For those following the Langbord lawsuit, pay attention to the case for it is heating up.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,025 ✭✭✭✭✭
Yesterday the court issued an order that had to have resulted from the January 6, 2011 status conference.
One attorney for the government showed up at the hearing. Two attorneys for the Langbord family showed up for the hearing. No one else attended.
Absent a settlement, the trial in the case will be scheduled to commence probably this fall.
To push the case forward the court's order requires:
"1. that all expert discovery, including depositions, be completed on or before 2-28-2011;
2. that on or before 2-28-2011 each side must file with the court the following in preparation for trial:
a. PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM, which shall set forth:
(i) a brief stateemnt of the nature of the case to be presented and the issues to be addressed;
(ii) a list of all witnesses to appear at trial with a brief statement of the nature of each witnesses's anticipated testimony (witnesses not listed may not be called in each party's case in chief);
(iii) a list of all exhibits to be offered at trial (pre-numbered and pre-exchanged among all counsel);
(iv) an itemized statement of damages and/or other tangible relief sought by any party seeking damages and/or other tangible relief;
(v) a list of stipulations between the parties, and a list of disputed and undisputed facts( counsel shall make a conscientious effort to narrow the factual areas of dispute);
(vi) an estimation as to the time for presentation of each party's case; and
(vii) all other disclosures required by Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(3).
b. MOTIONS: Pretrial motions shall be filed regarding all significant evidentiary or other issues anticipated to arise during trial (including issues pertaining to the admissibility of particular witness testimony or particular exhibits) and setting forth pertinent legal authority (including case alw, statutory law, procedural rules, evidentiary rules, etc.). Responses to any such pretrial motions shall be filed on or before March 14, 2011.
c. POINTS FOR CHARGE: After meeting and conferring, the parties shall jointly sumbit proposed points for charge upon which the parties have agreed, and shall individually submit any disputed points for charge accompanied by a reference to authority supporting the disputed point (footnote 1). The points for charge shall be submitted on computer diskette or cd in WordPerfect 9.0 or 10.00 for Windows format.
d. JURY VOIR DIRE AND VERDICT SHEET: After meeting and conferring, the parties shall jointly submit proposed jury voir dire questions upon which the parties have agreed, and shall individually submit proposed jury voir dire questions upon which the parties cannot agree. The jury voir dire and verdict sheet shall be submitted on computer diskette or cd in WordPerfect format.
3. On the first and fifteenth of every month, each party shall submit to the Court a written status update regarding their availability for trial.
BY THE COURT
/s/
Legrome D. Davis, J
(footnote 1) The parties my file supplemental proposed jury instructions, or supplemental proposed findings and conclusions after all of the evidence has been presented at trial".
I thought that the precise wording of the order may be of interest, so it is set forth above.
What all of this means is that the case is ramping up and headed towards a trial date (again probably this fall).
The 2-28-2011 and 3-14-2011 deadlines set by the court will cause both sides [primarily the government] and their attorneys [both sides] to get knots in the stomach, to become stressed beyond stress and to dread all of the work they must perform to pull their respective cases together.
Between now and the court imposed deadlines the parties and their attorneys must:
a. complete expert discovery [I wonder what Mr. Tripp and QBD will say about newly discovered information if they are deposed a second time];
b. review all of the evidence generated in the case;
c. decide who to name as witnesses and who to not name;
d. decide what tangible evidence [the ten double eagles, documents, etc.] they will seek to admit into evidence at trial and organize, copy, make a list of same and exchange copies of same with the other side;
e. for each witness and for each item of tangible evidence evaluate and come up with legal argument and authority why such witness and each item of evidence is legally admissible into evidence at trial and the purpose for which each such item is to be admitted at trial;
f. review the witness list and exhibit list of the opposing side and determine which witness and exhibit you will agree can testify/be admitted into evidence and which can not [for that which can not, you need to come up with the legal argument and authority why it/they can not/should not];
g. review the legal claims and defenses that are "in play" in the case [again the claims are the Langbords' replevin and conversion causes of action contained in the complaint that they filed on 12-2006 and the goverment's CAFRA forfeiture cause of action against the ten double eagles and its declaratory relief cause of action; and the defenses to each such claim are contained in the responsive pleadings filed by each party] to determine what must be established via admissible evidence to prove each claim and to determine if you have admissible evidence to do so, to determine what must be established to prove each defense and if you have admissible evidence to do so;
h. based upon a review of the evidence and the law, come up with "your theory of the case" [ie. for the government "the coins are stolen property" and for the Langbords "the coins are legal to own, the government can not prove that the coins are stolen property, the government wrongfully refused to return the coins after determining that they were authentic, choosing to keep them because the government has an ax to grind against Izzy Switt and his descendents"];
i. talk to and cooperate with the opposing attorneys to come up with agreements on facts and evidence as to which there is really no legitmate dispute [i.e. the ten coins were minted in 1933, they were found in a safe deposit box by Joan Langbord, they were turned over to the government in 2004, etc.] (this can be difficult for the attorneys to do if they have obstinate clients, but it has to be done);
j., prepare jury voir dire questions [i.e. "are you a coin collector"] appropriate for the circumstances of this case, prepare jury instructions, prepare jury verdict forms;
k. during this process of complying with the requirements of the court order, the attorneys must "bring the case all together" by evaluating the evidence and the law present in the case both in favor of and against your client; have meetings with your client to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case, to discuss the "theory of the case", to discuss the likely outcomes of the case based upon the pending claims and defenses, the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence, the outcome of court rulings on pretrial motions [i.e. a court ruling that precludes one or both sides from introducing some or all of the documentary evidence they want to introduce at trial]; and advise your client of the options available to it; and
l. receive instruction from your client regarding whether to broach settlement or go to trial [and if you go to trial, what goal the client wants and the implementation of your best strategy and tactics to accomplish the client's goals].
In summary, the court order setting the deadlines of 2-28-2011 and 3-14-2011 will cause both sides to do a huge amount of work simply to "pull their case together" and set up the table with witnesses, evidence and legal argument for the upcoming battle which a jury trial is.
Unless a client is in denial, this process usually causes a client to take a hard look at the case and decide whether to:
1. broach settlement; or
2. have their day in court and be judged by a jury of their peers.
I wonder if this process will cause Uncle Sam to broach settlement.
Sorry for my long winded tome, but I am pleased that the case is now to the point where during the next 8 weeks boths sides will either settle or put their cards on the table [through public court filings] for all to see.
Too bad it has only taken 4+ years of litigation for this case to get to this point.
One attorney for the government showed up at the hearing. Two attorneys for the Langbord family showed up for the hearing. No one else attended.
Absent a settlement, the trial in the case will be scheduled to commence probably this fall.
To push the case forward the court's order requires:
"1. that all expert discovery, including depositions, be completed on or before 2-28-2011;
2. that on or before 2-28-2011 each side must file with the court the following in preparation for trial:
a. PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM, which shall set forth:
(i) a brief stateemnt of the nature of the case to be presented and the issues to be addressed;
(ii) a list of all witnesses to appear at trial with a brief statement of the nature of each witnesses's anticipated testimony (witnesses not listed may not be called in each party's case in chief);
(iii) a list of all exhibits to be offered at trial (pre-numbered and pre-exchanged among all counsel);
(iv) an itemized statement of damages and/or other tangible relief sought by any party seeking damages and/or other tangible relief;
(v) a list of stipulations between the parties, and a list of disputed and undisputed facts( counsel shall make a conscientious effort to narrow the factual areas of dispute);
(vi) an estimation as to the time for presentation of each party's case; and
(vii) all other disclosures required by Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(3).
b. MOTIONS: Pretrial motions shall be filed regarding all significant evidentiary or other issues anticipated to arise during trial (including issues pertaining to the admissibility of particular witness testimony or particular exhibits) and setting forth pertinent legal authority (including case alw, statutory law, procedural rules, evidentiary rules, etc.). Responses to any such pretrial motions shall be filed on or before March 14, 2011.
c. POINTS FOR CHARGE: After meeting and conferring, the parties shall jointly sumbit proposed points for charge upon which the parties have agreed, and shall individually submit any disputed points for charge accompanied by a reference to authority supporting the disputed point (footnote 1). The points for charge shall be submitted on computer diskette or cd in WordPerfect 9.0 or 10.00 for Windows format.
d. JURY VOIR DIRE AND VERDICT SHEET: After meeting and conferring, the parties shall jointly submit proposed jury voir dire questions upon which the parties have agreed, and shall individually submit proposed jury voir dire questions upon which the parties cannot agree. The jury voir dire and verdict sheet shall be submitted on computer diskette or cd in WordPerfect format.
3. On the first and fifteenth of every month, each party shall submit to the Court a written status update regarding their availability for trial.
BY THE COURT
/s/
Legrome D. Davis, J
(footnote 1) The parties my file supplemental proposed jury instructions, or supplemental proposed findings and conclusions after all of the evidence has been presented at trial".
I thought that the precise wording of the order may be of interest, so it is set forth above.
What all of this means is that the case is ramping up and headed towards a trial date (again probably this fall).
The 2-28-2011 and 3-14-2011 deadlines set by the court will cause both sides [primarily the government] and their attorneys [both sides] to get knots in the stomach, to become stressed beyond stress and to dread all of the work they must perform to pull their respective cases together.
Between now and the court imposed deadlines the parties and their attorneys must:
a. complete expert discovery [I wonder what Mr. Tripp and QBD will say about newly discovered information if they are deposed a second time];
b. review all of the evidence generated in the case;
c. decide who to name as witnesses and who to not name;
d. decide what tangible evidence [the ten double eagles, documents, etc.] they will seek to admit into evidence at trial and organize, copy, make a list of same and exchange copies of same with the other side;
e. for each witness and for each item of tangible evidence evaluate and come up with legal argument and authority why such witness and each item of evidence is legally admissible into evidence at trial and the purpose for which each such item is to be admitted at trial;
f. review the witness list and exhibit list of the opposing side and determine which witness and exhibit you will agree can testify/be admitted into evidence and which can not [for that which can not, you need to come up with the legal argument and authority why it/they can not/should not];
g. review the legal claims and defenses that are "in play" in the case [again the claims are the Langbords' replevin and conversion causes of action contained in the complaint that they filed on 12-2006 and the goverment's CAFRA forfeiture cause of action against the ten double eagles and its declaratory relief cause of action; and the defenses to each such claim are contained in the responsive pleadings filed by each party] to determine what must be established via admissible evidence to prove each claim and to determine if you have admissible evidence to do so, to determine what must be established to prove each defense and if you have admissible evidence to do so;
h. based upon a review of the evidence and the law, come up with "your theory of the case" [ie. for the government "the coins are stolen property" and for the Langbords "the coins are legal to own, the government can not prove that the coins are stolen property, the government wrongfully refused to return the coins after determining that they were authentic, choosing to keep them because the government has an ax to grind against Izzy Switt and his descendents"];
i. talk to and cooperate with the opposing attorneys to come up with agreements on facts and evidence as to which there is really no legitmate dispute [i.e. the ten coins were minted in 1933, they were found in a safe deposit box by Joan Langbord, they were turned over to the government in 2004, etc.] (this can be difficult for the attorneys to do if they have obstinate clients, but it has to be done);
j., prepare jury voir dire questions [i.e. "are you a coin collector"] appropriate for the circumstances of this case, prepare jury instructions, prepare jury verdict forms;
k. during this process of complying with the requirements of the court order, the attorneys must "bring the case all together" by evaluating the evidence and the law present in the case both in favor of and against your client; have meetings with your client to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case, to discuss the "theory of the case", to discuss the likely outcomes of the case based upon the pending claims and defenses, the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence, the outcome of court rulings on pretrial motions [i.e. a court ruling that precludes one or both sides from introducing some or all of the documentary evidence they want to introduce at trial]; and advise your client of the options available to it; and
l. receive instruction from your client regarding whether to broach settlement or go to trial [and if you go to trial, what goal the client wants and the implementation of your best strategy and tactics to accomplish the client's goals].
In summary, the court order setting the deadlines of 2-28-2011 and 3-14-2011 will cause both sides to do a huge amount of work simply to "pull their case together" and set up the table with witnesses, evidence and legal argument for the upcoming battle which a jury trial is.
Unless a client is in denial, this process usually causes a client to take a hard look at the case and decide whether to:
1. broach settlement; or
2. have their day in court and be judged by a jury of their peers.
I wonder if this process will cause Uncle Sam to broach settlement.
Sorry for my long winded tome, but I am pleased that the case is now to the point where during the next 8 weeks boths sides will either settle or put their cards on the table [through public court filings] for all to see.
Too bad it has only taken 4+ years of litigation for this case to get to this point.
0
Comments
So apparently this will definitely be a jury trial if it goes to trial or is this yet to be positively determined?
As far as I can tell, a trial, if it happens will be a jury trail.
In general the right to a jury trial in civil cases applies in cases where the claims are "legal" in nature as opposed to "equitable" in nature.
The "legal" vs. "equitable" claim distinction goes back to merry old England where at one time there were two separate courts. Specifically there were "courts of law" and there were "courts of equity".
In a court of law, one had the right to a jury trial where the case was decided by a jury of your peers. The most common type of case in a court of law was a case where one side was suing the other side for "money".
In a court of equity, the case were decided by a judge instead of a jury. The most common type of case in a court of equity was a case where one side was suing another over title to real property ["who owns this 50 acre plot of land"].
This English system crossed the pond and became a reality for the USA. However, as time has passed, the concept of two separate court systems fell out of favor. Instead, one court system exists at both the state level and the federal level. Both types of cases [cases with "legal claims" and cases with "equitable claims"] are filed in the same courthouse. If the case is an equitable claim case, there is no right to a jury trial. If the case has a legal claim, there is a right to a jury trial [of course that right can be and many times is waived]. Some cases have both types of claims. In such a case, the court decides which claims can and can not be tried before a jury. Sometimes a claim has features of both types of claims and this can cause problems if one side wants a jury trial and the other does not. Eventually the judge has to decide if a jury trial is proper or not.
In the Langbord case, I assume that all pending claims are "legal claims" and thus are ones where a right to trial by jury exists. If not, I suspect that the government probably would have long ago advocated that there is no right to a jury trial and sought a court order confirming same. The absence of such conduct on the part of the government leads me to believe that there is no doubt this case is one where a trial by a jury is a right.
I further doubt that the Langbords would waive any right to a jury trial.
I suspect that the Langbords would prefer to have this case decided by a jury consisting of 12 [probably 12, but maybe a smaller number] persons selected at random from the good people of Philly, particularly since this case has a David v. Goliath aspect to it and most folks love for David to slay Goliath.
In this type of case, a jury trial makes for better theater and drama. And.............................., we all like coin related drama.
my money is still on trial and no settlement.
thanks for the generous update.
(and it will be interesting to see what the Langbord damages include.)
<< <i>Cladking.
As far as I can tell, a trial, if it happens will be a jury trail.
In general the right to a jury trial in civil cases applies in cases where the claims are "legal" in nature as opposed to "equitable" in nature.
The "legal" vs. "equitable" claim distinction goes back to merry old England where at one time there were two separate courts. Specifically there were "courts of law" and there were "courts of equity".
In a court of law, one had the right to a jury trial where the case was decided by a jury of your peers. The most common type of case in a court of law was a case where one side was suing the other side for "money".
In a court of equity, the case were decided by a judge instead of a jury. The most common type of case in a court of equity was a case where one side was suing another over title to real property ["who owns this 50 acre plot of land"].
This English system crossed the pond and became a reality for the USA. However, as time has passed, the concept of two separate court systems fell out of favor. Instead, one court system exists at both the state level and the federal level. Both types of cases [cases with "legal claims" and cases with "equitable claims"] are filed in the same courthouse. If the case is an equitable claim case, there is no right to a jury trial. If the case has a legal claim, there is a right to a jury trial [of course that right can be and many times is waived]. Some cases have both types of claims. In such a case, the court decides which claims can and can not be tried before a jury. Sometimes a claim has features of both types of claims and this can cause problems if one side wants a jury trial and the other does not. Eventually the judge has to decide if a jury trial is proper or not.
In the Langbord case, I assume that all pending claims are "legal claims" and thus are ones where a right to trial by jury exists. If not, I suspect that the government probably would have long ago advocated that there is no right to a jury trial and sought a court order confirming same. The absence of such conduct on the part of the government leads me to believe that there is no doubt this case is one where a trial by a jury is a right.
I further doubt that the Langbords would waive any right to a jury trial.
I suspect that the Langbords would prefer to have this case decided by a jury consisting of 12 [probably 12, but maybe a smaller number] persons selected at random from the good people of Philly, particularly since this case has a David v. Goliath aspect to it and most folks love for David to slay Goliath.
In this type of case, a jury trial makes for better theater and drama. And.............................., we all like coin related drama. >>
Live and learn. Thank you.
Somehow I was not expecting a jury trial and this should be good thing for the Langbords.
Does anyone know where the 'eatin' popcorn' emoticon is? I've seen it on other posts. It would be apropos.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Tom
First of all... thanks for the update... again.
Now that I've said that, I just have one question...
You wrote in your originial post the following:
<< <i>
a. complete expert discovery [I wonder what Mr. Tripp and QBD will say about newly discovered information if they are deposed a second time];
>>
So, the question I have is... what have I missed... what's the newly discovered information? Or in other words... is there newly discovered information?
Thanks!
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.
In lawsuits such as this, the expert witnesses had their depositions taken long ago (probably 2009 or earlier). The testimony given by them could only be based upon information known by them and reviewed by them at the time of their depositions. During the life of a case information relevant to the case is discovered on an ongoing basis, arising from the work of the parties and/or their legal teams and at times arising from the efforts of other persons not connected to the case.
In this case lots of information has surfaced from various sources since the experts were deposed. Some of the information came to the light of day as a result of the research efforts of forumite and author RWB [Roger W. Burdette] into government archives. Some information has surfaced from other sources. Some of the additional information has been reported on in the hobby press [CW, NN] and on the forums.
The information that has surfaced shed light on what was actually happening at the Mint before, during and after the minting of the 1933 double eagles. Some of the information supports the possibility that the 10 1933 double eagles could have left the mint legally.
A second round of depositions of the experts for both side would reveal whether either or both have reviewed the newly discovered information and if so, whether the new information has caused the experts to change their "expert opinions".
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
You're such an asset to this board.
The entertainment can never be overdressed....except in burlesque
<< <i>Does anyone know where the 'eatin' popcorn' emoticon is? I've seen it on other posts. It would be apropos. >>
I guess I can understand why they do it this way, but they sure do go to great lengths to take any element of surprise out of the trial!!!
TD
INYNWHWeTrust-TexasNationals,ajaan,blu62vette
coinJP, Outhaul ,illini420,MICHAELDIXON, Fade to Black,epcjimi1,19Lyds,SNMAN,JerseyJoe, bigjpst, DMWJR , lordmarcovan, Weiss,Mfriday4962,UtahCoin,Downtown1974,pitboss,RichieURich,Bullsitter,JDsCoins,toyz4geo,jshaulis, mustanggt, SNMAN
Thanks for all the great updates sanction !
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
Can't wait for 2-28-2011 to see the real nitty gritty, nuts and bolts presented by both sides.
Once all of the 2-28-2011 filings and the 3-14-2011 filings are made, it will be interesting to see how the court rules on motions to exclude evidence.
HUGE thanks once again.
Re the experts: Are their depositions public or do they become public at some point during the trial? I know that experts are always asked what they are being paid. I will find the answers to that question interesting in this case!
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Sanction II has done, and continues to do a superb job of making this intelligible to collectors, and keeping everyone up to date.
<< <i>Certainly the most interesting (and longest) coin legal fight I'm aware of.
Sanction II has done, and continues to do a superb job of making this intelligible to collectors, and keeping everyone up to date. >>
Count on another 5-10 years once the owner of the current coin joins the fun.
<< <i>Count on another 5-10 years once the owner of the current coin joins the fun. >>
I'm still wondering who the 3 annonymous people the goverment included to the lawsuit are... and why the goverment didn't have that information prior to selling the "only" 1933 the first time.
And Thanks again Sanction for the info you listed earlier... very informative.
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.