The Langbords have filed a "Claim" in response to the Government's forfeiture proceeding a
SanctionII
Posts: 12,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
The way things work in forfeiture proceedings is that the government sues the item itself [in this case the ten 1933 double eagles]. Any person or company [the Langbords in this case] who object to a forfeiture of the items to the govvernment are required to file a "Claim" to the items.
In this case the Langbords filed a "Claim" to the ten double eagles. Their claim identifies the 10 1933 double eagles; gives the names and addresses of Joan, Roy and David Langbord (the persons making the "Claim"); and states that "The Langbord family has the right to make this claim by virtue of the fact that the ten 1933 Double Eagles gold coins are owned by them and, prior to the government unconstitutional seizure and confiscation of the property, were in the Langbord family's exclusive possession for many years."
The Langbords, in their "Claim" demand a jury trial.
It is interesting that the Langbords in their "Claim" assert that they own the ten double eagles (which the government denies) and that they had exclusive possession of them for many years (which no one denies).
The ruling by the judge on the pending motion by the government for permission to assert three additional claims may shed some light on how the court views what would happen if the government loses the forfeiture proceeding [would the court agree with the government's position that "if we lose, that does not mean the Langbords win; it just means that additional litigation would be needed in which the Langbords would have to prove that they own the coins].
In this case the Langbords filed a "Claim" to the ten double eagles. Their claim identifies the 10 1933 double eagles; gives the names and addresses of Joan, Roy and David Langbord (the persons making the "Claim"); and states that "The Langbord family has the right to make this claim by virtue of the fact that the ten 1933 Double Eagles gold coins are owned by them and, prior to the government unconstitutional seizure and confiscation of the property, were in the Langbord family's exclusive possession for many years."
The Langbords, in their "Claim" demand a jury trial.
It is interesting that the Langbords in their "Claim" assert that they own the ten double eagles (which the government denies) and that they had exclusive possession of them for many years (which no one denies).
The ruling by the judge on the pending motion by the government for permission to assert three additional claims may shed some light on how the court views what would happen if the government loses the forfeiture proceeding [would the court agree with the government's position that "if we lose, that does not mean the Langbords win; it just means that additional litigation would be needed in which the Langbords would have to prove that they own the coins].
0
Comments
Free Trial
Did I understand correctly that the physical gold coins now are back in the hands of the Landbords? Or is the Government still in possession of the coins?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Is anyone else kinda getting bored with all this?
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
<< <i>Is anyone else kinda getting bored with all this?
Not at all. It just goes to show that property law is a lot more complicated than you might think.
People get used to watching these courtroom TV shows and think that justice can always be distilled into a 5 minute snippet.
It ain't that simple in real life.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
This case began in 1944 and needs to be resolved. I hope a jury trial will be forthcoming.
People should decide what's right and wrong, not the government!
<< <i>It'll be interesting to watch. Did I understand correctly that the physical gold coins now are back in the hands of the Landbords? Or is the Government still in possession of the coins? >>
The Government still has the coins.
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
However, if it ever gets to the point where the 10 double eagles are confirmed to be property of the Langbord family, I suspect that amendments to the papers filed in the estates of Joan Langbord's parents would have to be filed and amended estate tax returns would have to be filed. These amended papers would have to list the 10 double eagles and would have to list the "value" of same as of the date of death of both parents. The estate tax aspects of a Langbord victory in their dispute with Uncle Sam is a separate chapter in this ongoing saga which will be written, if ever is it, in the future. Since Izzy Switt died in 1990 (0r 1991?), and since his wife died in the 1980's, obtaining date of death valuations of the coins from a "probate referee" (or possibly a hired "expert") would be a task that would be interesting to see play out. Once the person is hired to perform any valuation, even more interesting would be what values are assigned and the methodology employed by the person to come up with his/her valuation.
I get tired of the case, but then at the same time never get tired of it. I like watching the strategies and tactics employed by both sides and I like seeing how the court rules on the various motions and other matters placed before it.
The hardest part would be to determine the current value. Of course, if they are sold then that value would be factual.
<< <i>...I get tired of the case, but then at the same time never get tired of it. I like watching the strategies and tactics employed by both sides and I like seeing how the court rules on the various motions and other matters placed before it. >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
You are missing a point in your reply stating it would be extremely easy to value the coins as of 1990. You can not assume (by relying on a court ruling against the government in 2010) that the coins in 1990 were capable of private ownership. You would have to arrive at a valuation as of 1900 based upon the reality of 1990 (that the coins were of suspect legality and subject to government seizure if they became know, just like the earlier seizures in the 1940's and the voluntary surrender in the early 1950's). Whatever value is arrived at by comparing sales prices of comparable rarities, that value would have to be discounted significantly due to the "cloud" hovering over the coins. Again, the methodology employed by the person hired to determine the value would be very interesting and could, in all liklelihood, be legitimately critiqued on multiple grounds.
You are correct that the government (state and/or fed) would argue for a higher value (thus more owed for estate taxes, interest and penalties); while the Langbords would argue for a lower value.
<< <i>TDN.
You are missing a point in your reply stating it would be extremely easy to value the coins as of 1990. You can not assume (by relying on a court ruling against the government in 2010) that the coins in 1990 were capable of private ownership. You would have to arrive at a valuation as of 1900 based upon the reality of 1990 (that the coins were of suspect legality and subject to government seizure if they became know, just like the earlier seizures in the 1940's and the voluntary surrender in the early 1950's). Whatever value is arrived at by comparing sales prices of comparable rarities, that value would have to be discounted significantly due to the "cloud" hovering over the coins. Again, the methodology employed by the person hired to determine the value would be very interesting and could, in all liklelihood, be legitimately critiqued on multiple grounds.
You are correct that the government (state and/or fed) would argue for a higher value (thus more owed for estate taxes, interest and penalties); while the Langbords would argue for a lower value. >>
As I've said, 2 reasonable men can solve this in 5 minutes.
But no! The lawyers must be paid. Well hey, after this case ends in the next decade, another decade of litigation can follow valuing these coins! A lawyer's work is never ended. That's assuming they
don't get melted first and really screw things up.
Free Trial
<< <i>TDN.
You are missing a point in your reply stating it would be extremely easy to value the coins as of 1990. You can not assume (by relying on a court ruling against the government in 2010) that the coins in 1990 were capable of private ownership. You would have to arrive at a valuation as of 1900 based upon the reality of 1990 (that the coins were of suspect legality and subject to government seizure if they became know, just like the earlier seizures in the 1940's and the voluntary surrender in the early 1950's). Whatever value is arrived at by comparing sales prices of comparable rarities, that value would have to be discounted significantly due to the "cloud" hovering over the coins. Again, the methodology employed by the person hired to determine the value would be very interesting and could, in all liklelihood, be legitimately critiqued on multiple grounds. >>
Good point!
Thanks again for the update.
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
<< <i>Is anyone else kinda getting bored with all this?
Nope! Keep the updates coming!!!
TD
<< <i>TDN.
You are missing a point in your reply stating it would be extremely easy to value the coins as of 1990. You can not assume (by relying on a court ruling against the government in 2010) that the coins in 1990 were capable of private ownership. You would have to arrive at a valuation as of 1900 based upon the reality of 1990 (that the coins were of suspect legality and subject to government seizure if they became know, just like the earlier seizures in the 1940's and the voluntary surrender in the early 1950's). Whatever value is arrived at by comparing sales prices of comparable rarities, that value would have to be discounted significantly due to the "cloud" hovering over the coins. Again, the methodology employed by the person hired to determine the value would be very interesting and could, in all liklelihood, be legitimately critiqued on multiple grounds.
You are correct that the government (state and/or fed) would argue for a higher value (thus more owed for estate taxes, interest and penalties); while the Langbords would argue for a lower value. >>
I would say, just as a personal opinion, that in 1991you could have found a few people willing to pay $500,000 for a single 1933 $20, but no more because of the cloud over them and the threat of confiscation.
Had it been known at the time that there were ten pieces available, under the cloud, the price would have been less.
TD
<< <i>Typical government.Tie up something and make the other party SPEND,SPEND and spend money. A poor person does notstand a chance anymore. >>
I'd bet that Warren Gates and Bill Buffett couldn't win in a spend-a-thon against the Guvmint; they'd both look like a Warren Buffoon in the end. The feds have a knack for being able throw around incredible amounts of money when necessary or desirable.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>So you think this case will conclude by 2015 or so? >>
the use of a double negative has me confused. if i read it right you think it'll be a very important point, right??
My use of a double negative was a mistake and merely shows that I need to proof read my posts before I hit the send button (I also have too many errors in spelling)
Just eliminate the word "not" after the word "will" and that will clear things up.
That fact is that Mr. Fenton purchased the coin that came out of Egypt for, if I recall, $220,000.00 sometime in 1995 if I recall. He also agreed to resell the coin to Jay Parrino's buyer in 1996 (I do not recall the price but vaguely remember it was for over $1 million). His resale price is suspect though because there was no legitimate buyer due to the government sting operation.
The $220,000.00 price paid by Fenton in 1995 to buy the Fenton double eagle took place under circumstances where the buyer new of the "cloud" associated with the coin. That had to have had an impact on the price paid by Fenton for the coin. However, Fenton did not buy the coin as an end buyer (a collector). He bought it to flip it. Thus his purchase price, even with the "cloud" associated with the coin is at best a wholesale price and not a retail price. In fact, one could analogize the Fenton purchase as similar to a B&M owner buying the coin from a non collector who inherited same and walked in off of the street wanting to sell. Further, if Fenton in 1995 had known of the ten 1933 double eagles held by the Langbords, the $220,000.00 price he paid for the Fenton coin would have been significantly less.
What do you, good forumites, believe the wholesale and the retail value of the 10 1933 double eagles would have been in 1990 or 1991 when Mr. Switt died? Further, how do you arrive at your valuation?
As S2 and others point out, the far more interesting point is how to do the valuation. It seems to me you would want the highest valuation possible, because they pass at the stepped-up cost basis, right? Conversely maybe if they are too high you are dealing with estate tax.
RTS, thanks for stepping up with that comment, now all that remains is to see if you are assailed as i was when i said essentially the same thing. sometimes it isn't what's said, it's simply who says it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is anyone else kinda getting bored with all this?
Not at all. It just goes to show that property law is a lot more complicated than you might think.
People get used to watching these courtroom TV shows and think that justice can always be distilled into a 5 minute snippet.
It ain't that simple in real life. >>
<< <i>I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people. >>
Based on what? If there was a window where legally the coins could be sold at the Cashier's window [there was] and the gold account balanced [it did] - then how could it possibly be proven with a preponderance of the evidence that the coins belong to the government?
<< <i>Two facts are present which would be relevant to the question of what the value of the ten double eagles were in 1991.
That fact is that Mr. Fenton purchased the coin that came out of Egypt for, if I recall, $220,000.00 sometime in 1995 if I recall. He also agreed to resell the coin to Jay Parrino's buyer in 1996 (I do not recall the price but vaguely remember it was for over $1 million). His resale price is suspect though because there was no legitimate buyer due to the government sting operation.
The $220,000.00 price paid by Fenton in 1995 to buy the Fenton double eagle took place under circumstances where the buyer new of the "cloud" associated with the coin. That had to have had an impact on the price paid by Fenton for the coin. However, Fenton did not buy the coin as an end buyer (a collector). He bought it to flip it. Thus his purchase price, even with the "cloud" associated with the coin is at best a wholesale price and not a retail price. In fact, one could analogize the Fenton purchase as similar to a B&M owner buying the coin from a non collector who inherited same and walked in off of the street wanting to sell. Further, if Fenton in 1995 had known of the ten 1933 double eagles held by the Langbords, the $220,000.00 price he paid for the Fenton coin would have been significantly less.
What do you, good forumites, believe the wholesale and the retail value of the 10 1933 double eagles would have been in 1990 or 1991 when Mr. Switt died? Further, how do you arrive at your valuation? >>
I had forgotten about that sale. It does provide a precedent price.
I still think that $500,000 in small, unmarked bills in a brown paper sack could have been arranged for ONE coin in or about 1991, but ten pieces would have been a lot tougher to move. Since it is just a game, I will use my time machine to offer the Langbord's $2,000,000 for the lot in 1992, figuring that I can make money at that price.
<< <i>The Government still has the coins. >>
Here's the question: Let's say the government loses and is ordered to surrender the coins to the Langbords. If the government refuses, who can force them to do so?
I'm not convinced the government will give these coins up, period, no matter what happens in court. Sure, they'd prefer to do it with a legal decision backing them, but who polices the police in this case? Who can force the government to do something it doesn't want to do?
depending on how "small" the bills were that could have been a very large sack!!
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people. >>
Based on what? If there was a window where legally the coins could be sold at the Cashier's window [there was] and the gold account balanced [it did] - then how could it possibly be proven with a preponderance of the evidence that the coins belong to the government? >>
To be honest I do not think it can be reasonably proven that the coins legally belong to the U.S. government and I feel it is equally unlikely that it can be definitively proven that the coins long ago entered the possession of the Langbords in an above board manner but admittedly I am not intimate enough with the case to argue rationally the legal merits of either party; it is just my personal hope that the matter does go to a jury and the jury decides against the Langbords because my feeling is there existed some level of subterfuge in the acquisition of the coins...true my opinion may not be evidenced-based but it is my hope nonetheless that the Langbords lose.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Government still has the coins. >>
Here's the question: Let's say the government loses and is ordered to surrender the coins to the Langbords. If the government refuses, who can force them to do so?
I'm not convinced the government will give these coins up, period, no matter what happens in court. Sure, they'd prefer to do it with a legal decision backing them, but who polices the police in this case? Who can force the government to do something it doesn't want to do? >>
No bureaucrat is going to risk jail over these coins - they don't really care *that* much. We're not gonna have a repeat of President Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court in this matter.
If it could be shown that the coins left the mint illegally, then I'd be all for the government. But as previous owner of 2 of the 1913 Liberty nickels, 2 of the 1885 trade dollars, 4 of the 1884 trade dollars and an 1876-CC twenty cent piece, I have a special place in my heart for the government having to PROVE that it owns the coins before siezing them. It's a mighty slippery slope we tread when we allow our government to just take the things it wants to without due process.
So I would argue that based upon condition, there would be a spread of about 200K between retail and wholesale with the average running about $1 million retail.
If the Langbords win the case, then the market will most certainly be set by their first auction (needed to pay the attorneys, unless that have made a deal to pay in coins, i.e. 2 of the 10 for example).
That is what makes this so interesting.
I would also add that even if the government wins the case, I certainly HOPE they would NOT melt the coins. They are a numismatic treasure and should remain in places where they cannot be transacted, but can be viewed.
FYI, I am with TDN with respect to why they should not go to the government. I firmly believe they were traded by government employees for other gold coins. If you were $500 out of balance in 1933 (the approximate 25 coins thought to have made it to the public) the would have been an enormous investigation by the Mint and that clearly never happened.
<< <i>To be honest I do not think it can be reasonably proven that the coins legally belong to the U.S. government and I feel it is equally unlikely that it can be definitively proven that the coins long ago entered the possession of the Langbords in an above board manner but admittedly I am not intimate enough with the case to argue rationally the legal merits of either party; it is just my personal hope that the matter does go to a jury and the jury decides against the Langbords because my feeling is there existed some level of subterfuge in the acquisition of the coins...true my opinion may not be evidenced-based but it is my hope nonetheless that the Langbords lose. >>
I don't particularly wish for a good outcome for the Langbords but I am very concerned about the fate of numismatic treasures and about the limits of government power in this case. If neither side can conclusively prove their case and the preponderance of the evidence is split, I'd say possession is 9/10 of the law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people. >>
Based on what? If there was a window where legally the coins could be sold at the Cashier's window [there was] and the gold account balanced [it did] - then how could it possibly be proven with a preponderance of the evidence that the coins belong to the government? >>
To be honest I do not think it can be reasonably proven that the coins legally belong to the U.S. government and I feel it is equally unlikely that it can be definitively proven that the coins long ago entered the possession of the Langbords in an above board manner but admittedly I am not intimate enough with the case to argue rationally the legal merits of either party; it is just my personal hope that the matter does go to a jury and the jury decides against the Langbords because my feeling is there existed some level of subterfuge in the acquisition of the coins...true my opinion may not be evidenced-based but it is my hope nonetheless that the Langbords lose. >>
Oh geez.
Ok, you are entitled to that belief. Now I ask you - at some point in the future when you or one of your loved ones are in court in an important matter where the facts back you up, don't you hope the judge/jury follows the law and not their 'feeling' that you did something wrong... or that they don't like your jacket that day.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope the matter does go to a jury and Langbords lose...I'd rather see the coins melted than go to the Langbords as I believe the coins belong to the American people. >>
Based on what? If there was a window where legally the coins could be sold at the Cashier's window [there was] and the gold account balanced [it did] - then how could it possibly be proven with a preponderance of the evidence that the coins belong to the government? >>
To be honest I do not think it can be reasonably proven that the coins legally belong to the U.S. government and I feel it is equally unlikely that it can be definitively proven that the coins long ago entered the possession of the Langbords in an above board manner but admittedly I am not intimate enough with the case to argue rationally the legal merits of either party; it is just my personal hope that the matter does go to a jury and the jury decides against the Langbords because my feeling is there existed some level of subterfuge in the acquisition of the coins...true my opinion may not be evidenced-based but it is my hope nonetheless that the Langbords lose. >>
Oh geez.
Ok, you are entitled to that belief. Now I ask you - at some point in the future when you or one of your loved ones are in court in an important matter where the facts back you up, don't you hope the judge/jury follows the law and not their 'feeling' that you did something wrong... or that they don't like your jacket that day. >>
Yes, I would like the jury to follow the law and if I was on the Langbord jury I'd follow the law personal feelings set aside because that is the duty of a juror but since clearly I am not going to be in any decision-making capacity related to the Langbord matter I hope they lose because I think there was some level of deception associated with the original acquiring of the coins, of course I cannot prove such a belief but my belief it is. And yes I can understand/appreciate your (TDN) perspective as someone that is intimately involved in such like rarities and the vagaries of their genesis (it is these vagaries that add intrigue to these coins), but in the case of the 1933 coins and the Langbords I'd rather see the coins remain in the government's possession because I doubt the Langbords claim more than I doubt the government's...if there were somewhere else the coins could go I'd decline the claim of both parties.
Good grief!
Thanks for the update!
<< <i>
To be honest I do not think it can be reasonably proven that the coins legally belong to the U.S. government and I feel it is equally unlikely that it can be definitively proven that the coins long ago entered the possession of the Langbords in an above board manner but admittedly I am not intimate enough with the case to argue rationally the legal merits of either party; it is just my personal hope that the matter does go to a jury and the jury decides against the Langbords because my feeling is there existed some level of subterfuge in the acquisition of the coins...true my opinion may not be evidenced-based but it is my hope nonetheless that the Langbords lose. >>
There could have been some shenanigans going on but I'd wager the coins
were not stolen. It's simply not easy to steal anything from the mint. But
there didn't have to be anything untoward or any subterfuge. There are
just far too many ways for coins to legitimately leave the mint. This is what
the mint does; mint coins for circulation. And collectors seek to obtain them.
Just because they were moderns at the time doesn't mean they weren't de-
sired or found.
were not stolen.
given the history of Izzy Switt isn't it more likely that something WAS going on??