Update on the Langbord suit over the 1933 Saints.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭✭✭
This one is short
A couple of days ago the court issued an order directing that a copy of Tripp's book be delivered to the court (late night reading by a research attorney, or maybe the judge?). I suspect Tripp's deposition (set for tomorrow) will not take place until after the court rules on the Langbords pending motion. Further, since Tripp is not available for 6 weeks after tomorrow, all this means further delay.
My, my, ....... that was short. Maybe next time there will be more substantive things to report
A couple of days ago the court issued an order directing that a copy of Tripp's book be delivered to the court (late night reading by a research attorney, or maybe the judge?). I suspect Tripp's deposition (set for tomorrow) will not take place until after the court rules on the Langbords pending motion. Further, since Tripp is not available for 6 weeks after tomorrow, all this means further delay.
My, my, ....... that was short. Maybe next time there will be more substantive things to report
0
Comments
And I agree -- no wonder these trials take months or years.
Coin Rarities Online
Collecting:
Conder tokens
19th & 20th Century coins from Great Britain and the Realm
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Mark
Steve
That's because he's not billing us.
SanctionII, thanks again for your updates.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Once the government monetized the one '33 Saint and took 1/2 the proceeds of the sale, can you imagine the new lawsuits if the other saints were monetized?
It seems to me that the judge in this case is already biased in favor of the Fed.
Do you get this feeling?
Regards, John
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>I read that book a while ago. It seems to me to support the government position.
Once the government monetized the one '33 Saint and took 1/2 the proceeds of the sale, can you imagine the new lawsuits if the other saints were monetized? >>
The book early on did edge into the government's position, but then subsequently legalising ownership of that one particular coin sets a precedent. The coin that was auctioned is only believed to be the one that King Farouk owned, it was not really well documented in the sale back in the 1950's in Egypt, and was actually pulled from the sale and disappeared. In fact there exists the possibility that the coin came from another source.
King Farouk loved to play with his coins and show them off to his girlfriends, so of course, some of them got damaged.
I read that book a while ago. It seems to me to support the government position.
Once the government monetized the one '33 Saint and took 1/2 the proceeds of the sale, can you imagine the new lawsuits if the other saints were monetized?
-------------------------
Greg
Unfortunately, the government claim that the coins have to be “monetized” is not
true. By law the 1933 double eagles were coins once they were delivered to the
superintendent. If they had not been coins, no assay pieces would have been
sent for the annual testing.
What the government claims about “monetizing” does apply to the 1964 Peace dollars,
however. These were never formally delivered and thus are not coins.
Mr. Tripp was well aware of the legal requirements when his book was written but chose
to ignore them.
Denga
<< <i>500Bay October 03, 2008
I read that book a while ago. It seems to me to support the government position.
Once the government monetized the one '33 Saint and took 1/2 the proceeds of the sale, can you imagine the new lawsuits if the other saints were monetized?
-------------------------
Greg
Unfortunately, the government claim that the coins have to be “monetized” is not
true. By law the 1933 double eagles were coins once they were delivered to the
superintendent. If they had not been coins, no assay pieces would have been
sent for the annual testing.
What the government claims about “monetizing” does apply to the 1964 Peace dollars,
however. These were never formally delivered and thus are not coins.
Mr. Tripp was well aware of the legal requirements when his book was written but chose
to ignore them.
Denga >>
You're saying our goverment could be lying to us in order to enforce unilateral action?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I believe Tripp was the first person to use the term "chattel" to defend his position that the 20 or so 1933 Saint's that were released from the United States Mint were illegal.
The release (official or otherwise) of these is not of primary importance, as there is also a long history of patterns and trials (in various metals) getting released from the confines of the U S Mint.
It will be a very different lawsuit this time as compared to the one done in 1947. I only hope that truth and justice still remains alive in this country.
<< <i>
I believe Tripp was the first person to use the term "chattel" to defend his position that the 20 or so 1933 Saint's that were released from the United States Mint were illegal.
>>
Use of the word "chattel" and the $20 monetization charge were fabulous marketing, IMHO. I don't know who thought that up but the whole line of thinking is quite clever, if dubious.
By the way, for what it is worth, ALL the 1933 coinage sent to the Smithsonian for the NNC was done in one batch - the $20s were not separated from the group. This is not a definitive point, but does lend weight to the idea that the Mint considered all the '33 coinage one and the same - and legal. (Reference for this point is in the Smithsonian archives - PM me for specific citation.)
I have not read Tripp's book (I guess I will buy a copy and read it just to learn what he has to say). I read Allison Frankel's book and I found it to be very, very good. She traced out the history of the 1933 Double Eagles in a most excellent manner. Not only is the subject matter interesting, but I really like her style of writing. She tells a very good story.
With respect to how the judge views the case,................ well, in reading through the judge's orders and rulings to date, I have no idea what he thinks of the merits of the case. He does view the case as interesting and important to the parties. I suspect that of the many cases on his docket, this one is probably one of the more unusal cases, both factually and legally.
Many other legal terms from long ago have fallen out of use, replaced by more contemporary terms. However these old terms and the rules of law that apply to same still pop up from time to time in today's legal disputes. On occasions these legal terms and the rules applicable to same are used by courts to decide today's disputes, thus truly proving that "Frodo Lives".
It is the Coiner’s responsibility to deliver struck planchets to the Superintendent (now called “Plant Manager”). Before delivery, the Coiner removes all defective pieces, then counts the accepted pieces. The Coiner then delivers the pieces to the Cashier who accepts them on behalf of the Superintendent. At this point the struck pieces are coins and this is also where the government books its seigniorage on the pieces. Coins selected for the Annual Assay Commission were part of this accepted coin production. Anything selected before is just bullion and valued only as bullion.
In 1933 all of these steps were accomplished in the normal manner and all of the pieces recorded as accepted were, and are, coins. “Monetization,” as I have stated many times before, is Treasury double-speak intended to confuse the ignorant.
In May 1965 the 1964-D dollars did not reach the point of removal of defective pieces, acceptance by the Coiner or delivery to the Cashier. Therefore, they were not coins but nothing more than silver bullion. They were accounted for as bullion in the Denver Mint records. This is also one of the most damning arguments against stories of Denver Mint employees being permitted to purchase 2 of the new coins – they never reached the stage of being coins, and could not have been sold for face value to anyone. (See A Guide Book for Peace Dollars 1921-1964 from Whitman Publishing, available in November, for more information.)
Pattern, trial and experimental pieces were not, in general, coins. They had no legal tender status because the designs/alloys, etc had not been approved for coinage. They are nothing but stamped bullion and akin to waste metal, production scrap and sweeps. Nearly all of these that were sold to collectors were done so as medallic sets (at a premium over nominal face value) or for the bullion content (such as the Goloid/Stella sets and others).
Added – Note the following quote from acting director Robert Preston, June 22, 1880:
“The coins known as the Goloid Silver Metric and Stella, are not to be included in the coin set of 1880, as they are not coins of the U.S. but pattern pieces of a patent metal which the inventor wishes the Government to adopt…”
[NARA-CP, RG 104, entry 235, vol. 22, pp.284-285. Similar statements are in other documents, but I can’t put my fingers on them right now.]
Great point about seignorage. Never thought of that. Showing that the Treasury Dept. consistently did that for a long time BEFORE 1933 would seem to demolish the whole "monetization" argument. The government can't claim it as revenue on the one hand and say it isn't legal money on the other (well, they can, but not be coherent at the same time). I have to believe that there is an archival trail for this......
Sounds like a reasonable explanation for how the coins COULD have been legal to acquire.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
The Langboard legal team had better have some good archive folks on board to sort through the piles of “original” documents. This part will cost several hundred thousand dollars, in my opinion.
The US Mint struck 1933 Double Eagles before the April 5th Executive Order and were legal tender the moment the dies produced the coins. They had already been authorized as a circulating denomination. The Secret Service (I really dislike that title) and Tripp's contention that they were never officially released, is in fundamental error as to being "chattel" and subject to confiscation. The SS only got involved in 1944. Where were they from 1933 to 1944?
As I mentioned, there are thousands of such pieces that were struck in the US Mint and released in some fashion. All of the 1879 Stella's were released in this way (many going to Congressmen for a Metric change), along with hundreds of various patterns, like the ones which William Woodin ended up with in 1910 after he traded back his two Half Union gold patterns.
The bottom line, IMO is that the 1933 DE's were authorized legal tender issues, and were available for purchase or trade for several months. There were even a few set aside for assay, just like any other regular issued coinage that was legal tender.
Unfortunately, the argument will get sidetracked all around this one point, and it will be only a select few which will have any say in the outcome.
What FDR did to the American people in 1933 is disgusting, damaging, and smacks of dictatorship.
Much further aside – $4 Stellas were sold in sets including the Goloid and Metric dollars to members of Congress for their total bullion value of $6.10. In late 1881 Superintendent Snowden began selling them to collectors for $15.00 per set. The profit was booked to the Medal Fund.
Treasury decided at some point (well before 1933) that older coins ought to be paid
out first. For example, if the year was 1927 and 1926 dated dimes were still on hand
for distribution, then the 1927 issue was not to be paid out until the 1926s were gone.
When the last of the 1926s were duly issued the Treasury gave permission to distribute
the dimes dated 1927. This was a purely administrative regulation and was not a legal
requirement under the law of 1873, which governed coinage in 1933.
Denga
<< <i>I can confirm that Denga’s comment is correct.
It is the Coiner’s responsibility to deliver struck planchets to the Superintendent (now called “Plant Manager”). Before delivery, the Coiner removes all defective pieces, then counts the accepted pieces. The Coiner then delivers the pieces to the Cashier who accepts them on behalf of the Superintendent. At this point the struck pieces are coins and this is also where the government books its seigniorage on the pieces. Coins selected for the Annual Assay Commission were part of this accepted coin production. Anything selected before is just bullion and valued only as bullion.
In 1933 all of these steps were accomplished in the normal manner and all of the pieces recorded as accepted were, and are, coins. “Monetization,” as I have stated many times before, is Treasury double-speak intended to confuse the ignorant.
In May 1965 the 1964-D dollars did not reach the point of removal of defective pieces, acceptance by the Coiner or delivery to the Cashier. Therefore, they were not coins but nothing more than silver bullion. They were accounted for as bullion in the Denver Mint records. This is also one of the most damning arguments against stories of Denver Mint employees being permitted to purchase 2 of the new coins – they never reached the stage of being coins, and could not have been sold for face value to anyone. (See A Guide Book for Peace Dollars 1921-1964 from Whitman Publishing, available in November, for more information.) >>
That is your opinion, that the coins were never sold to employees. You do not know if it is a fact or not. Neither do I, but I believe the story that the man told me to my face.
The letter of the law often has nothing to do with what happens in real life.
TD
Sorry my opinion does not agree with a previous poster, but I’ve done quite a lot of digging on this and other subjects and there is nothing of any factual nature to support sale of 1964-D dollars to any employee. Further, struck bullion does not make a coin, and while one can imagine an infinite set of speculative scenarios, very, very few are plausible. The non-coin aspect is important because there are no known instances of these kinds of pieces being sold to employees – none. There are no analogous situations, as there are for other coins of questionable origin. Even the 1964-D Kennedy halves, which were sold to Denver Mint employees before the official release date, were from pieces accepted by the Coiner and Cashier/Superintendent. Several employees got in trouble for flashing the Kennedy halves around town before release date, but they were legal tender and could be sold even thought they were released too early.
It amazes me that so many sensible, knowledgeable people jump off the deep end on any rumor or invented auctioneer tale when it comes to a mysterious coin.
The only proof of the 1964-Ds will be when one or more of those “vaporware” coins “everyone” knows about surfaces so PCGS or NGC can examine it and authenticate it. (Yes, I’ve seen several imitations, altered 1934 & 1924, altered replicas and custom struck fakes; plus, not one verbal description I’ve heard comes close to archival descriptions. I have not seen or heard every “coin” or every “story,” and the Denver Mint was not careful in closing all the potential gaps in custody, so my opinion is that a few might exist.)
<< <i>Sorry my opinion does not agree with a previous poster, but I’ve done quite a lot of digging on this and other subjects and there is nothing of any factual nature to support sale of 1964-D dollars to any employee. Further, struck bullion does not make a coin, and while one can imagine an infinite set of speculative scenarios, very, very few are plausible. The non-coin aspect is important because there are no known instances of these kinds of pieces being sold to employees – none. There are no analogous situations, as there are for other coins of questionable origin. Even the 1964-D Kennedy halves, which were sold to Denver Mint employees before the official release date, were from pieces accepted by the Coiner and Cashier/Superintendent. Several employees got in trouble for flashing the Kennedy halves around town before release date, but they were legal tender and could be sold even thought they were released too early.
It amazes me that so many sensible, knowledgeable people jump off the deep end on any rumor or invented auctioneer tale when it comes to a mysterious coin.
The only proof of the 1964-Ds will be when one or more of those “vaporware” coins “everyone” knows about surfaces so PCGS or NGC can examine it and authenticate it. (Yes, I’ve seen several imitations, altered 1934 & 1924, altered replicas and custom struck fakes; plus, not one verbal description I’ve heard comes close to archival descriptions. I have not seen or heard every “coin” or every “story,” and the Denver Mint was not careful in closing all the potential gaps in custody, so my opinion is that a few might exist.) >>
It amazes me that so many sensible, knowledgeable people believe everything the Mint tells them.
When I first started researching what eventually became known as the "Cheerios dollar," I asked a Mint spokesman about the publicity photos released in 1999 that showed the more detailed tail feathers (as compared to the regular issue coins of 2000) that I remembered seeing in October of 1999. The Mint spokesman told me that no dies had ever been made with those details, and that the pictures were merely artist's conceptions.
Then the detailed reverse showed up on the gold strikes that went into space.
Then the detailed reverse showed up on most Cheerios dollars.
The Mint lies as it sees fit. Believe them at your own peril.
A man who had no reason to lie told me, in person, that the Mint did sell coins to employees. That is not a rumor, or an invented auctioneer's tale.
As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. Others may believe whomever they wish to.
TD
Well, based upon new filings, it appears that Mr. Tripp did give his deposition earlier this week. I had assumed it would be delayed. I expect that in future filings excerpts of his deposition testimony will be attached to court filings.
<< <i>TTT.
Well, based upon new filings, it appears that Mr. Tripp did give his deposition earlier this week. I had assumed it would be delayed. I expect that in future filings excerpts of his deposition testimony will be attached to court filings. >>
Thanks S2. The Tripp deposition should make for very interesting in conjunction with his book.
Disagreeing on this subject is certainly fine with me. However, a fundamental difference is that I have examined, page by page, the original internal documents, not the pabulum mint officials feed the public. My observations are based on those internal materials, not the myth and speculation so commonly pervading numismatics.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>I read that book a while ago. It seems to me to support the government position.
Once the government monetized the one '33 Saint and took 1/2 the proceeds of the sale, can you imagine the new lawsuits if the other saints were monetized? >>
The book early on did edge into the government's position, but then subsequently legalising ownership of that one particular coin sets a precedent. The coin that was auctioned is only believed to be the one that King Farouk owned, it was not really well documented in the sale back in the 1950's in Egypt, and was actually pulled from the sale and disappeared. In fact there exists the possibility that the coin came from another source.
King Farouk loved to play with his coins and show them off to his girlfriends, so of course, some of them got damaged. >>
What got damaged? The coins or the girlfriends?
I collect all 20th century series except gold including those series that ended there.
<< <i>To reply to TD's comment.
Disagreeing on this subject is certainly fine with me. However, a fundamental difference is that I have examined, page by page, the original internal documents, not the pabulum mint officials feed the public. My observations are based on those internal materials, not the myth and speculation so commonly pervading numismatics. >>
I have infinite respect for the research you have performed, which shows in your excellent books.
However, I never expect the government to document their coverups where people might find the documents. That would be telling.
TD