Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
<< <i>Also from NYT - Judge Davis stated flatly that some of the evidence could allow jurors to infer that the coins were stolen and that the family knew it and concealed them. >>
Supposing the jury is convinced the Langbords lied about when they knew they had possession of the coins, could they still award the coins to the Langbords?
It seems like lying doesn't necessarily mean they thought the coins were illegal, but it could possibly mean they thought the coins might be seized, illegally. >>
It seems likely that Izzy Switt told his family that the coins were legally obtained, but considering the fate of the previous 10 minus 1, his word would never prevail over that of the Feds.
<< <i>Unfortunately I haven't seen one word from Steve today regarding the case...that's a bit disappointing. We need updates! >>
Steve's coverage begins on Monday, I believe, although there have been some updates on the CW site.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. 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.
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
Money. He is getting ALOT of money for not just testifying, but for all his research.
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
Money. He is getting A LOT of money for not just testifying, but for all his research. >>
"The daughter and grandsons of Israel Switt, a jeweler and scrap metal dealer on nearby Jeweler's Row, say they discovered 10 of them in his bank deposit box in 2003."
"Joan Langbord of Philadelphia and her sons went to the U.S. Treasury to authenticate the coins, but the government instead seized them. Authorities noted that the box was rented six years after Switt died in 1990, and that the family never paid inheritance taxes on them."
"What's more, the Secret Service has long believed Switt and a corrupt cashier at the Mint were somehow involved in the double-eagle breach."
"A thief cannot convey good title to stolen property," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel M. Sweet wrote."
That's not so good. But there's more:
"Switt had been investigated at least twice by 1944 over his coin holdings."
"In 1937, U.S. officials seized nearly 100 pre-1933 double eagles from him as he prepared to board a train to Baltimore to meet with a coin dealer. Switt said he knew it was illegal to possess the gold coins, and said he had eventually planned to surrender them, according to a ruling issued by the trial judge this week."
"In 1944, the Secret Service traced 10 separate double eagle coins that had surfaced to Switt. He acknowledged selling nine of them, but said he did not recall how he had gotten them. The statute of limitations prevented authorities from prosecuting Switt."
"However, his license to deal scrap gold, which sometimes took him to the Mint, was revoked."
"U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis will allow that evidence in, despite the family's efforts to block it."
As as cynic like myself would expect, the judge favored his employer (shocking!), but his reasoning says a lot:
"The documents appropriately go to Switt's knowledge of the repercussions from breaking the gold laws and provide evidence of a motive to conceal his possession of the ten 1933 Double Eagles presently at issue," Judge Legrome Davis wrote.
Lucky for the Langbords that this is a jury trial, eh?
If this case involved stuff that belonged to a dealer (or art from a museum, etc.), then was hidden by a thief, and later concealed by his family after his death who now claim it wasn't stolen in the first place, would anyone be rooting for them?
Good deals with: goldman86 mkman123 Wingsrule wondercoin segoja Tccuga OKCC LindeDad and others.
<< <i>Lucky for the Langbords that this is a jury trial, eh?
If this case involved stuff that belonged to a dealer (or art from a museum, etc.), then was hidden by a thief, and later concealed by his family after his death who now claim it wasn't stolen in the first place, would anyone be rooting for them? >>
The difference here is that the "dealer" is the US Mint in the business to make and distribute (not collect) coinage. The "thief" in this case most likely compensated the "dealer" for the full value. The "Dealer's" Boss later said no one can possess gold and to give all gold to him. Some people did not want to surrender their lawful posessions (now deemed unlawful posessions) and therefore hid said gold from him.
The comparison is not the same here as in my opinion there is no thief and no victim (I think compensation was made).
<< <i>["The documents appropriately go to Switt's knowledge of the repercussions from breaking the gold laws and provide evidence of a motive to conceal his possession of the ten 1933 Double Eagles presently at issue," Judge Legrome Davis wrote.
Lucky for the Langbords that this is a jury trial, eh?q]
If I understand it, assuming the Langbords win this trial, the judge gets to decide on the Declaratory Judgment. So the judge will get the final say (before apeals that is).
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
Money. He is getting A LOT of money for not just testifying, but for all his research. >>
Who's money ? Leading the witness, your honor ! >>
<< <i>"The difference here is that the "dealer" is the US Mint in the business to make and distribute (not collect) coinage. The "thief" in this case most likely compensated the "dealer" for the full value. The "Dealer's" Boss later said no one can possess gold and to give all gold to him. Some people did not want to surrender their lawful posessions (now deemed unlawful posessions) and therefore hid said gold from him." >>
In the business of making and distributing coinage (as you put it) Mint officials decided to melt, not distribute, the coins. They were not officially released out the front door, but sneaked out the back door. That does not make them lawful possessions, even if something was exchanged for them.
Their disposition in a court of law will be made according to the law, whether one agrees with FDR's confiscation or not (and I do not). However, that has nothing to do with the issue of whether the coins were obtained legally, and even a dumb jury has to ask: why were these coins hidden, if they were legitimately acquired?
Good deals with: goldman86 mkman123 Wingsrule wondercoin segoja Tccuga OKCC LindeDad and others.
<< <i>"The difference here is that the "dealer" is the US Mint in the business to make and distribute (not collect) coinage. The "thief" in this case most likely compensated the "dealer" for the full value. The "Dealer's" Boss later said no one can possess gold and to give all gold to him. Some people did not want to surrender their lawful posessions (now deemed unlawful posessions) and therefore hid said gold from him." >>
In the business of making and distributing coinage (as you put it) Mint officials decided to melt, not distribute, the coins. They were not officially released out the front door, but sneaked out the back door. That does not make them lawful possessions, even if something was exchanged for them.
Their disposition in a court of law will be made according to the law, whether one agrees with FDR's confiscation or not (and I do not). However, that has nothing to do with the issue of whether the coins were obtained legally, and even a dumb jury has to ask: why were these coins hidden, if they were legitimately acquired? >>
Probably because he couldn't prove they were legally obtained or didn't wish to incur the expense of doing so.
How was the Government able to prove the other 9/10 were illegal to own, but they can't do the same for the current 10?
If it can be shown that cashier McCann had a bag available in his office for exchange purposes, then the G will have a hard time proving they were stolen.
Probably because he couldn't prove they were legally obtained or didn't wish to incur the expense of doing so.
How was the Government able to prove the other 9/10 were illegal to own, but they can't do the same for the current 10?
If it can be shown that cashier McCann had a bag available in his office for exchange purposes, then the G will have a hard time proving they were stolen. >>
Your third sentence answers the first sentence. Keep in mind, the 1933's were nothing special. 450,000 more gold coins with no useful purpose (other than keeping Mint employees busy). Mint had tons of $20 gold coins from prior years. But Switt wanted the newest ones. Kind of like us going into the bank in January and asking for the newest rolls of cents or quarters. He asked his friend for the 33's. McCann didn't have any in the locked box he kept in his desk. "Let me see what I have in the back" is what he likely said to his friend. McCann probably thought the 33's would be released any day anyway; this was March or April 1933. Gold coins are gold coins. Except to the collector, do you really care if the quarter in your pocket is dated 2008 or 2009? Switt gave 20 $20 DE's to McCann to replace the 20 1933's. No need for a receipt; nothing was purchased. No harm, no foul, they thought. Two weeks later, came the gold surrender. But not all gold had to be turned in. And if Switt showed up with 1933's, McCann would join the millions of unemployed. Couldn't do that to someone that was a friend. It had to be their little secret.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
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.
Hey, coincidence fans, what do you think of this? . Any cat owner can tell you that you need a large sheet of newspaper to line a standard-size cat box. Years ago, when the Chicago Tribune shrank its size, I put a large stack of the older, larger papers in the basement for future use. . This morning I picked up the next sheet on the stack, from the September 22, 2004 Tribune. Right on top is a book review "Author tracks fugitive coins in intriguing 'Illegal Tender'." Yep, David Tripp's then-new book.
Now, a question: since Tripp is testifying on behalf of the Evil Empire, should I use this book review to line the cat box next week????
P.S.: FWIW, movies advertised on the same page include "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," "Wimbledon." "Mr. 3000" and "Cellular." TV show reviews include the new "Veronica Mars."
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.
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>"The thing which would have made my prior reporting on the case much better is having the trial exhibits, expert reports and deposition transcripts available for review and analysis on the court's docket." Sanction
Sanction, your analysis throughout the course of this litigation has been top notch. I try cases for a living and I thoroughly enjoyed your expert analysis. You clearly put a lot of time and effort into this. You gave timely reports and explained not only what was filed but the strategy behind the filings. Despite the quote above, I personally don't think your prior reporting on the case could have been any better! Thanks for all your efforts. >>
<< <i>I find the allegation against Switt inflammatory and prejudicial. Nowhere does it discuss the exemption for items of numismatic value >>
It seems like the exemption for turning over items of numismatic value would kick in if he had obtained the coins legally and did not want to return them.
If so, it first needs to be established that he had obtained them legally, which seems to be what they are working on. Once this is established, the exemption would protect him from needing to turn over the coins.
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>Would a "current issue modern" like a 1933 in 1933, be classified as a numismatic item worthy of exemption? >>
Yes, as much as a 2011 coin with a small survival would be in 2011. Think Cheerios Dollar or the 12 space-flown gold SACs in 2000 (even though the Cheerio wasn't discovered for 5 years, and assuming a legal way to acquire the latter).
Interesting that no reporting was made of court activities on FRIDAY, JULY 8TH either here or in the newspapers. I assume court was in session. We now go to MONDAY, JULY 11TH. We all appreciate the efforts made to report what is happening. Thanks to all who are in position to report. Hope the Coin World correspondent is on top of this as of Monday. Steve
Indeed. I am quite surprised that CW had nothing regarding the Friday testimony.
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.
Very interested to see the outcome of this case, Am i the only one that finds it odd that the government is spending this much time and money to try and take 10oz of gold from a US citizen instead of working on finding a way not to have to raise the debt cap?
"He passed out a 1907 Saint-Gaudens double eagle for the judge and jurors to examine, noting that the only differences between that and the 1933 and 1907 coins is the date and the addition of “In God We Trust” on the reverse."
Why wouldn't they bring something like a 1932 double eagle and save the difference statements?
Something that seemed a little odd to me was the part about Tripp characterizing the March 7, 1933 wire from an assistant attorney general that said Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins as an "orphan document" and to "treat it with caution." If I was a juror, I think I might have seen those statements as an attempt to discredit what the document said and wondered why, especially if nothing was offered to prove anything different.
<< <i>Something that seemed a little odd to me was the part about Tripp characterizing the March 7, 1933 wire from an assistant attorney general that said Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins as an "orphan document" and to "treat it with caution." If I was a juror, I think I might have seen those statements as an attempt to discredit what the document said and wondered why, especially if nothing was offered to prove anything different. >>
I think the problem is that the information in the document is a stand-alone document which means there's no context available for the reasons behind the document or the reaction to the document.
It's curious that the article gives some reasoning for Tripp's recommendation on that document but does not give a reason why the attorneys for the Langbords objected to evidence entered regarding FDR's orders. I'd be curious to find out what was presented and why they objected.
I think the problem is that the information in the document is a stand-alone document which means there's no context available for the reasons behind the document or the reaction to the document.
True, but it does seem to have provided specific instructions to the Mint whatever the reasons for it. Seems like this case always raises new questions though, hopefully we'll find out the answers to many of them over the course of the trial.
Sure wish this was at least televised..... while I appreciate all the information we do get, watching and listening (either there or by TV) would be so much more intriguing..... Cheers, RickO
I understand that Mr. Roach will be on site starting today. Is anybody following the tweets or the facebook updates?
If so, please relay here.
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 saw the Roach update post on www.coinworld.com a short while ago. It was posted there about 7:30am this morning and related to the Friday, July 8th proceedings. Obviously, Steve Roach is "on scene". Now that we are into a regular weekday situation wouldn't it be nice if Beth Deisher and the staff got into a routine of posting thoughout the day whenever their was a court break. Wouldn't it be nice if Coin World told us EXACTLY where this posting was taking place so we could continually monitor it. It is great to get daily recaps but I'm sure there are a few of us who would like to follow the action's blow by blow. The techknowledgy is there. LET'S USE IT! Steve
Some good info in there, including the note from Izzy.
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.
Some good info in there, including the note from Izzy.
TD >>
"A faded copy of Mr. Switt's 1944 sworn statement to the Secret Service is among the documents being presented at the current trial. "… I do not remember when, where or from whom I purchased them, as they were received by me in collections with other coins at different times," Mr. Switt wrote. He did write, however, that he didn't get them directly from the U.S. Mint or its employees."
Most likely trying to protect his source. It would have been nice if he had left a true account of how/when he obtained the coins.
The court docket today reflects that on last Friday the Langbords filed some additional proposed jury instructions [basically instructions from the court that allows the jury to consider the 1947 court decision in the Baranrd case; the Switt arrest for having possession of gold coins; and the decision of the US Attorney not to prosecute Switt due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for only very narrow and limited purposes (i.e. the jury can consider the existence of the Barnard decision only to determine whether Switt knew of same)].
Today docket entries in the form of clerk's minutes summarizing what happened during the trial proceedings on 7-7-2011 and on 7-8-2011 [the minutes have not been scanned and posted to the docket yet so you can not view them at this time].
I assume that David Tripp is continuing with his expert testimony on direct examination today; and that maybe later today (or possibly tomorrow) the Langbords' attorney will commence his cross examination of Mr. Tripp.
Mr. Tripp's cross examination would be something that would be very interesting to observe. I understand that the his cross examination will take a long time (more than one day probably) and will cover a substantial amount of ground. I also understand that Mr. Tripp has, during the course of the case, changed the underlying basis of his ultimate opinion (that no 1933 double eagles left the mint legally) as new documents and information surfaced. This probably is not unusual for experts witnesses (or any witness that gives an opinion for that matter), but the changing of the expert's story does give rise to opportunities for opposing counsel to point out inconsistencies by the expert to the jury; and to point out other things which cast doubt upon the credibility of the expert witness. I hope that the reports on Mr. Tripp's testimony today and tomorrow and further into the trial are really detailed and well presented.
Here is an article about the trial published today (6 hours ago) that I just copied off of the net:
PHILADELPHIA (CN) - As a forfeiture trial over 10 rare gold coins valued at roughly $80 million began, the presiding judge told jurors: "This will be infinitely more interesting and fascinating intellectually than anything you will see on TV." The U.S. Mint calls the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles "one of the most sought-after rarities in history." A single Double Eagle sold for more than $7.5 million at a Sotheby's auction in the summer of 2002, making it at the time the most valuable coin ever auctioned. Augustus St. Gaudens, a sculptor and artist, designed the coin, which many collectors consider the most beautiful U.S. coin ever. In 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, 445,500 such coins were struck at the Philadelphia Mint, a few blocks from the Federal Courthouse where the trial is occurring. Before the coins entered into circulation, however, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the nation's banks to abandon the Gold Standard and outlawed the use of gold coins as American currency. The overwhelming majority of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars. Only two, which were sent to the Smithsonian, were supposed to have survived. But in 2003, the daughter and grandsons of storied Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt drilled open a safety-deposit box. Inside that box, nestled among Switt's belongings, sat a gray paper Wanamaker's department store bag. In the bag, wrapped in tissue paper, were 10 1933 Double Eagles. Now, nearly 80 years after the coins were struck, "The government simply wants its coins back," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero told jurors in her opening statement on Thursday. The United States says the coins are stolen property. "It's really very simple," she said. "No 1933 Double Eagles left the Philadelphia Mint through lawful channels." A small number - roughly 20 - were pilfered with help from a corrupt Philadelphia Mint cashier, Romero said. "The only reason for their existence outside the Philadelphia Mint is that they were stolen," Romero said. "Israel Switt was somehow involved." Romero told jurors: "At the close of this case, the government will do exactly what it has done for the last 70 years ... and finally bring them home to their rightful owner: the people of the United States of America." The Secret Service, charged with protecting U.S. currency, has spent decades trying to track down the missing 1933 Double Eagles. All the while, Romero said, agents were trying to answer the question: "Who's the source? Who's the fence?" "The search led them to one person: Israel Switt," she said. "The distribution chain started here." Switt, a jeweler and scrap-metal dealer who died in 1990, was considered the patriarch of Philadelphia's Jeweler's Row, where his store remains. The government says he was also a hoarder of illegal gold. The October 1929 stock market crash shook Americans' confidence in the banking system. Fears of total financial collapse precipitated a frenzy of gold withdrawals from U.S. banks. "There were hundreds of millions of dollars [in gold] literally bleeding from the nation's banks," Romero said. To stop the losses, FDR prohibited banks from issuing gold payouts to accountholders, and demanded that paper money, silver or checks be issued instead. Americans were required to surrender their gold to the Treasury in exchange for an equivalent amount of nongold U.S. currency. With a few exceptions, all gold coins became property of the federal government. Coin collectors and some industrial users of gold were exempted. Americans returned their gold en masse, and the price of gold skyrocketed. However, Romero told the jury, "There were other people who didn't respond and continued to hoard their gold." Israel Switt was one of the hoarders, she said. Switt was arrested in August 1934 at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, when the Secret Service caught him "lugging a bag of $2,000 worth of gold coins," Romero said. But Switt's involvement in the gold-hoarding black market was far from over, according to court records. In 1944, a journalist informed the U.S. Mint about a 1933 Double Eagle set for auction in New York, Romero said. Since no 1933 Double Eagles had been permitted to enter circulation, the coin had to be either counterfeit or stolen, the Mint reasoned. Months of investigation led Secret Service agents to Switt, who told the agents that he had sold nine 1933 Double Eagles to various collectors, according to court records. All were ultimately confiscated by federal agents when they surfaced in the 1940s and 1950s. A tenth coin, also linked to Switt, was obtained by Egypt's King Farouk in 1944 thanks to a bureaucratic blunder involving an erroneous export license. Farouk was later deposed, and the coin went missing for decades. It reappeared in the mid-1990s, when an unwitting British coin collector was snared in a sting operation at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. The government initiated a federal forfeiture proceeding, but voluntarily dismissed its claim and settled with the collector, who received some of the $7.59 million the coin fetched at a June 2002 auction. To this day, the buyer remains anonymous, known only as "Mr. Big." The Secret Service concluded in the 1940s that Switt had obtained the coins through a corrupt former cashier at the Philadelphia Mint, who in 1941 was convicted of stealing coins, according to court records. So in August 2004, when an attorney for Switt's daughter and two grandsons - claimants Joan, Roy and David Langbord - told the U.S. Mint what they had discovered in the safe deposit box, the Secret Service was suspicious. The Langbords allowed the Mint to take possession of the coins to confirm their authenticity. But in what the Langbords call an unconstitutional seizure, the coins were not returned, but were stashed in a vault at Fort Knox. The Langbords' attorney, Barry Berke with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel in New York, was told by the U.S. Mint's chief counsel in 2005 that the Langbords would not be offered a cash settlement for the coins. So they sued the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of the Mint in December 2006, demanding return of the 10 Double Eagles. In July 2009, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis concluded that the government had seized the coins in violation of the Langbords' due process rights. If the government wanted to take permanent possession of the coins, it would have to initiate formal forfeiture proceedings, Davis ruled. Two months later, the United States did just that, and filed a civil complaint for forfeiture. Attorney Berke told jurors on Thursday that they would be asked to uphold the same principle that was at issue in the forfeiture trial over the 1768 British seizure of John Hanc**k's sloop Liberty: "the right of a citizen to only have their property forfeited if the government can prove in a court of law that they are entitled to it." Joan Langbord, a wizened woman in her 80s with close-cropped blond hair, "wanted to do the right thing" when, through her attorney, she notified the government about her discovery, Berke said. "The government only learned about it because our clients told them," Berke said. Switt was "a colorful person with strong views," he acknowledged, but "let's be clear, the claimants have no burden here." Berke told jurors that the government would present them with a case that is based on "suspicion, theory [and] innuendo." "Two-hundred-thirty-five years from our independence, I submit to you that a theory is not good enough to take a citizen's property," Berke said. He said the government's case was "like a three-legged stool" based on an "assumption of absolutes." The government, he told jurors, will try to convince them that "a gate came down and no gold could go out" when the FDR administration instituted its gold policies. "Not only is this not so, it's very much not so," Berke said. Historical records show that government workers told Americans to "feel free to exchange gold for gold" and that exceptions to the ban on gold were being made for coins that held special value to collectors, Berke said. The other unfounded assumptions made by the government are that Mint personnel "absolutely followed every procedure" during the FDR years and that documentation from the U.S. Mint was "reliable, accurate and complete." Berke told jurors that "all three legs are weak" and that the government's forfeiture case "essentially is them trying to rewrite history." He lampooned the notion that the voluntary surrender of the nine 1933 Double Eagles reclaimed by the Secret Service reflects negatively on the Langbords' case. The people who had those coins had been threatened with criminal prosecution, he said. "When faced with that, people become pretty good volunteers." Decades ago, when Switt sold the nine 1933 Double Eagles, he did it in a way that shows he was unaware they were ill-gotten, Berke said. Switt advertised in newspapers and made arrangements with "the most prominent and respected people of the day," he said. "He did it in a way that he knew would bring attention to these coins." Everyone with firsthand knowledge of how the coins were smuggled from the Mint is dead, Berke told jurors. "The government, at the end of the day, has a theory of how they left." What it doesn't have, he said, are conclusive facts about "when the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, how the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, or by whom the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint." Fortunately, he told the jury, "when our government tries to take someone's property, we have you as a safeguard." The trial is slated to last two to three weeks. Both sides are expected to present numismatists as expert witnesses.
The new report I copied and posted earlier today is from the "Courthouse News Service".
In checking the web for information on the trial, it is apparent that this trial, in addition to being reported on by the hobby press, is "getting legs" in both the financial press and the general press, both locally and nationally.
I wonder if the case and the trial will pop up on the radar screen and start being reported on by the broadcast media (i.e. Today Show, cable news shows).
Could you imagine if Nancy Grace decided to stop her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial and start covering the Langbord trial?
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.
One thing I have noticed from the reporters so far, the date the Langbord's discovered the coins in the SDB seems to be inconsistent from article to article. Sounds about par for the course based on my experience..
<< <i>The new report I copied and posted earlier today is from the "Courthouse News Service".
In checking the web for information on the trial, it is apparent that this trial, in addition to being reported on by the hobby press, is "getting legs" in both the financial press and the general press, both locally and nationally.
I wonder if the case and the trial will pop up on the radar screen and start being reported on by the broadcast media (i.e. Today Show, cable news shows).
Could you imagine if Nancy Grace decided to stop her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial and start covering the Langbord trial? >>
now that it is essentially over in a sickening way, I wish she and the rest of them would.
<< <i>Which side would the (female dog) take??? >>
I think a lot would depend upon when the minting supposedly took place relative to when the rule for turning in gold took place
I think whoever could sell their case best would likely get the mouth going.
I think the most compelling of the two in the just above news story is the government's. They left off the nice dates so it reads well. The big obvious question, besides the dates, is how do they know it was a corrupt cashier? If they want to start pointing fingers at internal people, one must also ask "why were they even minted?" And back to "if it was ok to mint them, was there a brief period of time where it was ok to issue them?"
Comments
Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
He did write a book about the 1933 DE called Illegal Tender: Gold, Greed, and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle. Given the title of the book, it seems that some pertinent questions might be: (a) does he feel the coins are illegal to own and (b) who does he think is being greedy?
As for a conflict of interest, if the Langbords win, he might need to change the title of his book to "Legal Tender."
<< <i>
<< <i>Also from NYT - Judge Davis stated flatly that some of the evidence could allow jurors to infer that the coins were stolen and that the family knew it and concealed them. >>
Supposing the jury is convinced the Langbords lied about when they knew they had possession of the coins, could they still award the coins to the Langbords?
It seems like lying doesn't necessarily mean they thought the coins were illegal, but it could possibly mean they thought the coins might be seized, illegally. >>
It seems likely that Izzy Switt told his family that the coins were legally obtained, but considering the fate of the previous 10 minus 1, his word would never prevail over that of the Feds.
<< <i>Unfortunately I haven't seen one word from Steve today regarding the case...that's a bit disappointing. We need updates!
Steve's coverage begins on Monday, I believe, although there have been some updates on the CW site.
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
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
Money. He is getting ALOT of money for not just testifying, but for all his research.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
Money. He is getting A LOT of money for not just testifying, but for all his research. >>
Who's money ? Leading the witness, your honor !
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
LINK -- MSNBC Article
"The daughter and grandsons of Israel Switt, a jeweler and scrap metal dealer on nearby Jeweler's Row, say they discovered 10 of them in his bank deposit box in 2003."
"Joan Langbord of Philadelphia and her sons went to the U.S. Treasury to authenticate the coins, but the government instead seized them. Authorities noted that the box was rented six years after Switt died in 1990, and that the family never paid inheritance taxes on them."
"What's more, the Secret Service has long believed Switt and a corrupt cashier at the Mint were somehow involved in the double-eagle breach."
"A thief cannot convey good title to stolen property," Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel M. Sweet wrote."
That's not so good. But there's more:
"Switt had been investigated at least twice by 1944 over his coin holdings."
"In 1937, U.S. officials seized nearly 100 pre-1933 double eagles from him as he prepared to board a train to Baltimore to meet with a coin dealer. Switt said he knew it was illegal to possess the gold coins, and said he had eventually planned to surrender them, according to a ruling issued by the trial judge this week."
"In 1944, the Secret Service traced 10 separate double eagle coins that had surfaced to Switt. He acknowledged selling nine of them, but said he did not recall how he had gotten them. The statute of limitations prevented authorities from prosecuting Switt."
"However, his license to deal scrap gold, which sometimes took him to the Mint, was revoked."
"U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis will allow that evidence in, despite the family's efforts to block it."
As as cynic like myself would expect, the judge favored his employer (shocking!), but his reasoning says a lot:
"The documents appropriately go to Switt's knowledge of the repercussions from breaking the gold laws and provide evidence of a motive to conceal his possession of the ten 1933 Double Eagles presently at issue," Judge Legrome Davis wrote.
Lucky for the Langbords that this is a jury trial, eh?
If this case involved stuff that belonged to a dealer (or art from a museum, etc.), then was hidden by a thief, and later concealed by his family after his death who now claim it wasn't stolen in the first place, would anyone be rooting for them?
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>Lucky for the Langbords that this is a jury trial, eh?
If this case involved stuff that belonged to a dealer (or art from a museum, etc.), then was hidden by a thief, and later concealed by his family after his death who now claim it wasn't stolen in the first place, would anyone be rooting for them? >>
The difference here is that the "dealer" is the US Mint in the business to make and distribute (not collect) coinage. The "thief" in this case most likely compensated the "dealer" for the full value. The "Dealer's" Boss later said no one can possess gold and to give all gold to him. Some people did not want to surrender their lawful posessions (now deemed unlawful posessions) and therefore hid said gold from him.
The comparison is not the same here as in my opinion there is no thief and no victim (I think compensation was made).
<< <i>["The documents appropriately go to Switt's knowledge of the repercussions from breaking the gold laws and provide evidence of a motive to conceal his possession of the ten 1933 Double Eagles presently at issue," Judge Legrome Davis wrote.
Lucky for the Langbords that this is a jury trial, eh?q]
If I understand it, assuming the Langbords win this trial, the judge gets to decide on the Declaratory Judgment. So the judge will get the final say (before apeals that is).
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would David Tripp testify on behalf of the US government ? He wrote a book on the 1933 double eagle. Something tells me there is some sort of conflict of interest here. I am going to look deeper into this reason why David would even want the government to possibly have these coins and not the coin collecting community.
Stewart Blay >>
Money. He is getting A LOT of money for not just testifying, but for all his research. >>
Who's money ? Leading the witness, your honor ! >>
Our money - the taxpayers! Text
<< <i>"The difference here is that the "dealer" is the US Mint in the business to make and distribute (not collect) coinage. The "thief" in this case most likely compensated the "dealer" for the full value. The "Dealer's" Boss later said no one can possess gold and to give all gold to him. Some people did not want to surrender their lawful posessions (now deemed unlawful posessions) and therefore hid said gold from him." >>
In the business of making and distributing coinage (as you put it) Mint officials decided to melt, not distribute, the coins. They were not officially released out the front door, but sneaked out the back door. That does not make them lawful possessions, even if something was exchanged for them.
Their disposition in a court of law will be made according to the law, whether one agrees with FDR's confiscation or not (and I do not). However, that has nothing to do with the issue of whether the coins were obtained legally, and even a dumb jury has to ask: why were these coins hidden, if they were legitimately acquired?
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>
<< <i>"The difference here is that the "dealer" is the US Mint in the business to make and distribute (not collect) coinage. The "thief" in this case most likely compensated the "dealer" for the full value. The "Dealer's" Boss later said no one can possess gold and to give all gold to him. Some people did not want to surrender their lawful posessions (now deemed unlawful posessions) and therefore hid said gold from him." >>
In the business of making and distributing coinage (as you put it) Mint officials decided to melt, not distribute, the coins. They were not officially released out the front door, but sneaked out the back door. That does not make them lawful possessions, even if something was exchanged for them.
Their disposition in a court of law will be made according to the law, whether one agrees with FDR's confiscation or not (and I do not). However, that has nothing to do with the issue of whether the coins were obtained legally, and even a dumb jury has to ask: why were these coins hidden, if they were legitimately acquired? >>
Probably because he couldn't prove they were legally obtained or didn't wish to incur the expense of doing so.
How was the Government able to prove the other 9/10 were illegal to own, but they can't do the same for the current 10?
If it can be shown that cashier McCann had a bag available in his office for exchange purposes, then the G will have a hard time proving they were stolen.
here...............
<< <i>
Probably because he couldn't prove they were legally obtained or didn't wish to incur the expense of doing so.
How was the Government able to prove the other 9/10 were illegal to own, but they can't do the same for the current 10?
If it can be shown that cashier McCann had a bag available in his office for exchange purposes, then the G will have a hard time proving they were stolen. >>
Your third sentence answers the first sentence.
Keep in mind, the 1933's were nothing special. 450,000 more gold coins with no useful purpose (other than keeping Mint employees busy). Mint had tons of $20 gold coins from prior years. But Switt wanted the newest ones. Kind of like us going into the bank in January and asking for the newest rolls of cents or quarters.
He asked his friend for the 33's. McCann didn't have any in the locked box he kept in his desk. "Let me see what I have in the back" is what he likely said to his friend. McCann probably thought the 33's would be released any day anyway; this was March or April 1933. Gold coins are gold coins. Except to the collector, do you really care if the quarter in your pocket is dated 2008 or 2009? Switt gave 20 $20 DE's to McCann to replace the 20 1933's. No need for a receipt; nothing was purchased. No harm, no foul, they thought. Two weeks later, came the gold surrender. But not all gold had to be turned in. And if Switt showed up with 1933's, McCann would join the millions of unemployed. Couldn't do that to someone that was a friend. It had to be their little secret.
.
Any cat owner can tell you that you need a large sheet of newspaper to line a standard-size cat box. Years ago, when the Chicago Tribune shrank its size, I put a large stack of the older, larger papers in the basement for future use.
.
This morning I picked up the next sheet on the stack, from the September 22, 2004 Tribune. Right on top is a book review "Author tracks fugitive coins in intriguing 'Illegal Tender'." Yep, David Tripp's then-new book.
Now, a question: since Tripp is testifying on behalf of the Evil Empire, should I use this book review to line the cat box next week????
P.S.: FWIW, movies advertised on the same page include "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," "Wimbledon." "Mr. 3000" and "Cellular." TV show reviews include the new "Veronica Mars."
<< <i><do it yourself sticky> >>
<< <i>"The thing which would have made my prior reporting on the case much better is having the trial exhibits, expert reports and deposition transcripts available for review and analysis on the court's docket." Sanction
Sanction, your analysis throughout the course of this litigation has been top notch. I try cases for a living and I thoroughly enjoyed your expert analysis. You clearly put a lot of time and effort into this. You gave timely reports and explained not only what was filed but the strategy behind the filings. Despite the quote above, I personally don't think your prior reporting on the case could have been any better! Thanks for all your efforts. >>
Tom
<< <i>I find the allegation against Switt inflammatory and prejudicial. Nowhere does it discuss the exemption for items of numismatic value >>
It seems like the exemption for turning over items of numismatic value would kick in if he had obtained the coins legally and did not want to return them.
If so, it first needs to be established that he had obtained them legally, which seems to be what they are working on. Once this is established, the exemption would protect him from needing to turn over the coins.
<< <i>
<< <i><do it yourself sticky> >>
>>
<< <i>Would a "current issue modern" like a 1933 in 1933, be classified as a numismatic item worthy of exemption? >>
Yes, as much as a 2011 coin with a small survival would be in 2011. Think Cheerios Dollar or the 12 space-flown gold SACs in 2000 (even though the Cheerio wasn't discovered for 5 years, and assuming a legal way to acquire the latter).
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I saw this report yesterday by Steve Roach: Government calls David Tripp in 1933 double eagle trial >>
"He passed out a 1907 Saint-Gaudens double eagle for the judge and jurors to examine, noting that the only differences between that and the 1933 and 1907 coins is the date and the addition of “In God We Trust” on the reverse."
Why wouldn't they bring something like a 1932 double eagle and save the difference statements?
<< <i>Something that seemed a little odd to me was the part about Tripp characterizing the March 7, 1933 wire from an assistant attorney general that said Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins as an "orphan document" and to "treat it with caution." If I was a juror, I think I might have seen those statements as an attempt to discredit what the document said and wondered why, especially if nothing was offered to prove anything different. >>
I think the problem is that the information in the document is a stand-alone document which means there's no context available for the reasons behind the document or the reaction to the document.
It's curious that the article gives some reasoning for Tripp's recommendation on that document but does not give a reason why the attorneys for the Langbords objected to evidence entered regarding FDR's orders. I'd be curious to find out what was presented and why they objected.
True, but it does seem to have provided specific instructions to the Mint whatever the reasons for it. Seems like this case always raises new questions though, hopefully we'll find out the answers to many of them over the course of the trial.
If so, please relay here.
<< <i>I understand that Mr. Roach will be on site starting today. Is anybody following the tweets or the facebook updates?
If so, please relay here. >>
The last CW facebook update was about Tripp testifying on Sat, nothing today so far there.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
WSJ Article today
Some good info in there, including the note from Izzy.
TD
<< <i>From the other thread:
WSJ Article today
Some good info in there, including the note from Izzy.
TD >>
"A faded copy of Mr. Switt's 1944 sworn statement to the Secret Service is among the documents being presented at the current trial. "… I do not remember when, where or from whom I purchased them, as they were received by me in collections with other coins at different times," Mr. Switt wrote. He did write, however, that he didn't get them directly from the U.S. Mint or its employees."
Most likely trying to protect his source. It would have been nice if he had left a true account of how/when he obtained the coins.
Today docket entries in the form of clerk's minutes summarizing what happened during the trial proceedings on 7-7-2011 and on 7-8-2011 [the minutes have not been scanned and posted to the docket yet so you can not view them at this time].
I assume that David Tripp is continuing with his expert testimony on direct examination today; and that maybe later today (or possibly tomorrow) the Langbords' attorney will commence his cross examination of Mr. Tripp.
Mr. Tripp's cross examination would be something that would be very interesting to observe. I understand that the his cross examination will take a long time (more than one day probably) and will cover a substantial amount of ground. I also understand that Mr. Tripp has, during the course of the case, changed the underlying basis of his ultimate opinion (that no 1933 double eagles left the mint legally) as new documents and information surfaced. This probably is not unusual for experts witnesses (or any witness that gives an opinion for that matter), but the changing of the expert's story does give rise to opportunities for opposing counsel to point out inconsistencies by the expert to the jury; and to point out other things which cast doubt upon the credibility of the expert witness. I hope that the reports on Mr. Tripp's testimony today and tomorrow and further into the trial are really detailed and well presented.
PHILADELPHIA (CN) - As a forfeiture trial over 10 rare gold coins valued at roughly $80 million began, the presiding judge told jurors: "This will be infinitely more interesting and fascinating intellectually than anything you will see on TV." The U.S. Mint calls the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles "one of the most sought-after rarities in history."
A single Double Eagle sold for more than $7.5 million at a Sotheby's auction in the summer of 2002, making it at the time the most valuable coin ever auctioned.
Augustus St. Gaudens, a sculptor and artist, designed the coin, which many collectors consider the most beautiful U.S. coin ever.
In 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression, 445,500 such coins were struck at the Philadelphia Mint, a few blocks from the Federal Courthouse where the trial is occurring.
Before the coins entered into circulation, however, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the nation's banks to abandon the Gold Standard and outlawed the use of gold coins as American currency.
The overwhelming majority of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars.
Only two, which were sent to the Smithsonian, were supposed to have survived.
But in 2003, the daughter and grandsons of storied Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt drilled open a safety-deposit box. Inside that box, nestled among Switt's belongings, sat a gray paper Wanamaker's department store bag.
In the bag, wrapped in tissue paper, were 10 1933 Double Eagles.
Now, nearly 80 years after the coins were struck, "The government simply wants its coins back," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero told jurors in her opening statement on Thursday.
The United States says the coins are stolen property.
"It's really very simple," she said. "No 1933 Double Eagles left the Philadelphia Mint through lawful channels."
A small number - roughly 20 - were pilfered with help from a corrupt Philadelphia Mint cashier, Romero said.
"The only reason for their existence outside the Philadelphia Mint is that they were stolen," Romero said. "Israel Switt was somehow involved."
Romero told jurors: "At the close of this case, the government will do exactly what it has done for the last 70 years ... and finally bring them home to their rightful owner: the people of the United States of America."
The Secret Service, charged with protecting U.S. currency, has spent decades trying to track down the missing 1933 Double Eagles.
All the while, Romero said, agents were trying to answer the question: "Who's the source? Who's the fence?"
"The search led them to one person: Israel Switt," she said.
"The distribution chain started here."
Switt, a jeweler and scrap-metal dealer who died in 1990, was considered the patriarch of Philadelphia's Jeweler's Row, where his store remains.
The government says he was also a hoarder of illegal gold.
The October 1929 stock market crash shook Americans' confidence in the banking system. Fears of total financial collapse precipitated a frenzy of gold withdrawals from U.S. banks.
"There were hundreds of millions of dollars [in gold] literally bleeding from the nation's banks," Romero said.
To stop the losses, FDR prohibited banks from issuing gold payouts to accountholders, and demanded that paper money, silver or checks be issued instead.
Americans were required to surrender their gold to the Treasury in exchange for an equivalent amount of nongold U.S. currency.
With a few exceptions, all gold coins became property of the federal government. Coin collectors and some industrial users of gold were exempted. Americans returned their gold en masse, and the price of gold skyrocketed.
However, Romero told the jury, "There were other people who didn't respond and continued to hoard their gold." Israel Switt was one of the hoarders, she said.
Switt was arrested in August 1934 at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, when the Secret Service caught him "lugging a bag of $2,000 worth of gold coins," Romero said.
But Switt's involvement in the gold-hoarding black market was far from over, according to court records.
In 1944, a journalist informed the U.S. Mint about a 1933 Double Eagle set for auction in New York, Romero said.
Since no 1933 Double Eagles had been permitted to enter circulation, the coin had to be either counterfeit or stolen, the Mint reasoned.
Months of investigation led Secret Service agents to Switt, who told the agents that he had sold nine 1933 Double Eagles to various collectors, according to court records.
All were ultimately confiscated by federal agents when they surfaced in the 1940s and 1950s.
A tenth coin, also linked to Switt, was obtained by Egypt's King Farouk in 1944 thanks to a bureaucratic blunder involving an erroneous export license.
Farouk was later deposed, and the coin went missing for decades.
It reappeared in the mid-1990s, when an unwitting British coin collector was snared in a sting operation at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York.
The government initiated a federal forfeiture proceeding, but voluntarily dismissed its claim and settled with the collector, who received some of the $7.59 million the coin fetched at a June 2002 auction.
To this day, the buyer remains anonymous, known only as "Mr. Big."
The Secret Service concluded in the 1940s that Switt had obtained the coins through a corrupt former cashier at the Philadelphia Mint, who in 1941 was convicted of stealing coins, according to court records.
So in August 2004, when an attorney for Switt's daughter and two grandsons - claimants Joan, Roy and David Langbord - told the U.S. Mint what they had discovered in the safe deposit box, the Secret Service was suspicious.
The Langbords allowed the Mint to take possession of the coins to confirm their authenticity.
But in what the Langbords call an unconstitutional seizure, the coins were not returned, but were stashed in a vault at Fort Knox.
The Langbords' attorney, Barry Berke with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel in New York, was told by the U.S. Mint's chief counsel in 2005 that the Langbords would not be offered a cash settlement for the coins.
So they sued the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of the Mint in December 2006, demanding return of the 10 Double Eagles.
In July 2009, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis concluded that the government had seized the coins in violation of the Langbords' due process rights.
If the government wanted to take permanent possession of the coins, it would have to initiate formal forfeiture proceedings, Davis ruled.
Two months later, the United States did just that, and filed a civil complaint for forfeiture.
Attorney Berke told jurors on Thursday that they would be asked to uphold the same principle that was at issue in the forfeiture trial over the 1768 British seizure of John Hanc**k's sloop Liberty: "the right of a citizen to only have their property forfeited if the government can prove in a court of law that they are entitled to it."
Joan Langbord, a wizened woman in her 80s with close-cropped blond hair, "wanted to do the right thing" when, through her attorney, she notified the government about her discovery, Berke said.
"The government only learned about it because our clients told them," Berke said.
Switt was "a colorful person with strong views," he acknowledged, but "let's be clear, the claimants have no burden here."
Berke told jurors that the government would present them with a case that is based on "suspicion, theory [and] innuendo."
"Two-hundred-thirty-five years from our independence, I submit to you that a theory is not good enough to take a citizen's property," Berke said.
He said the government's case was "like a three-legged stool" based on an "assumption of absolutes."
The government, he told jurors, will try to convince them that "a gate came down and no gold could go out" when the FDR administration instituted its gold policies.
"Not only is this not so, it's very much not so," Berke said.
Historical records show that government workers told Americans to "feel free to exchange gold for gold" and that exceptions to the ban on gold were being made for coins that held special value to collectors, Berke said.
The other unfounded assumptions made by the government are that Mint personnel "absolutely followed every procedure" during the FDR years and that documentation from the U.S. Mint was "reliable, accurate and complete."
Berke told jurors that "all three legs are weak" and that the government's forfeiture case "essentially is them trying to rewrite history."
He lampooned the notion that the voluntary surrender of the nine 1933 Double Eagles reclaimed by the Secret Service reflects negatively on the Langbords' case.
The people who had those coins had been threatened with criminal prosecution, he said.
"When faced with that, people become pretty good volunteers."
Decades ago, when Switt sold the nine 1933 Double Eagles, he did it in a way that shows he was unaware they were ill-gotten, Berke said.
Switt advertised in newspapers and made arrangements with "the most prominent and respected people of the day," he said.
"He did it in a way that he knew would bring attention to these coins."
Everyone with firsthand knowledge of how the coins were smuggled from the Mint is dead, Berke told jurors.
"The government, at the end of the day, has a theory of how they left." What it doesn't have, he said, are conclusive facts about "when the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, how the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, or by whom the 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint."
Fortunately, he told the jury, "when our government tries to take someone's property, we have you as a safeguard."
The trial is slated to last two to three weeks.
Both sides are expected to present numismatists as expert witnesses.
The article has some good information in it.
Go Langborgs!!
bob
In checking the web for information on the trial, it is apparent that this trial, in addition to being reported on by the hobby press, is "getting legs" in both the financial press and the general press, both locally and nationally.
I wonder if the case and the trial will pop up on the radar screen and start being reported on by the broadcast media (i.e. Today Show, cable news shows).
Could you imagine if Nancy Grace decided to stop her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial and start covering the Langbord trial?
<< <i>The new report I copied and posted earlier today is from the "Courthouse News Service".
In checking the web for information on the trial, it is apparent that this trial, in addition to being reported on by the hobby press, is "getting legs" in both the financial press and the general press, both locally and nationally.
I wonder if the case and the trial will pop up on the radar screen and start being reported on by the broadcast media (i.e. Today Show, cable news shows).
Could you imagine if Nancy Grace decided to stop her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial and start covering the Langbord trial? >>
now that it is essentially over in a sickening way, I wish she and the rest of them would.
I don't want to see it anymore.
<< <i>Which side would the (female dog) take??? >>
I think a lot would depend upon when the minting supposedly took place relative to when the rule for turning in gold took place
I think whoever could sell their case best would likely get the mouth going.
I think the most compelling of the two in the just above news story is the government's. They left off the nice dates so it reads well. The big obvious question, besides the dates, is how do they know it was a corrupt cashier? If they want to start pointing fingers at internal people, one must also ask "why were they even minted?" And back to "if it was ok to mint them, was there a brief period of time where it was ok to issue them?"
<< <i>Could you imagine if Nancy Grace decided to stop her coverage of the Casey Anthony trial and start covering the Langbord trial? >>
I would not want to be the Langbords if that happened.