Numerous and very interesting replies posted to this thread so far.
Thanks again for your replies and kind words.
A majority of the replies state that interest in the case is still high and that people are reading updates and waiting for the upcoming trial. Other replies state a low level of interest, or no interest in the case at all.
I have stated before that this case is interesting to me on multiple levels. I like the fact that it involves coins and US History. I like the fact that it is a lawsuit (since I am a lawyer). I like the "David v. Goliath" aspect of the case.
However, what most draws me to the case is the core subject matter that is presented to the court for decision. This core subject matter is the extent of the power of the government to take property [possibly "private property"] from a person or company.
The "who, what, when, where, why and how" surrounding the power of the government to take property is on display in this case.
This case has "gravitas" because it deals with "private property rights" and the extent of the power of the government over same.
That in turn brings into the case the nature and extent of the relationship between the government and the "governed" (you, me, our families, etc.).
For those who believe that it is no big deal that the government in this case took possession of the 10 double eagles [through the Langbords transferring possession of the coins to the government for the purpose of testing same to determine the authenticity of same] and thereafter simply kept the coins saying in effect "we say the coins are stolen property; we will keep them; we do not have to prove what we say is true; it is true simply because we say so"), think again.
If the government is allowed to do this to the Langbords (which the judge in 7-2009 ruled the government is not allowed to do [Kudos to the Judge]), then do not complain when your life savings sitting in a retirement account (and the life savings of millions of other persons which total into the trillions of dollars) are taken from you by government edict prohibiting the banks and other financial institutions from paying out to you the monies you have on deposit with these financial institutions above a certain minimum per month and directing that the balance be turned over to the government for the government to hold and manage for you (ask native American Tribes whose property at the end of the 19th century was turned over to the government [for it to hold and manage, in trust, for the members of the Tribes] how that worked out for them).
This case is important on many levels.
I digress.
As I said in a prior post on this case:
"The case is placed in the court's "Ready Pool" commencing on 3-21-2011. Thereafter counsel for both sides are to be prepared to proceed to trial on 48 hours notice.
If trial has not yet occurred, the trial will commence on 7-7-2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A of the US District Court located at 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.
This case is finally scheduled for a trial which will start [absent a settlement] sometime between 3-24-2011 and 7-7-2011."
So to those who ask when the trial will start, I can only 7-7-2011 at the latest; and possibly earlier. However, I do not think the trial will start prior to the time that the court issues rulings on the pending pretrial motions and the Langbords' motion seeking to have the court throw out the government's declaratory relief claim.
If anyone does have the free time, and the desire to appear at the trial and observe same, please contact me by PM to discuss.
I expect the trial would take weeks, though the precise timing of the trial is unknown at this time. Depending on how the court rules on pretrial motions directed at the proposed evidence both sides want to introduce at trial, the trial could be shorter or longer in time [i.e. if the court allows the government to introduce only 10 of its over 300 proposed exhibits the time required for trial will be shorter].
To have on line access to Federal Court records you must join and subscribe to PACER (the federal court system's Public Access to Court Electronic Records system). Joining is easy. Navigating the site is easy. However, you pay eight cents per page that you view on the PACER system [During my keeping up with the Langbord lawsuit I have spent hundreds of dollars on PACER fees; though I also use PACER for my legal cases that I handle in my law practice]. >>
So we should thank your clients for the free updates?
To have on line access to Federal Court records you must join and subscribe to PACER (the federal court system's Public Access to Court Electronic Records system). Joining is easy. Navigating the site is easy. However, you pay eight cents per page that you view on the PACER system [During my keeping up with the Langbord lawsuit I have spent hundreds of dollars on PACER fees; though I also use PACER for my legal cases that I handle in my law practice]. >>
So we should thank your clients for the free updates?
That deserves a shoutout!!!
THANK YOU CLIENTS!!! >>
no....
not in this case.
""[During my keeping up with the Langbord lawsuit I have spent hundreds of dollars on PACER fees""
Is there any new legal strategy/theory to be learned from this case?
Do you think the Langbords would have been better off submitting just 2 or 3 of the DEs for authentication? Would there be any reason to believe the other 7 or 8 would not have the same origin as those 2 or 3?
Just to chime in. I have been following this case and your reports from the begining. I don't usually reply to the various threads you start, BUT I do read them and hope you will continue to report on events until a FINAL decision is made in the case. Thank you. Steve
The PACER fees paid by me to access the documents in the case are not billed to my clients. I pay them out of my own pocket.
As far as a new legal theory or strategy to be learned from the case, well when it is all over, someone will play Monday morning quarterback. I am sure that some new legal ground will be ploughed in this case [or even if not new legal ground, it will be legal ground that is not covered on a daily basis]. In that respect, this case and the events in same will be available to be used as a template in future disputes covering the same factual and legal topics.
I still can see the decision by the Langbord family and their attorneys to turn possession of the 10 double eagles to the government so that they could be authenticated to be a good one [It helps in placing the Langbord family in a good light]. I suspect that on the day that they turned possession of the double eagles over to the government they never suspected that things would turn out as they have.
Maybe, or maybe not (more than likely probably not).
However, if one looks at all sides the a dispute and realizes that it is inevitable that the dispute will end up in court [as this one did, unless the Langbords decided to take the coins overseas and sell them their, which they did not do], it makes sense to create, as best you can, facts which will place you in the best light possible when a trial happens. What better light to cast yourself in than the "little guy or gal who did nothing wrong, who cooperated with Uncle Sam and who was treated badly by Uncle Sam in return".
As stated before, if the Langbords win the case and the coins, estate tax issues will undoubtedly pop up that will have to be dealt with. That will be a separate part of the saga regarding these 10 double eagles.
<< <i>Is there any new legal strategy/theory to be learned from this case?
Do you think the Langbords would have been better off submitting just 2 or 3 of the DEs for authentication? Would there be any reason to believe the other 7 or 8 would not have the same origin as those 2 or 3? >>
I think that the huge splash made by rolling the dice with all(?) ten coins made it imnpossible for the government to sweep the case under a rug. TD
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.
<< <i>Numerous and very interesting replies posted to this thread so far.
Thanks again for your replies and kind words.
A majority of the replies state that interest in the case is still high and that people are reading updates and waiting for the upcoming trial. Other replies state a low level of interest, or no interest in the case at all.
I have stated before that this case is interesting to me on multiple levels. I like the fact that it involves coins and US History. I like the fact that it is a lawsuit (since I am a lawyer). I like the "David v. Goliath" aspect of the case.
However, what most draws me to the case is the core subject matter that is presented to the court for decision. This core subject matter is the extent of the power of the government to take property [possibly "private property"] from a person or company.
The "who, what, when, where, why and how" surrounding the power of the government to take property is on display in this case.
This case has "gravitas" because it deals with "private property rights" and the extent of the power of the government over same.
That in turn brings into the case the nature and extent of the relationship between the government and the "governed" (you, me, our families, etc.).
For those who believe that it is no big deal that the government in this case took possession of the 10 double eagles [through the Langbords transferring possession of the coins to the government for the purpose of testing same to determine the authenticity of same] and thereafter simply kept the coins saying in effect "we say the coins are stolen property; we will keep them; we do not have to prove what we say is true; it is true simply because we say so"), think again.
If the government is allowed to do this to the Langbords (which the judge in 7-2009 ruled the government is not allowed to do [Kudos to the Judge]), then do not complain when your life savings sitting in a retirement account (and the life savings of millions of other persons which total into the trillions of dollars) are taken from you by government edict prohibiting the banks and other financial institutions from paying out to you the monies you have on deposit with these financial institutions above a certain minimum per month and directing that the balance be turned over to the government for the government to hold and manage for you (ask native American Tribes whose property at the end of the 19th century was turned over to the government [for it to hold and manage, in trust, for the members of the Tribes] how that worked out for them).
This case is important on many levels.
]. >>
For those who think the case is not important, start a savings program where you put a $50 bill from your after-tax income in a safety-deposit box every week. At the end of one year you will have $2600. At the end of ten years you will have $26,000. Take that cash out and get yourself stopped by a federal officer. The chances are very good that he will take the cash from you because you are obviously a criminal of some kind, and make you prove that you have the legal right to get 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.
Comments
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I for one, enjoy your threads and your take on the whole situation!!! >>
+1
Thanks again for your replies and kind words.
A majority of the replies state that interest in the case is still high and that people are reading updates and waiting for the upcoming trial. Other replies state a low level of interest, or no interest in the case at all.
I have stated before that this case is interesting to me on multiple levels. I like the fact that it involves coins and US History. I like the fact that it is a lawsuit (since I am a lawyer). I like the "David v. Goliath" aspect of the case.
However, what most draws me to the case is the core subject matter that is presented to the court for decision. This core subject matter is the extent of the power of the government to take property [possibly "private property"] from a person or company.
The "who, what, when, where, why and how" surrounding the power of the government to take property is on display in this case.
This case has "gravitas" because it deals with "private property rights" and the extent of the power of the government over same.
That in turn brings into the case the nature and extent of the relationship between the government and the "governed" (you, me, our families, etc.).
For those who believe that it is no big deal that the government in this case took possession of the 10 double eagles [through the Langbords transferring possession of the coins to the government for the purpose of testing same to determine the authenticity of same] and thereafter simply kept the coins saying in effect "we say the coins are stolen property; we will keep them; we do not have to prove what we say is true; it is true simply because we say so"), think again.
If the government is allowed to do this to the Langbords (which the judge in 7-2009 ruled the government is not allowed to do [Kudos to the Judge]), then do not complain when your life savings sitting in a retirement account (and the life savings of millions of other persons which total into the trillions of dollars) are taken from you by government edict prohibiting the banks and other financial institutions from paying out to you the monies you have on deposit with these financial institutions above a certain minimum per month and directing that the balance be turned over to the government for the government to hold and manage for you (ask native American Tribes whose property at the end of the 19th century was turned over to the government [for it to hold and manage, in trust, for the members of the Tribes] how that worked out for them).
This case is important on many levels.
I digress.
As I said in a prior post on this case:
"The case is placed in the court's "Ready Pool" commencing on 3-21-2011. Thereafter counsel for both sides are to be prepared to proceed to trial on 48 hours notice.
If trial has not yet occurred, the trial will commence on 7-7-2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A of the US District Court located at 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.
This case is finally scheduled for a trial which will start [absent a settlement] sometime between 3-24-2011 and 7-7-2011."
So to those who ask when the trial will start, I can only 7-7-2011 at the latest; and possibly earlier. However, I do not think the trial will start prior to the time that the court issues rulings on the pending pretrial motions and the Langbords' motion seeking to have the court throw out the government's declaratory relief claim.
If anyone does have the free time, and the desire to appear at the trial and observe same, please contact me by PM to discuss.
I expect the trial would take weeks, though the precise timing of the trial is unknown at this time. Depending on how the court rules on pretrial motions directed at the proposed evidence both sides want to introduce at trial, the trial could be shorter or longer in time [i.e. if the court allows the government to introduce only 10 of its over 300 proposed exhibits the time required for trial will be shorter].
<< <i>MsMorrisine.
To have on line access to Federal Court records you must join and subscribe to PACER (the federal court system's Public Access to Court Electronic Records system). Joining is easy. Navigating the site is easy. However, you pay eight cents per page that you view on the PACER system [During my keeping up with the Langbord lawsuit I have spent hundreds of dollars on PACER fees; though I also use PACER for my legal cases that I handle in my law practice]. >>
So we should thank your clients for the free updates?
That deserves a shoutout!!!
THANK YOU CLIENTS!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>MsMorrisine.
To have on line access to Federal Court records you must join and subscribe to PACER (the federal court system's Public Access to Court Electronic Records system). Joining is easy. Navigating the site is easy. However, you pay eight cents per page that you view on the PACER system [During my keeping up with the Langbord lawsuit I have spent hundreds of dollars on PACER fees; though I also use PACER for my legal cases that I handle in my law practice]. >>
So we should thank your clients for the free updates?
That deserves a shoutout!!!
THANK YOU CLIENTS!!! >>
no....
not in this case.
""[During my keeping up with the Langbord lawsuit I have spent hundreds of dollars on PACER fees""
Do you think the Langbords would have been better off submitting just 2 or 3 of the DEs for authentication? Would there be any reason to believe the other 7 or 8 would not have the same origin as those 2 or 3?
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
As far as a new legal theory or strategy to be learned from the case, well when it is all over, someone will play Monday morning quarterback. I am sure that some new legal ground will be ploughed in this case [or even if not new legal ground, it will be legal ground that is not covered on a daily basis]. In that respect, this case and the events in same will be available to be used as a template in future disputes covering the same factual and legal topics.
I still can see the decision by the Langbord family and their attorneys to turn possession of the 10 double eagles to the government so that they could be authenticated to be a good one [It helps in placing the Langbord family in a good light]. I suspect that on the day that they turned possession of the double eagles over to the government they never suspected that things would turn out as they have.
However, if one looks at all sides the a dispute and realizes that it is inevitable that the dispute will end up in court [as this one did, unless the Langbords decided to take the coins overseas and sell them their, which they did not do], it makes sense to create, as best you can, facts which will place you in the best light possible when a trial happens. What better light to cast yourself in than the "little guy or gal who did nothing wrong, who cooperated with Uncle Sam and who was treated badly by Uncle Sam in return".
Agreed. Tax fraud by his heirs is rarely mentioned.
<< <i>Is there any new legal strategy/theory to be learned from this case?
Do you think the Langbords would have been better off submitting just 2 or 3 of the DEs for authentication? Would there be any reason to believe the other 7 or 8 would not have the same origin as those 2 or 3? >>
I think that the huge splash made by rolling the dice with all(?) ten coins made it imnpossible for the government to sweep the case under a rug.
TD
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Numerous and very interesting replies posted to this thread so far.
Thanks again for your replies and kind words.
A majority of the replies state that interest in the case is still high and that people are reading updates and waiting for the upcoming trial. Other replies state a low level of interest, or no interest in the case at all.
I have stated before that this case is interesting to me on multiple levels. I like the fact that it involves coins and US History. I like the fact that it is a lawsuit (since I am a lawyer). I like the "David v. Goliath" aspect of the case.
However, what most draws me to the case is the core subject matter that is presented to the court for decision. This core subject matter is the extent of the power of the government to take property [possibly "private property"] from a person or company.
The "who, what, when, where, why and how" surrounding the power of the government to take property is on display in this case.
This case has "gravitas" because it deals with "private property rights" and the extent of the power of the government over same.
That in turn brings into the case the nature and extent of the relationship between the government and the "governed" (you, me, our families, etc.).
For those who believe that it is no big deal that the government in this case took possession of the 10 double eagles [through the Langbords transferring possession of the coins to the government for the purpose of testing same to determine the authenticity of same] and thereafter simply kept the coins saying in effect "we say the coins are stolen property; we will keep them; we do not have to prove what we say is true; it is true simply because we say so"), think again.
If the government is allowed to do this to the Langbords (which the judge in 7-2009 ruled the government is not allowed to do [Kudos to the Judge]), then do not complain when your life savings sitting in a retirement account (and the life savings of millions of other persons which total into the trillions of dollars) are taken from you by government edict prohibiting the banks and other financial institutions from paying out to you the monies you have on deposit with these financial institutions above a certain minimum per month and directing that the balance be turned over to the government for the government to hold and manage for you (ask native American Tribes whose property at the end of the 19th century was turned over to the government [for it to hold and manage, in trust, for the members of the Tribes] how that worked out for them).
This case is important on many levels.
]. >>
For those who think the case is not important, start a savings program where you put a $50 bill from your after-tax income in a safety-deposit box every week. At the end of one year you will have $2600. At the end of ten years you will have $26,000. Take that cash out and get yourself stopped by a federal officer. The chances are very good that he will take the cash from you because you are obviously a criminal of some kind, and make you prove that you have the legal right to get it back.
Thanks for all of the updates!