Options
Here is an update on the Langbord suit over the 10 1933 Double Eagles.
SanctionII
Posts: 13,067 ✭✭✭✭✭
It is time for an update folks.
The court has multiple motions pending before it, including two motions related to the experts hired by the parties (Mr. Tripp hired by Uncle Sam and Mr. Bowers hired by the Langbords) and summary judgment motions. The most recent summary judgment motion was filed by the Langbords yesterday. It is a motion for partial summary judgment. It is very interesting and sets forth a major, if not the major, legal argument by the Langbords. I will summarize it below. The Langbords are also going to file another motion for partial summary judgment be the end of the month.
I expect that the court will choose to not rule upon any of the pending motions in a piecemeal fashion. Thus I expect that when both sides have filed papers in support of and in opposition to all of the expert motions and all of the summary judgment motions, the court will schedule a hearing on all motions, listen to the attorneys present oral argument on the motions and then take all of the motions under submission. Thereafter the court will issue one or more written orders that will rule upon all of the motions. The court's order(s) on the motions will be most interesting to read and will probably reveal how the court views the merits of the claims and defenses pending in the lawsuit.
With respect to the Langbord's motion for partial summary judgment filed yesterday, it simply comes down to the Langbords claiming the following:
1. The Langbord's possession of the coins is sufficient to entitle them to constitutional rights to "due process" before the government can legally take and keep the coins;
2. The government taking possession of the coins for the purpose of authenticating them and thereafter telling the Langbords that the government is not going to return the coins because they, according to the government "were stolen from the mint" violates the Langbords' right to due process;
3. The government in the Fenton case seized the Fenton coin in 1996 and thereafter filed a civil forfeiture action [which was litigated and settled, with the coin being sold and the proceeds split];
4. The government in the Langbord case chose to do things differently than it did in the Fenton case [in Fenton it filed a civil forfeiture action and in the Langbord case it did not since it believes it does not have to];
5. CAFRA [the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act] was enacted to change the rules regarding forfeiture of property to the government. Under the old system the individual had the burden to prove that the property was not subject to forfeiture. Under the new system put in place by CAFRA the government has the burden to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture [the purpose for the change was to level the palying field between the individual and the government by forcing the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture];
6. The explanation for the government's position in this case [we have the coins, they were stolen form the mint, we do not need to file a forfeiture action] as opposed to the government's position in the Fenton case [we seized the coin but we need to file and did file a civil forfeiture action] is that it is a tactical effort to improperly shift the burden of proof as to events that took place 70 years ago off of the government, where CAFRA has placed it, onto the Langbord family where it does not belong; and
7. If the court agrees with the Langbords, the government should be required to return the coins to the Langbords unless and until the governement commences a civil forfeiture action [though the Langbords also assert that it is too late for the government to bring such an action and thus the Langbords are entitled to a return of the coins and are entitled to keep them free and clear of any claim by the government to the coins].
Regardless of how one feels about the coins and Langbord family, the idea that the government can take the position that by merely asserting that property possessed by an individual is "stolen" the government can take and keep possession of the property from the individual without having to "prove" what it says is true is very troubling.
It will be fascinating to see how the judge handling this case rules upon the pending motions. Regardless of how the parties to the lawsuit have twisted, turned and postured in the case, it appears that no one [the government, the Langbords or the court] will be able to obtain a judicial resolution of this case [as opposed to a settlement] without having to determine who has the burden to prove what happened in 1933, specifically how did the coins leave the mint. Neither side can prove how the coins left the mint.
Thus if a judicial resolution to the case requires a determination of how the coins left the mint, the party to whom the burden of proof is assigned should end up losing the case.
It will also be interesting to see how the government explains why in the Fenton case it chose to file a civil forfeiture action and why in the Langbord case it did not file a civil forfeiture action.
As to when the court will issue a ruling on the pending motions, if it decides to hear and decide all motions at one time, I do not expect a decision from the court until late spring at the earliest.
That is all for now folks.
The court has multiple motions pending before it, including two motions related to the experts hired by the parties (Mr. Tripp hired by Uncle Sam and Mr. Bowers hired by the Langbords) and summary judgment motions. The most recent summary judgment motion was filed by the Langbords yesterday. It is a motion for partial summary judgment. It is very interesting and sets forth a major, if not the major, legal argument by the Langbords. I will summarize it below. The Langbords are also going to file another motion for partial summary judgment be the end of the month.
I expect that the court will choose to not rule upon any of the pending motions in a piecemeal fashion. Thus I expect that when both sides have filed papers in support of and in opposition to all of the expert motions and all of the summary judgment motions, the court will schedule a hearing on all motions, listen to the attorneys present oral argument on the motions and then take all of the motions under submission. Thereafter the court will issue one or more written orders that will rule upon all of the motions. The court's order(s) on the motions will be most interesting to read and will probably reveal how the court views the merits of the claims and defenses pending in the lawsuit.
With respect to the Langbord's motion for partial summary judgment filed yesterday, it simply comes down to the Langbords claiming the following:
1. The Langbord's possession of the coins is sufficient to entitle them to constitutional rights to "due process" before the government can legally take and keep the coins;
2. The government taking possession of the coins for the purpose of authenticating them and thereafter telling the Langbords that the government is not going to return the coins because they, according to the government "were stolen from the mint" violates the Langbords' right to due process;
3. The government in the Fenton case seized the Fenton coin in 1996 and thereafter filed a civil forfeiture action [which was litigated and settled, with the coin being sold and the proceeds split];
4. The government in the Langbord case chose to do things differently than it did in the Fenton case [in Fenton it filed a civil forfeiture action and in the Langbord case it did not since it believes it does not have to];
5. CAFRA [the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act] was enacted to change the rules regarding forfeiture of property to the government. Under the old system the individual had the burden to prove that the property was not subject to forfeiture. Under the new system put in place by CAFRA the government has the burden to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture [the purpose for the change was to level the palying field between the individual and the government by forcing the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture];
6. The explanation for the government's position in this case [we have the coins, they were stolen form the mint, we do not need to file a forfeiture action] as opposed to the government's position in the Fenton case [we seized the coin but we need to file and did file a civil forfeiture action] is that it is a tactical effort to improperly shift the burden of proof as to events that took place 70 years ago off of the government, where CAFRA has placed it, onto the Langbord family where it does not belong; and
7. If the court agrees with the Langbords, the government should be required to return the coins to the Langbords unless and until the governement commences a civil forfeiture action [though the Langbords also assert that it is too late for the government to bring such an action and thus the Langbords are entitled to a return of the coins and are entitled to keep them free and clear of any claim by the government to the coins].
Regardless of how one feels about the coins and Langbord family, the idea that the government can take the position that by merely asserting that property possessed by an individual is "stolen" the government can take and keep possession of the property from the individual without having to "prove" what it says is true is very troubling.
It will be fascinating to see how the judge handling this case rules upon the pending motions. Regardless of how the parties to the lawsuit have twisted, turned and postured in the case, it appears that no one [the government, the Langbords or the court] will be able to obtain a judicial resolution of this case [as opposed to a settlement] without having to determine who has the burden to prove what happened in 1933, specifically how did the coins leave the mint. Neither side can prove how the coins left the mint.
Thus if a judicial resolution to the case requires a determination of how the coins left the mint, the party to whom the burden of proof is assigned should end up losing the case.
It will also be interesting to see how the government explains why in the Fenton case it chose to file a civil forfeiture action and why in the Langbord case it did not file a civil forfeiture action.
As to when the court will issue a ruling on the pending motions, if it decides to hear and decide all motions at one time, I do not expect a decision from the court until late spring at the earliest.
That is all for now folks.
0
Comments
If the government does win, I wonder what that could do towards Pattern Coins and other coins not intended for circulation/public control obtainment?
Interesting and will look forward to an update in a couple months
Agreed.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Can your remind us why the government wants L's double eagles? Is it because the gov thinks the L's stole the coins?
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
Can your remind us why the government wants L's double eagles? Is it because the gov thinks the L's stole the coins? >>
The way I understand it is that all 33 DE's were acquired illegally, and the Langboards either acquired them from a third party or acquired them first-hand from the mint.
Either way the government claims these coins were never officially released for circulation.
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
Can your remind us why the government wants L's double eagles? Is it because the gov thinks the L's stole the coins? >>
Money. The coins are worth probably $2 million apiece.
Also, consistency with their policy of seizing 1933 double eagles since 1949.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>It is time for an update folks.
The court has multiple motions pending before it, including two motions related to the experts hired by the parties (Mr. Tripp hired by Uncle Sam and Mr. Bowers hired by the Langbords) and summary judgment motions. The most recent summary judgment motion was filed by the Langbords yesterday. It is a motion for partial summary judgment. It is very interesting and sets forth a major, if not the major, legal argument by the Langbords. I will summarize it below. The Langbords are also going to file another motion for partial summary judgment be the end of the month.
I expect that the court will choose to not rule upon any of the pending motions in a piecemeal fashion. Thus I expect that when both sides have filed papers in support of and in opposition to all of the expert motions and all of the summary judgment motions, the court will schedule a hearing on all motions, listen to the attorneys present oral argument on the motions and then take all of the motions under submission. Thereafter the court will issue one or more written orders that will rule upon all of the motions. The court's order(s) on the motions will be most interesting to read and will probably reveal how the court views the merits of the claims and defenses pending in the lawsuit.
With respect to the Langbord's motion for partial summary judgment filed yesterday, it simply comes down to the Langbords claiming the following:
1. The Langbord's possession of the coins is sufficient to entitle them to constitutional rights to "due process" before the government can legally take and keep the coins;
2. The government taking possession of the coins for the purpose of authenticating them and thereafter telling the Langbords that the government is not going to return the coins because they, according to the government "were stolen from the mint" violates the Langbords' right to due process;
3. The government in the Fenton case seized the Fenton coin in 1996 and thereafter filed a civil forfeiture action [which was litigated and settled, with the coin being sold and the proceeds split];
4. The government in the Langbord case chose to do things differently than it did in the Fenton case [in Fenton it filed a civil forfeiture action and in the Langbord case it did not since it believes it does not have to];
5. CAFRA [the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act] was enacted to change the rules regarding forfeiture of property to the government. Under the old system the individual had the burden to prove that the property was not subject to forfeiture. Under the new system put in place by CAFRA the government has the burden to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture [the purpose for the change was to level the palying field between the individual and the government by forcing the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture];
6. The explanation for the government's position in this case [we have the coins, they were stolen form the mint, we do not need to file a forfeiture action] as opposed to the government's position in the Fenton case [we seized the coin but we need to file and did file a civil forfeiture action] is that it is a tactical effort to improperly shift the burden of proof as to events that took place 70 years ago off of the government, where CAFRA has placed it, onto the Langbord family where it does not belong; and
7. If the court agrees with the Langbords, the government should be required to return the coins to the Langbords unless and until the governement commences a civil forfeiture action [though the Langbords also assert that it is too late for the government to bring such an action and thus the Langbords are entitled to a return of the coins and are entitled to keep them free and clear of any claim by the government to the coins].
Regardless of how one feels about the coins and Langbord family, the idea that the government can take the position that by merely asserting that property possessed by an individual is "stolen" the government can take and keep possession of the property from the individual without having to "prove" what it says is true is very troubling.
It will be fascinating to see how the judge handling this case rules upon the pending motions. Regardless of how the parties to the lawsuit have twisted, turned and postured in the case, it appears that no one [the government, the Langbords or the court] will be able to obtain a judicial resolution of this case [as opposed to a settlement] without having to determine who has the burden to prove what happened in 1933, specifically how did the coins leave the mint. Neither side can prove how the coins left the mint.
Thus if a judicial resolution to the case requires a determination of how the coins left the mint, the party to whom the burden of proof is assigned should end up losing the case.
It will also be interesting to see how the government explains why in the Fenton case it chose to file a civil forfeiture action and why in the Langbord case it did not file a civil forfeiture action.
As to when the court will issue a ruling on the pending motions, if it decides to hear and decide all motions at one time, I do not expect a decision from the court until late spring at the earliest.
That is all for now folks. >>
My guess is the Langbord's win on point number 5. If the burden of proof now rests on the government that should end the case.
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)
<< <i>There is zero chance these coins left the mint by legal means. >>
It will be interesting to see if the government can meet its burden of proof on even that point.
<< <i>There is zero chance these coins left the mint by legal means. >>
Were you standing at the Mint'd doors in 1933? How do you know?
Thanks for the update, SanctionII
-Paul
"Prove it" is a very interesting phrase. At first blush the concept seems to be simple. Looking at it a second or third or fourth time reveals that it is not so simple.
When "Prove it" comes up in the context of a lawsuit, rules of Civil Procedure, rules of Evidence [and the social policies behind them], rules of pleading and the rules of substantive law that form the basis of the separate claims and defenses pending in a lawsuit all conspire to muddy things up. Ten persons looking at the same evidence offered at trial by the parties to the case and applying the same procedural and substantive rules of law will probably come up with ten separate, inconsistent decisions in the case.
Glad I am just a monday morning quarterback who can toss in my two cents worth, secure in the knowledge that if I am wrong, no big deal; and if I am right, I can say "I told you so"
bob
I really have (myself) no vested interest in how the case concludes, except this: as a collector, I sincerely hope that the coins are preserved, not melted, as other '33 Saints were over the years.
<< <i>Your are welcome folks. Glad to report on the happenings in the case.
"Prove it" is a very interesting phrase. At first blush the concept seems to be simple. Looking at it a second or third or fourth time reveals that it is not so simple.
When "Prove it" comes up in the context of a lawsuit, rules of Civil Procedure, rules of Evidence [and the social policies behind them], rules of pleading and the rules of substantive law that form the basis of the separate claims and defenses pending in a lawsuit all conspire to muddy things up. Ten persons looking at the same evidence offered at trial by the parties to the case and applying the same procedural and substantive rules of law will probably come up with ten separate, inconsistent decisions in the case.
Glad I am just a monday morning quarterback who can toss in my two cents worth, secure in the knowledge that if I am wrong, no big deal; and if I am right, I can say "I told you so"
Of course the summary judgment issues will be decided by a judge and not ten persons. I could see the judge ruling that the government cannot meet its burden of proof if your point #5 is applied and the government cannot come up with anything better than it apparently has to this point.
Why do you say that the coins were stolen?
What evidence do you have which "proves" that these 10 coins were stolen?
Both sides to the lawsuit are doing all that they can to avoid having the court place on them the burden to prove, via legally admissible evidence, how these 10 coins left the mint in 1933. No one can meet this burden of proof. No one can "prove" via legally admissible evidence how the 10 coins left the mint. There are no living witnesses. The documents present in Mint and other government archives may or may not be legally admissible as evidence. Even if they are admissible into evidence, the information contained in the documents do not establish how these 10 coins left the mint. Both experts concede that they do not know how the 10 coins left the mint.
The government and Mr. Tripp can offer explanations that lead one to believe that it was impossible for any of the 1933 double eagles to have left the mint in an authorized manner.
The Langbords and Mr. Bowers can offer equally plausible explanations that lead one to believe that it was possible for 1933 double eagles to have left the mint in an authorized manner.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room in this case is, again, who has the burden to prove what.
If the court decides that "how the 10 coins left the mint in 1933" must be determined in this case, then the court's decision on who has the burden to prove how the 10 coins left the mint in 1933 will, in all likelihood, determine who wins and who loses the case [at the trial court level, I do not want to think about an appeal].
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
The update of the case was useful. But your analysis of the update was truly priceless. Thanks so much for helping me make sense of the court procedures.
<< <i>I have an 1837 10c sitting on my desk and papers to prove that I bought it and you are aware that I own it due to a great deal of publicity regarding it. Tomorrow it is in your safety deposit bank and you become aware of it only when you open it up and look inside. Do I have to prove how it got from my house to your safety deposit or is it enough to say that you are in possession of my property and I want it back and in order for it to be returned to me either I will prosecute in order to lawfully regain possession or I am able to regain possession of it by tricking you into giving it to me under the guise of an expert's examination for its authenticity that you yourself requested. Please explain what is wrong with my scenario. >>
Pretty much sums it all up!
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
<< <i>Why aren't the Langboards simply being prosecuted for receiving stolen property and the stolen coins confiscated? The stolen coins were found in their safe deposit box, correct? The Langboards should have returned them knowing that they had to have been stolen. >>
That shifts the burden of proof entirely on the government, and they may not feel they can muster that burden of proof. So if what they really want is the coins surrendered to the feds, civil litigation can provide for that same conclusion with a lesser burden of proof.
Nothing is wrong with your described scenario.
However, your scenario is different from the Langbord case. In your scenario your coin is yours and there is no issue as to whether the coin is yours.
In the Langbord case the an issue exists as to whether the 10 coins, in 1933, left the mint in an authorized manner [if they did leave in an authorized manner, then the coins, upon leaving the mint, were no longer government property]. Depending on pre trial rulings by the court, the central factual issue in the Langbord case may well be how the ten coins left the mint in 1933. If so, then the party on whom the court places the burden of proof may find itself in a position where it can not prove how the coins left the mint and thus lose the case.
I do not care who wins or loses the case. Regardless of who wins, I hope the 10 coins do not get destroyed.
I also enjoy following the case as it progresses. The strategy and tactics of the lawyers and the rulings by the court are interesting.
<< <i>I have an 1837 10c sitting on my desk and papers to prove that I bought it and you are aware that I own it due to a great deal of publicity regarding it. Tomorrow it is in your safety deposit bank and you become aware of it only when you open it up and look inside. Do I have to prove how it got from my house to your safety deposit or is it enough to say that you are in possession of my property and I want it back and in order for it to be returned to me either I will prosecute in order to lawfully regain possession or I am able to regain possession of it by tricking you into giving it to me under the guise of an expert's examination for its authenticity that you yourself requested. Please explain what is wrong with my scenario. >>
You make the assumption that the only way it could have gotten to my box is by stealing it. Maybe your wife/kid/employee sold it to me. That isn't unlawful for me to then have it assuming they were able to act as your agent whether or not you gave them explicit rights to sell this particular coin or not.
You forget that there is plausible reason to believe that the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint legally.
Regarding the suit itself, I would love to see Dave Bowers and David Tripp testify for the respective parties. It would be high theatre. As someone already noted, anyone who would have personal knowledge of the removal of the coins from the mint would be long dead. Let's have some live experts!
Anything on the seizure of bullion and records from Liberty Coin or NOFED or whatever Nuthause calls himself these days?
<< <i>There is zero chance these coins left the mint by legal means. >>
How about those V nickels that keep going up in price? Released by legal means??
There is zero chance these coins left the mint by legal means.
Under the law of February 1873, which was in force in March 1933, the coins
could have been legally removed from the Mint. The edicts issued by the
Roosevelt Administration did not suspend the 1873 law. In point of fact, the
Treasury specifically allowed the Mint to pay out gold coins until early April
1933.
Denga
<< <i>dbldie55 January 28, 2009
There is zero chance these coins left the mint by legal means.
Under the law of February 1873, which was in force in March 1933, the coins
could have been legally removed from the Mint. The edicts issued by the
Roosevelt Administration did not suspend the 1873 law. In point of fact, the
Treasury specifically allowed the Mint to pay out gold coins until early April
1933.
Denga >>
Body slam.
There is a saying that if you repeat a lie enough times everyone believes it. All those years from 1944 onward with the Government claiming they were stolen and confiscating them, to the "illegal to own" mention in the Red Book, has got everyone believing that they were in fact stolen. If the coins were switched with $20 pieces of other dates by Izzy, then the Government was not out one cent.
As he demonstrates, even if the Mint could have paid out gold coins for a short period of time after the 1933 double eagles had been minted, the 1933 double eagles simply weren't available to be paid out - they were in a locked vault (or two), in storage. As I recall (I haven't read the book in a few years), Tripp believes that the 1933 double eagles were removed from the Mint by a Mint employee a few years after they were minted.
Now, whether Tripp's chain of custody is admissable in court and/or convincing to a judge or jury is another matter.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
I tend to believe the timetable of the events that transpired is the key. Clearly, these coins were minted by the Government to enter circulation. When and how did the 1933 double eagle coins leave the mint? While most folks will get caught up in the how part, perhaps the better question is when then left. Are there any records of other years and dates of coins leaving the mint under similar circumstances? And if precedence for coins leaving the mint can be established by the Langbords and the government failed to exercise the argument that it is currently making, then it would seem that the Langbords have an argument that would seem to be similar to a waiver argument. If I lived in 1931 and was able to obtain 10 1931-D Double Eagles from the Denver Mint in the manner the 1933 Double Eagles were obtained from the Philadelphia Mint, would the government attempt to my 10 1931-D Double Eagles? I think it is a difficult argument for the government. What is different?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Switt knew how they got out, and in all those years made no attempt to establish the legitimacy of his ownership. I know that's not legal proof of anything but it tells me something. >>
Maybe Switt didn't want to take a chance on the gov't confiscating them, even if they were in fact legally obtained.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
David Tripp's "Illegal Tender" and Alison Frankel's "Double Eagle"
Tripp's book has more information about the Mint's operations during the 1930's and the Government's efforts to recover the double eagles (starting in the 1940's).
Frankel is a lawyer and her book has more information about the legal case and the so-called coin dealer who was the Government's agent in the sting against Steve Fenton.
Both are great reads!
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>There is zero chance these coins left the mint by legal means. >>
Which the government needs to prove - if they haven't already blown their chance to do so.
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks for the update!
There is a saying that if you repeat a lie enough times everyone believes it. All those years from 1944 onward with the Government claiming they were stolen and confiscating them, to the "illegal to own" mention in the Red Book, has got everyone believing that they were in fact stolen. If the coins were switched with $20 pieces of other dates by Izzy, then the Government was not out one cent. >>
How does the above make any sense at all. If the coins were switched out, then they were taken and leaving something different in its place
isn't a valid excuse. So if I had an 1888/7 on my desk and someone took it and left me a whole lot of cash equal in value to an S-1 is that considered not stealing if it wasn't with my permission?
I think yer missing the point. The trade would be like exchanging 1962 Jefferson nickels for those from the year 1963.
Don't forget, "justice" often has nothing to do with the truth. Seeing the outcome develop will be most interesting.