@Batman23 said:
One never really knows what number half was...
5 would have been believable without inviting further suspicion.
So would ONE. And that's what they would have received from my family after we emptied the safe deposit box of the other 9 coins in our possession that we inherited and then put other things into it for "safekeeping" just in case the box was opened by anyone who had no need to check the family's personal stuff in the land of the free.
PS I'll LMAO at any sensitive, do-good, C. pinko posting here who has not broken some law or other! Remember, none of us knows the "TRUE" story - only its sad outcome for this honest and ill-advised family.
Agreed if my last name was Smif instead of Langbord. Joe Smif turning one in would likely not conjure up further inquisitiveness whereas a Langbord turning one in likely would. YMMV
NOT UNTIL AFTER he turned the first one over! Until then he was just as Joe Nobody with a famous (?) relative to the government.
Was the store ever searched by the Feds before the Langbords discovered the coins? Seems to me like it was or it may have been SDBs in other banks.
@CaptHenway said:
Possibly. Comments said in jest (in threads I participated in) were presented as solemn testimony. The government played hardball, and won, even though it totally screwed the pooch with its CAFRA default.
Agree it’s a possibility. I’m sure it was hard to imagine how the posts would be used when first making them. The quote was particularly damaging because it was specifically about using the responsibility of an expert witness to obfuscate facts. I wonder if he ever thought he would become an expert witness and if Berke was informed of the posts before they were introduced in court. It’s interesting that posts here may have had such a huge impact on the hobby, not only the coins in the case but potentially any other coins that may be out there.
Part of me feels the coins didn’t get a fair hearing because of the expert witness credibility issue, and the impact goes beyond the Langbords’ coins to any other coins that may be out there. I wonder if the coins would have been deemed legal if the posts were never made or if another expert witness had been chosen. It’s a bit sobering to think about.
I also think we may have been a bit too focused on CAFRA here. With the government’s theft argument, CAFRA didn’t apply.
@SanctionII said:
Even if the jury decided the trial in favor of the Langbords the government would have appealed and as we saw the En Banc panel of the Court Of Appeal ruled in favor of the government. Thereafter the Supreme Court declined to review the case.
But that was heavily dependent on the district court's finding of facts. If the jury made a finding of fact that the coins could have left the Mint legally and legitimately, the case would have ended there and in the Langboard's favor. I cannot see a federal judge setting aside a jury verdict like that nor can I see the Third Circuit reversing on something like that.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Put it in the same place that the DEs were. Draw on it as or if needed. No need to do anything else with it.
Interesting how cavalier some people here are with breaking the law. Not sure I'd want any of you in my store or near my collection. You very glibly justify theft and tax fraud.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Stuff a wall safe, buy precious stones, take payment in (_________). The problem with crooks who come into large amounts of money is they spend it all at once.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Put it in the same place that the DEs were. Draw on it as or if needed. No need to do anything else with it.
That assumes each will be bought for cash (6 to 7 figures each) and that you want to leave it in cash and use slowly. What good is that even if you could? You really can't do much but small purchases and it is getting harder every day to use cash and accounts would be watched. Using cash would draw suspicion given that the Langbords would have already been under suspicion by divulging one or more.
Mr. Langbord, you paid $150 in cash for those groceries, but, your bank account does not show a withdraw of that much cash, where did you get it, hmmm......?
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Stuff a wall safe, buy precious stones, take payment in (_________). The problem with crooks who come into large amounts of money is they spend it all at once.
Hmm... Big Brother is watching and they would be under suspicion. Not sure they could pull it off.
@jmlanzaf said:
Interesting how cavalier some people here are with breaking the law. Not sure I'd want any of you in my store or near my collection. You very glibly justify theft and tax fraud.
I speed on the highway. I'm a lawbreaker on a daily basis. Nevertheless, you can trust me to treat your coins as if that corroded, VG 1895 nickel was my own and worth a million dollars!
@jmlanzaf said:
Interesting how cavalier some people here are with breaking the law. Not sure I'd want any of you in my store or near my collection. You very glibly justify theft and tax fraud.
I speed on the highway. I'm a lawbreaker on a daily basis. Nevertheless, you can trust me to treat your coins as if that corroded, VG 1895 nickel was my own and worth a million dollars!
Except it's a beautiful 1885 nickel fresh out of China. You might be tempted to try to get the high end counterfeit off the domestic market.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Stuff a wall safe, buy precious stones, take payment in (_________). The problem with crooks who come into large amounts of money is they spend it all at once.
Hmm... Big Brother is watching and they would be under suspicion. Not sure they could pull it off.
@jmlanzaf said:
Interesting how cavalier some people here are with breaking the law. Not sure I'd want any of you in my store or near my collection. You very glibly justify theft and tax fraud.
I speed on the highway. I'm a lawbreaker on a daily basis. Nevertheless, you can trust me to treat your coins as if that corroded, VG 1895 nickel was my own and worth a million dollars!
Except it's a beautiful 1885 nickel fresh out of China. You might be tempted to try to get the high end counterfeit off the domestic market.
Nope, fakes are returned to the submitter as it's their property.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Agreed, any deposit at the $10k threshold or a series totaling that amount or more in a certain time period prompts the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the U.S. Department of Treasury. It is also a federal crime (called structuring) to even try to spread out the deposits to avoid SAR reporting. If you used it to buy other expensive assets, you would also be subject to SAR reporting and investigation. Even throwing it into bullion would be risky as a provision of the Patriot Act requires that a purchase of five (I think) or more must be reported to keep bullion coins from being used by terrorists or some other excuse. Five 1933 saints would generate far too much money to easily conceal as cash IMHO.
Edit: Info is a little dated, see subsequent post below.
@jmlanzaf said:
Interesting how cavalier some people here are with breaking the law. Not sure I'd want any of you in my store or near my collection. You very glibly justify theft and tax fraud.
I speed on the highway. I'm a lawbreaker on a daily basis. Nevertheless, you can trust me to treat your coins as if that corroded, VG 1895 nickel was my own and worth a million dollars!
Except it's a beautiful 1885 nickel fresh out of China. You might be tempted to try to get the high end counterfeit off the domestic market.
Nope, fakes are returned to the submitter as it's their property.
Too bad the Langbords didn't have 10 1933 Double Eagle fakes. Oops, smoe schmuck cheated ol Uncle Izzy.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Agreed, any deposit at the $10k threshold or a series totaling that amount or more in a certain time period prompts the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the U.S. Department of Treasury. It is also a federal crime (called structuring) to even try to spread out the deposits to avoid SAR reporting. If you used it to buy other expensive assets, you would also be subject to SAR reporting and investigation. Even throwing it into bullion would be risky as a provision of the Patriot Act requires that a purchase of five (I think) or more must be reported to keep bullion coins from being used by terrorists or some other excuse. Five 1933 saints would generate far too much money to easily conceal as cash IMHO.
Incorrect. Cash transactions of $10K or more require the filing with the IRS of a form 8300. These are filed routinely but rarely acted upon. A couple levels under $10K I think $5K requires a bank to record it, but not report it. A SAR is filed at the discretion of the bank if they think something funny is going on. I'm told these don't get blown off.
There is no limit on sales of AGEs as far as reporting goes.
Note that the Patriot Act is not mentioned in the linked article tho one could contact them about it if desired.
Large sums of cash isn't anything I'll ever have to worry unless I make killing in the stock market or win smoe lottery money. In either case it will be legit and what I do with cash withdrawn after that is nobody's concern.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Agreed, any deposit at the $10k threshold or a series totaling that amount or more in a certain time period prompts the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the U.S. Department of Treasury. It is also a federal crime (called structuring) to even try to spread out the deposits to avoid SAR reporting. If you used it to buy other expensive assets, you would also be subject to SAR reporting and investigation. Even throwing it into bullion would be risky as a provision of the Patriot Act requires that a purchase of five (I think) or more must be reported to keep bullion coins from being used by terrorists or some other excuse. Five 1933 saints would generate far too much money to easily conceal as cash IMHO.
Incorrect. Cash transactions of $10K or more require the filing with the IRS of a form 8300. These are filed routinely but rarely acted upon. A couple levels under $10K I think $5K requires a bank to record it, but not report it. A SAR is filed at the discretion of the bank if they think something funny is going on. I'm told these don't get blown off.
There is no limit on sales of AGEs as far as reporting goes.
Note that the Patriot Act is not mentioned in the linked article tho one could contact them about it if desired.
The dollar thresholds for mandatory reporting may have changed, but the point stands:
Currency activity reports. Most vendors offer reports that identify all currency activity or currency activity greater than $10,000. These reports assist bankers with filing CTRs and identifying suspicious currency activity. Most bank information service providers offer currency activity reports that can filter transactions using various parameters, for example:
Currency activity including multiple transactions greater than $10,000.
Currency activity (single and multiple transactions) below the $10,000 reporting requirement (e.g., between $7,000 and $10,000).
Currency transactions involving multiple lower dollar transactions (e.g., $3,000) that over a period of time (e.g., 15 days) aggregate to a substantial sum of money (e.g., $30,000).
Currency transactions aggregated by customer name, tax identification number, or customer information file number.
Such filtering reports, whether implemented through a purchased vendor software system or through requests from information service providers, will significantly enhance a bank’s ability to identify and evaluate unusual currency transactions.
And the SAR mandatory filing requirements:
Banks, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries are required by federal regulations53 to file a SAR with respect to:
Criminal violations involving insider abuse in any amount.
Criminal violations aggregating $5,000 or more when a suspect can be identified.
Criminal violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect.
Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more, if the bank or affiliate knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction:
May involve potential money laundering or other illegal activity (e.g., terrorism financing).54
Is designed to evade the BSA or its implementing regulations.55
Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the type of transaction that the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
@Insider2 said:
What would I do with the other nine?
Mark, this is a very disappointing question. You are an "insider." Nevertheless, I'll humor you. I'll bet I or many folks here could dispose of all 9 1933 Saints in 5 minutes if we were not concerned with getting top dollar. LOL!
Don't answer this but I would make you a deal you couldn't refuse just to make my point. FIVE MINUTES or less! Just because I like you.
In truth, if I owned nine after losing the case, I would keep two for a rainy day and "place" the rest into strong and well vetted hands a reasonable price that would guarantee the buyer a profit.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Agreed, any deposit at the $10k threshold or a series totaling that amount or more in a certain time period prompts the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the U.S. Department of Treasury. It is also a federal crime (called structuring) to even try to spread out the deposits to avoid SAR reporting. If you used it to buy other expensive assets, you would also be subject to SAR reporting and investigation. Even throwing it into bullion would be risky as a provision of the Patriot Act requires that a purchase of five (I think) or more must be reported to keep bullion coins from being used by terrorists or some other excuse. Five 1933 saints would generate far too much money to easily conceal as cash IMHO.
Incorrect. Cash transactions of $10K or more require the filing with the IRS of a form 8300. These are filed routinely but rarely acted upon. A couple levels under $10K I think $5K requires a bank to record it, but not report it. A SAR is filed at the discretion of the bank if they think something funny is going on. I'm told these don't get blown off.
There is no limit on sales of AGEs as far as reporting goes.
Note that the Patriot Act is not mentioned in the linked article tho one could contact them about it if desired.
The dollar thresholds for mandatory reporting may have changed, but the point stands:
Currency activity reports. Most vendors offer reports that identify all currency activity or currency activity greater than $10,000. These reports assist bankers with filing CTRs and identifying suspicious currency activity. Most bank information service providers offer currency activity reports that can filter transactions using various parameters, for example:
Currency activity including multiple transactions greater than $10,000.
Currency activity (single and multiple transactions) below the $10,000 reporting requirement (e.g., between $7,000 and $10,000).
Currency transactions involving multiple lower dollar transactions (e.g., $3,000) that over a period of time (e.g., 15 days) aggregate to a substantial sum of money (e.g., $30,000).
Currency transactions aggregated by customer name, tax identification number, or customer information file number.
Such filtering reports, whether implemented through a purchased vendor software system or through requests from information service providers, will significantly enhance a bank’s ability to identify and evaluate unusual currency transactions.
And the SAR mandatory filing requirements:
Banks, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries are required by federal regulations53 to file a SAR with respect to:
Criminal violations involving insider abuse in any amount.
Criminal violations aggregating $5,000 or more when a suspect can be identified.
Criminal violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect.
Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more, if the bank or affiliate knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction:
May involve potential money laundering or other illegal activity (e.g., terrorism financing).54
Is designed to evade the BSA or its implementing regulations.55
Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the type of transaction that the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
A currency transaction involving a few million will certainly trigger a SAR filing.
Only a dolt would deposit a million in cash unless they can show that it was obtained lawfully such as a lottery win. Or large amounts of cash from a casino. If I get a payroll deposit of $10K per week then whose business is it if I withdraw cash on a weekly basis.
People are assuming that a buyer of one of those coins would complete the transaction in a few days which may or may not be the case.
Also unless they were desperate, the Langbords or whomever would be smart to hire someone else to broker the sale and give them say 18 months to raise the CASH.
How do drug dealers manage to acquire such large amounts of cash? Some get caught with it but many do not. I assume a lot of it starts with small cash sales at the street level. If you can believe some of those pics from one of those Guzman locations he had many millions in U. S. $100 bills.
Having $250K in cash to spend off slowly is a problem I wouldn't mind having. I know someone who won a large jackpot at a casino and took it in cash because he didn't "put a check in the machine".
If you ever get audited by the IRS they might get your bank records and ask you to "splain" any deposits that were not regular like say a payroll deposit.
@BillJones said:
A better strategy would have been to have submitted one and held the other 9 back. If the one failed, melt the other 9. At least they would have over $10,000 worth of gold.
Would that have been legal?
Well....they aren’t coins, right?
No. They weren't very good bargaining chips, either.
These "rounds" are part of America's history, and are either a valuable reminder of governmental abuse of power, or conversely, how dogged the Feds and the judicial system are to get things right.
Personally, I look at it as the former of the two.
Here's an excerpt of the closing statement by the government. If the jury believed the government lawyer's closing statements then it seems to follow they didn't believe there was a legal way the coins could have been distributed.
Romero spent the last five minutes of the day responding to Berke with a patriotic and common-sense-based approach. She helped clarify the jury’s task by telling them a story, placing them in a kitchen with a cookie in a jar, and a single entrance to the kitchen. Joe goes in, he leaves and there is no cookie. You don’t know how it was taken, whether Joe used his right or left hand, whether there was an “army of mice.” But, you know it’s gone. Romero tied it into the case, stating, “Israel Switt took the cookie.”
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the closing statement by the government. If the jury believed the government lawyer's closing statements then it seems to follow they didn't believe there was a legal way the coins could have been distributed.
Romero spent the last five minutes of the day responding to Berke with a patriotic and common-sense-based approach. She helped clarify the jury’s task by telling them a story, placing them in a kitchen with a cookie in a jar, and a single entrance to the kitchen. Joe goes in, he leaves and there is no cookie. You don’t know how it was taken, whether Joe used his right or left hand, whether there was an “army of mice.” But, you know it’s gone. Romero tied it into the case, stating, “Israel Switt took the cookie.”
The problem with the analogy is that there was supposedly a meticulous inventory kept of the “cookies” and none were reported missing or stolen. Additionally, there were times when other “cookies“ of equal value could be legally exchanged in the “kitchen”. In fact, it wasn’t particularly unusual for such exchanges to take place, and without written records of such.
For me, it’s as easy or easier to believe that the cookies were exchanged than it is that they were stolen.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the closing statement by the government. If the jury believed the government lawyer's closing statements then it seems to follow they didn't believe there was a legal way the coins could have been distributed.
Romero spent the last five minutes of the day responding to Berke with a patriotic and common-sense-based approach. She helped clarify the jury’s task by telling them a story, placing them in a kitchen with a cookie in a jar, and a single entrance to the kitchen. Joe goes in, he leaves and there is no cookie. You don’t know how it was taken, whether Joe used his right or left hand, whether there was an “army of mice.” But, you know it’s gone. Romero tied it into the case, stating, “Israel Switt took the cookie.”
The problem with the analogy is that there was supposedly a meticulous inventory kept of the “cookies” and none were reported missing or stolen. Additionally, there were times when other “cookies“ of equal value could be legally exchanged in the “kitchen”. In fact, it wasn’t particularly unusual for such exchanges to take place, and without written records of such.
For me, it’s as easy or easier to believe that the cookies were exchanged than it is that they were stolen.
Everyone can have their own belief but the people whose beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
@Zoins said:
Here's an excerpt of the closing statement by the government. If the jury believed the government lawyer's closing statements then it seems to follow they didn't believe there was a legal way the coins could have been distributed.
Romero spent the last five minutes of the day responding to Berke with a patriotic and common-sense-based approach. She helped clarify the jury’s task by telling them a story, placing them in a kitchen with a cookie in a jar, and a single entrance to the kitchen. Joe goes in, he leaves and there is no cookie. You don’t know how it was taken, whether Joe used his right or left hand, whether there was an “army of mice.” But, you know it’s gone. Romero tied it into the case, stating, “Israel Switt took the cookie.”
The problem with the analogy is that there was supposedly a meticulous inventory kept of the “cookies” and none were reported missing or stolen. Additionally, there were times when other “cookies“ of equal value could be legally exchanged in the “kitchen”. In fact, it wasn’t particularly unusual for such exchanges to take place, and without written records of such.
For me, it’s as easy or easier to believe that the cookies were exchanged than it is that they were stolen.
Everyone can have their own belief but the people who’s beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
Absolutely.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said: "Everyone can have their own belief but the people whose beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
I was not there. They were. However, this is the perfect argument for a full-time, PROFESSIONAL, mature, and well-EDUCATED jury pool! The cookie argument is a great example of presenting a story w/o all the options being swallowed by 12 normal people. Feelings and beliefs don't belong in a court room either.
Just as any dummy can be elected to congress, anyone who is called and picked can decide the outcome of a trial. I know for a fact that the folks who would make the best jurors are usually dismissed by both attorneys.
The potential jurors dismissed by the attorneys are typically folks with a likely bias. The best jurors are the ones that are already back at their office when voir dire starts.
The men who murdered Virginia's original twenty-six cemetery-occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try—but in our day of telegraphs and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled—a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence and probity, swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty and equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated—every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
Perhaps, more likely, they were delivered and then taken back (making them illegal I guess) and that when the coins were switched out. I think anyone in the position to switch out would have been tempted. Heck, even the Director may have wanted one as a souvenir.
Not the same situation but at one time aluminum cents were considered proposed samples to be spread around. The ONLY connection between the two coins is they became something special and it is human nature to want one to keep. The 1964 Peace dollars is are closer match to the 1933 $20's.
LOL, we'll never see those sent for authentication.
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
Perhaps, more likely, they were delivered and then taken back (making them illegal I guess) and that when the coins were switched out. I think anyone in the position to switch out would have been tempted. Heck, even the Director may have wanted one as a souvenir.
Not the same situation but at one time aluminum cents were considered proposed samples to be spread around. The ONLY connection between the two coins is they became something special and it is human nature to want one to keep. The 1964 Peace dollars is are closer match to the 1933 $20's.
LOL, we'll never see those sent for authentication.
Wasn't Roosevelt's order handed down before the assayer's report reached the Philly mint? IIRC the assayer's report was mailed and not hand delivered. Surely the coins would not be delivered to the cashier before the assayer passed judgement?
I have no idea. Just playing the "What-if-Game" on a settled case. What I would have done and what I think about the jury is the same - just a meaningless (YAWN) bunch of keystrokes.
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
@Insider2 said: @Zoins said: "Everyone can have their own belief but the people whose beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
I was not there. They were. However, this is the perfect argument for a full-time, PROFESSIONAL, mature, and well-EDUCATED jury pool! The cookie argument is a great example of presenting a story w/o all the options being swallowed by 12 normal people. Feelings and beliefs don't belong in a court room either.
Just as any dummy can be elected to congress, anyone who is called and picked can decide the outcome of a trial. I know for a fact that the folks who would make the best jurors are usually dismissed by both attorneys.
It doesn't matter how educated and intelligent the jury pool is if a judge won't allow certain information to be admitted into evidence and presented to the jury. If I recall correctly, there were evidentiary issues in this case.
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
For this discussion monetization is simply the process of converting gold into money. That is a bar of gold is made into coins which can be used to conduct commerce. No other definition of the word applies here.
https://dictionary.com/browse/monetize?s=ts
Unfortunately the linky is stinky, but I can't fix it.
So in 1933 the mint struck a quantity of double eagles to be used as money. Once the coins have been struck they needed to pass the quality control/assay before they could become money/legal tender i.e. monetized. It is my understanding from past posts here that the assayer never delivered the results to the coiner in time to beat the Roosevelt decree. Prove me incorrect if you have the facts to do so.
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
For this discussion monetization is simply the process of converting gold into money. That is a bar of gold is made into coins which can be used to conduct commerce. No other definition of the word applies here. https://dictionary.com/browse/monetization:/
So in 1933 the mint struck a quantity of double eagles to be used as money. Once the coins have been struck they needed to pass the quality control/assay before they could become money/legal tender i.e. monetized. It is my understanding from past posts here that the assayer never delivered the results to the coiner in time to beat the Roosevelt decree. Prove me incorrect if you have the facts to do so.
FWIW I am NOT on the side of the Treasury.
Just to set the record straight, I was scheduled to be the lead witness for
the defense at the first trial (January 2001) and, unlike bajjerfan, actually
read the relevant documents. (I was not involved in the second round
due to a dispute with one of the attorneys.) The double eagles were coins,
period, once delivered to the proper official. The monetization term,
despite what bajjerfan says, was invented for this second trial by the
government; it has no legal standing whatsoever. It would have been
legal to have switched the 1933s with other dates during the Window of
Opportunity. All of this was published in 2002 in Numismatic News and
not something recently thought up.
Once the struck planchets became coins it was legal to remove them from
the Mint during the Window of Opportunity. That no record was kept was
not an illegal act under the 1873 law.
Bajjerfan would better spend his time investigating the unethical conduct
of the government attorneys. Prior to the aborted first trial, for example,
Mint attorneys contacted friends of mine asking them to find out the gist
of my testimony or anything that could used against me; that may have
been marginally legal, but certainly unethical.
FYI, I have been called for jury duty 6 times and dismissed 6 times...why? I have too many relatives who are cops...instant dismissal, gotta love our system!
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
For this discussion monetization is simply the process of converting gold into money. That is a bar of gold is made into coins which can be used to conduct commerce. No other definition of the word applies here. https://dictionary.com/browse/monetization:/
So in 1933 the mint struck a quantity of double eagles to be used as money. Once the coins have been struck they needed to pass the quality control/assay before they could become money/legal tender i.e. monetized. It is my understanding from past posts here that the assayer never delivered the results to the coiner in time to beat the Roosevelt decree. Prove me incorrect if you have the facts to do so.
FWIW I am NOT on the side of the Treasury.
Just to set the record straight, I was scheduled to be the lead witness for
the defense at the first trial (January 2001) and, unlike bajjerfan, actually
read the relevant documents. (I was not involved in the second round
due to a dispute with one of the attorneys.) The double eagles were coins,
period, once delivered to the proper official. The monetization term,
despite what bajjerfan says, was invented for this second trial by the
government; it has no legal standing whatsoever. It would have been
legal to have switched the 1933s with other dates during the Window of
Opportunity. All of this was published in 2002 in Numismatic News and
not something recently thought up.
Once the struck planchets became coins it was legal to remove them from
the Mint during the Window of Opportunity. That no record was kept was
not an illegal act under the 1873 law.
Bajjerfan would better spend his time investigating the unethical conduct
of the government attorneys. Prior to the aborted first trial, for example,
Mint attorneys contacted friends of mine asking them to find out the gist
of my testimony or anything that could used against me; that may have
been marginally legal, but certainly unethical.
At what point were the coins money? When they came out of the dies or when the assayer approved them as such?
What process [if it can be documented] was followed for the coins struck/produced in 1932? Were they delivered by the coiner direct from the press/es to the cashier? Was that SOP or was something else involved before they officially became money? Was the blessing of the assayer sufficient to make them money or was release to the Federal Reserve required, but never executed?
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
For this discussion monetization is simply the process of converting gold into money. That is a bar of gold is made into coins which can be used to conduct commerce. No other definition of the word applies here. https://dictionary.com/browse/monetization:/
So in 1933 the mint struck a quantity of double eagles to be used as money. Once the coins have been struck they needed to pass the quality control/assay before they could become money/legal tender i.e. monetized. It is my understanding from past posts here that the assayer never delivered the results to the coiner in time to beat the Roosevelt decree. Prove me incorrect if you have the facts to do so.
FWIW I am NOT on the side of the Treasury.
Just to set the record straight, I was scheduled to be the lead witness for
the defense at the first trial (January 2001) and, unlike bajjerfan, actually
read the relevant documents. (I was not involved in the second round
due to a dispute with one of the attorneys.) The double eagles were coins,
period, once delivered to the proper official. The monetization term,
despite what bajjerfan says, was invented for this second trial by the
government; it has no legal standing whatsoever. It would have been
legal to have switched the 1933s with other dates during the Window of
Opportunity. All of this was published in 2002 in Numismatic News and
not something recently thought up.
Once the struck planchets became coins it was legal to remove them from
the Mint during the Window of Opportunity. That no record was kept was
not an illegal act under the 1873 law.
Bajjerfan would better spend his time investigating the unethical conduct
of the government attorneys. Prior to the aborted first trial, for example,
Mint attorneys contacted friends of mine asking them to find out the gist
of my testimony or anything that could used against me; that may have
been marginally legal, but certainly unethical.
Thank you for the insight. The final verdict still makes my flesh crawl.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@BAJJERFAN said:
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
For this discussion monetization is simply the process of converting gold into money. That is a bar of gold is made into coins which can be used to conduct commerce. No other definition of the word applies here. https://dictionary.com/browse/monetization:/
So in 1933 the mint struck a quantity of double eagles to be used as money. Once the coins have been struck they needed to pass the quality control/assay before they could become money/legal tender i.e. monetized. It is my understanding from past posts here that the assayer never delivered the results to the coiner in time to beat the Roosevelt decree. Prove me incorrect if you have the facts to do so.
FWIW I am NOT on the side of the Treasury.
Just to set the record straight, I was scheduled to be the lead witness for
the defense at the first trial (January 2001) and, unlike bajjerfan, actually
read the relevant documents. (I was not involved in the second round
due to a dispute with one of the attorneys.) The double eagles were coins,
period, once delivered to the proper official. The monetization term,
despite what bajjerfan says, was invented for this second trial by the
government; it has no legal standing whatsoever. It would have been
legal to have switched the 1933s with other dates during the Window of
Opportunity. All of this was published in 2002 in Numismatic News and
not something recently thought up.
Once the struck planchets became coins it was legal to remove them from
the Mint during the Window of Opportunity. That no record was kept was
not an illegal act under the 1873 law.
Bajjerfan would better spend his time investigating the unethical conduct
of the government attorneys. Prior to the aborted first trial, for example,
Mint attorneys contacted friends of mine asking them to find out the gist
of my testimony or anything that could used against me; that may have
been marginally legal, but certainly unethical.
At what point were the coins money? When they came out of the dies or when the assayer approved them as such?
When they were delivered to the proper official. Prior to 1873 at Philadelphia it
was the director of the mint. After 1873 the superintendent. Prior to the formal
delivery they were simply struck planchets and not coins. The assayer was not
directly involved in this step.
@Insider2 said: @Zoins said: "Everyone can have their own belief but the people whose beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
I was not there. They were. However, this is the perfect argument for a full-time, PROFESSIONAL, mature, and well-EDUCATED jury pool! The cookie argument is a great example of presenting a story w/o all the options being swallowed by 12 normal people. Feelings and beliefs don't belong in a court room either.
Just as any dummy can be elected to congress
Actually as we have seen with our own eyes this statement also applies to the Senate and Oval Office as well. Congress doesn’t have the exclusive on being able to elect dummies. Our system is what it is flaws and all
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@denga said:
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?
Comments
Was the store ever searched by the Feds before the Langbords discovered the coins? Seems to me like it was or it may have been SDBs in other banks.
The G-men were after these since they were first discovered. The only way to keep them is in hiding.
I can’t imagine anyone who has one owning up to it.
Agree it’s a possibility. I’m sure it was hard to imagine how the posts would be used when first making them. The quote was particularly damaging because it was specifically about using the responsibility of an expert witness to obfuscate facts. I wonder if he ever thought he would become an expert witness and if Berke was informed of the posts before they were introduced in court. It’s interesting that posts here may have had such a huge impact on the hobby, not only the coins in the case but potentially any other coins that may be out there.
Part of me feels the coins didn’t get a fair hearing because of the expert witness credibility issue, and the impact goes beyond the Langbords’ coins to any other coins that may be out there. I wonder if the coins would have been deemed legal if the posts were never made or if another expert witness had been chosen. It’s a bit sobering to think about.
I also think we may have been a bit too focused on CAFRA here. With the government’s theft argument, CAFRA didn’t apply.
But that was heavily dependent on the district court's finding of facts. If the jury made a finding of fact that the coins could have left the Mint legally and legitimately, the case would have ended there and in the Langboard's favor. I cannot see a federal judge setting aside a jury verdict like that nor can I see the Third Circuit reversing on something like that.
If you sold them, you would have all kinds of cash you would have to put somewhere without disclosure. This is a very slippery slope...........
Best, SH
Put it in the same place that the DEs were. Draw on it as or if needed. No need to do anything else with it.
Interesting how cavalier some people here are with breaking the law. Not sure I'd want any of you in my store or near my collection. You very glibly justify theft and tax fraud.
Stuff a wall safe, buy precious stones, take payment in (_________). The problem with crooks who come into large amounts of money is they spend it all at once.
That assumes each will be bought for cash (6 to 7 figures each) and that you want to leave it in cash and use slowly. What good is that even if you could? You really can't do much but small purchases and it is getting harder every day to use cash and accounts would be watched. Using cash would draw suspicion given that the Langbords would have already been under suspicion by divulging one or more.
Mr. Langbord, you paid $150 in cash for those groceries, but, your bank account does not show a withdraw of that much cash, where did you get it, hmmm......?
Best, SH
Hmm... Big Brother is watching and they would be under suspicion. Not sure they could pull it off.
Best, SH
I speed on the highway. I'm a lawbreaker on a daily basis. Nevertheless, you can trust me to treat your coins as if that corroded, VG 1895 nickel was my own and worth a million dollars!
Except it's a beautiful 1885 nickel fresh out of China. You might be tempted to try to get the high end counterfeit off the domestic market.
Hmmm... I know I'm not supposed to do this! So is Big Brother Right or Left, Red or Blue? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nope, fakes are returned to the submitter as it's their property.
@spacehayduke said: "Big Brother is watching and they would be under suspicion. Not sure they could pull it off."
You think you are making a joke. Big Brother knows everything about me and then some.
Agreed, any deposit at the $10k threshold or a series totaling that amount or more in a certain time period prompts the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the U.S. Department of Treasury. It is also a federal crime (called structuring) to even try to spread out the deposits to avoid SAR reporting. If you used it to buy other expensive assets, you would also be subject to SAR reporting and investigation. Even throwing it into bullion would be risky as a provision of the Patriot Act requires that a purchase of five (I think) or more must be reported to keep bullion coins from being used by terrorists or some other excuse. Five 1933 saints would generate far too much money to easily conceal as cash IMHO.
Edit: Info is a little dated, see subsequent post below.
Too bad the Langbords didn't have 10 1933 Double Eagle fakes. Oops, smoe schmuck cheated ol Uncle Izzy.
Incorrect. Cash transactions of $10K or more require the filing with the IRS of a form 8300. These are filed routinely but rarely acted upon. A couple levels under $10K I think $5K requires a bank to record it, but not report it. A SAR is filed at the discretion of the bank if they think something funny is going on. I'm told these don't get blown off.
There is no limit on sales of AGEs as far as reporting goes.
Note that the Patriot Act is not mentioned in the linked article tho one could contact them about it if desired.
https://www.jmbullion.com/reportable-bullion-transactions-infographic/
Large sums of cash isn't anything I'll ever have to worry unless I make killing in the stock market or win smoe lottery money. In either case it will be legit and what I do with cash withdrawn after that is nobody's concern.
The dollar thresholds for mandatory reporting may have changed, but the point stands:
And the SAR mandatory filing requirements:
https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/olm_015.htm
A currency transaction involving a few million will certainly trigger a SAR filing.
Only a dolt would deposit a million in cash unless they can show that it was obtained lawfully such as a lottery win. Or large amounts of cash from a casino. If I get a payroll deposit of $10K per week then whose business is it if I withdraw cash on a weekly basis.
People are assuming that a buyer of one of those coins would complete the transaction in a few days which may or may not be the case.
Also unless they were desperate, the Langbords or whomever would be smart to hire someone else to broker the sale and give them say 18 months to raise the CASH.
How do drug dealers manage to acquire such large amounts of cash? Some get caught with it but many do not. I assume a lot of it starts with small cash sales at the street level. If you can believe some of those pics from one of those Guzman locations he had many millions in U. S. $100 bills.
Having $250K in cash to spend off slowly is a problem I wouldn't mind having. I know someone who won a large jackpot at a casino and took it in cash because he didn't "put a check in the machine".
If you ever get audited by the IRS they might get your bank records and ask you to "splain" any deposits that were not regular like say a payroll deposit.
Somewhere King Farouk is laughing.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
On the other hand, some might believe he is burning and has nothing to laugh about.
No. They weren't very good bargaining chips, either.
That’s enough. Melt the rest.
These "rounds" are part of America's history, and are either a valuable reminder of governmental abuse of power, or conversely, how dogged the Feds and the judicial system are to get things right.
Personally, I look at it as the former of the two.
As our hosts have offices abroad, that would have been my first option for authenticity, and desire to end this 80+year fubar for good min
Here's an excerpt of the closing statement by the government. If the jury believed the government lawyer's closing statements then it seems to follow they didn't believe there was a legal way the coins could have been distributed.
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-sides-finish-their-ca.html
The problem with the analogy is that there was supposedly a meticulous inventory kept of the “cookies” and none were reported missing or stolen. Additionally, there were times when other “cookies“ of equal value could be legally exchanged in the “kitchen”. In fact, it wasn’t particularly unusual for such exchanges to take place, and without written records of such.
For me, it’s as easy or easier to believe that the cookies were exchanged than it is that they were stolen.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Everyone can have their own belief but the people whose beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
Absolutely.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said: "Everyone can have their own belief but the people whose beliefs mattered here were the jurors given the evidence and testimony presented.
I was not there. They were. However, this is the perfect argument for a full-time, PROFESSIONAL, mature, and well-EDUCATED jury pool! The cookie argument is a great example of presenting a story w/o all the options being swallowed by 12 normal people. Feelings and beliefs don't belong in a court room either.
Just as any dummy can be elected to congress, anyone who is called and picked can decide the outcome of a trial. I know for a fact that the folks who would make the best jurors are usually dismissed by both attorneys.
The potential jurors dismissed by the attorneys are typically folks with a likely bias. The best jurors are the ones that are already back at their office when voir dire starts.
Mark Twain, on jury selection...
The men who murdered Virginia's original twenty-six cemetery-occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try—but in our day of telegraphs and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled—a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence and probity, swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty and equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated—every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
The simple question remains that "were the coins ever delivered to the cashier"? This would complete the "monetization" process which is simply defined as making/producing money just as it was done in years prior. It pains me to say that the answer to the question is probably no.
Perhaps, more likely, they were delivered and then taken back (making them illegal I guess) and that when the coins were switched out. I think anyone in the position to switch out would have been tempted. Heck, even the Director may have wanted one as a souvenir.
Not the same situation but at one time aluminum cents were considered proposed samples to be spread around.
The ONLY connection between the two coins is they became something special and it is human nature to want one to keep. The 1964 Peace dollars is are closer match to the 1933 $20's.
LOL, we'll never see those sent for authentication.
Wasn't Roosevelt's order handed down before the assayer's report reached the Philly mint? IIRC the assayer's report was mailed and not hand delivered. Surely the coins would not be delivered to the cashier before the assayer passed judgement?
I have no idea. Just playing the "What-if-Game" on a settled case. What I would have done and what I think about the jury is the same - just a meaningless (YAWN) bunch of keystrokes.
The thrust of this entire thread shows to what extent the whole 1933 scenario
is misunderstood by the collecting public. Bajjerfan, for example, speaks of
monetization as if it were an accepted fact, which is not true. The term was an
outright lie on the part of prosecutors and the trial was essentially rigged by
zealous federal attorneys.
The original post by zoins is not much better as the defense testimony is not the
key point here. It was the unethical conduct by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that
should be examined.
It doesn't matter how educated and intelligent the jury pool is if a judge won't allow certain information to be admitted into evidence and presented to the jury. If I recall correctly, there were evidentiary issues in this case.
For this discussion monetization is simply the process of converting gold into money. That is a bar of gold is made into coins which can be used to conduct commerce. No other definition of the word applies here.
https://dictionary.com/browse/monetize?s=ts
Unfortunately the linky is stinky, but I can't fix it.
So in 1933 the mint struck a quantity of double eagles to be used as money. Once the coins have been struck they needed to pass the quality control/assay before they could become money/legal tender i.e. monetized. It is my understanding from past posts here that the assayer never delivered the results to the coiner in time to beat the Roosevelt decree. Prove me incorrect if you have the facts to do so.
FWIW I am NOT on the side of the Treasury.
Just to set the record straight, I was scheduled to be the lead witness for
the defense at the first trial (January 2001) and, unlike bajjerfan, actually
read the relevant documents. (I was not involved in the second round
due to a dispute with one of the attorneys.) The double eagles were coins,
period, once delivered to the proper official. The monetization term,
despite what bajjerfan says, was invented for this second trial by the
government; it has no legal standing whatsoever. It would have been
legal to have switched the 1933s with other dates during the Window of
Opportunity. All of this was published in 2002 in Numismatic News and
not something recently thought up.
Once the struck planchets became coins it was legal to remove them from
the Mint during the Window of Opportunity. That no record was kept was
not an illegal act under the 1873 law.
Bajjerfan would better spend his time investigating the unethical conduct
of the government attorneys. Prior to the aborted first trial, for example,
Mint attorneys contacted friends of mine asking them to find out the gist
of my testimony or anything that could used against me; that may have
been marginally legal, but certainly unethical.
FYI, I have been called for jury duty 6 times and dismissed 6 times...why? I have too many relatives who are cops...instant dismissal, gotta love our system!
At what point were the coins money? When they came out of the dies or when the assayer approved them as such?
What process [if it can be documented] was followed for the coins struck/produced in 1932? Were they delivered by the coiner direct from the press/es to the cashier? Was that SOP or was something else involved before they officially became money? Was the blessing of the assayer sufficient to make them money or was release to the Federal Reserve required, but never executed?
Thank you for the insight. The final verdict still makes my flesh crawl.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
When they were delivered to the proper official. Prior to 1873 at Philadelphia it
was the director of the mint. After 1873 the superintendent. Prior to the formal
delivery they were simply struck planchets and not coins. The assayer was not
directly involved in this step.
Actually as we have seen with our own eyes this statement also applies to the Senate and Oval Office as well. Congress doesn’t have the exclusive on being able to elect dummies. Our system is what it is flaws and all
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I actually think it is a key point, but it may be one of several key points. Without an expert testimony that can be relied upon, it is hard to (a) refute the position of the other side and (b) put forth your own chain of events.
Since you were in the first trial and did not have such information in your background, it seems the case could have turned out differently if you were also the expert witness here.
You indicated that background checks was done on you when you were an expert witnesses "may have been marginally legal, but certainly unethical." Do we know if this was done here? Were there other activities done by the Mint & Treasury lawyers that you consider unethical?