantial evidence will become crucial.
Circumstantial evidence may itself be sparse.
Given a lack of legally admissable evidence, the lawyers will be required to bone up on the federal rules of evidence and case law interpreting same covering topic of the "burden of proof", "burden of persuasion", "burden of going forward", on who these burdens initially rest and the circumstances that will result in these burdens shifting from one party to the other as a trial progresses.
The above "burden" issues will in part be determined by reference to the specific legal claims that have been placed into the lawsuit by the Plaintiff's complaint, by the Defendant's answer to the complaint and by any counter/cross suits that are filed.
What specific legal claims to bring and what denials and affirmative defenses to raise in defense of the plead claims is determined by the substantive law that applies to the dispute [primarily federal and/or state law governing when coinage produced by the mint leaves government ownership enters the public domain; and governing lost, misplaced and abandoned property]. The applicable statutory and case law on these issues must be vast. I expect that legions of lawyers and paralegals for the Plaintiffs have researched, summarized and placed into research memos all of the applicable law for review and analysis by Plaintiff's lead counsel. After doing so, the "A team" as is were, made tactical and strategic decisions on various topics including who to sue, where to sue, when to sue and what types of legal claims to bring in the suit, hoping that their strategies and tactics posture the case in favor of the Plaintiffs.
The best position for the Plaintiffs would be to craft a suit that results in a trial where the burden is on the defendants to prove that the 10 coins never entered the public domain; instead of a trial where the burden is on the Plaintiffs to prove that the 10 coins entered the public domain.
It would also be interesting to be the judge that handles the case. Instead of the usual caseload of boring, arcane stuff, this case would be fun to preside over. If the judge was a coin collector, he or she could command the production of the 10 coins for an "in camera" inspection by the court out of public view in the judge's chambers. What fun to have an opportunity to personally inspect the coins themselves.
As far as making a decision in the case, it would be interesting to see what a judge would do. If the judge views things as a toss up, he or she could decide to split the baby in some manner and then have his or her own research staff dig into the law books to come up with case law that the judge could rely upon in making a decision to split the baby.
By way of analogy, out here in SF, a lawsuit was filed over ownerhip of a Barry Bonds home run ball. One guy caught the ball and had possession of it. The crowd surged, burying the guy. Out of the scrum another guy popped up with possession of the ball (which had been shook loose from the first guy's glove in the scrum). Lawyers battled over ownership of the ball. Both guys got publicity. In the end the court said it could not be determined from the evidence who the owner of the ball was, so the court ordered the ball sold and the proceeds split.
I hope the details of this lawsuit are widely publicized in the coin press and regular press.
1. Wasn't it common practice in early days to give away first strikes as presentation pieces to mint and government officials?
2. According to mint documents all were destroyed, so this must not have been part of the "normal run", goes back to #1. I'm sure even in those days if they accounted for 445,000 coins being melted, thats exactly what was melted. Are these coins higher relief showing that they may have been presentation pieces or proof like?
Were these, being presentation pieces, sitting in the mint for a year or 2 after the original run was destroyed, the mint official sold them to a collector/investor after they were discovered sitting around in the office. There was the Roosevelt exemption on collectable coins during the melt. Since these were the only ones, they would be collectable and exempt from the melt.
I have seen the known couple and they are really, really high grade, but I am nobody who could even make an assumption about grading them.
<< <i>I'm sure even in those days if they accounted for 445,000 coins being melted, thats exactly what was melted. >>
That made me wonder, what if Switt, having handled one and knowing the exact number outstanding was a subject of conjecture, had counterfeits made? Can it be proven whether these 10 are real or not? Wouldn't they have to be compared with the die markers from the real one that is known?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>I do not believe that these coins were stolen.
I do believe that they were exchanged for other double eagles.
I also believe that it is total nonsense that the mint can claim they were never issued.
I hope that the coins get returned to the family.
The purchaser of the Stack's/Sotheby coin can sue the mint for damages. >>
I agree with Julian 100%. It's up to the government to prove the coins were stolen ... mighty tough to do when the books balanced, eh?
I think the plaintiffs know exactly what they are doing.
I always thought this case had a great chance in court.
(if it even goes to court)
<< <i>I do not believe that these coins were stolen.
I do believe that they were exchanged for other double eagles.
I also believe that it is total nonsense that the mint can claim they were never issued.
I hope that the coins get returned to the family.
The purchaser of the Stack's/Sotheby coin can sue the mint for damages. >>
Where does the money come from if the USMint is found liable for any amount of damages? Hmmmm....taxpayers!
While that shouldn't stop a righteous lawsuit, I don't think this is one and I think it is a waste!
Better to have just melted them down and had a few grand worth of gold
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
The gov't has the burden of proof and won't be able to carry it.
Sanction -- (OT but I can't help myself) You do realize, don't you, that the rest of the country feels that the both the state and federal judicial systems in California are whacked? We feel that way because it's so.
<< <i>If they were stolen back then, they're still stolen. Time doesn't change anything. >>
Sure it does. You've never heard of statute of limitations? Theft will absolutely NOT be one of the government's reasons for confiscating these coins. Besides being way outside any statute of limitations, it would be impossible to prove the coins were stolen in a court of law. The witnesses, if any, are probably long dead. They will probably argue that the coins were never monetized and thus are contraband and illegal to possess. Kinda hard to do since there's already one legal one out there.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>If they were stolen back then, they're still stolen. Time doesn't change anything. >>
Sure it does. You've never heard of statute of limitations? Theft will absolutely NOT be one of the government's reasons for confiscating these coins. Besides being way outside any statute of limitations, it would be impossible to prove the coins were stolen in a court of law. The witnesses, if any, are probably long dead. They will probably argue that the coins were never monetized and thus are contraband and illegal to possess. Kinda hard to do since there's already one legal one out there. >>
Statute of limitations is why Switt was never brought up on charges back in '44. There is no such thing as a statute of limitations that will make something stolen suddenly yours to keep.
Maybe to increase the value of his ten?
There is one good point on the other side. The government siezed something without proving it in a court of law. We do live in the US. Put it in the courts, see what happens.
Personally, I think they were stolen. The people getting them out of the mint knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it. That it took 80 years give or take to get caught is irrelevant.
However, I think the 10 coins are historical beyond belief. They clearly exist and really, what's the harm.
Okay, they were stolen from the goverment. Do what they did before. Sell them, and split the profits. Should cover damage to the goverment plus 80 years of interest.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
The Mint clearly would not give the coins back to the family. The Mint clearly would not destroy the coins (at least not until after the courts rule on who the owner is).
By delivering the coins to the Mint, the family can portray themselves and the "good guys" by being up front with the Mint, stating their position that they found the coins in a safe deposit box, that they own the coins and asking the Mint to authenticate same. They can portray the Mint as the "bad guy" by taking the coins, authenticating them and beating up an elderly widow by not giving her father's precious coins back to her.
What would really be interesting would be the existence of a video tape, audio tape or written declaration signed by Mr. Switt that tells the story of how he came into possession of the coins (the 10 coins held by the Mint and all other 1933 Saints he had). Even better would be documentation obtained by Switt in the 1930's from the person(s) at the Mint from whom he acquired the coins that sets forth how he came into possession of same.
The revelation of any such material would send shock waves through the legal case, I assume much like the export license did in the lawsuit over the Farouk coin. You just never know what kind of information is laying around in government archives or in the personal papers of a Philly jeweler.
<< <i>So how come Swift helps the Secret Service track down the nine coins, all the while knowing he has 10 stashed? >>
Switt was not helpful in any way in tracking down any '33 Saint. The Eliasberg coin came from him after the other 9 were confiscated.
<< <i>Okay, they were stolen from the goverment. Do what they did before. Sell them, and split the profits. Should cover damage to the goverment plus 80 years of interest. >>
That would certainly result in a legitimate lawsuit since the Government has stated that the "Farouk" coin is the only one that will ever be available to the public.
<< <i>I wish they'd get this over with already. I need to buy the dang coins!!!!!
I have always felt it was only a matter of time before they get sold. Its just a matter of how the proceeds are split. >>
Laura, if they keep coming up out of the woodwork (hey look, I have ten too!) you'll be able to buy them on the cheap pretty soon. Say, less than a million a piece!
Besides, possession is nine-tenths of the law !!!
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
I agree with you that California Courts (state and fed, particularly the 9th Cir. Court Of Appeals) are viewed by many as being out of whack (including people in California). However, in the area that I practice (real estate and commercial litigation matters primarily), on the whole the court system works fairly well to provide parties to a dispute a forum in which they can bring their disputes and resolve same (through mediation, which is oftern very successful, or through a trial).
I may be biased and jaded in my point of view, but our justice system and our system of laws is pretty darn good compared to those present in other parts of the world. Our system of laws and our justice system is in large part responsible for the USA having the freedoms, material comforts and opportunities that are available to all persons in this country.
OK I will step off my soap box at this time.
Again, this case should really be fun to follow.
<< <i>Sorry Mark, I don't think so. I think the family blundered and was not expecting things to play out quite the way they have. Oh yes, someone might have foolishly advised them that sending the coins to the Mint would give the appearance of voluntarily surrendering them in good faith, or better yet, creating the illusion that the family had no idea that these coins were ill-gotten, and therefore they should have untainted title. That is laughable. Their attorney should be fired; the Government's position has been crystal clear, regardless of whether we agree with it.
Besides, possession is nine-tenths of the law !!!
Best,
Sunnywood >>
Wow - I have to disagree 100%. The family has a very strong legal case in my mind. This country is founded upon our individual rights. The government cannot confiscate private property without just compensation. Despite the fact the government holds the coins, possession is clearly in favor of the family. Unless the government can prove the coins were stolen, they should be returned.
Bottom line, no reason exists that justifies having these coins destroyed. They should be placed in the public domain so that they can be bought, sold and owned in the private sector.
Have the purchaser of the Farouk specimen intervene in the new lawsuit to assert his claims for damages against the government. In that way all affected parties can be forced to a mediation, with the result being a settlement that sells the coins and splits the proceeds between the govt, Switt's family and the Faouk purchaser.
Once this is done and the coins are placed in the market, we can watch and see which forumite with deep pockets snags the first one put up for sale.
Talk about a fun thread that can be posted by the buyer titled "How do you like my new Saint?; What do you think it will grade?".
<< <i>These were minted, but not yet issued. There was no law against exchanging older $20 gold pieces for newer $20 gold pieces, 'specially if you had a friend at the Mint. People did it all the time. A jeweler might want a nice shiny one for a necklace.
Stolen is such a terrible word, "exchanged" is much better. Keep in mind, they kept minting these double eagles after the gold ban went into effect. Why? Because no one told them to stop.
If the cashier's box were these were kept wasn't short any gold coins at the time, you might have a tough case in front of a jury to say these were stolen. >>
I think PhillyJoe makes some very good points here. I believe that other $20 gold pieces were exchanged for the 1933's. At the Mint's exhibit at the Denver ANA, they claimed that the 1933 $20's were obtained by switching them for other $20 gold pieces. Since the government at the time contended that all had equal value, any one $20 gold piece was worth the same as any other, therefore there was no monetary loss to the government at the time from this "switching". If there is no monetary loss to the government at the time, how can this be stealing? When the 1933 $20's were melted, the amount of gold that was obtained equaled the amount of gold that they expected to obtain. Plus, if the 1933 $20's were stolen, where is the crime report? Also, there was a time of about 3 weeks between when they started to mint the 1933 $20's, and when the gold ownership ban was announced. Anyone could have come into the Mint during that time and purchased a 1933 $20 legally.
I understand why some on the Forum want to not reward the family for having the 1933 double eagles. However, IMO just claiming the 1933 $20's were stolen is much different than proving it, particularly when the government's own statements (i.e., "the coins were switched") seem to contradict this. Therefore, I hope the family wins this case and the 10 1933 $20's are returned to them. Then Saintguru and Laura can buy some of them!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Plaintiffs...checkmate ..... Langbord wins; Berke gets a 1933 pocket piece; Stacks auctions more 1933 Saints; TDN finally succumbs to the pull of the SG; and, Saintguru figures out financing on his last Saint Gaudens.
As far as the statute of limitations....that has nothing to do with this case. It is not a criminal trial against someone for the original theft. I suppose if they wanted to press the issue, they could try and charge the family with Receiving Stolen Property but again, they'd have to prove the coins were stolen.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. I too find it hard to believe that an attorney would tell these people to take these coins to the Gov't and let them authenticate them but there can be no other explanation. There has to be some sinister plan on his part where he knew that this would happen and would use it against them.
I look for the family to have some sort of crucial piece of evidence, whether it be a receipt from the mint or something along those lines, that will ultimately crush the Govt's case. I think the lawyer and the family are (as we say in Spades) "Passing Dirty".
<< <i>Sorry Mark, I don't think so. I think the family blundered and was not expecting things to play out quite the way they have. Oh yes, someone might have foolishly advised them that sending the coins to the Mint would give the appearance of voluntarily surrendering them in good faith, or better yet, creating the illusion that the family had no idea that these coins were ill-gotten, and therefore they should have untainted title. That is laughable. Their attorney should be fired; the Government's position has been crystal clear, regardless of whether we agree with it.
Besides, possession is nine-tenths of the law !!!
Best,
Sunnywood >>
Sunnywood, if you were providing legal representation to the family, how would you have advised them to handle the situation?
<<That would certainly result in a legitimate lawsuit since the Government has stated that the "Farouk" coin is the only one that will ever be available to the public.>>
Actually, I can't find where the government ever made that specific representation.
<<I too find it hard to believe that an attorney would tell these people to take these coins to the Gov't and let them authenticate them but there can be no other explanation.>>
Why? What else could they have done (other than risk trying to sell the coins secretly) that would have given them a chance to benefit from the value of the coins?
<< <i>Were they or were they not illegal to own or possess? >>
No one knows for sure since they aren't in a First Strike™ slab........