Here my latest update on the Langbord lawsuit over the 10 1933 Saints.

SanctionII

Curiosity caused me to check the docket for the Langbord lawsuit this morning.

On 3-24-2008 the court issued an order denying a motion by the Langbords to quash a subpeona seeking documents from and seeking the depositions the Laxalt Group's Paul Laxalt, Michelle Laxalt and Tom Loranger on the grounds of attorney client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

Paul Laxalt, if you recall, is a former US Senator and a lawyer. Apparently after the government informed the Langbords in June 2005 that it intended to keep the 10 coins, the Langbords hired the Laxalt Group to secure legal advice and lobbying services in connection with the lawsuit. Senator Laxalt's aim was to renew settlement efforts via independent communications with the Treasury Department and to consult with members of Congress regardling legislation potentially bearing on the dispute over the 10 coins.

The government wants to obtain documents from the Laxalt Group and depose the three persons named above.

The court's order denying the motion to quash the subpeonas in summary states that the depositions must go forward and during the depositions, objections on the grounds of attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product privilege can be made on a question by question basis.

Further on 4-1-2008 the court issued a revised scheduling order that sets mid 2008 deadlines for the filing and opposing of motions related to experts and that requires any dispositive motions (i.e. summary judgment motions) be filed within 30 days after the date of the filing of an order resolving motions related to experts.

In summary, nothing has happened since my last update that provides a win or a loss of the case to either side. Discovery will still be taking place and I expect that later this year after non expert and expert discovery is completed summary judgment motions will be filed by one or both sides to the case.

Once summary judgment motions are filed, the documents supporting those motions will set forth much of the detailed evidence that has been accumulated in the case and will set forth precise legal arguments of both sides to the case. That information will be extremely interesting to lawyers (such as myself) and to collectors, dealers and others involved in the Hobby Of Kings.

I will provide another update probably in late July or August.

123cents

Thanks for the update.

Mark

As usual, thanks a ton for keeping up appraised of the progress...or lack thereof.

ricko

Thanks for keeping us involved in this very interesting situation. Cheers, RickO

rgCoinGuy

I agree thanks for the updates, this is a very interesting case. I am very curious about several issues that this brings up.

Coinosaurus

Thanks for the update, and esp. for the non-legalese summary at the end

SanctionII

You are welcome folks.

It is fun for me to check things out in the case periodically and provide updates to my peeps here on the forums (I can't believe I used "peeps" in a sentence).

RichieURich

SanctionII, thank you for the update. Do you have an educated guess on how the case will turn out?

SanctionII

I have no clue what the outcome of the case will be.

However, in my prior posts I have said that the outcome of the case, if it is not settled, will largely depend upon pretrial rulings made by the court which will dictate whether the Langbords have to prove that the coins left the mint in a lawful manner or whether the government has to prove that the coins left the mint in an unlawful manner.

Whoever is given the burden to "prove" things at trial by admissable evidence will have a difficult time doing so due to the absence of witnesses with first hand knowledge of events (they are all dead).

jonathanb

Thanks for the update.

Out of curiosity, how many pages of legalese were in the original documents that you boiled down to seven paragraphs?

Coinosaurus

<< <i>
However, in my prior posts I have said that the outcome of the case, if it is not settled, will largely depend upon pretrial rulings made by the court which will dictate whether the Langbords have to prove that the coins left the mint in a lawful manner or whether the government has to prove that the coins left the mint in an unlawful manner.

Whoever is given the burden to "prove" things at trial by admissable evidence will have a difficult time doing so due to the absence of witnesses with first hand knowledge of events (they are all dead). >>



So one side will have the burden of proof. Which case would you rather prove:

a) The coins left the mint in a lawful manner
b) The coins left the mint in an unlawful manner

I'm thinking (b) would be easier than (a). There is some paper trail to support (b), but virtually nothing to support (a).

But as SanctionII points out, proving either to any reasonable level seems problematic.

dan8402

<< <i>Thanks for the update.

Out of curiosity, how many pages of legalese were in the original documents that you boiled down to seven paragraphs? >>



5 paragraphs....

mrearlygold

Thank you for the update

DJCoinz

Thanks for the update! This is a very interesting case.

Dentuck

In a related vein, the state of Maine recently lost a replevin case against a collector who purchased the "Pownalborough Print" --- one of 250 broadside copies made in 1776 of the original Declaration of Independence.

There's an interesting summary in Vol. XXiX, No. 1, 2008, of The Manuscript Society News.

An interesting note in the article: "The most damning point against Maine's claim was that no [town] clerk had noted the Declaration was not in the town records for 200 years until the state discovered it was for sale in the 1990s."



(Naturally the state is appealing the court's ruling against its claim, leaving the collector out $475,000 in the meantime.)

zeebob

Thank you for keeping it simple. I'll be interested to read a summary once this is settled.

I read last night in a book from Smithsonian Press that the 1913 nickels were actually made in the 20's by a Mint employee using Mint equipment. I don't understand why the government chooses to let those float around but siezes the 1933 double eagles. I guess I just don't understand the finer points of the government's reasoning. I thought it was something like, "the coins are stolen government property and we want them back." But I guess there's more to it than that...

Thank you for the tidbits of information. I always enjoy learning.

rah1959

Again...I thank you for taking the time to look into this and explaining it to us in layman's terms.

I look forward to your next update!

All the best!

RAH

BECOKA

Another reason the place is so great to visit.

coinkat

Paul Laxalt has to be at least 80... if not older.

SanctionII

I suspect that former Senators always have their finger in the pie, even when they are in their 80's and 90's.

howards

<< <i>
So one side will have the burden of proof. Which case would you rather prove:

a) The coins left the mint in a lawful manner
b) The coins left the mint in an unlawful manner

I'm thinking (b) would be easier than (a). There is some paper trail to support (b), but virtually nothing to support (a).

But as SanctionII points out, proving either to any reasonable level seems problematic. >>



I have heard numerous claims over the years that a small number of people obtained '33 Saints for face value from the bank in the short period of time before gold ownership was banned. Isn't it possible that one such person remains alive today, proving a)?

There is a middle ground. What if the Langbords are able to prove that it is impossible to prove that the coins left the mint in an unlawful manner? What if the Langbords prove that it is not possible to prove either way? Neither of those is quite the same as proving that the coins left in a lawful manner, but would it be sufficient?

In other words, if neither side is able to prove its case through a documented paper trail or eyewitness testimony, who wins? I'd vote for the Langbords winning, because I think the government HAS to prove its case to enforce a confiscation, but I ain't no lawyer.

TwoSides2aCoin

I was always told that "possession is nine-tenths" of the law.

I would guess that pretty much sums up this case

MrEureka

All I know is that if I was working at the Mint in 1933, I would have been given an order not to release any gold coins because FDR wanted them all. Nobody would have bothered to specify which issues were not to be released, because FDR wanted them all. So if I was working at the Mint in 1933, I might have realized that 1933 coins might become collector's items, but I wouldn't feel that I was breaking the spirit of the law by exchanging one gold coin for another. Therefore, I would not consider the 33's stolen. Nor should the courts. The Langbords should prevail.

adamlaneus

Could you explain your logic, because I didn't get it. Perhaps i'm dense; it's been a hard day at work.

FDR wants all of the gold coins. But somehow you are saying that an exchange is possible and not against the spirit of the law? How so?

I thought the order was that ALL of the gold coins are to be confiscated.

I must be missing something (again).

[edit] Please realize i'm not taking a side here and what I said should not be interpreted as an argument one way or another. I just want to understand.

MrEureka

I thought the order was that ALL of the gold coins are to be confiscated.

It's not the Mint Cashier's job to confiscate gold. If someone walks up to his window and asks to exchange one gold coin for another, it's not his job to put a gun to the guy's head and demand his gold. All the Cashier can be expected to do is maintain the quantity of gold in his care. From that perspective, trading one coin for another would not matter. (In fact, it didn't matter. I'm sure FDR would not have cared. But then, much later, someone got a a bug up his...)

droopyd

Question: Who currently has physical possession of these 10 coins? The Langbords of the Feds?

adamlaneus

Thank you. Your comment indicated to me that I had some reading to do. I did some reading. I understand and agree with you. Thanks!

howards

<< <i>Question: Who currently has physical possession of these 10 coins? The Langbords of the Feds? >>



The Langbords (foolishly IMO) turned the coins over to the Feds pending a resolution.

If I were the Langbords and I wanted a test case, I would have admitted owning 1 coin and turning that over.

FredWeinberg

The 10 coins are in Fort Knox,
where they've been since they
were displayed at the Denver
ANA two years ago...

Coinosaurus

<< <i>

<< <i>Question: Who currently has physical possession of these 10 coins? The Langbords of the Feds? >>



The Langbords (foolishly IMO) turned the coins over to the Feds pending a resolution.

If I were the Langbords and I wanted a test case, I would have admitted owning 1 coin and turning that over. >>



How do you know they don't have a hundred and only turned over ten

BBQnBLUES

SanctionII,

I hope you're not billing us for the updates?

SanctionII

BBQBlues.

No, no bills from me for my services

If I did bill, do you think I could get away with charging the $1,000.00 per hour fee that Longacre has previously mentioned that New York City tax attorneys charge?

rays

Thanks for the update.

I was very happy to hear the court denied the government's first request for dismissal, given the governement's (to me, at least) outrageous conduct in the case before the suit was brought.

CoinRaritiesOnline

<< <i>

<< <i>Thanks for the update.

Out of curiosity, how many pages of legalese were in the original documents that you boiled down to seven paragraphs? >>



5 paragraphs.... >>



Now THAT was the funniest thing I've read on these boards for quite some time. Good one!

In all seriousness -- thanks for keeping us updated, Sanction II.

I find it hard to believe that our government has accomplished all of its assigned tasks so well that it has the time and manpower to litigate the last date digit on 10 coins made 75 years ago.

droopyd

<< <i>

<< <i>Question: Who currently has physical possession of these 10 coins? The Langbords of the Feds? >>



The Langbords (foolishly IMO) turned the coins over to the Feds pending a resolution. >>



Then I know how the case will ultimately pan out.

SanctionII

The Langbords turned over the 10 coins to the government for the sole limited purpose of allowing the government to have possession of the coins while it determined if they are authentic (to my understanding that was the "stated" purpose of the Langbords).

However, I suspect that an additional reason/purpose for the Langbords turning over the coins to the government was purely to create evidence to be used by the Langbords at trial (if a trial takes place) to make them "look sympathetic" in front a jury and to make the government "look bad" in front of a jury.

I can only assume that the Langbords desire to have a court decision (or settlement) that confirms that they own the coins, that the coins are authentic and that the coins are legal to own.

To partially accomplish this ultimate purpose, the Langbords would be best served to have the government determine if the coins are authentic (this has been accomplished as to my understanding the government concluded the coins are genuine). It could be expected that if the government took possession of the coins to determine authenticity, it would choose to not return the coins. In accepting the coins knowing that the Langbords were delivering them for a limited purpose and thereafter in keeping the coins, the government (to my understanding) basically said to the Langbords "thanks for delivering the coins, oh by the way, the coins are property of the government and we are going to keep them and not give them back to you; and we are not going to file suit against you to place the ownership dispute in court; you will have to sue us".

With the understanding that it would be possible (nay, likely) that the government would, under the described circumstances, take possession of the coins and not return them, the Langbords and their attorney took a calculated risk. However the reward for taking the risk is that the Langbords will be able to present, at trial, evidence to a "jury of their peers" that the big bad government stomped all over them and trampled on them when the government accepted the coins and thereafter kept the coins.

Like it or not, juries look at things like this and in part make decisions on the basis of human feelings and emotions. Delivering possession of the coins to the government for a limited purpose and the government simply keeping the coins may have a huge impact on the outcome of this case if it is tried by a jury. If this strategy and tactic turns out to be a winner for the Langbords, then their attorney will be praised as a brilliant strategist and tactician. If it turns out to be a loser, then their attorney will be criticized by multiple Monday morning quarterbacks.

It would be fun to observe a jury trial in this case. I expect that Joan Langbord will be presented as a star witness and that she will generate sympathy from the jury, if for no other reason than she is an elderly lady who has been treated terribly by the government.

droopyd

<< <i>Like it or not, juries look at things like this and in part make decisions on the basis of human feelings and emotions. Delivering possession of the coins to the government for a limited purpose and the government simply keeping the coins may have a huge impact on the outcome of this case if it is tried by a jury. >>



However, appellate court judges are less likely to do so. And there's no way that whoever loses this case at the trial level isn't going to appeal as far as the judicial system will allow it.

TwoSides2aCoin

So it wouldn't be very smart to start bragging about that 1964 Peace dollar you've been holding onto.

BAJJERFAN

Couldn't the Government have sent a rep to look at the coins and determine authenticity? Even if the Langbords win, what assurance is there that the Government will actually pony up the coins.

rays

<< <i>Couldn't the Government have sent a rep to look at the coins and determine authenticity? Even if the Langbords win, what assurance is there that the Government will actually pony up the coins. >>



We are a nation of laws. Even the Government must obey.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>

<< <i>Couldn't the Government have sent a rep to look at the coins and determine authenticity? Even if the Langbords win, what assurance is there that the Government will actually pony up the coins. >>



We are a nation of laws. Even the Government must obey. >>



Surely you jest. I have read of many stories of sheriffs and other law enforcement types who confiscated firearms and despite repeated court orders to return them to their owners, they never did.

Tomohawk

<< <i>

<< <i>Thanks for the update.

Out of curiosity, how many pages of legalese were in the original documents that you boiled down to seven paragraphs? >>



5 paragraphs.... >>








Hahahaha!!! That's too funny...although I'd be willing to bet it was two paragraphs...!

Aegis3

<< <i>

<< <i>Question: Who currently has physical possession of these 10 coins? The Langbords of the Feds? >>



The Langbords (foolishly IMO) turned the coins over to the Feds pending a resolution.

If I were the Langbords and I wanted a test case, I would have admitted owning 1 coin and turning that over. >>



Well I'm sure the final settlement will have a clause stating that any coins the Langbords just "happened" to "overlook" will become government property, not matter what part of the original ten they (the L's) get to keep. The more interesting question to me is, if the L's can get the government to not sell their coins(that they keep from the L's) (for at least a few generations, if not forever), how many coins should they want back?