Here is a short update on the Langbord lawsuit.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,618 ✭✭✭✭✭
On 4-11-2011 the government filed papers in opposition to the Langbord motion for an order resolving the government's declaratory relief claim in the Langbords' favor.
The government's opposition brief in summary argues that the declaratory relief claim asserted by it should remain in the lawsuit, should go to trial and should be decided by the judge, separately, and only after a jury hears and decides the CAFRA forfeiture claim filed by the government.
The government states that the CAFRA claim and the declaratory relief claim are similar, but not identical. The government states that in the CAFRA claim the government must prove that the ten 1933 double eagles are the proceeds of a crime [and as has been mentioned before, the government may have diffuculty proving same].
The government states that if it, in the CAFRA forfeiture claim, proves that the ten 1933 double eagles are the proceeds of a crime, then the declaratory relief claim is moot. However, the government states that if it proves that the ten 1933 double eagles were not "lawfully removed from the mint" [the government states that this has always been its postion] but is unable to prove that the ten double eagles were the "proceeds of a specific criminal act for forfeiture purposes", the declaratory relief claim would allow 'The Court" [the judge, not the jury] to determine that the ten double eagles are still government property even if it does not prove forfeitability.
The government argues that the declaratory relief claim is essentially a "quiet title" claim through which the government is asking the court [independently from the CAFRA forfeiture claim] to determine who the owner of the ten double eagles is [either the government since the ten double eagles were never lawfully removed from the mint; or the Langbords because the Langbord family has had the ten double eagles in their possession for a long time]
In other words, the government is still seeking to avoid having to go to trial in this case under a scenario where its only claim is the CAFRA forfeiture claim [with its difficult burden of proof for the government]. It wants a fall back position to be present in the lawsuit so that it can say "even if we can not prove our case under CAFRA that the ten double eagles should be forfeited to the government, we still should win the case and ownership of the coins simply because the coins were never "lawfully removed from the mint".
As I have stated before, when the court rules on the pending pretrial motions regarding admission and exclusion of evidence; jury instructions, and whether to allow or disallow the declaratory relief claim, such court ruling(s) will determine what claims and defenses will be heard and determined [by the jury and or by the judge] at the trial and what evidence [documents and witness testimony] will be allowed at trial. Once these rulings are made, the only thing left to do at that point will be to either:
1. settle [maybe a few days before the trial is to start, just like in the Fenton case]; or
2. go to trial, give it your best shot and if you lose, prepare your appeal or accept that you lost and move on.
The government's opposition brief in summary argues that the declaratory relief claim asserted by it should remain in the lawsuit, should go to trial and should be decided by the judge, separately, and only after a jury hears and decides the CAFRA forfeiture claim filed by the government.
The government states that the CAFRA claim and the declaratory relief claim are similar, but not identical. The government states that in the CAFRA claim the government must prove that the ten 1933 double eagles are the proceeds of a crime [and as has been mentioned before, the government may have diffuculty proving same].
The government states that if it, in the CAFRA forfeiture claim, proves that the ten 1933 double eagles are the proceeds of a crime, then the declaratory relief claim is moot. However, the government states that if it proves that the ten 1933 double eagles were not "lawfully removed from the mint" [the government states that this has always been its postion] but is unable to prove that the ten double eagles were the "proceeds of a specific criminal act for forfeiture purposes", the declaratory relief claim would allow 'The Court" [the judge, not the jury] to determine that the ten double eagles are still government property even if it does not prove forfeitability.
The government argues that the declaratory relief claim is essentially a "quiet title" claim through which the government is asking the court [independently from the CAFRA forfeiture claim] to determine who the owner of the ten double eagles is [either the government since the ten double eagles were never lawfully removed from the mint; or the Langbords because the Langbord family has had the ten double eagles in their possession for a long time]
In other words, the government is still seeking to avoid having to go to trial in this case under a scenario where its only claim is the CAFRA forfeiture claim [with its difficult burden of proof for the government]. It wants a fall back position to be present in the lawsuit so that it can say "even if we can not prove our case under CAFRA that the ten double eagles should be forfeited to the government, we still should win the case and ownership of the coins simply because the coins were never "lawfully removed from the mint".
As I have stated before, when the court rules on the pending pretrial motions regarding admission and exclusion of evidence; jury instructions, and whether to allow or disallow the declaratory relief claim, such court ruling(s) will determine what claims and defenses will be heard and determined [by the jury and or by the judge] at the trial and what evidence [documents and witness testimony] will be allowed at trial. Once these rulings are made, the only thing left to do at that point will be to either:
1. settle [maybe a few days before the trial is to start, just like in the Fenton case]; or
2. go to trial, give it your best shot and if you lose, prepare your appeal or accept that you lost and move on.
0
Comments
I can't imagine the government would not appeal if it went to trial and lost. After all, they have unlimited resources.
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i> After all, they have unlimited resources. >>
Yup, the government sure thinks so and acts so. Which is well why it is in the financial maelstrom it is currently in. Somehow prosecuting a matter from 78 years ago just doesn't appear to be a meaningful expenditure of withering revenue I do believe.
Sounds like the gummint, having dropped the Spaulding on the CAFRA paperwork, has gone out and hired some real lawyers to do its work.
TD
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
I can't imagine the government would not appeal if it went to trial and lost. After all, they have unlimited resources. >>
Since we are talkin Saints wouldn't that be "orange appeel"?
<< <i>
<< <i> After all, they have unlimited resources. >>
Yup, the government sure thinks so and acts so. Which is well why it is in the financial maelstrom it is currently in. Somehow prosecuting a matter from 78 years ago just doesn't appear to be a meaningful expenditure of withering revenue I do believe. >>
My great-grandfather used to say "there's no medicine for stupidity." Seems to fit this situation exactly. Talk about a waste of time and money litigating this case. I don't see the point. If the government had a modicum of intelligence and common sense, they would split the coins with the family (50/50 or whatever) and drop the thing. Rather than wasting money, they could sell them and turn a profit for the government.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> After all, they have unlimited resources. >>
Yup, the government sure thinks so and acts so. Which is well why it is in the financial maelstrom it is currently in. Somehow prosecuting a matter from 78 years ago just doesn't appear to be a meaningful expenditure of withering revenue I do believe. >>
My great-grandfather used to say "there's no medicine for stupidity." Seems to fit this situation exactly. Talk about a waste of time and money litigating this case. I don't see the point. If the government had a modicum of intelligence and common sense, they would split the coins with the family (50/50 or whatever) and drop the thing. Rather than wasting money, they could sell them and turn a profit for the government. >>
Yeah, but it is ALL ABOUT THE POWER at our expense.
<< <i>Thanks for the update.
I can't imagine the government would not appeal if it went to trial and lost. After all, they have unlimited resources. >>
-donn-
<< <i>SanctionII, thanks for the update. As far as the commentary, I think Cap'n Henway has it nailed. >>
I also think that bajjerfan has it nailed with:
"Yeah, but it is ALL ABOUT THE POWER at our expense. "
John
I cant imagine why they sent the coins to the US mint for authentication in the first place though.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Hoard the keys.