It seems like it would still be good to know they were on speaking terms and that he had a certain amount of respect for the man, regardless of what the topic was regarding.
Would the government calling the Langbord's to establish that they lied about the SDB, have any relevance? Assuming the jury doesn't believe that Izzy put them there after he died.
Apparently it was more than just a call to a stranger. Tripp and Berke had collaborated on the 1933 DE book. It would be interesting to hear what Berke thinks of Tripp's book and quality of research given that he also worked on it.
<< <i>Would the government calling the Langbord's to establish that they lied about the SDB, have any relevance? Assuming the jury doesn't believe that Izzy put them there after he died. >>
Posted by SantionII in a recent thread.
Regarding the safe deposit box in which the 10 double eagles were found, it is my general understanding that the box itself had been one rented and controlled by the family for a very long time. However the bank building in which the box is located was the location of multiple banks. Over time the name of the bank changed do to mergers, acquistions and other corporate changes. The safe deposit bank records of prior banks were replaced with the records of newer banks and the paperwork for the specific box over the many years became a mess, hard to locate and hard to figure out.
I suspect that during the trial specific information about the history of the box will be introduced, probably by the Langbords.
Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family?
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
10 twenty dollar US coins, maybe they did already claim the declared value of $200 and paid their inheritance tax?
But if they didn't, what is the "statue of limitation" on this matter. Then again, maybe they were hoping that the IRS would have come after them, what better way to prove ownership?
<< <i>Good evening, everyone. I posted coverage of today's testimony in the trial from home. The story is online at the Coin World website.
William T. Gibbs, News Editor Coin World >>
Many thanx, Bill.
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>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in?
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in? >>
Million, I think, but it all could have gone to his wife if she survived him at no tax and she would have had a stepped up cost basis.
Accountants correct me if I am wrong.
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>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in? >>
Million, I think, but it all could have gone to his wife if she survived him at no tax and she would have had a stepped up cost basis.
Accountants correct me if I am wrong. >>
Also, you have to value the coins at the time he died. Since they were "chattel" according the government, and illegal to hold at that, their value could be argued to be nil. Depending on the outcome of this trial they may end up being worth a lot more, or nothing. The IRS can't have it both ways (well, they can try...........), ie. they can't seize the coins on one hand and claim an inheritance tax on the other.
A great day in court for this case. So Forman's testimony is actually hearsay and based upon his hearsay Switt had some coins that were subject to siezure.
And Geisser's testimony is a fact finding mission to see if Tripp's methods reveal the mint records and employees are effectively doing their job, and they are. But here is where I get confused regarding the testimony : (taken from Coin World , day 7 report)
...' There is no evidence of “leakage” or unauthorized release of 1933 double eagles.
When asked if the Mint’s records of the period are less reliable because they are handwritten, Geisser pointed out that the workers took pride in the bookkeeping process and noted in this pre-White-Out era, very few entries correct mistakes "
If there were no leakage or unauthorized realease of 1933 double eagles , then their release was authorized The numbers do not lie. That's why the mint's records balance. The dates of the coins melted wouldn't have mattered. It was the number that mattered. I would have objected to Mr Geisser's assumption that workers took pride in their bookkeeping process since this is speculation. (that pride part) Did workers look at the dates of the coins melted ? All 445,500 ? Most of us would reasonably assume that even the most diligent worker would not look at every date on a coin destined for the melting pot. The count was right and that's all that mattered. I would have rested my case right there with the contention that a "fair exchange" could and did take place, in and during a window of opportunity which existed for a savvy coin collector and dealer who knew his stuff.
Thanks Coin World, PCGS, lawyers, and all... I really enjoy your company.
<< <i>If all coins were accounted for, how could there be 10 unknown surprises? >>
As indicated in the post above yours, the correct number of coins was accounted for, not necessarily the correct identity of the coins. Would the exchanged coins necessarily have been casually dumped on the top of one container or would they have been replaced in a manner which would not make their presence obvious. Apparently the presence of non-1933 coins wasn't noticed in a timely manner or if it was it was either too late to check into or conveniently ignored.
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
That's "Plan C."
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>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in? >>
Million, I think, but it all could have gone to his wife if she survived him at no tax and she would have had a stepped up cost basis.
Accountants correct me if I am wrong. >>
Passing from Izzy to his widow would be one thing, but at some point they passed from that generation to the daughter, Joan.
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>A great day in court for this case. So Forman's testimony is actually hearsay and based upon his hearsay Switt had some coins that were subject to siezure.
And Geisser's testimony is a fact finding mission to see if Tripp's methods reveal the mint records and employees are effectively doing their job, and they are. But here is where I get confused regarding the testimony : (taken from Coin World , day 7 report)
...' There is no evidence of “leakage” or unauthorized release of 1933 double eagles.
When asked if the Mint’s records of the period are less reliable because they are handwritten, Geisser pointed out that the workers took pride in the bookkeeping process and noted in this pre-White-Out era, very few entries correct mistakes "
If there were no leakage or unauthorized realease of 1933 double eagles , then their release was authorized The numbers do not lie. That's why the mint's records balance. The dates of the coins melted wouldn't have mattered. It was the number that mattered. I would have objected to Mr Geisser's assumption that workers took pride in their bookkeeping process since this is speculation. (that pride part) Did workers look at the dates of the coins melted ? All 445,500 ? Most of us would reasonably assume that even the most diligent worker would not look at every date on a coin destined for the melting pot. The count was right and that's all that mattered. I would have rested my case right there with the contention that a "fair exchange" could and did take place, in and during a window of opportunity which existed for a savvy coin collector and dealer who knew his stuff.
Thanks Coin World, PCGS, lawyers, and all... I really enjoy your company. >>
What got written down got written down neatly, but did everything get written down?
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>A great day in court for this case. So Forman's testimony is actually hearsay and based upon his hearsay Switt had some coins that were subject to siezure.
And Geisser's testimony is a fact finding mission to see if Tripp's methods reveal the mint records and employees are effectively doing their job, and they are. But here is where I get confused regarding the testimony : (taken from Coin World , day 7 report)
...' There is no evidence of “leakage” or unauthorized release of 1933 double eagles.
When asked if the Mint’s records of the period are less reliable because they are handwritten, Geisser pointed out that the workers took pride in the bookkeeping process and noted in this pre-White-Out era, very few entries correct mistakes "
If there were no leakage or unauthorized realease of 1933 double eagles , then their release was authorized The numbers do not lie. That's why the mint's records balance. The dates of the coins melted wouldn't have mattered. It was the number that mattered. I would have objected to Mr Geisser's assumption that workers took pride in their bookkeeping process since this is speculation. (that pride part) Did workers look at the dates of the coins melted ? All 445,500 ? Most of us would reasonably assume that even the most diligent worker would not look at every date on a coin destined for the melting pot. The count was right and that's all that mattered. I would have rested my case right there with the contention that a "fair exchange" could and did take place, in and during a window of opportunity which existed for a savvy coin collector and dealer who knew his stuff.
Thanks Coin World, PCGS, lawyers, and all... I really enjoy your company. >>
What got written down got written down neatly, but did everything get written down?
TD >>
If it didn't get written down, there was probably a reason for it. It would suggest that the coins were not approved for release/exchange most likely because they weren't needed. There were apparently plenty left over from other years. Since the correct number of coins was melted/destroyed is an improper exchange the same thing as stealing?
I'm now REALLY looking forward To Roger's ((RWB) Roger W. Burdette)) testimony next week. I hope it is straight forward, as concise as possible, and convincing to the jury. Steve
<< <i>I'm now REALLY looking forward To Roger's ((RWB) Roger W. Burdette)) testimony next week. I hope it is straight forward, as concise as possible, and convincing to the jury. Steve >>
Sure wish somebody was taping it!
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 wonder if there are any Forum members in attendance today?
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.
With the current "anti-government" sentiment in this country, I have a feeling the government is going to have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for a jury to take property away from a fellow citizen.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
<< <i>With the current "anti-government" sentiment in this country, I have a feeling the government is going to have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for a jury to take property away from a fellow citizen. >>
I bet the Guv could muster a jury of suckers just from this board.
<< <i>With the current "anti-government" sentiment in this country, I have a feeling the government is going to have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for a jury to take property away from a fellow citizen. >>
You are right. The Langbords could not have timed this any better if they had tried!
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.
You couldn't get many jury members from the forum if they honestly answered preliminary questions on whether they already had an opinion about this case.
Keep in mind, again, that the jury will decide only the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
If the jury decides for the government the case is over and the government gets the coins.
If the jury decides against the government, that only means that the declaratory relief claim would have to be decided. The judge and not the jury will decide the declaratory relief claim.
Due to the above, a jury verdict against the government does not mean anything except that the government can then switch to Plan B after shouting "Mulligan" or "Do Over".
Of course, one should also keep in mind that the Replevin and Conversion claims filed by the Langbords against the government in 2006 are still pending and unresolved. It may be that the Langbords will not pursue those at the trial, or that they may become significant or relevant only if the jury decides against the government on the CAFRA claim and the court decides in favor of the Langbords on the declaratory relief claim [replevin is a claim to obtain possession of your property; and conversion is a claim to obtain possession of your property (or alternatively the value of same on the date it was wrongfully taken from you if the property can not be returned to you [i.e. it was destroyed], plus money damages for the loss of use of the property).
This trial still has a long, long road to travel (testimony, closing arguments to the jury, reading jury instructions, jury deliberations and verdict; possible further testimony on the declaratory relief, replevin and conversion claims, closing arguments to the court, possible post trial briefs being submitted to the court, a court decision, post trial motions [i.e. motion for new trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, etc.], the entry of a judgment) before it is finished at the trial court level.
Once things are completed at the trial court level, then one or both sides could appeal.
Not knowing what happened today, if the trial is still going on, I plan to be there Friday.
The government may rest today, RWB or the Langbords may take the stand next along with any others. Figure that is good for two or three days. Then each side summarizes their position.
If the case goes to the jury Thursday, no need to mill around an empty courtroom on Friday waiting for a verdict. But if the case is still going, I'll be there early and hope to get a seat.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
Good morning. We just posted Steve Roach's article about the July 18 testimony in the 1933 double eagle trial. The government rested its case, with the Langbords now presenting their side. Roger Burdette began his testimony, including the beginning of the government's cross examination of him.
<< <i>Quite possibly the most spirited moments of the trial thus far came with the government’s cross examination of Burdette. Almost immediately, Rue brought up Burdette’s involvement with the U.S. Coins message board on the Collectors Universe forums, where he once described the government’s attempt to keep the 1933 double eagles as a “witch hunt.” The government read multiple messages out of the more than 8,000 that Burdette has posted at the CU forum under the user name RWB since April 2006. >>
Wow...RWB being grilled about his postings on this board. Interesting stuff, sounds like they were bringing up specific posts, including some posts made by Roger with "sarcasm". Goodness knows there's plenty of that around here.
RWB's research into this matter is top notch and the government knows it. If a window existed to purchase, then any online comments are not going to change that. RWB has his opinions about this case just like Tripp had his. If I'm on the jury, I"m thinking the government is desperate to attack the comments instead of the research.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I am surprised that RWB spent such little time in direct examination.
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>RWB shows how the coins could have left the mint legitimately >>
And to me, that's all that needs to be shown to decide for the Langbords.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>RWB shows how the coins could have left the mint legitimately >>
And to me, that's all that needs to be shown to decide for the Langbords. >>
I just worry that it might not have been enough. 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>RWB shows how the coins could have left the mint legitimately >>
And to me, that's all that needs to be shown to decide for the Langbords. >>
I just worry that it might not have been enough. TD >>
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
<< <i>Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out. >>
As for why the testimony was so short, perhaps (a) the non-disputed material was covered by Tripp and did not need to be re-hashed and (b) that "Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Rue frequently objected on the grounds that Berke’s questions strayed from the subject that Burdette wrote his report on." Is Roger not allowed to discuss anything not in his report?
Rue attacked Burdette's credibility because Burdette posted some sarcastic comments on this forum. If that's all the GOVT has...the Govt is not looking good.
The GOVT must have a lot invested in researching this forums archives. Do you think it's possible they learned anything?
Hey U.S. Justice Department cyber-spies...... copy DIS!!!!!!!
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 just had a matter set for trial this morning. The judge recommended we talk settlement as "you NEVER know what a jury is going to do". We have no idea what these jurors are going to do. There are a few board members who have been fortunate to view the proceedings live and see testimony firsthand. Without that benefit, as reputation alone is insufficient, it is difficult to make a call on this one. IMHO witness credibility would be everything in this case as the case is very light on the facts.
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
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
How about some levity.
My current question is: "I wonder if during Berke's three day cross of Tripp, Berke tripped up Tripp and made Tripp cross at Berke?
<< <i>Would the government calling the Langbord's to establish that they lied about the SDB, have any relevance? Assuming the jury doesn't believe that Izzy put them there after he died. >>
Posted by SantionII in a recent thread.
Regarding the safe deposit box in which the 10 double eagles were found, it is my general understanding that the box itself had been one rented and controlled by the family for a very long time. However the bank building in which the box is located was the location of multiple banks. Over time the name of the bank changed do to mergers, acquistions and other corporate changes. The safe deposit bank records of prior banks were replaced with the records of newer banks and the paperwork for the specific box over the many years became a mess, hard to locate and hard to figure out.
I suspect that during the trial specific information about the history of the box will be introduced, probably by the Langbords.
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
10 twenty dollar US coins, maybe they did already claim the declared value of $200 and paid their inheritance tax?
But if they didn't, what is the "statue of limitation" on this matter. Then again, maybe they were hoping that the IRS would have come after them, what better way to prove ownership?
William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World
<< <i>Good evening, everyone. I posted coverage of today's testimony in the trial from home. The story is online at the Coin World website.
William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World >>
Many thanx, Bill.
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>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in?
<< <i>
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in? >>
Million, I think, but it all could have gone to his wife if she survived him at no tax and she would have had a stepped up cost basis.
Accountants correct me if I am wrong.
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in? >>
Million, I think, but it all could have gone to his wife if she survived him at no tax and she would have had a stepped up cost basis.
Accountants correct me if I am wrong. >>
Also, you have to value the coins at the time he died. Since they were "chattel" according the government, and illegal to hold at that, their value could be argued to be nil. Depending on the outcome of this trial they may end up being worth a lot more, or nothing. The IRS can't have it both ways (well, they can try...........), ie. they can't seize the coins on one hand and claim an inheritance tax on the other.
And Geisser's testimony is a fact finding mission to see if Tripp's methods reveal the mint records and employees are effectively doing their job, and they are.
But here is where I get confused regarding the testimony :
(taken from Coin World , day 7 report)
...' There is no evidence of “leakage” or unauthorized release of 1933 double eagles.
When asked if the Mint’s records of the period are less reliable because they are handwritten, Geisser pointed out that the workers took pride in the bookkeeping process and noted in this pre-White-Out era, very few entries correct mistakes
"
If there were no leakage or unauthorized realease of 1933 double eagles , then their release was authorized The numbers do not lie. That's why the mint's records balance. The dates of the coins melted wouldn't have mattered. It was the number that mattered.
I would have objected to Mr Geisser's assumption that workers took pride in their bookkeeping process since this is speculation. (that pride part)
Did workers look at the dates of the coins melted ? All 445,500 ?
Most of us would reasonably assume that even the most diligent worker would not look at every date on a coin destined for the melting pot. The count was right and that's all that mattered. I would have rested my case right there with the contention that a "fair exchange" could and did take place, in and during a window of opportunity which existed for a savvy coin collector and dealer who knew his stuff.
Thanks Coin World, PCGS, lawyers, and all... I really enjoy your company.
<< <i>If all coins were accounted for, how could there be 10 unknown surprises? >>
As indicated in the post above yours, the correct number of coins was accounted for, not necessarily the correct identity of the coins. Would the exchanged coins necessarily have been casually dumped on the top of one container or would they have been replaced in a manner which would not make their presence obvious. Apparently the presence of non-1933 coins wasn't noticed in a timely manner or if it was it was either too late to check into or conveniently ignored.
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
That's "Plan C."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Should inheritance tax have been paid for these upon Izzy's death? Since I assume it wasn't, is there any way the IRS could go after the coins? Tax evasion charges against the family? >>
When Izzy died what value of the estate would be required before a tax kicked in? >>
Million, I think, but it all could have gone to his wife if she survived him at no tax and she would have had a stepped up cost basis.
Accountants correct me if I am wrong. >>
Passing from Izzy to his widow would be one thing, but at some point they passed from that generation to the daughter, Joan.
<< <i>A great day in court for this case. So Forman's testimony is actually hearsay and based upon his hearsay Switt had some coins that were subject to siezure.
And Geisser's testimony is a fact finding mission to see if Tripp's methods reveal the mint records and employees are effectively doing their job, and they are.
But here is where I get confused regarding the testimony :
(taken from Coin World , day 7 report)
...' There is no evidence of “leakage” or unauthorized release of 1933 double eagles.
When asked if the Mint’s records of the period are less reliable because they are handwritten, Geisser pointed out that the workers took pride in the bookkeeping process and noted in this pre-White-Out era, very few entries correct mistakes
"
If there were no leakage or unauthorized realease of 1933 double eagles , then their release was authorized The numbers do not lie. That's why the mint's records balance. The dates of the coins melted wouldn't have mattered. It was the number that mattered.
I would have objected to Mr Geisser's assumption that workers took pride in their bookkeeping process since this is speculation. (that pride part)
Did workers look at the dates of the coins melted ? All 445,500 ?
Most of us would reasonably assume that even the most diligent worker would not look at every date on a coin destined for the melting pot. The count was right and that's all that mattered. I would have rested my case right there with the contention that a "fair exchange" could and did take place, in and during a window of opportunity which existed for a savvy coin collector and dealer who knew his stuff.
Thanks Coin World, PCGS, lawyers, and all... I really enjoy your company. >>
What got written down got written down neatly, but did everything get written down?
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>A great day in court for this case. So Forman's testimony is actually hearsay and based upon his hearsay Switt had some coins that were subject to siezure.
And Geisser's testimony is a fact finding mission to see if Tripp's methods reveal the mint records and employees are effectively doing their job, and they are.
But here is where I get confused regarding the testimony :
(taken from Coin World , day 7 report)
...' There is no evidence of “leakage” or unauthorized release of 1933 double eagles.
When asked if the Mint’s records of the period are less reliable because they are handwritten, Geisser pointed out that the workers took pride in the bookkeeping process and noted in this pre-White-Out era, very few entries correct mistakes
"
If there were no leakage or unauthorized realease of 1933 double eagles , then their release was authorized The numbers do not lie. That's why the mint's records balance. The dates of the coins melted wouldn't have mattered. It was the number that mattered.
I would have objected to Mr Geisser's assumption that workers took pride in their bookkeeping process since this is speculation. (that pride part)
Did workers look at the dates of the coins melted ? All 445,500 ?
Most of us would reasonably assume that even the most diligent worker would not look at every date on a coin destined for the melting pot. The count was right and that's all that mattered. I would have rested my case right there with the contention that a "fair exchange" could and did take place, in and during a window of opportunity which existed for a savvy coin collector and dealer who knew his stuff.
Thanks Coin World, PCGS, lawyers, and all... I really enjoy your company. >>
What got written down got written down neatly, but did everything get written down?
TD >>
If it didn't get written down, there was probably a reason for it. It would suggest that the coins were not approved for release/exchange most likely because they weren't needed. There were apparently plenty left over from other years. Since the correct number of coins was melted/destroyed is an improper exchange the same thing as stealing?
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I'm now REALLY looking forward To Roger's ((RWB) Roger W. Burdette)) testimony next week. I hope it is straight forward, as concise as possible, and convincing to the jury. Steve
Sure wish somebody was taping it!
TD
>>>My Collection
<< <i>With the current "anti-government" sentiment in this country, I have a feeling the government is going to have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for a jury to take property away from a fellow citizen. >>
I bet the Guv could muster a jury of suckers just from this board.
<< <i>With the current "anti-government" sentiment in this country, I have a feeling the government is going to have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt for a jury to take property away from a fellow citizen. >>
You are right. The Langbords could not have timed this any better if they had tried!
If the jury decides for the government the case is over and the government gets the coins.
If the jury decides against the government, that only means that the declaratory relief claim would have to be decided. The judge and not the jury will decide the declaratory relief claim.
Due to the above, a jury verdict against the government does not mean anything except that the government can then switch to Plan B after shouting "Mulligan" or "Do Over".
Of course, one should also keep in mind that the Replevin and Conversion claims filed by the Langbords against the government in 2006 are still pending and unresolved. It may be that the Langbords will not pursue those at the trial, or that they may become significant or relevant only if the jury decides against the government on the CAFRA claim and the court decides in favor of the Langbords on the declaratory relief claim [replevin is a claim to obtain possession of your property; and conversion is a claim to obtain possession of your property (or alternatively the value of same on the date it was wrongfully taken from you if the property can not be returned to you [i.e. it was destroyed], plus money damages for the loss of use of the property).
This trial still has a long, long road to travel (testimony, closing arguments to the jury, reading jury instructions, jury deliberations and verdict; possible further testimony on the declaratory relief, replevin and conversion claims, closing arguments to the court, possible post trial briefs being submitted to the court, a court decision, post trial motions [i.e. motion for new trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, etc.], the entry of a judgment) before it is finished at the trial court level.
Once things are completed at the trial court level, then one or both sides could appeal.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The government may rest today, RWB or the Langbords may take the stand next along with any others. Figure that is good for two or three days. Then each side summarizes their position.
If the case goes to the jury Thursday, no need to mill around an empty courtroom on Friday waiting for a verdict. But if the case is still going, I'll be there early and hope to get a seat.
William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World
<< <i>Quite possibly the most spirited moments of the trial thus far came with the government’s cross examination of Burdette. Almost immediately, Rue brought up Burdette’s involvement with the U.S. Coins message board on the Collectors Universe forums, where he once described the government’s attempt to keep the 1933 double eagles as a “witch hunt.” The government read multiple messages out of the more than 8,000 that Burdette has posted at the CU forum under the user name RWB since April 2006. >>
Wow...RWB being grilled about his postings on this board. Interesting stuff, sounds like they were bringing up specific posts, including some posts made by Roger with "sarcasm". Goodness knows there's plenty of that around here.
Edit - This is the post referenced in CW's write-up: "OK you fellow lawyers, what if Izzy Switt videotaped a 'Dying Declaration' telling his story of the 1933 Saints?"
On a sidenote, congratulations SanctionII you've been introduced into evidence in the numismatic trial of the century!
Edit #2 - This is the other post referenced in CW's write-up as being "unavailable"
Seems the Langbords only want equal treatment by the govt that was given to the Farouk coin.
<< <i>RWB shows how the coins could have left the mint legitimately >>
And to me, that's all that needs to be shown to decide for the Langbords.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>
<< <i>RWB shows how the coins could have left the mint legitimately >>
And to me, that's all that needs to be shown to decide for the Langbords. >>
I just worry that it might not have been enough.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>RWB shows how the coins could have left the mint legitimately >>
And to me, that's all that needs to be shown to decide for the Langbords. >>
I just worry that it might not have been enough.
TD >>
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
<< <i>Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out. >>
As for why the testimony was so short, perhaps (a) the non-disputed material was covered by Tripp and did not need to be re-hashed and (b) that "Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Rue frequently objected on the grounds that Berke’s questions strayed from the subject that Burdette wrote his report on." Is Roger not allowed to discuss anything not in his report?
The GOVT must have a lot invested in researching this forums archives. Do you think it's possible they learned anything?
Mo-rons.
they know it was humor and were just using it to attack him.