Of all the attorneys who represent coin dealers and associations, or are coin collectors themselves, SanctionII is the only one who has taken the time and effort to keep collectors informed about the 1933 double eagle litigation. Reading court filings and making summaries that can be comprehended by us non-lawyers takes considerable work. This is the kind of meaningful dedication to collector communication that benefits all in the hobby.
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!!
<< <i>Of all the attorneys who represent coin dealers and associations, or are coin collectors themselves, SanctionII is the only one who has taken the time and effort to keep collectors informed about the 1933 double eagle litigation. Reading court filings and making summaries that can be comprehended by us non-lawyers takes considerable work. This is the kind of meaningful dedication to collector communication that benefits all in the hobby.
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!! >>
1) I don't find it that difficult to imagine that the government will actually win the required forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords end up with nothing.
2) The Langbords sent the coins to the U.S. Mint "for authentication." The Mint should declare the coins "not authentic" as they were never released or "monetized," should melt them, and present the Langbords with the brick, as suggested earlier in this thread.
3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.)
It does take a lot of time to keep up on the case, but I started reporting on it and will do so through the end. I do enjoy posting about the case and enjoy even more reading your responses.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. 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.
<< <i>3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.) >>
I'm not so sure about that. It is true that the Government signed a document claiming that they would not monetize any more, that the coin in question was the only "legal" one, etc. But I am not sure that document is enforcable. Depending on how the current case turns out, the concept of "monetization" may turn out to be totally meaningless. As for legality, the government can turn around and say that while some more have been proven legal, there is nothing we can do about that, and you didn't specify any damages in the original document which dealt with the case of additional legal coins appearing. The point being, the original purchase agreement (not sure it is a public document) may well have been written poorly.
There is also the issue of whether the current owner wants their name in the public record.
Finally, if the government is fighting this hard against the Langbords, do you think they will ease up against the owner of the existing 1933, whose money they already have
<< <i>Of all the attorneys who represent coin dealers and associations, or are coin collectors themselves, SanctionII is the only one who has taken the time and effort to keep collectors informed about the 1933 double eagle litigation. Reading court filings and making summaries that can be comprehended by us non-lawyers takes considerable work. This is the kind of meaningful dedication to collector communication that benefits all in the hobby.
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!! >>
A motion I wholeheartedly second!! >>
I third it! TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Coinosaurus, the claim by the owner of the Fenton coin against the Government (which was, effectively, party to the sale of that coin to said owner) would be predicated on contractual misrepresentation and reliance on false claims and assurances, not on enforceability of the monetization restriction. Of course, if I represented the owner of the Fenton coin, I would sue the Government under both law and equity, seeking both injunctive relief (i.e. enforcement of the non-monetization restriction, preventing further public displays, and even demanding the destruction of the coins) as well as monetary damages (compensation for loss in value when a pop 1 becomes pop 11). It would likely be possible to do that without publicizing the plaintiff's name, so that wouldn't be an issue. The name could be veiled through unrecorded trusts, etc., or listed by consent as "John Doe" etc.
Of all the attorneys who represent coin dealers and associations, or are coin collectors themselves, SanctionII is the only one who has taken the time and effort to keep collectors informed about the 1933 double eagle litigation. Reading court filings and making summaries that can be comprehended by us non-lawyers takes considerable work. This is the kind of meaningful dedication to collector communication that benefits all in the hobby.
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!!
Excellently put RWB! And, as always, thanks so VERY much SanctionII!
It does take a lot of time to keep up on the case, but I started reporting on it and will do so through the end. I do enjoy posting about the case and enjoy even more reading your responses.
SanctionII >>
Thanks. I did not realize you were an attorney though it was apparent you had some law related responsibilities.
1) I don't find it that difficult to imagine that the government will actually win the required forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords end up with nothing.
2) The Langbords sent the coins to the U.S. Mint "for authentication." The Mint should declare the coins "not authentic" as they were never released or "monetized," should melt them, and present the Langbords with the brick, as suggested earlier in this thread.
3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.) >>
I fail to see how the government would face any responsibility to the Fenton coin owner. It is not as though the government has not fought the present proceedings all the way. Without researching it I suspect there may well be immunity anyway. Remember that prior to the Federal Tort Claims Act in which the government allowed itself to be sued in limited circumstances there was almost no redress against the government under the law.
1) I don't find it that difficult to imagine that the government will actually win the required forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords end up with nothing.
2) The Langbords sent the coins to the U.S. Mint "for authentication." The Mint should declare the coins "not authentic" as they were never released or "monetized," should melt them, and present the Langbords with the brick, as suggested earlier in this thread.
3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.) >>
I fail to see how the government would face any responsibility to the Fenton coin owner. It is not as though the government has not fought the present proceedings all the way. Without researching it I suspect there may well be immunity anyway. Remember that prior to the Federal Tort Claims Act in which the government allowed itself to be sued in limited circumstances there was almost no redress against the government under the law. >>
Good point. Lord knows, they tried!!! TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Judge Rules that Gov’t Improperly Seized 1933 St. Gaudens Gold coins
By CoinLink on Sunday, August 2, 2009
a stunning rebuke to the US Mint and the Treasury Department, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis ruled that the government improperly seized 10 1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagles (Possibly worth millions d dollars each), and denied the Langbord family due process when Mint officials decided to keep them after they were authenticated without a hearing.
“The government’s ‘good-faith’ belief that the coins were once stolen is not sufficient, under the circumstances, to justify its decision to conduct a warrant less seizure,” Davis wrote.
The case which has been in litigation since, revolves around one of the most fabled coins in all of US Numismatics.
By way of a brief background; The 1933 $20 Double eagle was the last year of production in the popular Saint gaudens series. At the same time the coins were being manufactured, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made private gold ownership illegal in the US, All the 1933 Double Eagles were supposed to have been destroyed.
Unknown to Mint officials, a limited number found their way out of the mints possession. Historically this is not an unusual occurrence, and dozens of documented cases exist where non regular issue coins have been removed, sold, or otherwise were created for privileged individuals or enterprising collectors with contacts within the Mint itself.
In the 1940s, when the government got wind that coin dealers were selling 1933 Double Eagles, and the Secret Service launched an investigation and eventually seized all the coins it could find. One that evaded the government efforts and was reported as part of the King Faruk collection (Egypt). The 1940s investigators concluded that all of the Double Eagles that got out of the Mint had passed through the hands of a Philadelphia jeweler named Israel Switt. Though the lead Secret Service investigator pressed for charges to be brought against Switt, the Philadelphia U.S. attorney said the statute of limitations had expired. Switt was never prosecuted for the theft of the coins from the Mint. Fast forward to 2002 when a London dealer Stephen Fenton was caught in a Secret Service sting operation trying to sell the Faruk 1933 $20. Litigation ensued and eventually a settlement was reached that ultimately declared this single 1933 Double Eagle as the ONLY one that could be legally owned. Interesting as part of the settlement Fenton and the US Mint shared equally in the proceeds of the $7 million hammer price at the 2002 auction sale in New York City held by Sotheby’s and Stacks in a jointly catalogued event.
This was and remains the highest price paid for ANY US coin .
Sometime after 2002, the Langbord’s attorney, Barry Berke, who also was involved in the compromised litigation and auction sale of the King Faruk coin, wrote to the Mint offering to allow them to authenticate 10 coins (all 1933 double eagles) that Mrs. Langbord said were found in a sealed safety deposit box while she was looking for some pieces of her late mother’s jewelry to sell.
Mint experts determined that the coins were genuine, but declined to return them to the Langbord family on the basis that the Mint claimed that the coins were the property of the US government and could not have been lawfully removed from the Mint. Since then, as expected. the courts have been involved.
An Interesting analysis of the case so far was put forward by By Alison Frankel posted on the American Law Litigation Daily. She stated” Berke’s (The Langbord’s attorney) canny strategy was to turn the coins over to the government, but only for purposes of authentication. Then when the government refused to give the coins back–as Berke surely knew it would–he sued, claiming the coins had been illegally seized from the Langbords. And though assistant U.S. attorneys in Philadelphia argued that the Langbord family had unclean hands, Judge Davis ruled that the Langbords’ constitutional protections had been violated. Now the burden of proof lies on the government.”
The judge’s order calls for the government to initiate a forfeiture hearing by Sept. 28. The hearing would likely amount to a trial where the Government must establish that the Langbord coins were stolen–even though everyone connected with the coins’ disappearance from the Mint and the initial investigation of the alleged theft is long dead.
Obviously this saga will continue into the fall, but it seems that the government is going to have a difficult time “”proving” that the coins were stolen from the mint.
Which brings me to a few final thoughts. Not being a lawyer or being trained in the art of obfuscation it seems to me personally that the governments handling of both this and the original Fenton-Faruk settlement/sale has been both inept and tainted.
If when the Fenton-Faruk coin was confiscated the Government stood by its position that the coin was indeed illegal to own, regardless of the outcome of any continuing litigation, I would be more inclined to accept their current position with respect to the Langbord “hoard”. However it seems a bit disingenuous to strike a deal where the Mint gets half the proceeds of the sale of the Fenton-Faruk coin, and that somehow it is suddenly declared to be “Legal to Own”, and then take the exact opposite position when additional coins surface.
I realize that I may be an idiot for expecting the law to be fair and consistent, but in my opinion, the governments hands are a bit soiled and it would appear that the Mint wants to have both its cake, and eat it too.
Why the government and the US Mint have decided that this issue is of such great importance that they would spend millions trying to hold onto the Langbord’s 10 1933 Double Eagles, and yet for almost 100 years they have turned a blind eye to the 1913 Nickels that have traded in the marketplace is beyond me. The presence of these coins is a Plus for the hobby and, if the mint were to strike a similar 50/50 deal with the Langdorn’s, what would be the downside?
The US Mint spends million of dollars each year trying to promote the sale of its products, encouraging coin collecting, attending major shows and trying to come up with new and exciting collector programs. Wouldn’t it seem to be a smart idea if the mint struck a deal to auction off One of the 1933 Saints every year for the next ten years. That might create a bit of a buzz in the numismatic community and provide a few lucky, albeit wealthy collectors, the opportunity to own on of the most historic and fabled coins in US numismatics.
<< <i>Which brings me to a few final thoughts. Not being a lawyer or being trained in the art of obfuscation it seems to me personally that the governments handling of both this and the original Fenton-Faruk settlement/sale has been both inept and tainted. >>
In a sense the Langbord's have it easier here. The government has to coordinate between the Mint, Treasury, Justice, Secret Service - ie. a lot of departments, and come to a consensus before doing anything.
The Langbord's, on the other hand, have one very smart attorney who calls all the shots & by definition is a lot more nimble. And of course he has substantial experience from the previous DE case.
Also hurting the government, IMHO, is the lack of a compelling single thread that unifies their case. For the Langbord's it is simple - the government took our property and we want it back. This is more complicated for the government - what they are saying is that of all the coins that got out of the Mint for the last 200 years, we want these particular ones back. And it is not really clear why they are going after these instead of some dopey 1870 standard silver pattern. Now, if you stole Lincoln's head from the Memorial statue, the government would have a VERY simple clear and compelling case of theft to litigate. This current situation is not so black and white.
<< <i> Wouldn’t it seem to be a smart idea if the mint struck a deal to auction off One of the 1933 Saints every year for the next ten years. That might create a bit of a buzz in the numismatic community and provide a few lucky, albeit wealthy collectors, the opportunity to own on of the most historic and fabled coins in US numismatics >>
The mint can't auction off something that hasn't yet been shown to be theirs.
I am curious whether the filing of a forefeiture proceeding in this case by the government will result in the addition of new parties (and possibly new legal claims and/or either in the government's pleading or in any responses filed by the Langbords) and whether the case will be fast tracked for trial or will end up with renewed discovery and new summary judgment motions?
Time will tell.
How many books do you think will end up being written about this case?
I thought that the deadline for a forfeiture motion had passed. What did I miss? TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The court ruling in favor of the Langbords on their claims that the goverment's retention of the coins after the Langbord's attorney requested the return of same violated their 4th and 5th amendment rights under the US Constitution resulted in the court awarding certain "relief" to the Langbords.
The "relief" the court awarded to the Langbords is a court order that the government file a forefeiture case against the coins. When such a forefeiture case is filed (it will be filed in the existing lawsuit), the Langbords can defend same. In the forefeiture case the government will have the burden of proof (under CAFRA) to prove that the ten specific coins "left the mint illegally". This will be very difficult, if not impossible for the government to do.
<< <i>The court ruling in favor of the Langbords on their claims that the goverment's retention of the coins after the Langbord's attorney requested the return of same violated their 4th and 5th amendment rights under the US Constitution resulted in the court awarding certain "relief" to the Langbords.
The "relief" the court awarded to the Langbords is a court order that the government file a forefeiture case against the coins. When such a forefeiture case is filed (it will be filed in the existing lawsuit), the Langbords can defend same. In the forefeiture case the government will have the burden of proof (under CAFRA) to prove that the ten specific coins "left the mint illegally". This will be very difficult, if not impossible for the government to do. >>
SanctionII-
Does the government have any realistic options besides a forfeiture proceeding? For example, wait till a sale and then seek injunctive relief against the sale occuring. I'm speculating that the burden of proof to prevent a sale is lower than the burden of proof required under CAFRA.
I do not think the government has any option other than filing a forefeiture proceeding in the existing case. The court has ordered the government to do this, by 9-28-2009 (if I recall the date correctly). If the government fails to comply with the court's order, it would be subject to sanctions being imposed against it. The ultimate sanction would be the imposition of the CAFRA "death penalty" statute. The death penalty would be an order compelling the government to return the coins to the Langbords and forever barring the government from asserting any interest in them.
The Langbords sought to have the court impose this penalty but the court refused, instead ordering the government to file the forefeiture proceeding. If the government still fails to file a forefeiture proceeding against the coins after the judge ordered them to do so, the failure of the government to do so would not be well received by the judge.
As far as a sale of the coins, the government has possession of them and has no interest in selling them (since its position is that they are not coins, are not capable of private ownership and are simply stolen government property). Ownership of them is up in the air. No one would be interested in buying them while the lawsuit is pending. Even if a sale was planned, the Langbords could ask the court to stop it and if a sale took place they could simply sue the buyer.
The government is in a position where it has no choice but to do one of two things at this point in time:
1. file the forefeiture proceeding by the deadline; or
2. prepare and file papers (probably an extraordinary writ proceeding, since in general pre trial orders arenot immediately appealable and can only be appealed after a judgment has been filed in the case) with the Court Of Appeal and seek to have the Court Of Appeal reverse the recent decision issued by the federal district court judge.
So, the Langbords gained the advantage that the Treasury now has to play by the rules, and prove their case, instead of just holding on to the coins and saying "So there!"
Does that about sum it up?
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I do not know the details of the circumstances regarding the 1964D Peace Dollar. However, I vaguely recall that about 9 years after they were made the government made written statements about these coins and the government's position about them [they are not legal to own.
I also vaguely recall that either expressly or impliedly the government relied upon the 1947 Tennessee federal district court opinion in the US v. Bernard case to support its position. To the extent that the U.S. Bernard case can be attacked [in the Langbord case the court in its ruling of last week paid short shrift to Bernard and gave it "no love"], that would weaken the government's position on the 1964D Peace dollar.
However, the facts of the two cases/two coins are completely different and the Langbord case proceedings at the trial court level would have no impact on any future case regarding 1964D Peace dollars.
If you want good information on these Peace dollars, I suggest you pick up and read Roger W. Burdette's recent book on that series. It has a chapter on the 1964 Peace Dollar and is a very good book.
<< <i>What effect of the outcome of this suit do you think would have on the legality of the 1964 Peace dollar? >>
Don't think the Langbord case will affect the 1964-D dollars. Only Denver Mint employees (allegedly, for the benefit of Mr. Burdette) had the opportunity to purchase the 1964-D dollars, and the (alleged) recall and coverup was immediate and thorough.
The 1933 $20's existed during a window of opportunity when an ordinary citizen could have walked up to the Philadelphia Mint and exchanged an earlier year $20, or two $10's or four $5's, for a 1933 $20. There is documented evidence that at least one 1933 $10 was exchanged for in this manner. Because you cannot prove a negative, there is no documented evidence that a 1933 $20 was not exchanged for in this manner.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>What if the government "misplaces" the coins? >>
If the Langbords win their original lawsuit, then they sue to collect the Fenton coin price times ten. After all, that is the "going rate." TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!!
<< <i>Of all the attorneys who represent coin dealers and associations, or are coin collectors themselves, SanctionII is the only one who has taken the time and effort to keep collectors informed about the 1933 double eagle litigation. Reading court filings and making summaries that can be comprehended by us non-lawyers takes considerable work. This is the kind of meaningful dedication to collector communication that benefits all in the hobby.
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!! >>
A motion I wholeheartedly second!!
1) I don't find it that difficult to imagine that the government will actually win the required forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords end up with nothing.
2) The Langbords sent the coins to the U.S. Mint "for authentication." The Mint should declare the coins "not authentic" as they were never released or "monetized," should melt them, and present the Langbords with the brick, as suggested earlier in this thread.
3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.)
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
It does take a lot of time to keep up on the case, but I started reporting on it and will do so through the end. I do enjoy posting about the case and enjoy even more reading your responses.
SanctionII
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>3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.) >>
I'm not so sure about that. It is true that the Government signed a document claiming that they would not monetize any more, that the coin in question was the only "legal" one, etc. But I am not sure that document is enforcable. Depending on how the current case turns out, the concept of "monetization" may turn out to be totally meaningless. As for legality, the government can turn around and say that while some more have been proven legal, there is nothing we can do about that, and you didn't specify any damages in the original document which dealt with the case of additional legal coins appearing. The point being, the original purchase agreement (not sure it is a public document) may well have been written poorly.
There is also the issue of whether the current owner wants their name in the public record.
Finally, if the government is fighting this hard against the Langbords, do you think they will ease up against the owner of the existing 1933, whose money they already have
<< <i>
<< <i>Of all the attorneys who represent coin dealers and associations, or are coin collectors themselves, SanctionII is the only one who has taken the time and effort to keep collectors informed about the 1933 double eagle litigation. Reading court filings and making summaries that can be comprehended by us non-lawyers takes considerable work. This is the kind of meaningful dedication to collector communication that benefits all in the hobby.
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!! >>
A motion I wholeheartedly second!! >>
I third it!
TD
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
I want to publicly give SanctionII a big THANK YOU for all he has done!!!
Excellently put RWB! And, as always, thanks so VERY much SanctionII!
<< <i>Thanks for the kind words.
It does take a lot of time to keep up on the case, but I started reporting on it and will do so through the end. I do enjoy posting about the case and enjoy even more reading your responses.
SanctionII >>
Thanks. I did not realize you were an attorney though it was apparent you had some law related responsibilities.
<< <i>My preferred anti-Langbord outcomes:
1) I don't find it that difficult to imagine that the government will actually win the required forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords end up with nothing.
2) The Langbords sent the coins to the U.S. Mint "for authentication." The Mint should declare the coins "not authentic" as they were never released or "monetized," should melt them, and present the Langbords with the brick, as suggested earlier in this thread.
3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.) >>
I fail to see how the government would face any responsibility to the Fenton coin owner. It is not as though the government has not fought the present proceedings all the way. Without researching it I suspect there may well be immunity anyway. Remember that prior to the Federal Tort Claims Act in which the government allowed itself to be sued in limited circumstances there was almost no redress against the government under the law.
<< <i>
<< <i>My preferred anti-Langbord outcomes:
1) I don't find it that difficult to imagine that the government will actually win the required forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords end up with nothing.
2) The Langbords sent the coins to the U.S. Mint "for authentication." The Mint should declare the coins "not authentic" as they were never released or "monetized," should melt them, and present the Langbords with the brick, as suggested earlier in this thread.
3) If the coins become "legal to own" in some manner, whether by the Langbords or others, then I absolutely believe that the purchaser of the Fenton coin has an iron-clad case against the Government to receover damages for the consequent loss in value suffered by the Fenton coin. (If I were the owner, I would have sued the Government immediately when they paraded the ten coins around the country as "1933 Double Eagles" rather than as "mere chattel." I would have sought an injunction against that public display, as well as monetary damages.) >>
I fail to see how the government would face any responsibility to the Fenton coin owner. It is not as though the government has not fought the present proceedings all the way. Without researching it I suspect there may well be immunity anyway. Remember that prior to the Federal Tort Claims Act in which the government allowed itself to be sued in limited circumstances there was almost no redress against the government under the law. >>
Good point. Lord knows, they tried!!!
TD
Judge Rules that Gov’t Improperly Seized 1933 St. Gaudens Gold coins
By CoinLink on Sunday, August 2, 2009
a stunning rebuke to the US Mint and the Treasury Department, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis ruled that the government improperly seized 10 1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagles (Possibly worth millions d dollars each), and denied the Langbord family due process when Mint officials decided to keep them after they were authenticated without a hearing.
“The government’s ‘good-faith’ belief that the coins were once stolen is not sufficient, under the circumstances, to justify its decision to conduct a warrant less seizure,” Davis wrote.
The case which has been in litigation since, revolves around one of the most fabled coins in all of US Numismatics.
By way of a brief background; The 1933 $20 Double eagle was the last year of production in the popular Saint gaudens series. At the same time the coins were being manufactured, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made private gold ownership illegal in the US, All the 1933 Double Eagles were supposed to have been destroyed.
Unknown to Mint officials, a limited number found their way out of the mints possession. Historically this is not an unusual occurrence, and dozens of documented cases exist where non regular issue coins have been removed, sold, or otherwise were created for privileged individuals or enterprising collectors with contacts within the Mint itself.
In the 1940s, when the government got wind that coin dealers were selling 1933 Double Eagles, and the Secret Service launched an investigation and eventually seized all the coins it could find. One that evaded the government efforts and was reported as part of the King Faruk collection (Egypt). The 1940s investigators concluded that all of the Double Eagles that got out of the Mint had passed through the hands of a Philadelphia jeweler named Israel Switt. Though the lead Secret Service investigator pressed for charges to be brought against Switt, the Philadelphia U.S. attorney said the statute of limitations had expired. Switt was never prosecuted for the theft of the coins from the Mint.
Fast forward to 2002 when a London dealer Stephen Fenton was caught in a Secret Service sting operation trying to sell the Faruk 1933 $20. Litigation ensued and eventually a settlement was reached that ultimately declared this single 1933 Double Eagle as the ONLY one that could be legally owned. Interesting as part of the settlement Fenton and the US Mint shared equally in the proceeds of the $7 million hammer price at the 2002 auction sale in New York City held by Sotheby’s and Stacks in a jointly catalogued event.
This was and remains the highest price paid for ANY US coin .
Sometime after 2002, the Langbord’s attorney, Barry Berke, who also was involved in the compromised litigation and auction sale of the King Faruk coin, wrote to the Mint offering to allow them to authenticate 10 coins (all 1933 double eagles) that Mrs. Langbord said were found in a sealed safety deposit box while she was looking for some pieces of her late mother’s jewelry to sell.
Mint experts determined that the coins were genuine, but declined to return them to the Langbord family on the basis that the Mint claimed that the coins were the property of the US government and could not have been lawfully removed from the Mint. Since then, as expected. the courts have been involved.
An Interesting analysis of the case so far was put forward by By Alison Frankel posted on the American Law Litigation Daily. She stated” Berke’s (The Langbord’s attorney) canny strategy was to turn the coins over to the government, but only for purposes of authentication. Then when the government refused to give the coins back–as Berke surely knew it would–he sued, claiming the coins had been illegally seized from the Langbords. And though assistant U.S. attorneys in Philadelphia argued that the Langbord family had unclean hands, Judge Davis ruled that the Langbords’ constitutional protections had been violated. Now the burden of proof lies on the government.”
The judge’s order calls for the government to initiate a forfeiture hearing by Sept. 28. The hearing would likely amount to a trial where the Government must establish that the Langbord coins were stolen–even though everyone connected with the coins’ disappearance from the Mint and the initial investigation of the alleged theft is long dead.
Obviously this saga will continue into the fall, but it seems that the government is going to have a difficult time “”proving” that the coins were stolen from the mint.
Which brings me to a few final thoughts. Not being a lawyer or being trained in the art of obfuscation it seems to me personally that the governments handling of both this and the original Fenton-Faruk settlement/sale has been both inept and tainted.
If when the Fenton-Faruk coin was confiscated the Government stood by its position that the coin was indeed illegal to own, regardless of the outcome of any continuing litigation, I would be more inclined to accept their current position with respect to the Langbord “hoard”. However it seems a bit disingenuous to strike a deal where the Mint gets half the proceeds of the sale of the Fenton-Faruk coin, and that somehow it is suddenly declared to be “Legal to Own”, and then take the exact opposite position when additional coins surface.
I realize that I may be an idiot for expecting the law to be fair and consistent, but in my opinion, the governments hands are a bit soiled and it would appear that the Mint wants to have both its cake, and eat it too.
Why the government and the US Mint have decided that this issue is of such great importance that they would spend millions trying to hold onto the Langbord’s 10 1933 Double Eagles, and yet for almost 100 years they have turned a blind eye to the 1913 Nickels that have traded in the marketplace is beyond me. The presence of these coins is a Plus for the hobby and, if the mint were to strike a similar 50/50 deal with the Langdorn’s, what would be the downside?
The US Mint spends million of dollars each year trying to promote the sale of its products, encouraging coin collecting, attending major shows and trying to come up with new and exciting collector programs. Wouldn’t it seem to be a smart idea if the mint struck a deal to auction off One of the 1933 Saints every year for the next ten years. That might create a bit of a buzz in the numismatic community and provide a few lucky, albeit wealthy collectors, the opportunity to own on of the most historic and fabled coins in US numismatics.
CoinLink
<< <i>Which brings me to a few final thoughts. Not being a lawyer or being trained in the art of obfuscation it seems to me personally that the governments handling of both this and the original Fenton-Faruk settlement/sale has been both inept and tainted. >>
In a sense the Langbord's have it easier here. The government has to coordinate between the Mint, Treasury, Justice, Secret Service - ie. a lot of departments, and come to a consensus before doing anything.
The Langbord's, on the other hand, have one very smart attorney who calls all the shots & by definition is a lot more nimble. And of course he has substantial experience from the previous DE case.
Also hurting the government, IMHO, is the lack of a compelling single thread that unifies their case. For the Langbord's it is simple - the government took our property and we want it back. This is more complicated for the government - what they are saying is that of all the coins that got out of the Mint for the last 200 years, we want these particular ones back. And it is not really clear why they are going after these instead of some dopey 1870 standard silver pattern. Now, if you stole Lincoln's head from the Memorial statue, the government would have a VERY simple clear and compelling case of theft to litigate. This current situation is not so black and white.
<< <i> Wouldn’t it seem to be a smart idea if the mint struck a deal to auction off One of the 1933 Saints every year for the next ten years. That might create a bit of a buzz in the numismatic community and provide a few lucky, albeit wealthy collectors, the opportunity to own on of the most historic and fabled coins in US numismatics >>
The mint can't auction off something that hasn't yet been shown to be theirs.
Thanks again for the kind replies.
I am curious whether the filing of a forefeiture proceeding in this case by the government will result in the addition of new parties (and possibly new legal claims and/or either in the government's pleading or in any responses filed by the Langbords) and whether the case will be fast tracked for trial or will end up with renewed discovery and new summary judgment motions?
Time will tell.
How many books do you think will end up being written about this case?
What did I miss?
TD
The court ruling in favor of the Langbords on their claims that the goverment's retention of the coins after the Langbord's attorney requested the return of same violated their 4th and 5th amendment rights under the US Constitution resulted in the court awarding certain "relief" to the Langbords.
The "relief" the court awarded to the Langbords is a court order that the government file a forefeiture case against the coins. When such a forefeiture case is filed (it will be filed in the existing lawsuit), the Langbords can defend same. In the forefeiture case the government will have the burden of proof (under CAFRA) to prove that the ten specific coins "left the mint illegally". This will be very difficult, if not impossible for the government to do.
<< <i>The court ruling in favor of the Langbords on their claims that the goverment's retention of the coins after the Langbord's attorney requested the return of same violated their 4th and 5th amendment rights under the US Constitution resulted in the court awarding certain "relief" to the Langbords.
The "relief" the court awarded to the Langbords is a court order that the government file a forefeiture case against the coins. When such a forefeiture case is filed (it will be filed in the existing lawsuit), the Langbords can defend same. In the forefeiture case the government will have the burden of proof (under CAFRA) to prove that the ten specific coins "left the mint illegally". This will be very difficult, if not impossible for the government to do. >>
SanctionII-
Does the government have any realistic options besides a forfeiture proceeding? For example, wait till a sale and then seek injunctive relief against the sale occuring. I'm speculating that the burden of proof to prevent a sale is lower than the burden of proof required under CAFRA.
I do not think the government has any option other than filing a forefeiture proceeding in the existing case. The court has ordered the government to do this, by 9-28-2009 (if I recall the date correctly). If the government fails to comply with the court's order, it would be subject to sanctions being imposed against it. The ultimate sanction would be the imposition of the CAFRA "death penalty" statute. The death penalty would be an order compelling the government to return the coins to the Langbords and forever barring the government from asserting any interest in them.
The Langbords sought to have the court impose this penalty but the court refused, instead ordering the government to file the forefeiture proceeding. If the government still fails to file a forefeiture proceeding against the coins after the judge ordered them to do so, the failure of the government to do so would not be well received by the judge.
As far as a sale of the coins, the government has possession of them and has no interest in selling them (since its position is that they are not coins, are not capable of private ownership and are simply stolen government property). Ownership of them is up in the air. No one would be interested in buying them while the lawsuit is pending. Even if a sale was planned, the Langbords could ask the court to stop it and if a sale took place they could simply sue the buyer.
The government is in a position where it has no choice but to do one of two things at this point in time:
1. file the forefeiture proceeding by the deadline; or
2. prepare and file papers (probably an extraordinary writ proceeding, since in general pre trial orders arenot immediately appealable and can only be appealed after a judgment has been filed in the case) with the Court Of Appeal and seek to have the Court Of Appeal reverse the recent decision issued by the federal district court judge.
Does that about sum it up?
TD
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
I do not know the details of the circumstances regarding the 1964D Peace Dollar. However, I vaguely recall that about 9 years after they were made the government made written statements about these coins and the government's position about them [they are not legal to own.
I also vaguely recall that either expressly or impliedly the government relied upon the 1947 Tennessee federal district court opinion in the US v. Bernard case to support its position. To the extent that the U.S. Bernard case can be attacked [in the Langbord case the court in its ruling of last week paid short shrift to Bernard and gave it "no love"], that would weaken the government's position on the 1964D Peace dollar.
However, the facts of the two cases/two coins are completely different and the Langbord case proceedings at the trial court level would have no impact on any future case regarding 1964D Peace dollars.
If you want good information on these Peace dollars, I suggest you pick up and read Roger W. Burdette's recent book on that series. It has a chapter on the 1964 Peace Dollar and is a very good book.
<< <i>What effect of the outcome of this suit do you think would have on the legality of the 1964 Peace dollar? >>
Don't think the Langbord case will affect the 1964-D dollars. Only Denver Mint employees (allegedly, for the benefit of Mr. Burdette) had the opportunity to purchase the 1964-D dollars, and the (alleged) recall and coverup was immediate and thorough.
The 1933 $20's existed during a window of opportunity when an ordinary citizen could have walked up to the Philadelphia Mint and exchanged an earlier year $20, or two $10's or four $5's, for a 1933 $20. There is documented evidence that at least one 1933 $10 was exchanged for in this manner. Because you cannot prove a negative, there is no documented evidence that a 1933 $20 was not exchanged for in this manner.
TD
<< <i>What if the government "misplaces" the coins? >>
If the Langbords win their original lawsuit, then they sue to collect the Fenton coin price times ten. After all, that is the "going rate."
TD