The parties to the Langbord suit over the 1933 double eagles have filed more papers related to the &

SanctionII

To recap, the government's expert is David Tripp and the Langbords' expert is Q. David Bowers. Both side to the case have filed motions seeking court orders that bar the other side's expert from testifying.

Both sides have recently filed opposition papers to the motions seeking to bar their respective experts. The two motions claim the opposing experts should be prohibited from testifying on multiple legal grounds. Each of the opposition papers raise counterarguments. Reading the motions and the opposition papers reminds me of little kids arguing about whose new bike is best. Lots of "mine is better than yours".

The Langbords in summary assert that Mr. Tripp is biased and that his opinion is MIA (Made As Instructed by the government). The further assert that how the coins left the mint (Mr. Tripp opines that the 10 coins left the mint in an autorized manner; Mr. Bowers opines that it is possible that the coins could have left the mint in an authorized manner; and neither Mr. Tripp or Mr. Bowers claim to know precisely how the 10 coins left the mint) does not become an issue in the case unless and until the government files a forfeiture proceeding against the coins under CAFRA and that if such a proceeding were filed the government would have the burden to prove that the 10 coins were stolen from the mint more than 70 years ago.

The court could rule upon the pending expert motions in the coming days and weeks. It will be very interesting to see how the court rules (bar both Tripp and Bowers from testifying, allow them both to testify, or allow only one of them to testify; and possible give some insight into how the court views the claims and defenses pending in the lawsuit).

291fifth

How can either Bowers or Tripp be considered and "expert" since neither has any first hand knowledge of the original acquisition of the coins?

Nic

Thanks for the updates!

K

Longacre

If these experts get barred, do each side have backup experts that they can try to use?

GeorgieB

Thank you for the share on this one!

SanctionII

Longacre, none of the papers filed in the case that I have reviewed mention back up experts (i.e. our own denga).

One thing I find interesting is that in the Fenton case the government chose to file a civil forfeiture action [back in early 1996] and that in the Langbord case the government [apparently at the insistence of the Mint, since other agencies all recommended that a forfeiture action be brought] changed its tune and took the position that it did not need to file a foreiture action.

I wonder if this tid bit of information will be presented at trial in the Langbord case and if so, what explanation the government will have, if any, as to why it sought forfeiture in the Fenton case but not in the Langbord case.

19Lyds

<< <i>the government would have the burden to prove that the 10 coins were stolen from the mint more than 70 years ago. >>


Couldn't this be established by documented procedures and the assumption that the US Government always follows "established" procedures?

I wonder if there are any longtime collectors still around that had dealt with the Mint back in the early 30's?

Coinosaurus

For some reason this case reminds me of O. J. breaking into a hotel room to reclaim "his" property. And we all know what happened there....

ziggy29

I first read this as "expert morons" instead of "expert motions."

TwoSides2aCoin

I once dated a girl who tried to understand football. The more I tried to explain it, the more complex it became for her. She finally said, "Let's watch the game and when it is over, just tell me who won".
I'm sort of understanding her now.

Cameonut

I find it laughable that both side are tying to disqualify the oppositions' "expert".

Since it is highly unlikely that either expert was capable of really knowing what happened 75 years ago, it will a battle of opinions and not a battle of facts.

Barry

Since it is highly unlikely that either expert was capable of really knowing what happened 75 years ago, it will a battle of opinions and not a battle of facts.
That about sums it up. Maybe they should get our very own PhillyJoe as an expert. He's probably spent more time going through Mint Archives than these guys.

MikeInFL

Thanks for the update!

I gotta tell you that my gut says that posession is nine tenth's of the law, and the government should have to prove the coins were stolen.

Time will tell....

CertifiedGoldCoins

Rich people versus the government. Who will win? I'm not sure that I care, but it's an interesting numismatic soap opera, that's for sure.