The 11-23-2009 Coin World article on the Langbord lawsuit has a big mistake in it.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,601 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just received the 11-23-2009 CW. On pages 10 and 22 is an article on the lawsuit (written by Steve Roach of the CW staff). The article deals with the fact that on 11-2-2009 the government filed a "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding the government filed on 9-28-2009.
The second paragraph of the article on page 10 states "Additionally, the government's motion to add John Doe defendants and to add claims has been granted."
On page 22 under the bolded heading "Additional defendants ruling" the article states "U.S. District Court Judge Legrome D. Davis issued an order on Oct. 27 granting the government's motion for leave to file a multi-count complaint and to add John Doe defendants." The balance of the article reports on the content of the government's motion for permission to add the three additional proposed claims and three John Doe defendants; the government's reply papers (filed in response to the Langbords' papers filed in opposition to the government motion); and that the granting of the motion expands the scope of the lawsuit.
The CW reporting is wrong, wrong, wrong.
As of today the court has not issued any ruling or order on the government's motion. The Langbords filed papers in opposition to the government's motion to add three claims and John Doe defendants. The government filed a motion asking for permission to file papers in reply to the Langbord opposition. On 10-27-2009 the court issued an order granting permission to the government to file its reply papers.
The motion is still undecided.
Thought I would point out the CW error so that forumites are in the know.
Wrong, wrong and incorrect.
The second paragraph of the article on page 10 states "Additionally, the government's motion to add John Doe defendants and to add claims has been granted."
On page 22 under the bolded heading "Additional defendants ruling" the article states "U.S. District Court Judge Legrome D. Davis issued an order on Oct. 27 granting the government's motion for leave to file a multi-count complaint and to add John Doe defendants." The balance of the article reports on the content of the government's motion for permission to add the three additional proposed claims and three John Doe defendants; the government's reply papers (filed in response to the Langbords' papers filed in opposition to the government motion); and that the granting of the motion expands the scope of the lawsuit.
The CW reporting is wrong, wrong, wrong.
As of today the court has not issued any ruling or order on the government's motion. The Langbords filed papers in opposition to the government's motion to add three claims and John Doe defendants. The government filed a motion asking for permission to file papers in reply to the Langbord opposition. On 10-27-2009 the court issued an order granting permission to the government to file its reply papers.
The motion is still undecided.
Thought I would point out the CW error so that forumites are in the know.
Wrong, wrong and incorrect.
0
Comments
TD
I wonder if they will actually admit to making a mistake without burying it back around page 77.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Currently Listed: Nothing
Take Care, Dave
I sent CW an email informing it of the error.
edit to add:
Then I realized how silly I'd been for not getting here sooner.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Journalism rule #1. Check your sources, then do it again. >>
Rule #2: If your mother says she loves you, check it out!
The latest edition of CW has another article on the Langbord case. In same it acknowledges it's mistake in the prior issue. Kudos to CW.
Instead, I read the Paul Sims ads
I do not understand the significance of these motions.
I am embarrassed to ask my wife who happens to be a Judge what it means.
Could you put it in simple terms what that is all about?
I'll give it my best shot. Here goes.
In July, 2009 the court issued a ruling that requires the government to file a forfeiture proceeding against the 10 double eagles. The government resisted doing so for years because under the federal statutes governing Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAFRA, which is the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act) the government has the burden of proof. In a forfeiture proceeding against the ten double eagles the government must "prove" by legally admissible evidence that, the ten specific coins were "stolen" from the mint. It is impossible for any side to the lawsuit to "prove" how the ten double eagles left the mint. Unless the government prove that the ten double eagles were stolen from the mint the ten double eagles are not "forfeited" to the government.
The current motions that have been filed by the parties and that the court will, hopefully, soon rule upon are motions which ask the court to determine the exact scope of the case from this point forward. The government wants the case to be expanded in scope to allow it to assert legal claims to the ten double eagles above and beyond a single forfeiture proceeding; and it seeks to assert claims against other persons (as of yet unidentified) who have any other 1933 double eagles in their possession. If the government is allowed to assert additional legal claims in the case, then even if it loses the forfeiture claim (dud to it not being able to prove the ten double eagles were stolen), it can still try to assert its ownership of the double eagles on other as legal and factual grounds. The Langbords are resisting the efforts by the government to expand the scope of the case. They want the case to be limited to a single claim of forfeiture and assert that if the government fails to prove that the ten double eagles are stolen, the ten double eagles are awarded to them and the government is forever after barred from asserting any other claim or interest in them.
The court rulings on the pending motions will determine whether the case the actually goes to trial is one that is limited in scope or is more expanded in scope.
How did I do?
It has become an art of telling maybe some of the truth and some of someting else!
It seems to have to be interesting more than truthfull.
The new generation??
<< <i>How did I do? >>
Excellent, you boiled it down to the essence of the matter!
Thanks,
Dan
<< <i>...
How did I do? >>
I've been following S2s posts and updates on this case almost since day one. Keep up the good work. Your posts and updates are far more informative then what I get from the numismatic print media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>
<< <i>...
How did I do? >>
I've been following S2s posts and updates on this case almost since day one. Keep up the good work. Your posts and updates are far more informative then what I get from the numismatic print media. >>
I agree 100%