The court has filed rulings in the Langbord lawsuit over the 10 1933 Double Eagles.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,414 ✭✭✭✭✭
I will print them out, read them and summarize same later today.
0
Comments
Thanks
“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!
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
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>Tease >>
+1
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Well I looked through the rulings. They dispose of the expert motions and the discovery motions.
They do not dispose of the summary judgment motions.
The court issued a 19 page written order in connection with the discovery motion and a separate order denying both motions. In short, both Mr. Bowers [the Langbords' expert] and Mr. Tripp [the government's expert] are not disqualified and will be allowed to testify at trial. If anyone wants a copy of the court's 19 page ruling please PM me.
The 19 page ruling talks about many things [mostly legal standards governing expert testimony] and states that:
"One of the questions in this case that may become significant at trial is whether the ten 1933 Double Eagle coins at issue were obtained legally from the United States Mint or the Department Of Treasury."
Thus the court is aware of the possibility that one side or the other will have to prove whether or not the coins left the mint legally or illegally.
The court ruling also states that if the parties wish to request that the court place specific limits on the testimony of either expert at trial, they shall file motions in limine prior to trial requesting same.
With respect to the discovery motions [two motions by the government for order deeming the Langbords to have admitted multiple requests for admissions served by the government], the court issued a short order that denies both motions on the grounds that boths side have failed to make a reasonable effort to resolve discovery disputes before filing discovery motions [as required by Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure]. The court is requiring that the parties to the case conduct one or more in person meetings to resolve the discovery disputes. If such meetings fail, the parties can file supplemental discovery motions by 5-29-2009 along with a certificate showing the details of the in person meetings and the outcome of same [to show compliance with the applicable rule of civil procedure requiring reasonable efforts to resolve the discovery dispute].
I do not know if the government will choose to go through this process and file supplemental discovery motions by 5-29-2009.
With respect to the summary judgment motions, the court did not rule on same. Instead it issued a scheduling order that requires that ALL summary judgment motions be filed by 5-29-2009 [the court wants all parties to have all summary judgment motions they want to file, including those previously filed, on file by 5-29-2009] and that all responses, replies and sur-replies to any such summary judgment motions be filed by specified dates, the last being 6-23-2009.
The court's scheduling order for ALL summary judgment motions does not set a hearing date for oral argument on the motions. Thus it is unknown if the court plans on having a hearing on the summary judgment motions or if it will have no hearing and rule on the motions without oral argument. If no further summary judgment motions are filed by 5-29-2009, the court's ruling on the four pending motions will happen sooner. If additional motions are filed by 5-29-2009, then rulings on the motions will happen later [probably not earlier than the first half of July, 2009].
As a result of the 5-11-2009 rulings, four of the eight pending motions have been disposed of. The four summary judgment motions previously filed remain pending and undecided.
By 5-29-2009 it will become known whether either party files more summary judgment motions and whether the government files supplemental discovery motions.
Hopefully the above will whet your hunger and thirst for knowledge about the up to date goings on in the case.
> Hopefully the above will whet your hunger and thirst for knowledge about the up to date goings on in the case
I sense a collective frothy frenzy of numismatic interest here. Thanks for the update!
Many thanx for the update.
Please extend my apologies to your clients that were inconvenienced by your prompt analysis of this.
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>Please extend my apologies to your clients that were inconvenienced by your prompt analysis of this. >>
Hey, we satisfy your pro-bono requirements in your local county?
We are very very needy pro bono clients here!
Thanks for the update. I understand about 3/4 of it.
Can you explain everything following that point?
It's like, "Just a tad bit anxious are we? Well I looked through the rulings..." and now cue in the theme song for The Facts Of Life, and that's about it for my feeble mind.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
<< <i>Really cool update, I understood all of it up to the point where you said, "Well I looked through the rulings."
Can you explain everything following that point?
Nothing important happened except a lot of paperwork was produced.
Free Trial
Why either Tripp or QDB should have been disqualified is beyond me. Neither are idiots, they will speak to the documents (such as they are) and be cross-examined on the same. Both guys are knowledgable on the subject matter, even if they bring in certain biases - it is up to the other side to expose those if they exist. I think the motions to dismiss these guys were just posturing by both sides - something a good judge should not look kindly upon.
They should sell tickets - I'd pay to watch QDB run circles around the government attorneys
1. Both experts will be allowed to testify at any trial;
2. The court refused to rule upon the two government discovery motions since the parties to the case did not demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to resolve the discovery dispute [which is required] before the motions were filed;
3. The court is requiring all summary judgment motions be heard at the same time and is giving the parties until 5-29-2009 to file any additional summary judgment motions they wish to be heard;
4. It remains unclear what claims and defenses will be heard and determined at any trial; and
5. It remains unclear who will have to prove what at any trial.
Clear enough?
<< <i>For those who find legal mumbo-jumbo hard to follow I will give a condensed, condensed version of the court's 5-11-2009 rulings.
1. Both experts will be allowed to testify at any trial;
2. The court refused to rule upon the two government discovery motions since the parties to the case did not demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to resolve the discovery dispute [which is required] before the motions were filed;
3. The court is requiring all summary judgment motions be heard at the same time and is giving the parties until 5-29-2009 to file any additional summary judgment motions they wish to be heard;
4. It remains unclear what claims and defenses will be heard and determined at any trial; and
5. It remains unclear who will have to prove what at any trial.
Clear enough?
Absolutely. Nothing happened.
Free Trial
<< <i>Clear enough?
Yes. Thanks.
Thanks for both the initial summary of the rulings and the Cliff's Notes version of the rulings!
It always amazes me how sssslllloooowwww the process works.
“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!
You are correct about how slow the process is.
It is hard to believe that the suit was filed by the Langbords in December, 2006, 2.5 years ago. If the court rules on the summary judgment motions this summer in a manner where the case proceeds to trial, it could easily be that the trial date would not be scheduled by the court until mid to late summer and that the actual trial date would be in 2010.
In California civil lawsuits are supposed to be resolved within one year from filing. Most civil cases filed in California state courts are resolved within one year. However I do have one hanging around that was filed 3+ years ago that still has not made it to trial yet.
One side will say they left the mint when they were not supposed to have so it must have been illegal.
The other side will say no theft of the coins was ever reported nor was anyone ever charged with a crime relating to the coins so it must have been done legally.
What side do you think the court will place the burden of proof on?
<< <i>In California civil lawsuits are supposed to be resolved within one year from filing. Most civil cases filed in California state courts are resolved within one year. However I do have one hanging around that was filed 3+ years ago that still has not made it to trial yet. >>
I want to a (criminal) court hearing for a friend of mine a couple of years back. There was one case on the docket that had been continued for more than five years!
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
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>
In California civil lawsuits are supposed to be resolved within one year from filing. Most civil cases filed in California state courts are resolved within one year. However I do have one hanging around that was filed 3+ years ago that still has not made it to trial yet. >>
When I was involved in a matter in Calif. several years ago, the matter did drag out some 3.5 years before the plaintiff decided to settle out of court as he had run out of funds with which to enrichen his counsel. I could have pushed the matter to go through court within that one year period mandated, but my counsel advised me that all that would accomplish is pissing off the judge reviewing the matter.
What do you figure the L's have invested in the coins so far?
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>Thank you again Sanction. What do you figure the L's have invested in the coins so far? K >>
My gut feeling is that they may be funding a small portion, but I think that the major funding is by Mr. Berke, in exchange for a portion of the proceeds. In other words, a contingent fee.
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
Clear as mud
100% Positive BST transactions
1. Lawsuits take too long;
2. If the court had disqualified the experts and barred their testimony, that would have thrown a huge wrench into the case for both sides if the case goes to trial. Disqualifying one expert but not the other would have been unjust and unfair to the side whose expert was disqualified. Both experts are knowledgeable on the subject matter. Letting both testify about their expert opinions and the basis for same, facing cross examination by the opposing attorneys makes sense;
3. Court's do not like parties to bring their discovery disputes to the court for decision and instead prefer that the parties and their attorneys work out such disputes themselves;
4. It makes sense for the court to defer ruling on the four pending summary judgment motions until after the the deadline passes for the parties to file any other summary judgment motions they wish to file [in a case like this all parties should be given one shot at summary judgment, instead of bringing multiple motions for summary judgment one after the other]; and
5. Waiting for court rulings with great anticipation is sort of like waiting for your next new coin purchase to arrive. You check daily to see if the new coin arrived, you receive it and after having it for a day, you turn your attention to the next one
<< <i>
The 19 page ruling talks about many things [mostly legal standards governing expert testimony] and states that:
"One of the questions in this case that may become significant at trial is whether the ten 1933 Double Eagle coins at issue were obtained legally from the United States Mint or the Department Of Treasury." >>
Well, DUH!!!!!!!
Ain't that the point, the whole point and nothing but the point???????????????
Sheesh!
TD
<< <i>
Well, DUH!!!!!!!
Ain't that the point, the whole point and nothing but the point???????????????
Sheesh!
>>
You are forgetting that there is a whole cadre of attorneys and justice personnel who need to justify their existence. The only way to do that is to dress it up in all this legal mumbo jumbo and make it look like what they are doing is really hard.
Sidebar : I believe this guy's intent was to Get a Taco Bell© Napkin ...He has to be a coin geek. Seriously.
Thanks Buddy