Should anyone go to prison for something that was done decades ago. I guess maybe all of us are in trouble for the crimes our family may or may not have committed in the past....get real
<< <i>Should anyone go to prison for something that was done decades ago. I guess maybe all of us are in trouble for the crimes our family may or may not have committed in the past....get real >>
Things our families have done, and things we as individuals have done are two different things... no?
<< <i>What if it were to be proven, perhaps by a letter or other communication, that they were in fact aware the coins were "stolen" (or otherwise sold outside the normal channels) from the mint.
Does that change anyone's perspective? And I wonder if this prior knowledge handed down from generation to generation was what led to the comments made by that other poster -- because it is not out of the realm of possibility for this to have occurred, at least from where I sit....Mike >>
OK, let us take this to the extreme. All coins recovered from pirate ships that end up in collectors hands make their recipients criminals. Ah, but they knew they were stolen at some point in history. Actually let us go even further. All gold coins issued by Spain after the plundering of the Incas and melting of their gold artifacts into coins make those who hold them today criminals. Ah again, they knew they were stolen at some point in history. On a more serious note, German authorities have reportedly recently been raiding collectors homes to confiscate ancient coins and then requiring the collectors to prove the source of the coins. Just imagine how the Langbord case could negatively impact all collectors in this country if a ruling contrary to that just made is ultimately made that the burden is not on the government to prove the illegality.
I just read the August 3rd Coin World which, in an article regarding the 10 Saints, states "exchange of gold-for-gold was permitted from March 15 to April 12, 1933.
No jail for these folks since most of the article also details out specific descrepancies in Mint book keeping and records and certain discrepancies ragarding Secret Service Agents reports.
From what I've read, we're now just looking at when these will become available to the public or when the government will buy out the Langbords so that the US Treasury can continue to parade these across the country as:
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I just read the August 3rd Coin World which, in an article regarding the 10 Saints, states "exchange of gold-for-gold was permitted from March 15 to April 12, 1933.
No jail for these folks since most of the article also details out specific descrepancies in Mint book keeping and records and certain discrepancies ragarding Secret Service Agents reports.
From what I've read, we're now just looking at when these will become available to the public or when the government will buy out the Langbords so that the US Treasury can continue to parade these across the country as:
>>
For something they say should not exist and that they did not want around they sure put a lot of effort advertising the fact that they have them. Seems like this will turn out and bite them in the arse as now it will be publicly known that they illegally confiscated them and they are now so well known that the auction price if they get there will benefit the Langbords big time.
Clearly the Langbord family could not have committed an imprisonable crime!! Any crime, if committed, would have been committed over 70 years ago and since it would not have been a capital crime, I am pretty sure that any statute of limitations should have run out. >>
I agree. Give them back their damn coins and let the numismatic world throw them a party in celebration.
Clearly the Langbord family could not have committed an imprisonable crime!! Any crime, if committed, would have been committed over 70 years ago and since it would not have been a capital crime, I am pretty sure that any statute of limitations should have run out. >>
I agree. Give them back their damn coins and let the numismatic world throw them a party in celebration. >>
Make no mistake, the Langbord's are in it only for the money.
While everybody is considering the possibilities of these coming onto the open market, I see certain repercussions regarding the US Treasury department and the promise that only the single coin sold in 2004 would be monetized.
I expect that the US Treasury will offer a "buy out" to the Langbord's which, since they (the Langbord's) already made that an initial option, will likely accept.
This way, the US Treasury has control over the 10, they will not go to public auction and therefore the single coin still remains the only "monetized" issue in existance.
"The following year, they asked the Mint to authenticate them and suggested they were open to a negotiated settlement, perhaps akin to the 50-50 split reached in a previous case involving one double eagle coin.
The collection could be worth nearly $80 million or more. A comparable double eagle sold for $7.59 million in 2002 — believed to be the highest price ever paid for a coin.
The family has previously asked for the coins' return or a settlement of up to $40 million."
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Look at the photo, above. The old lady on the right is reflected in the double eagle display…in the reflection she’s young and pretty with auburn hair. It even got rid of the ugly hat!
Amazing what some time in Ft. Knox will do for you!
<< <i>The ten 1933 doubles eagles must be magical!!!
Look at the photo, above. The old lady on the right is reflected in the double eagle display…in the reflection she’s young and pretty with auburn hair. It even got rid of the ugly hat!
Amazing what some time in Ft. Knox will do for you! >>
No, of course they should not go to prison ... that is, unless they knowingly kept these coins for years in contravention of federal law. Sending the coins to the Mint for "authentication" does seem to have been a well-planned wise-ass gamble thought up by their attorney, which likely voided the likelihood that the surviving family would be tried in any way. Contraband or no, the worst that is likely to happen is forfeiture. Now if Israel Switt were still alive, that might be a different question.
As for the Langbords, I kinda see it this way: I opened up my late father-in-law's safety deposit box, and found millions in cash !! I get to keep it, right? True, he worked at a bank, and may have taken "free samples" ... in fact, let's say he was a known bank robber !! But he's dead, and I don't know the exact circumstances of how he got these here millions, so I should get to keep it free and clear, right? WRONG !! ... or at least, not necessarily.
You may not like the law, you may not agree with the law, you may want to repeal a statute or a appeal a court decision, but you still have to obey and respect the law.
My premise for all this is that I believe it is utter nonsense that Switt had these coins legitimately. Yes, that is just a belief. But I don't doubt for a moment that he got them surreptitiously, and stashed the rest away once it became clear that they were illegal to own. Remember all the prominent collectors who bought examples, but had to forfeit them? Why should the remaining examples that were stashed away by the dealer/source be free from similar forfeiture?
Many people have provided comments and opinions on the surrender of the coins by the Langbord family to the mint "for authentication". Some can not believe they did so. Some thought it was a dumb move. Some said they should have kept the coins and sold them overseas. Some thought it was the right thing to do.
My own opinion is that the decision to surrender the coins to the government was the result of the family consulting with counsel and seeking advice; of counsel evaluating factual and legal alternatives and making a choice about which course of conduct would give his clients the best shot at getting the coins back (through settlement or more likely a trial).
Having the family surrender the coins to the government after they were found in the safe deposit box; asking for them to be authenticated; asking to consider working out a resolution of the dispute over ownerhship; sending a letter reserving all rights the family had in the coins the day before they were surrendered to the government; asking for the coins back after they were deemed authentic (and coupled with the government simply keeping them without filing a forefeiture action) all allow the family to present themselves at trial as citizens who did not hide the coins and who did the right and honorable thing, only to be treated very badly by the governement.
By doing what they did, the family could be viewed very sympathetically by a jury at trial, with not much ammunition on the part of the government to make them look bad during cross examination. The government's conduct could be viewed and portrayed as not very sympathetic. In fact a jury could decide that the government treated the family badly.
Separate and apart from "how one looks at trial", the family and their counsel may have also simply concluded that the best, most forthright and honorable way to deal with the situation over ownership and possession of the ten coins was to give them to the government so they could be authenticated and then litigate the question of ownership if a settlement can not be worked out.
All in all I can find no fault in the family surrendering the ten coins to the government and suing to have the court determine ownership after the government refused to return them and refused to file a forefeiture case against the coins.
Sanction II, you are wise and your efforts are appreciated. However, I think it a stretch to judge the game as being motivated only by what is honorable and forthright. I'm sure they knew about those coins for many years. Even if they did not, sending the coins in "for authentication" was clearly a legal ploy, which had little to do with being honorable and forthright. It was perhaps partly done in fear (after the U.S. made noise about the Fenton coin being the only one legal to own), and partly in the hopes of creating a circuitous route to rightful ownership. One can only commend their counsel, regardless of how one views their alleged rights of ownership.
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law" ... but that other tenth can be a real stinker.
I would not be surprised to see the government prevail in the forfeiture case, despite the apparent victory for the Langbords in the current ruling. And frankly, I think forfeiture would be the right outcome, based on all I have read about the history of these coins.
Another interesting outcome would be to give the coins to the heirs of all the collectors who paid Switt et al. for them, only to have them seized by the S.S. At least those coins were obtained for consideration.
I still say the owner of the Fenton coin should find a voice ... which could easily be done through counsel, without revealing his/her identity. (Personally, I believe that if you know where to look for the J-1776, you will find the Fenton coin, but that is strictly a guess.)
No one knows what the motivation of the family was in surrendering the coins to the government. Regardless of the motivation though, surrendering the coins will help, not hurt, the family and a jury's perception of them at trial.
As far as how the coins made their way into Israel Switt's hands, no one really knows. It may very well be that they made their way into his hands in a manner that would be viewed as improper.
However, trials require proof, via legally admissible evidence. In a forefeiture proceeding under CAFRA the government apparently will have the burden of proof (rightfully so in my opinion, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the ten coins or this lawsuit). If the government does not have the ability to meet its burden of proof then it may well lose the case (though I suspect that if the government realizes that it will have difficulty proving its case at trial it will change its position and discuss settlement with the Langbord family [and probably the Fenton buyer at the same time].
The court's recent ruling ordering the government to file a forefeiture case is a victory for the Langbords [I believe the government should have filed a forefeiture case against the Langbord coins in 2004 or 2005, following the same thing it did with respect to the Fenton coin in 1996].
What the ultimate outcome of the case is, I do not know. I do not care who wins. I just do not want to see the ten coins destroyed. I also believe the winner of the case may well be the side that does not have the burden of proof [I stated this opinion in my very first post on this case].
<<...I also believe the winner of the case may well be the side that does not have the burden of proof...>>
Exactly...and as things stand, that would be the Langbords- as the onus is now clearly on the government to show that the coins were illegally obtained, thanks to some clever maneuvering on the part of their counsel. So, even if true (which I personally believe to be the case), there is no practical way to prove the illegal acquisition... thus I'm willing to bet that the government will realize this, settle with the Langbords, and keep the coins. What becomes of them after that is anyone's guess.
To answer the OP question...no. The Langbords are indeed "all about the money" in all this, but it was Izzy and/or a mint employee(s) who were theoretically guilty of anything punishable.
Kudos to Sanction II for keeping everyone abreast of the latest developments.
<< <i>My premise for all this is that I believe it is utter nonsense that Switt had these coins legitimately. Yes, that is just a belief. But I don't doubt for a moment that he got them surreptitiously, and stashed the rest away once it became clear that they were illegal to own. Remember all the prominent collectors who bought examples, but had to forfeit them? Why should the remaining examples that were stashed away by the dealer/source be free from similar forfeiture?
Sunnywood >>
Switt actually sold some of these coins and I would surmise that as soon as he got wind that they were being "confiscated" regardless of whether or not they had been obtained legitimately, he surrendered a few sacrificial coins and stashed the balance away!
I have not read every post but I find this one interesting. Should anyone go to jail... From what I know I would say NO. But If...
OK, so lets say that Izzy obtained the coins through a fair trade of equal value with a mint employee, something that I read was common back then. I would say that the coins are legit enough to own, that it is a civil issue at that point and the family is not guilty of theft. The court can determine ownership.
If Izzy actually "Stole" the coins (taken without proper compensation) as some have suggested then we have theft. Or if Izzy obtained the coins from another person knowing that they were stolen then we have possession of stolen property. This does not automatically make all the family guilty of theft, just Izzy's actions.
Now if the coins were "Stolen" AND if Izzy told his family that they were stolen AND if the family continued to retain the "stolen property" after being informed it was stolen; THEN I would say there might be a prisonable offense for possession of stolen property. Statute of limitations=not applicable as the "possession" was ongoing and current at the time of seizure.
But to prove a prisonable offense without a full confession would be near impossible. From what i have read I would have to think that this is more of a civil issue anyway, not criminal.
Now to a different issue. Why is the government out displaying millions of dollars of someone's personal property, leaving possiblilty for damage to the coins, without permission from the owner AND while unlawfully possessing them to boot?
I think that the government should submit the 10 eagle to PCGS and have them graded and encapsulated before moving them around too much.
Comments
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Hang 'em!
High Noon. Good Movie!
<< <i>Should anyone go to prison for something that was done decades ago. I guess maybe all of us are in trouble for the crimes our family may or may not have committed in the past....get real >>
Things our families have done, and things we as individuals have done are two different things... no?
<< <i>What if it were to be proven, perhaps by a letter or other communication, that they were in fact aware the coins were "stolen" (or otherwise sold outside the normal channels) from the mint.
Does that change anyone's perspective? And I wonder if this prior knowledge handed down from generation to generation was what led to the comments made by that other poster -- because it is not out of the realm of possibility for this to have occurred, at least from where I sit....Mike >>
OK, let us take this to the extreme. All coins recovered from pirate ships that end up in collectors hands make their recipients criminals. Ah, but they knew they were stolen at some point in history. Actually let us go even further. All gold coins issued by Spain after the plundering of the Incas and melting of their gold artifacts into coins make those who hold them today criminals. Ah again, they knew they were stolen at some point in history. On a more serious note, German authorities have reportedly recently been raiding collectors homes to confiscate ancient coins and then requiring the collectors to prove the source of the coins. Just imagine how the Langbord case could negatively impact all collectors in this country if a ruling contrary to that just made is ultimately made that the burden is not on the government to prove the illegality.
No jail for these folks since most of the article also details out specific descrepancies in Mint book keeping and records and certain discrepancies ragarding Secret Service Agents reports.
From what I've read, we're now just looking at when these will become available to the public or when the government will buy out the Langbords so that the US Treasury can continue to parade these across the country as:
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I just read the August 3rd Coin World which, in an article regarding the 10 Saints, states "exchange of gold-for-gold was permitted from March 15 to April 12, 1933.
No jail for these folks since most of the article also details out specific descrepancies in Mint book keeping and records and certain discrepancies ragarding Secret Service Agents reports.
From what I've read, we're now just looking at when these will become available to the public or when the government will buy out the Langbords so that the US Treasury can continue to parade these across the country as:
For something they say should not exist and that they did not want around they sure put a lot of effort advertising the fact that they have them. Seems like this will turn out and bite them in the arse as now it will be publicly known that they illegally confiscated them and they are now so well known that the auction price if they get there will benefit the Langbords big time.
<< <i>This is an absolutely absurd question.
Clearly the Langbord family could not have committed an imprisonable crime!! Any crime, if committed, would have been committed over 70 years ago and since it would not have been a capital crime, I am pretty sure that any statute of limitations should have run out. >>
I agree. Give them back their damn coins and let the numismatic world throw them a party in celebration.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is an absolutely absurd question.
Clearly the Langbord family could not have committed an imprisonable crime!! Any crime, if committed, would have been committed over 70 years ago and since it would not have been a capital crime, I am pretty sure that any statute of limitations should have run out. >>
I agree. Give them back their damn coins and let the numismatic world throw them a party in celebration. >>
Make no mistake, the Langbord's are in it only for the money.
While everybody is considering the possibilities of these coming onto the open market, I see certain repercussions regarding the US Treasury department and the promise that only the single coin sold in 2004 would be monetized.
I expect that the US Treasury will offer a "buy out" to the Langbord's which, since they (the Langbord's) already made that an initial option, will likely accept.
This way, the US Treasury has control over the 10, they will not go to public auction and therefore the single coin still remains the only "monetized" issue in existance.
From this news article,
"The following year, they asked the Mint to authenticate them and suggested they were open to a negotiated settlement, perhaps akin to the 50-50 split reached in a previous case involving one double eagle coin.
The collection could be worth nearly $80 million or more. A comparable double eagle sold for $7.59 million in 2002 — believed to be the highest price ever paid for a coin.
The family has previously asked for the coins' return or a settlement of up to $40 million."
The name is LEE!
Look at the photo, above. The old lady on the right is reflected in the double eagle display…in the reflection she’s young and pretty with auburn hair. It even got rid of the ugly hat!
Amazing what some time in Ft. Knox will do for you!
<< <i>The ten 1933 doubles eagles must be magical!!!
Look at the photo, above. The old lady on the right is reflected in the double eagle display…in the reflection she’s young and pretty with auburn hair. It even got rid of the ugly hat!
Amazing what some time in Ft. Knox will do for you! >>
As for the Langbords, I kinda see it this way: I opened up my late father-in-law's safety deposit box, and found millions in cash !! I get to keep it, right? True, he worked at a bank, and may have taken "free samples" ... in fact, let's say he was a known bank robber !! But he's dead, and I don't know the exact circumstances of how he got these here millions, so I should get to keep it free and clear, right? WRONG !! ... or at least, not necessarily.
You may not like the law, you may not agree with the law, you may want to repeal a statute or a appeal a court decision, but you still have to obey and respect the law.
My premise for all this is that I believe it is utter nonsense that Switt had these coins legitimately. Yes, that is just a belief. But I don't doubt for a moment that he got them surreptitiously, and stashed the rest away once it became clear that they were illegal to own. Remember all the prominent collectors who bought examples, but had to forfeit them? Why should the remaining examples that were stashed away by the dealer/source be free from similar forfeiture?
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Why wouldn't the inheritors have a problem with Estate Tax? Does a $20 or $30 million tax fraud land you in prison?
My own opinion is that the decision to surrender the coins to the government was the result of the family consulting with counsel and seeking advice; of counsel evaluating factual and legal alternatives and making a choice about which course of conduct would give his clients the best shot at getting the coins back (through settlement or more likely a trial).
Having the family surrender the coins to the government after they were found in the safe deposit box; asking for them to be authenticated; asking to consider working out a resolution of the dispute over ownerhship; sending a letter reserving all rights the family had in the coins the day before they were surrendered to the government; asking for the coins back after they were deemed authentic (and coupled with the government simply keeping them without filing a forefeiture action) all allow the family to present themselves at trial as citizens who did not hide the coins and who did the right and honorable thing, only to be treated very badly by the governement.
By doing what they did, the family could be viewed very sympathetically by a jury at trial, with not much ammunition on the part of the government to make them look bad during cross examination. The government's conduct could be viewed and portrayed as not very sympathetic. In fact a jury could decide that the government treated the family badly.
Separate and apart from "how one looks at trial", the family and their counsel may have also simply concluded that the best, most forthright and honorable way to deal with the situation over ownership and possession of the ten coins was to give them to the government so they could be authenticated and then litigate the question of ownership if a settlement can not be worked out.
All in all I can find no fault in the family surrendering the ten coins to the government and suing to have the court determine ownership after the government refused to return them and refused to file a forefeiture case against the coins.
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law" ... but that other tenth can be a real stinker.
I would not be surprised to see the government prevail in the forfeiture case, despite the apparent victory for the Langbords in the current ruling. And frankly, I think forfeiture would be the right outcome, based on all I have read about the history of these coins.
Another interesting outcome would be to give the coins to the heirs of all the collectors who paid Switt et al. for them, only to have them seized by the S.S. At least those coins were obtained for consideration.
I still say the owner of the Fenton coin should find a voice ... which could easily be done through counsel, without revealing his/her identity.
(Personally, I believe that if you know where to look for the J-1776, you will find the Fenton coin, but that is strictly a guess.)
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Your points are well taken.
No one knows what the motivation of the family was in surrendering the coins to the government. Regardless of the motivation though, surrendering the coins will help, not hurt, the family and a jury's perception of them at trial.
As far as how the coins made their way into Israel Switt's hands, no one really knows. It may very well be that they made their way into his hands in a manner that would be viewed as improper.
However, trials require proof, via legally admissible evidence. In a forefeiture proceeding under CAFRA the government apparently will have the burden of proof (rightfully so in my opinion, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the ten coins or this lawsuit). If the government does not have the ability to meet its burden of proof then it may well lose the case (though I suspect that if the government realizes that it will have difficulty proving its case at trial it will change its position and discuss settlement with the Langbord family [and probably the Fenton buyer at the same time].
The court's recent ruling ordering the government to file a forefeiture case is a victory for the Langbords [I believe the government should have filed a forefeiture case against the Langbord coins in 2004 or 2005, following the same thing it did with respect to the Fenton coin in 1996].
What the ultimate outcome of the case is, I do not know. I do not care who wins. I just do not want to see the ten coins destroyed. I also believe the winner of the case may well be the side that does not have the burden of proof [I stated this opinion in my very first post on this case].
Exactly...and as things stand, that would be the Langbords- as the onus is now clearly on the government to show that the coins were illegally obtained, thanks to some clever maneuvering on the part of their counsel. So, even if true (which I personally believe to be the case), there is no practical way to prove the illegal acquisition... thus I'm willing to bet that the government will realize this, settle with the Langbords, and keep the coins. What becomes of them after that is anyone's guess.
To answer the OP question...no. The Langbords are indeed "all about the money" in all this, but it was Izzy and/or a mint employee(s) who were theoretically guilty of anything punishable.
Kudos to Sanction II for keeping everyone abreast of the latest developments.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>My premise for all this is that I believe it is utter nonsense that Switt had these coins legitimately. Yes, that is just a belief. But I don't doubt for a moment that he got them surreptitiously, and stashed the rest away once it became clear that they were illegal to own. Remember all the prominent collectors who bought examples, but had to forfeit them? Why should the remaining examples that were stashed away by the dealer/source be free from similar forfeiture?
Sunnywood >>
Switt actually sold some of these coins and I would surmise that as soon as he got wind that they were being "confiscated" regardless of whether or not they had been obtained legitimately, he surrendered a few sacrificial coins and stashed the balance away!
Where? Why, in a safety deposit box of course!
The name is LEE!
OK, so lets say that Izzy obtained the coins through a fair trade of equal value with a mint employee, something that I read was common back then. I would say that the coins are legit enough to own, that it is a civil issue at that point and the family is not guilty of theft. The court can determine ownership.
If Izzy actually "Stole" the coins (taken without proper compensation) as some have suggested then we have theft. Or if Izzy obtained the coins from another person knowing that they were stolen then we have possession of stolen property. This does not automatically make all the family guilty of theft, just Izzy's actions.
Now if the coins were "Stolen" AND if Izzy told his family that they were stolen AND if the family continued to retain the "stolen property" after being informed it was stolen; THEN I would say there might be a prisonable offense for possession of stolen property. Statute of limitations=not applicable as the "possession" was ongoing and current at the time of seizure.
But to prove a prisonable offense without a full confession would be near impossible. From what i have read I would have to think that this is more of a civil issue anyway, not criminal.
Now to a different issue. Why is the government out displaying millions of dollars of someone's personal property, leaving possiblilty for damage to the coins, without permission from the owner AND while unlawfully possessing them to boot?
I think that the government should submit the 10 eagle to PCGS and have them graded and encapsulated before moving them around too much.