The court has issued a ruling in the Langbord lawsuit.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,203 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am printing out a copy of the ruling and will provide an update later today after I get back from an afternoon court hearing.
0
Comments
or is a final decision made?
Looking forward to the update!
Talk about a CRUEL post. I opened it, anticipating reading the judgment and your expert summary. And what do I find? You have another court case to which you must attend! I hope that case moves promptly along so that we can quickly discover what happened and you can tell us what it all means!
PDF HOSTING SITE
Your welcome.
FEC
Click on D.pdf when page appears.
Such anticipation. I'm breathless with excrement!
Free Trial
<< <i>Since our OP teased us and didnt post anything, here is the actual order and momorandum.
PDF HOSTING SITE
Your welcome.
FEC
Click on D.pdf when page appears. >>
<< <i>SanctionII:
Talk about a CRUEL post. I opened it, anticipating reading the judgment and your expert summary. And what do I find? You have another court case to which you must attend! I hope that case moves promptly along so that we can quickly discover what happened and you can tell us what it all means! >>
The way I figure it is that 99 times out of a 100 I get way more than
I pay for when I open a thread.
This times is the exception but there's a promise of much more to come
and (probably) with no additional charge.
<< <i>Since our OP teased us and didnt post anything, here is the actual order and momorandum.
PDF HOSTING SITE
Your welcome.
FEC
Click on D.pdf when page appears. >>
You are one Sick puppy!!
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
As Sanction has been saying all along, the case hinges on who has the burden of proof. If I skimmed this right, the court ordered that CAFRA applies here, which is great for the Langbords, because the government will have the burden to prove that it owns the coins in the upcoming forfeiture proceeding.
Enjoy... PM me if you want copies of the docs.
III. CONCLUSION
The Government has vigorously argued throughout this case that it should not have to
follow the requirements established by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to recover what it
believes to be its own property. However, we find that such a holding would be contrary not
only to the governing law, but also to the bedrock principles of justice on which our government
is founded. It is axiomatic that “men naturally trust in their government, and ought to do so, and
they ought not to suffer for it.” Menges v. Dentler, 33 Pa. 495, 500 (1859). The Government
must not squander that trust. Instead, the Government must invariably respect the wise restraints
embodied by the Constitution and must follow the clearly delineated paths to justice that they
create. Seeking shortcuts to these paths does nothing more than undermine their valuable
function and erode the meaning of the rights they are designed to protect. As Justice Black once
explained, “t is no less good morals and good law that the Government should turn square
corners in dealing with the people than that the people should turn square corners in dealing with
their government.” St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 229 (1961) (Black, J.,
dissenting). Through the forfeiture proceeding the Government will have the opportunity to
“turn square corners” by asserting its ownership of the coins while affording Plaintiffs the
process they deserve.
An appropriate Order follows.
And the related order...
it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Illegal Seizure
and Due Process Claims (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Due Process and
Illegal Seizure Claims (Doc. No. 77) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Illegal
Seizure claims. The Motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Administrative
Procedure Act claim.
3. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning the Applicability
of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”) to the 1933 Double Eagles
(Doc. No. 67) is GRANTED;
4. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning the
Applicability of CAFRA to the 1933 Double Eagles (Doc. No. 78) is DENIED;
5. Defendants shall initiate a judicial forfeiture proceeding concerning the 1933
Double Eagles as part of this action on or before Monday, September 28, 2009;
and
6. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Replevin and
Conversion Claims (Doc. No. 102) is DENIED without prejudice with leave to
reinstate upon written request by Defendants following the conclusion of the
judicial forfeiture proceeding.
BY THE COURT:
/S/LEGROME D. DAVIS
Legrome D. Davis, J.
<< <i>Wowwwww - barring a miracle, there will be 10 new 1933 double eagle's on the market soon. >>
TDN---How many are you planning to buy?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Isn't the government the defendant in this case? >>
Yes
<< <i>It sounds to me like they have the basis to perhaps win. >>
No way, no how. They now have to prove the coins left the mint illegally.
Fascinating phraseology. I'm not sure I've encountered it before.
<< <i>Sanction, would the person who purchased the 'original one & only' have any action to sue? If I recall correctly they were issued a letter that stated that coin was the only one. While it would still be a great item I can't imagine that its value would be the same with 10 more on the market. >>
No. Really, the value of the one was trashed as soon as the other ten showed up. And the government only promised not to monetize any more of them - they can still keep that promise [whatever the heck that actually means].
<< <i>Wowwwww - barring a miracle, there will be 10 new 1933 double eagle's on the market soon. >>
Sounds the same to me. I'll wait to hear what Sanction II has to say, but based on my reading of the above, it looks to me like a win for the Langbords.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Collecting:
Conder tokens
19th & 20th Century coins from Great Britain and the Realm
Government, you say the pieces were stolen -- so prove it!
Hooray!
<< <i>Too bad the Langbords can't recover their legal fees. >>
Why can't they?
<< <i>Wowwwww - barring a miracle, there will be 10 new 1933 double eagle's on the market soon. >>
MAKE THAT 11 1933 D.E.'s on the market soon!
Does any one really believe that the owner of the Fenton specimen would risk the devaluation of that example by the liberation of the Langbord hoard for public ownership/sale? That indvidual is going to be facing a huge decision shortly if the trial court decision favors the Langbords. I would not want to be in that person's shoes now or if/when the decision does favor the Langbord family.
Conversely, a court ruling in favor of the Langbord family would necessarily nullify the Gummint claim that the Fenton specimen is the only 1933 D.E. that is legal for public ownership, in which case the expected lawsuit by the owner of the Fenton specimen would likely result in a HUGE settlement from the Gummint.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
<< <i>"turn square corners"
Fascinating phraseology. I'm not sure I've encountered it before. >>
I was thinking the same thing, and perhaps shall add it to my idiom lexicon.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>Too bad the Langbords can't recover their legal fees. >>
Why can't they? >>
Because this is America. Unlike England, in our legal system, it very rare for a defendant to be able to recover legal fees.
<< <i>Sorry for the cynicism but I wish they could both lose. I believe (without evidence) that Switt new they were hot or they would have been on the market 30 years ago. From my perspective it would be cool if 25 rolls hit the market as soon as the ink dries on the court decision. >>
True. I think this ruling is critical to prevent the government to win by saying "because we're the government and we said so." That is a huge win for property rights beyond this case; when the government can take property based only on "because we said so," we're doomed. But yeah, I think the legacy of Izzy Switt taints the "victory" for property rights.
In other words: great message, unfortunate messenger.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Guess they'll have to edit the Constitution hey?
On a serious note, "because we said so" is a chilling thought.
scott
<< <i>There will likely be an appeal >>
I wonder how much of our taxes are going into their legal fight...
<< <i>Sorry for the cynicism but I wish they could both lose. I believe (without evidence) that Switt new they were hot or they would have been on the market 30 years ago. From my perspective it would be cool if 25 rolls hit the market as soon as the ink dries on the court decision. >>
I'm with you on this
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>"turn square corners" >>
It's refreshing to see a justice recognize the Constitution as having "parameters" with which the government itself must walk within.
That's my interpretation of this phrase.
But the overall message that the court won't agree that the items are stolen just because the gummint says so is very good news for the Langbords.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
The ruling does not completely dispose of the case [some may be happy and some may be sad with the fact that the case will continue on in the federal trial court].
Interestingly, the court's memorandum does not [from my initial reading of it] contain any hint about how the judge views the ultimate outcome of the case.
Overall, the ruling is a victory for the Langbords.
My thoughts and musings about the ruling [based solely upon my initial review of same] are set forth below.
One point is clear. Specifically, the court believes that when the government failed to act [by returning the coins or by filing a forfeiture action] after Mr. Berke sent a letter in mid 2005 requesting a return of the coins, it "seized" the coins from the Langbords.
This seizure of the coins by the government is, in the court's view, a violation of the Langbords 4th Amendment right [ the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."] and 5th Amendment right [to "procedural due process"] under the US constitution.
In granting the Langbords summary judgment motion on the illegal seizure and due process claims contained in their complaint and in denying the government's summary judgment motion on the same claims, the court has handed the Langbords a partial victory in the case. Having won these claims, the court has awarded certain "relief" to the Langbords. The "relief" the court has given to the Langbords is an order requiring the government, in this case, to filed a judicial forfeiture proceeding against the 10 coins by 9-28-2009.
As to this part of the case, I say CONGRATULATIONS TO THE LANGBORDS and their attorneys.
The form, shape, and content of any judicial forefeiture proceeding that the government may file in this case is unknown at this time. It is possible that the government may immediately seek review of the court's ruling on the illegal seizure and due process claims by the US District Court Of Appeals covering the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania [if my understanding of federal law is correct, no appeal could be taken at this time and the only way immediate appellate review can be done is via extraordinary writ]. If immediate appellate review is sought, then further proceedings in the district trial court would probably be delayed.
I suspect that if the government does file a judicial forefeiture proceeding, it would have to do so under the statutory provisions of CAFRA [as opposed to some other body of law]. If CAFRA woould apply to any such judicial forefeiture proceeding, then it would appear that the government would have the burden of proof placed upon it. If so, this would be a significant victory for the Langbords and a significant loss for the government.
Another part of the ruling grants the government's motion for summary judgment regarding the applicability of CAFRA and denies the Langbords' motion for summary judgment regarding the applicability of CAFRA. This portion of the ruling states that a specific section [18 USC Section 983(a)] in the statutes on CAFRA does not apply. I my memory is correct, Section 983 contains the "death penalty" [in this casse return the coins and be forever barred from asserting an interest in them] that the Langbords argued should be applied to the government. The court found that Section 983(a) applies only "in any nonjudicial civil forefeiture proceeding under a civil forefeiture statute." A nonjudicial forefeiture is an "administrative" forefeiture. The court ruled that Section 983(a) applies only to administrative forefeitures and that since no such forefeiture was pursued by the government in this case, Section 9839a) does not apply.
[Funny and ever so curious to me, it is, that the court found that by failing to return the coins or file a forefeiture proceeding against the coins the government illegally "seized" the coins in violation of the 4th and 5th amendment rights of the Langbords; yet this same illegal "seizure" does not rise to the level of and constitute an "administrative forefeiture" by the government to which the penalties in Section 983(a) would apply. It seems the court views the government keeping the coins after being asked to return them to be extremely heinous on one hand (a constitutional rights violation), but no big deal on the other hand (simply keeping the coins after being asked return them, though worse than keeping them and starting some sort of administrative forefeiture proceeding, is sufficient to result in the government not being subject to Section 983(a) penalites)].
In a footnote to the ruling, the court intimated that even if Section 983(a) applied, under that Section the court could give the government a break and allow it to file a late fofefeiture proceeding, thereby avoiding the death penalty aspect of the statute [In reality, the court's ruling has done just that].
The court also denied, without prejudice, the Langbords summary judgment motion directed at the Replevin and Conversion claims. The court chose to not rule on those claims at this time and has given the Langbords the right to renew their motion as to those claims after the conclusion of the judicial forefeiture proceeding that the government is supposed to file.
The court was not willing to agree with the government's argument that the Langbords should be denied relief due to the alleged "unclean hands" of the Langbords (the government portrays the Langbords' 2003 "discovery" of the coins to be false and that they knew of them years earlier and knew that they were stolen. The court stated that the governement's argument assumes "the answer to the ULTIMATE QUESTION IN ISSUE IN THIS MATTER.", specifically that the Langbords knew the coins were stolen. The court stated that "No court has yet determined that THESE PARTICULAR COINS WERE EVER STOLEN."
The above quoted statements in the ruling indicate to me that the court may believe that the case will turn on proof of whether or not the coins were stolen.
The court was also not willing to agree with the government's argument that the Langbords are guilty of unclean hands due to the absence of any mention of the coins in the papers filed in Mr. Switt's estate inventory and tax documents.
With respect to the 1947 Tennessee Federal District Court opinion in the US v. Bernard case (72 Fed. Supp. 531), the court acknowledged the government's heavy reliance on same. The court stated that the court in Bernard was simply ruling on the evidence that it had before it at the time. The court stated that the decision in Bernard did not serve as a blanket authorization for future warrantless seizures of 1933 double eagles. The court also stated that in Bernard, the government brought a judicial replevin action to recover the Bernard 1933 double eagle and that, in that sense, Bernard serves as an example of a reasonable court of action available to the government to recover a coin that it believes to have been stolen.
The court also made statements to the effect that Mr. Shaver of the mint would not be unbaised, and made statements about the fact that multiple government agencies met to discuss what to do and that all but the mint thought that the initiation of forefeiture proceedings would be proper.
Over all, my opinion about the court's ruling of today is that the court did not like that the government simply kept the coins after being requested to return same by Mr. Berke. The court believes that the government should have initiated forefeiture proceedings against the coins. The court believes that by failing to do so the government violated the constitutional rights of the Langbords. To remedy these violations, the court is ordering the government to file a judicial forefeiture proceeding. If, in such a forefeiture proceeding CAFRA would apply [the provisions of CAFRA other than Section 983(a)], then it appears that the government would have the burden of proof [to establish that the ten coins left the mint in an unauthorized manner, or to say it another way "that the tens coins were stolen"].
The ruling may very well also mean that this case will not be decided at trial based upon the events that took place in 2003-2006. Instead, the case may be decided upon the events [if they can be proved] that took place in the 1930s and 1940s.
The court's ruling is one which should be applauded by all those who believe that the government should not be able to take the position that "this property belongs to the government simply because we say so, therefore give it to us and to get it back you have to sue and prove that the property is not government property". The ruling supports the proposition that the government must provide "due process" to persons with possession of property that the government claims belongs to it and that the government can not simply take and keep such property.
Looking to the future of the case, if the ruling stands [and is not overturned through an immediate review of same by the Court Of Appeals on an extraordinary writ], then the government will have no choice but to file a judicial forefeiture proceeding in this case by the end of September. There may be legal wrangling over the details of such a proceeding, but if such a proceeding is governed by CAFRA's other provisions, including the provision which places the burden of proof on the government, then the Langbords will have a stronger position in the case than they have had previously.
The risk to the government of going to trial:
1. without witnesses to the events of the 1930's & 1940s who can testify;
2. with a documentary record which may be incomplete [certain documents may not be allowed into evidence if the Langbords' objections to same are upheld] and which will be confusing, unclear and inconsistent [see RWB's recent Coin World Article];
3. with both experts conceding that they do not know how the ten coins left the mint; and
4. with the law [See the PNG second amicus brief and see RWB's recent article] enacted by Congress in 1954 [since amended but remaining the same] being that all gold coins MADE prior to 4-5-1933 are legal to own (with evidence that 100,000 1933 double eagles were made at the mint before 4-5-1933 and no one can prove whether these ten coins were part of the 100,000 made before 4-5-1933)
is great.
If the case proceeds along the lines described above, with a looming trial date and the government facing a possible trial at which it can not admit evidence, I can see a possible repeat of the Fenton case. Specifically a discussion among counsel for the parties and the negotiation of a settlement [maybe along the lines of the Fenton case with the Langbords ackowledging the government's ownership of the coins, the formal issuance of same (for $20.00 each), with a sale of same to third parties, or a division of same between the government and the Langbords and with the Fenton buyer being brought in and being made part of the settlement.
Stay tuned.
For me to have that much tied up in one piece, Id need to have ALOT more to feel comfortable.
It seems things are going the Langbords' way at the moment.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Sorry about that. I should have not been so anxious to hit the "Reply To Thread" button.
I invite further comment and discussion about today's ruling. Your thoughts and opinions on this case are always an enjoyable read
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
with this matter and have them testify under oath as to the
facts of the case. On the other hand, I believe that the
Government has enough on its plate and should immediately
cease and desist from futzing around with the 1933s any more.
Perhaps we should give the coins to China, as partial backing for
the Treasury debt they are holding.
Camelot