Home U.S. Coin Forum

Here are two additional points to ponder about the Langbord case.

SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,660 ✭✭✭✭✭
#1. - The government in its court filings has taken the position that the ten 1933 double eagles surrendered to them by the Langbords are simply government property since the coins were never issued and thus are not "coins". Yet in the same court filings the government and its lawyers have referred to the ten 1933 double eagles as "coins" [as opposed to, ........... say..........."metal disks"].

#2. - To what extent will the government expert, David Tripp, be able to offer up an expert opinion that is "credible" when he acknowledges that he does not know how the ten coins left the mint and when the information available [for example see RWB's CW Article, the 1954 regulations and the 1965 law that says coins made before 4-5-1933 are legal to own, and the fact that 100,000 1933 doble eagles were made before 4-5-1933] seems to indicate that it is possible that 1933 double eagles could have left the mint in an authorized manner?

Hmmmmmmm. Very interesting.

Comments

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,772 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>.....1933 doble eagles were made before 4-5-1933....l >>



    Hmmmmm.......Maybe they were made very late at night?

    Whoa... doble eagles????
    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • BochimanBochiman Posts: 25,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You really want the langbords to win, don't you? image

    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

  • SanctionIISanctionII Posts: 11,660 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sorry for the typos.

    From the beginning I have not favored one side or the other in the case and have stated I do not care who wins. My only hope is that the ten coins are not destroyed [like earlier ones were].

    I will say that I do agree that the government should have filed a forefeiture action against the coins [like it did in the Fenton case] and that I am glad the court is requiring that the government do so. The idea that the government can take things away from someone simply because it says it owns the item is very troubling.
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,614 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Re #2 - the picture you get from reading Illegal Tender, and any of St. Guru's posts, is the whole shady Philadelphia coin dealer thing. It's a good story, extremely plausible, and if I had to call it one way or the other I would probably fall on that side of the aisle. BUT - if you try to put that story up on a witness stand, attempting to paint it as demonstrable fact meeting a legal standard of proof, you are going to get shredded to bits. Intuition can be a powerful tool, but it is useless under cross examination.

    Hopefully this goes to trial, because the transcripts will make for some of the most compelling reading in numismatic history.
  • HoledandCreativeHoledandCreative Posts: 2,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I want the Langbords to win. Israel was a dealer with great foresight and he probably traded gold for gold as was the practice at the time and for many years prior. Since there are no eye witnesses to the "transactions" happening, or not, before or after 4-15-33, why should the government be the bully and win. The judge should have thrown the case out, IMO, but my emotions are speaking and I have no idea of what "legal" is, maybe there is no judge.

    Innocent till proven guilty seems right to me. Maybe all of the relatives of the coins previously confiscated and destroyed can get their just due if these go back to the Langbords. Maybe that was just the first safety deposit box they emptied of them? Israel was pretty smart for hiding them. Too bad he couldn't have lived to defend them in the first person. I wish he could have save a few thousand of them to get them under $10k today. I can dream.
  • pennyanniepennyannie Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭
    I want the Langbords to win. Actually as long as the government loses i would be happy if Keets won.
    Mark
    NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
    working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!

    RIP "BEAR"
  • Steve27Steve27 Posts: 13,267 ✭✭✭
    "...the government and its lawyers have referred to the ten 1933 double eagles as "coins"...."

    I don't believe this is an issue, if this were a case about 1933 cents, I'm sure all the proceedings would refer to them as "pennies".
    "It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 30,977 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Sorry for the typos.

    From the beginning I have not favored one side or the other in the case and have stated I do not care who wins. My only hope is that the ten coins are not destroyed [like earlier ones were].

    I will say that I do agree that the government should have filed a forefeiture action against the coins [like it did in the Fenton case] and that I am glad the court is requiring that the government do so. The idea that the government can take things away from someone simply because it says it owns the item is very troubling. >>



    That's about as troubling as the Guvmint taking things simply because you aren't supposed to have them whether they are Guvmint property or not.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,499 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Sorry for the typos.

    From the beginning I have not favored one side or the other in the case and have stated I do not care who wins. My only hope is that the ten coins are not destroyed [like earlier ones were].

    I will say that I do agree that the government should have filed a forefeiture action against the coins [like it did in the Fenton case] and that I am glad the court is requiring that the government do so. The idea that the government can take things away from someone simply because it says it owns the item is very troubling. >>



    Right now, if you were to walk through an airport with, say, $100,000 in cash on your person just because you don't trust the banks, and a government inspector found the money, the chances are extremely high that the cash would be seized as probable evidence of an illegal activity on your part. You would then have a very hard time getting it back.

    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.
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ... and the case drags on and on ...
    All glory is fleeting.
  • lathmachlathmach Posts: 4,720


    << <i>I want the Langbords to win. Actually as long as the government loses i would be happy if Keets won. >>



    So you aren't a big fan of Keets?

    Ray
  • kazkaz Posts: 9,052 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I appreciate all your work in studying the case and making it comprehensible to us non-lawyers, SanctionII. Thanks!
  • RWBRWB Posts: 8,082
    One of the legs of the Treasury’s case is that the 1933 DE were not legal tender “coins” but were simply chattel. This makes the DEs like a desk or file cabinet or any other ordinary thing that might have been stolen. The approach blocks use of coinage law and regulation in relation to the 1933 DE.

    However, as SanctionII points out, the Treasury has consistently referred to the 1933 DE as “coins” in its filings with the Court, and the term “coin” has meaning in law and regulations. Use of the term “coin” by Treasury means that they really think of the 1933 DE as legal tender coinage – money that is subject to the various coinage laws, including the 1954 law legalizing all US gold coin made before 4/5/1933. (If the 1933 DE are chattel, the 1954 law would not apply.) The 1954 law expresses the will of Congress, which transcends any Executive Order or Treasury regulation.

    It might seem like a semantic splitting of hairs (or even “hares”), but applicability of coinage law turns on this seemingly minor point.
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thanks Sanction and RWB for your excellent inputs. This case (to me, at least) is very interesting. I am sure, when all is said and done, there is at least one book in the offing. Cheers, RickO
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,614 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>It might seem like a semantic splitting of hairs (or even “hares”), but applicability of coinage law turns on this seemingly minor point. >>



    I can hear it already.

    Q. Did you refer to the DE as a coin on p. 6?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you refer to the DE as a coin on p. 7?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Did you refer to the DE as a coin on p. 8?

    A. Yes.

    [Judge interjects] STFU, you have made your point.

    Q. Please define the word "coin," as you have used it.

    A. We meant "chattel," not coin.

    Q. So, please list all the words on p. 8 where you meant something else besides the word you used.

    A. That's the only one.

    Q. And when you used the word "coin" in your earlier testimoney, you also meant "chattel," right?

    A. Yes

    Q. So, were you not telling the whole truth when you used the word "coin" earlier?


    It might happen that way, but I suspect the witnesses are undergoing a lot of practice cross examinations, have already covered this point & are quite prepared to dance around it.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file