Langbord update.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,233 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have not looked at the case docket for a while and did so today.
On 9-30-2011 both sides filed legal memorandums addressing the unresolved declaratory relief claim pending before the trial judge.
The Langbords want the judge to determine that the declaratory relief claim is "moot" (need not be decided) due to the jury verdict for the government on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
The government wants the judge to rule on the declaratory judgment claim even though the jury found in its favor on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
The judge will have a hearing on 11-10-2011 regarding the declaratory relief claim (and may also decide at the hearing [if he does not issue a ruling prior to the hearing] the outstanding and pending Langbord motion for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the jury verdict.
I assume that after the court rules on these remaining matters, a judgment in the case will be filed. After the judgment is filed it seems very likley that the case will head to the District Court Of Appeal.
For any attorneys on the forums who have handled federal appeals in civil lawsuits, how long does it take for appeals to be decided?
On 9-30-2011 both sides filed legal memorandums addressing the unresolved declaratory relief claim pending before the trial judge.
The Langbords want the judge to determine that the declaratory relief claim is "moot" (need not be decided) due to the jury verdict for the government on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
The government wants the judge to rule on the declaratory judgment claim even though the jury found in its favor on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
The judge will have a hearing on 11-10-2011 regarding the declaratory relief claim (and may also decide at the hearing [if he does not issue a ruling prior to the hearing] the outstanding and pending Langbord motion for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the jury verdict.
I assume that after the court rules on these remaining matters, a judgment in the case will be filed. After the judgment is filed it seems very likley that the case will head to the District Court Of Appeal.
For any attorneys on the forums who have handled federal appeals in civil lawsuits, how long does it take for appeals to be decided?
0
Comments
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>Thanks again Sanction.
K >>
I will second that.
Coin Rarities Online
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I have not looked at the case docket for a while and did so today.
On 9-30-2011 both sides filed legal memorandums addressing the unresolved declaratory relief claim pending before the trial judge.
The Langbords want the judge to determine that the declaratory relief claim is "moot" (need not be decided) due to the jury verdict for the government on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
The government wants the judge to rule on the declaratory judgment claim even though the jury found in its favor on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
The judge will have a hearing on 11-10-2011 regarding the declaratory relief claim (and may also decide at the hearing [if he does not issue a ruling prior to the hearing] the outstanding and pending Langbord motion for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the jury verdict.
I assume that after the court rules on these remaining matters, a judgment in the case will be filed. After the judgment is filed it seems very likley that the case will head to the District Court Of Appeal.
For any attorneys on the forums who have handled federal appeals in civil lawsuits, how long does it take for appeals to be decided? >>
On your last question- appeals process can take up to a year unless was set in a fast track determination- which this case was not, therefore it may sit on a desk for a good 9 months or so before a decision is handed down.
It still sucks that the Langbords lost in this decision- the Gubermint is so screwed as it is- they still can't find peeps let alone documents and the 'experts' seem to fog the truth..
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Also, Capt Henway, great article in COINage.
I hold out some hope for the Langbords on appeal. Appeals are always difficult to win and only a small percentage of cases are overturned on appeal. However, while I did not attend the trial, I was troubled during the trial with the ease with which the Plaintiff's evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury despite the fact that there were no fact witnesses and little factual testimony. That seemed odd and perhaps inappropriate. I've never tried a case without fact witnesses or with so few fact witnesses, so it may be that the Government just did a very good job, and/or that there is solid authority for the process used. I know that in complex federal criminal trials there is precedent for the prosecutors calling an expert witness first to summarize the fact witness testimony, so it may be something similar to that. But given that the essence of our trial system is live percipient witness testimony and that there was very little of that in this case, I hold out hope on appeal.
Thank you for your continued efforts, Sanction.
Tom
However I have handled appeals in the California court system. Most routine appeals in California's District Courts Of Appeal [there are 6 appellate districts and over them is the California Supreme Court] where oral argument is given take at least a year. For more complicated appeals the designation and preparation of the "appellate record" [copies of documents filed in the trial court, exhibits, and transcripts of court hearings and trials] can take a long time. After the appellate record is completed and received by the court of appeal, the briefing schedule comes into play. The deadlines for filing opening, responding and reply briefs in the appeal can and are extended, sometimes more than once. Once all of the briefs are filed, then whoever wants to present oral argument must request same. If oral argument is requested, it takes months for a case to be scheduled for oral argument. Once oral argument is presented and the case submitted to the court for decision the court of appeal has I believe 90 days to issue a decision. Sometimes the decision is issued quickly (in cases where the court has made up its mind before oral argument) and sometimes the decisions is issued on the last day.
If I had to guess about an appeal in the Langbord case, I would suspect it would take at least 18 months.
"Judge Davis went on to state, “I find as a fact that the records are complete,” finding that the records as presented by the government at trial fully accounted for the movement of the 1933 double eagles and that they conclusively established that none of the coins were paid out by the Mint’s Cashier."
" Regarding the Langbord’s witnesses, Judge Davis stated that he found Joan Langbord’s testimony unconvincing and that it was both “self-serving” and not believable because of the number of trips that she had made to the safe deposit box prior to the coin’s alleged discovery.
Judge agrees with Jury Nov 10
<< <i>From Coinworld -
"Judge Davis went on to state, “I find as a fact that the records are complete,” finding that the records as presented by the government at trial fully accounted for the movement of the 1933 double eagles and that they conclusively established that none of the coins were paid out by the Mint’s Cashier."
" Regarding the Langbord’s witnesses, Judge Davis stated that he found Joan Langbord’s testimony unconvincing and that it was both “self-serving” and not believable because of the number of trips that she had made to the safe deposit box prior to the coin’s alleged discovery.
Judge agrees with Jury Nov 10 >>
So in other words they are pretty much screwed. Sounds like their time and money would have been better spent trying to discreetly unload them.
I will have to look at the docket again to see if any court order has been filed.
It is not surprising that the trial judge is going along with the jury decision and that he is apparently siding with the government on the declaratory relief claim.
Next up will be the filing of a judgment in the case and thereafter the likely appeal of the judgment by the Langbords.
<< <i>From Coinworld -
"Judge Davis went on to state, “I find as a fact that the records are complete,” finding that the records as presented by the government at trial fully accounted for the movement of the 1933 double eagles and that they conclusively established that none of the coins were paid out by the Mint’s Cashier."
>>
The idea that they had a continuous paper trail on 450,000 coins seems most highly improbable.
But I'd be interested in getting in the line where they are passing out gold for nothing.
Where was the paper work showing coins were missing?
<< <i>. . . It is not surprising that the trial judge is going along with the jury decision and that he is apparently siding with the government on the declaratory relief claim.
Next up will be the filing of a judgment in the case and thereafter the likely appeal of the judgment by the Langbords. >>
So both judges, who are paid by the government, found in favor of the government. How unexpected!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>They should transfer the case to Judge Judy - the no nonsense approach
I would pay a large amount of money to watch Judge Judy cross-examine Izzy Switt. That would be some compelling TV!
Especially since Izzy is gone
...except
for what follows
<< <i>
<< <i>From Coinworld -
"Judge Davis went on to state, “I find as a fact that the records are complete,” finding that the records as presented by the government at trial fully accounted for the movement of the 1933 double eagles and that they conclusively established that none of the coins were paid out by the Mint’s Cashier."
>>
The idea that they had a continuous paper trail on 450,000 coins seems most highly improbable.
But I'd be interested in getting in the line where they are passing out gold for nothing.
Where was the paper work showing coins were missing? >>
That point appears to have been under-emphasized.
TD
Steven Roach’s report (via epcjimi1): <<"Judge Davis went on to state, “I find as a fact that the records are complete,” finding that the records as presented by the government at trial fully accounted for the movement of the 1933 double eagles and that they conclusively established that none of the coins were paid out by the Mint’s Cashier.">>
CladKing <<The idea that they had a continuous paper trail on 450,000 coins seems most highly improbable. … Where was the paper work showing coins were missing? >>
CaptHenway: <<That point appears to have been under-emphasized.>>
As I emphasized in my articles, with pertinent statements by QDB and R. W. Julian, there are thousands of legitimate coins for which records were never entered in the cashier’s ledger in the way that U.S. attorneys now say was then required. Moreover, it is almost certain that U.S. Mint personnel at the Cashier’s window often did NOT record ‘coin for coin’ exchanges. The fact that there are not cashier’s records of 1933 Double Eagles having been ‘paid out’ does NOT demonstrate that any were stolen. The lack of such records now does not even suggest that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen.
My point regarding the occurrence of ‘coin for coin’ exchanges is indisputable. As to the legality of such exchanges, it was a common practice at the Philadelphia Mint. Would it make sense for someone with knowledge of the history of the Philadelphia Mint to argue that ‘coin for coin’ exchanges represent thefts?
The total number of Double Eagles was unchanged. Is there any evidence of thefts relating to 1933 Double Eagles? There were ‘coin for coin’ exchanges, which were considered legitimate by many employees of the U.S. Mint. My impression is that it was common for coin dealers, coin collectors, and tourists to engage in ‘coin for coin’ exchanges, often trading relatively common coins for scarcer coins, or old coins for new ones. According to QDB, U.S. Mint employees did so as well.
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz
Pre-Verdict Analysis of the Switt-Langbord Case while the trial was in progress
insightful10 {{at}} gmail
serial numbers can be misapplied. It's not only coin for coin exchanges but
the myriad human means by which property can legally change hands. The
mint has a long history of not even making coins in the so called year of issue
and some of these can escape in bags of 1932 dated coins.
How can anyone prove they own a coin and trace it's origin to the press and
date of issue. Switt knew very early that the government arbitrarily said these
coins were "illegal" so very prudently didn't bring them out.
With absolutely no means of proving they were stolen and absolutely no ev-
idence these coins were stolen then government ownership apparently rests
primarily on an arbitrary decision made in 1933 and on the antics of the mint
which "monetized" one coin with the promise there would be no more. The
owner of the one "legal" coin wins. The mint's shenanigans aren't open to
scrutiny or litigation and the rightful owners are out at least $200 in gold.
I hope they are more substantial than the generic "double eagles ..... #####" ledger entries posted on these forums.
<< <i>The total number of Double Eagles was unchanged. Is there any evidence of thefts relating to 1933 Double Eagles? There were ‘coin for coin’ exchanges, which were considered legitimate by many employees of the U.S. Mint. My impression is that it was common for coin dealers, coin collectors, and tourists to engage in ‘coin for coin’ exchanges, often trading relatively common coins for scarcer coins, or old coins for new ones. According to QDB, U.S. Mint employees did so as well. >>
Makes sense to me. Exchanges of equal value must have been common in the day. Desirability of the coin exchanged would be the purpose. The legality of the exchange murky, at best at the time.
<< <i>Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz
Pre-Verdict Analysis of the Switt-Langbord Case while the trial was in progress >>
Good reads, thanks!
Question I still wonder about. Why does the SS / gov / prosecution have such an enormous interest in pursuing the '33 DEs to this day? That's the epilogue to the story that I'd like to know.