More legal setbacks for Langbord family on 1933 Double Eagle ownership case
greghansen
Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭
Don't know if I missed an earlier thread/notice on the most recent court ruling in this matter...but the following popped up during my morning review of the news. This article appears today in the Wall Street Journal and references the Judges decision of Aug. 29, which I have not read. I'm aware of the trial and result last summer...this article seems to bring us current with regard to the post trial motions filed so far by the Langbords.
By PETER LOFTUS
PHILADELPHIA—A federal judge ruled that the U.S. Mint may keep 10 rare gold coins seized from the heirs of a Philadelphia coin dealer who obtained them decades ago under uncertain circumstances.
U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis said in an Aug. 29 opinion that the 1933 "Double Eagle" coins—which have a face value of $20 apiece but are now worth millions of dollars—"remain the property of the United States" and "were not lawfully removed" from the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia.
The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago.
A Mint spokesman declined immediate comment Wednesday.
The ruling is another setback for Joan Switt Langbord and her two sons, Roy and David Langbord, who had claimed ownership of the coins after Ms. Langbord said she discovered them in a family safe deposit box in 2003.
The family said the coins were left behind by Ms. Langbord's late father, Israel Switt, a coin dealer and operator of a jewelry and antique shop. The government disputed the family's ownership and confiscated the coins.
The disputed coins are among the rarest and most valuable in the world. In coin vernacular, which dubs a $10 coin an "Eagle," they were known as Double Eagles. They feature a soaring eagle and liberty figure resembling a Greek goddess etched on opposite sides, and were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens in the early 1900s at the behest of President Theodore Roosevelt, who wanted American coins to be more beautiful. More than 445,000 Double Eagles were minted in 1933, but they weren't supposed to be circulated because then President Franklin D. Roosevelt banned the payout of gold coins to combat a financial crisis.
Most of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars, but some escaped destruction and have surfaced over the years. One sold at a Sotheby's auction in 2002 for $7.6 million.
The Justice Department argued that a cashier at the Philadelphia Mint in the 1930s was the likely source of coins that left the Mint illicitly, and they somehow got into the hands of Mr. Switt, who died in 1990. In the 1940s, the Secret Service hunted down several stray Double Eagles and concluded that Mr. Switt had sold them, according to court documents.
The Langbords said the government had no proof the coins were obtained illegally. Their attorney argued there was a legal window of opportunity in 1933 during which some coins may have legitimately left the Mint.
Following a civil trial in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, a jury concluded in July 2011 the U.S. proved its case that the coins should be forfeited by the Langbord family. However, final resolution of the case has remained on hold while the judge weighed legal motions filed by both sides.
The family had asked the judge to overturn the verdict, saying there was insufficient evidence the coins were stolen or embezzled. The government asked for a judgment that the coins weren't lawfully removed from the Mint.
Judge Davis, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, sided with the government, writing in a 54-page memorandum accompanying his Aug. 29 opinion: "Given the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the '33 Double Eagles were knowingly stolen or embezzled from the Mint." The government is "the true owner of the stolen coins."
"We are pleased with Judge Davis's well-reasoned and thoughtful opinion," Zane David Memeger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
The Langbord family plans to appeal the decision, their attorney said. "This is a case that raises many novel legal questions including the limits on the government's power to confiscate property," said the lawyer, Barry H. Berke.
By PETER LOFTUS
PHILADELPHIA—A federal judge ruled that the U.S. Mint may keep 10 rare gold coins seized from the heirs of a Philadelphia coin dealer who obtained them decades ago under uncertain circumstances.
U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis said in an Aug. 29 opinion that the 1933 "Double Eagle" coins—which have a face value of $20 apiece but are now worth millions of dollars—"remain the property of the United States" and "were not lawfully removed" from the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia.
The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago.
A Mint spokesman declined immediate comment Wednesday.
The ruling is another setback for Joan Switt Langbord and her two sons, Roy and David Langbord, who had claimed ownership of the coins after Ms. Langbord said she discovered them in a family safe deposit box in 2003.
The family said the coins were left behind by Ms. Langbord's late father, Israel Switt, a coin dealer and operator of a jewelry and antique shop. The government disputed the family's ownership and confiscated the coins.
The disputed coins are among the rarest and most valuable in the world. In coin vernacular, which dubs a $10 coin an "Eagle," they were known as Double Eagles. They feature a soaring eagle and liberty figure resembling a Greek goddess etched on opposite sides, and were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens in the early 1900s at the behest of President Theodore Roosevelt, who wanted American coins to be more beautiful. More than 445,000 Double Eagles were minted in 1933, but they weren't supposed to be circulated because then President Franklin D. Roosevelt banned the payout of gold coins to combat a financial crisis.
Most of the 1933 Double Eagles were melted into gold bars, but some escaped destruction and have surfaced over the years. One sold at a Sotheby's auction in 2002 for $7.6 million.
The Justice Department argued that a cashier at the Philadelphia Mint in the 1930s was the likely source of coins that left the Mint illicitly, and they somehow got into the hands of Mr. Switt, who died in 1990. In the 1940s, the Secret Service hunted down several stray Double Eagles and concluded that Mr. Switt had sold them, according to court documents.
The Langbords said the government had no proof the coins were obtained illegally. Their attorney argued there was a legal window of opportunity in 1933 during which some coins may have legitimately left the Mint.
Following a civil trial in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, a jury concluded in July 2011 the U.S. proved its case that the coins should be forfeited by the Langbord family. However, final resolution of the case has remained on hold while the judge weighed legal motions filed by both sides.
The family had asked the judge to overturn the verdict, saying there was insufficient evidence the coins were stolen or embezzled. The government asked for a judgment that the coins weren't lawfully removed from the Mint.
Judge Davis, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, sided with the government, writing in a 54-page memorandum accompanying his Aug. 29 opinion: "Given the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the '33 Double Eagles were knowingly stolen or embezzled from the Mint." The government is "the true owner of the stolen coins."
"We are pleased with Judge Davis's well-reasoned and thoughtful opinion," Zane David Memeger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
The Langbord family plans to appeal the decision, their attorney said. "This is a case that raises many novel legal questions including the limits on the government's power to confiscate property," said the lawyer, Barry H. Berke.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
0
Comments
"The family said the coins were left behind by Ms. Langbord's late father, Israel Switt, a coin dealer and operator of a jewelry and antique shop. The government disputed the family's ownership and confiscated the coins."
Where did the Langbord's go wrong, that have cost them so much aggravation? Is this another example of the proverb "pennywise and pound foolish" where they did not keep the matter 100% confidential while they hired an attorney who could examine their options, and I mean all their options such as moving the double eagles outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, Europe or elsewhere where they could be sold without fear of confiscation?
<< <i>Judge Davis, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, sided with the government, writing in a 54-page memorandum accompanying his Aug. 29 opinion: "Given the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the '33 Double Eagles were knowingly stolen or embezzled from the Mint." The government is "the true owner of the stolen coins." >>
But if the government never monetized them at all, as has been their claim, then they are not truly "coins" at all.
To put it bluntly, they were actually unbelievable idiots in how they went about this.
Izzy Switt must be spinning in his grave!
<< <i>They most definitely should have pursued a "private" sale overseas of one or two coins...at most...to test the waters, while keeping the rest buried dark and deep.
To put it bluntly, they were actually unbelievable idiots in how they went about this.
Izzy Switt must be spinning in his grave! >>
You assume the ten coins in question represent the total of their holdings.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
True, or course, but I still would "only" have gambled on one or two being seized rather than 10...a $20-$30 million loss is a major setback for anyone!
Plus...let's assume they do own a few more...now if they pursue a later overseas sale, the Feds can hit them with criminal charges for acting while knowing that their actions are illegal...or at least in violation of multiple federal court orders.
I see the Treasury and Interior departments starting the next lawsuit
As I said previously, "FOOLS"!
<< <i>The really ironic thing is that I'm sure there are some uber rich Chinese and Russians (or even Americans!) who would have been willing to pay big bucks under the table to have one of these...
As I said previously, "FOOLS"! >>
Going against the federal government is a no-win situation. They have all the lawyers, they have an unlimited budget to litigate, and they employ the judges who hear these cases. Under that scenario, how could anyone have thought they could really get a fair hearing?
<< <i>Where did the Langbord's go wrong, that have cost them so much aggravation? Is this another example of the proverb "pennywise and pound foolish" where they did not keep the matter 100% confidential while they hired an attorney who could examine their options, and I mean all their options such as moving the double eagles outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, Europe or elsewhere where they could be sold without fear of confiscation? >>
If the court found that the coins were stolen or embezzeled from the mint, then the mint or the US government is the only entity to have rightful title to the stolen property. Removing the coins for sale outside of the jurisdiction of the US does not clear the title of stolen goods. Trafficing in stolen goods is still trafficing in stolen goods.
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>
<< <i>Judge Davis, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, sided with the government, writing in a 54-page memorandum accompanying his Aug. 29 opinion: "Given the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the '33 Double Eagles were knowingly stolen or embezzled from the Mint." The government is "the true owner of the stolen coins." >>
But if the government never monetized them at all, as has been their claim, then they are not truly "coins" at all. >>
"Monetization" did not exist in 1933. It was thought up by some lawyer in the Government when they were trying to justify seizing and keeping the Fenton - Parrino 1933 double eagle.
Exchanging one form of gold for another, in equal dollar amounts, was certainly legal in 1933. (Unless you rewrite the laws in the mid-1990's and attempt to apply them to 1933.)
When the 1933 double eagles were melted, they came up to the exact weight they should have, based on the mintage. So how could any gold be called "stolen" when the melted double eagles came up to the same weight they were supposed to be?
However, I will agree that the Langbords strategy of sending the ten coins to the Government was rather foolish. After all, once the Government had them in their possession, it is highly unlikely they would ever be returned to the Langbords. And, had the Government lost the legal case, they would have appealed and appealed, and the case would never have ended. Remember the government has, and known it has, unlimited funds and unlimited numbers of lawyers to apply to this case. Plus, the Government runs the Courts system - - talk about a "home-field advantage"!
But the thing that sticks in my craw the worst is putting the burden of proof of ownership on the individual who has the item, rather than the government who is trying to seize the item.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>But if the government never monetized them at all, as has been their claim, then they are not truly "coins" at all. >>
I've heard this before, what is the crap about being "monetized"? The coin is monetized by its metal content.
Sure took a long time, but compared to the timing of other rulings in the case, not so long.
I will obtain a copy of the ruling, read it and give my thoughts on it.
I assume that this ruling disposes of everything pending int he trial court and that it will now be appropriate for a judgment to be filed. Once a judgment is filed, there is always the possibility of post judgment motions being filed at the trial court level. Further there is the inevitable appeal from the judgment to the US District Court Of Appeals.
It would not surprise me to see this case continue through the Court Of Appeals level and then proceed to the US Supreme Court [though the Supreme Court can not be forced to accept the case; it has the power to decline to hear the case).
Mr. Berke is correct in his statement that there are novel legal questions in this case. Those legal questions will have to be addressed by the court of appeal. One of them is the extent of government power to confiscate property.
Me: "But Aunt Katherine, weren't you supposed to turn in all your gold under FDR?"
Aunt Katherine: "Only fools did that, son!"
<< <i>As my great aunt said as she showed me her drawer full of pre-1933 gold coins...
Me: "But Aunt Katherine, weren't you supposed to turn in all your gold under FDR?"
Aunt Katherine: "Only fools did that, son!" >>
An NGC regular, professor and author, had this to say on the 1933 law and how it was implemented giving historical background:
"The April 1933 Executive actions, in concert with acts of Congress in 1917 and the emergency powers, were aimed at the hoarding of gold metal and gold-denominated instruments. The problem was twofold: 1) preventing export of gold thereby removing it from circulation, and 2) hoarding of all types of currency which effectively removed it from domestic circulation and restricted trade. Previous attempts by the Hoover administration to restrict gold hoarding were unsuccessful because the actions were voluntary. Neither Hoover nor Roosevelt had the legal tools necessary to attack the basic problems of credit constriction and speculation. (Both of these came back to cause a Depression in 2007 after laws enacted to prevent these abuses were countermanded by Congress.)
"As to enforcement, Treasury Agents enforced the executive orders and 1934 Gold Act. (Many were former prohibition agents.)
"The Hoover administration in December 1932 had begun recording the names and addresses of all who withdrew gold from banks. In May 1933, agents investigated business and individuals whose names appeared on these lists. Out of thousands of names, many were fake, others had deposited gold as a normal part of business and in the end only a few hundred were actually investigated. Total prosecutions were less than 50 for the country, and most were of foreign nationals trying to hide gold for export.
"The safe deposit box “inspection” applied only to those with names on the list or who otherwise brought attention to themselves.
"Other enforcement investigations occurred only when there was a complaint or someone brought attention to themselves. Over half of all investigations through 1947 originated with a relative or someone who wanted to “get even” with another person.
"As this might help some understand, superficial examination of actions results in superficial and usually inaccurate assumptions. If one has “not seen specifics of how the law was enforced” and has not understood how “the original law was ostensibly geared to discourage hoarding” or read and understood executive orders, law and regulation, then accurate conclusions cannot be made." http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5920833&fpart=1
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Judge Davis, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush, sided with the government, writing in a 54-page memorandum accompanying his Aug. 29 opinion: "Given the evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the '33 Double Eagles were knowingly stolen or embezzled from the Mint." The government is "the true owner of the stolen coins." >>
But if the government never monetized them at all, as has been their claim, then they are not truly "coins" at all. >>
"Monetization" did not exist in 1933. It was thought up by some lawyer in the Government when they were trying to justify seizing and keeping the Fenton - Parrino 1933 double eagle.
Exchanging one form of gold for another, in equal dollar amounts, was certainly legal in 1933. (Unless you rewrite the laws in the mid-1990's and attempt to apply them to 1933.)
When the 1933 double eagles were melted, they came up to the exact weight they should have, based on the mintage. So how could any gold be called "stolen" when the melted double eagles came up to the same weight they were supposed to be?
However, I will agree that the Langbords strategy of sending the ten coins to the Government was rather foolish. After all, once the Government had them in their possession, it is highly unlikely they would ever be returned to the Langbords. And, had the Government lost the legal case, they would have appealed and appealed, and the case would never have ended. Remember the government has, and known it has, unlimited funds and unlimited numbers of lawyers to apply to this case. Plus, the Government runs the Courts system - - talk about a "home-field advantage"!
But the thing that sticks in my craw the worst is putting the burden of proof of ownership on the individual who has the item, rather than the government who is trying to seize the item. >>
Even if the coins were exchanged for others, were they ever approved to be available for exchange either thru a paper trail with appropriate signatures/approvals [assuming this was done with previous coins in the series] or by sending a bucketful up to the cashier's room where they could be readily exchanged?
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Getting them the heck out of the US and arranging sale that way would have been much more successful and put the family in a much different position today.
There's a similar market situation today in the US with other prized collectibles - like US Medals of Honor - many have gone abroad where sale is easier.
Swift was a "fence" who bought stolen goods from a thief.
The owner wants the goods back.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
I'm sure the FBI and/or the Secret Service would also turn up with guns drawn, court orders and handcuffs!
Bottom line is that those 1933 coins were never "officially" released...regardless if some internal Treasury policies were lax back then and unofficially permitted the early exchange of any amount of gold for a similar amount of gold at the exchange window (kind of like a friends and families plan). Even a slack policy such as that was predicated on the major assumption that you'd only be holding a shiny new (and unique) gold conversation piece for a few days until the rest of the coins were released.
In this case, that larger release never happened...and the unofficial early escapees were declared contraband. And now the Switts/Langbords have a major problem on their hands.
<< <i>If the Langbords had any savvy they would have moved them permanently to safe keeping, but if a competant attorney thought they could be subsequently in jeopardy, they could just have become ex-pats like others who fear for their well-being with unjust laws then they would have had to do that. You can live quite well in Panama or Costa Rica on millions. >>
How do you know they don't have a hundred of them in a Swiss bank box? Maybe the ten were only a "test case."
Nothing would surprise me about this anymore.
You cant have the $80Million but you can still pay the court costs of $2million.
Ouch!
<< <i>Bottom line is that those 1933 coins were never "officially" released...regardless if some internal Treasury policies were lax back then and unofficially permitted the early exchange of any amount of gold for a similar amount of gold at the exchange window (kind of like a friends and families plan). Even a slack policy such as that was predicated on the major assumption that you'd only be holding a shiny new (and unique) gold conversation piece for a few days until the rest of the coins were released.
In this case, that larger release never happened...and the unofficial early escapees were declared contraband. And now the Switts/Langbords have a major problem on their hands. >>
There are many, many, many coins out in the numismatic community that were never "officially released". These include patterns, 1913 Liberty nickels, 1933 $10 eagles, and many others. Why are the 1933 double eagles the only ones singled out for confiscation? (I am not advocating that those other coins be confiscated, just don't understand what the difference is between these apparently legal coins and the 1933 double eagles.)
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bottom line is that those 1933 coins were never "officially" released...regardless if some internal Treasury policies were lax back then and unofficially permitted the early exchange of any amount of gold for a similar amount of gold at the exchange window (kind of like a friends and families plan). Even a slack policy such as that was predicated on the major assumption that you'd only be holding a shiny new (and unique) gold conversation piece for a few days until the rest of the coins were released.
In this case, that larger release never happened...and the unofficial early escapees were declared contraband. And now the Switts/Langbords have a major problem on their hands. >>
There are many, many, many coins out in the numismatic community that were never "officially released". These include patterns, 1913 Liberty nickels, 1933 $10 eagles, and many others. Why are the 1933 double eagles the only ones singled out for confiscation? (I am not advocating that those other coins be confiscated, just don't understand what the difference is between these apparently legal coins and the 1933 double eagles.) >>
The situation for the coins you list are slightly different than that of the 1933 DEs.
The 1933 Eagles were officially released by the Philadelphia Mint in January and February of 1933, before FDR's decree which came out in April. The 1933 Double Eagles aren't believed to have been officially released before (or after) FDR's decree.
Many patterns were officially released by the Treasury. Interestingly, William Woodin, the official recipient of many patterns, also happened to be Secretary of the Treasury when FDR's decree came out in March of 1933.
The 1913 Liberty nickels were never officially made.
The 1933 DEs also aren't the only coins singled out. I believe the government is also on the look out for 1964-D Peace Dollars. Both of these cases involve coins that were officially made but not believed to be officially released.
<< <i>The 1933 DEs also aren't the only coins singled out. I believe the government is also on the look out for 1964-D Peace Dollars. Both of these cases involve coins that were officially made but not believed to be officially released. >>
Don't forget the 1974 aluminum cents!
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
The coins were VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. Crap inaccurate journalism of the laziest form.
"The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago."
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>Don't forget the 1974 aluminum cents! >>
Are they handled the same way?
Have all the ones that turned up been confiscated by the gov?
<< <i>How is this any different than, if say, 10 of the super duper high security next gen $100 (not yet released) FR notes suddenly turned up in a Heritage auction.
I'm sure the FBI and/or the Secret Service would also turn up with guns drawn, court orders and handcuffs!
Bottom line is that those 1933 coins were never "officially" released...regardless if some internal Treasury policies were lax back then and unofficially permitted the early exchange of any amount of gold for a similar amount of gold at the exchange window (kind of like a friends and families plan). Even a slack policy such as that was predicated on the major assumption that you'd only be holding a shiny new (and unique) gold conversation piece for a few days until the rest of the coins were released.
In this case, that larger release never happened...and the unofficial early escapees were declared contraband. And now the Switts/Langbords have a major problem on their hands. >>
Hmmm. Were the 1913 Liberty Nickels ever "officially" released? Given the position the government has on the 1933 which were, more than likely, optained via exchange which was a common practice, shouldn't the 1913's also be "confiscated"?
The name is LEE!
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>The article by Loftus lost all credibility with me in the first paragraph, where he claims that the coins were confiscated. REALLY?
The coins were VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. Crap inaccurate journalism of the laziest form.
"The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago." >>
Are voluntarily surrendering property and having that property subsequently confiscated mutually exclusive?
<< <i>
<< <i>The article by Loftus lost all credibility with me in the first paragraph, where he claims that the coins were confiscated. REALLY?
The coins were VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. Crap inaccurate journalism of the laziest form.
"The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago." >>
Are voluntarily surrendering property and having that property subsequently confiscated mutually exclusive? >>
I would say the answer to that question is no. Similar, imo, to turning oneself in and being apprehended..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The article by Loftus lost all credibility with me in the first paragraph, where he claims that the coins were confiscated. REALLY?
The coins were VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. Crap inaccurate journalism of the laziest form.
"The ruling could clear the way for the Mint to decide where to store or possibly display the coins, which have been kept at the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Ky., since being confiscated several years ago." >>
Are voluntarily surrendering property and having that property subsequently confiscated mutually exclusive? >>
I would say the answer to that question is no. Similar, imo, to turning oneself in and being apprehended.. >>
I think there may be legal definitions involved and it would be interesting to hear a lawyer's view on this. In some instances, confiscation can only be ordered by a court and in others confiscation only occurred after a seizure and subsequent approval of the seizure.
While turning oneself in and being apprehended may be mutually exclusive, turning oneself in and being arrested are not.
Just another illegal and dishonest way to handle these things.
I don't think, and I have stated this before, that they should get the coins. There was a chain of custody of these coins that KNEW they were illegal to be held, but they WERE held until they figured the heat was off. "Finding" them, the way they were found, as described in CW articles, etc, was quite suspicious, to me, and, sorry, but I am one of the folks that follows the rules and I dislike dishonesty and gaming the system.
For the numismatic value, these are better off with the publicity and if they can be placed in places where people can enjoy them. Put one in each US Mint and the key museums.
What would happen if the langboards were allowed to keep the ill-gotten (I do believe they were ill-gotten) coins? They would sell to the highest bidders and the coins would be in elite hands. They wouldn't be there, imho, for the greater numismatic community. So, a small group would get richer and no one else would benefit.
You wouldn't benefit. I wouldn't benefit. The vast majority (99%?) of this board would not benefit.
Maybe I'd feel differently if one of my ancestors had worked the system or worked under the table to get something that would later be worth a fortune if I were to be lucky enough for it, but then again, I don't have to worry about that and I stick with my own morals and think they should lose the argument and that this has wasted enough government resources.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I don't fault the Langbords for the actions of their ancestors, over which they had no control. Maybe they did wait until "the heat was off" but I'm one to grant "the benefit of the doubt" as they say.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
Well...why don't you or your lawyer bring them into the Mint or Treasury Dept. for "authentication" and see what happens...
And then we might also be able to determine the minute difference between "voluntarily surrender" and "confiscation"!
WHA HA HA HA HA!!!
This is not to say that the FBI does not have a role in suspected fraud, but that coins with clear ownership should not be a target for them.
In clearly stolen or other criminal activity this is their contact information: http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx
Um, no one has proven that anything was stolen. The mint melted the proper quantity of $20 gold pieces. They obviously had nothing stolen.
<i>Personally, I am a little surprised and dismayed at the "take the coins out of the country and sell them" comments.
Just another illegal and dishonest way to handle these things.</i>
If anyone here believed the government would act fairly and not like an overzealous bully with an infinite supply of lawyers then I'm sure you would be hearing a different tone. And there is nothing illegal or dishonest about it. Just because I think I have proper ownership of an item doesn't mean I don't believe the government won't harass me and be able to successfully wrest control of that item from me through their court system. Taking the item out of the country is just the safest way to proceed.
To all those who say the poor old government only wants to display these in their museums for the benefit of the masses, here is my response. If the government cared so much about preserving numismatic history, they wouldn't have melted them all in the first place.
-KHayse
<< <i>"shouldn't the 1913's also be "confiscated"? "
Well...why don't you or your lawyer bring them into the Mint or Treasury Dept. for "authentication" and see what happens...
And then we might also be able to determine the minute difference between "voluntarily surrender" and "confiscation"! >>
I think that the government would be on very weak grounds to confiscate a 1913 Liberty nickel now. These coins have traded openly for over 70 years, and certainly if the government seized one now, their action would certainly not be a timely one. And, in a fair fight, that is, one decided on legal grounds rather than an emotional jury, in my opinion, the government would lose.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i><i>Swift was a "fence" who bought stolen goods from a thief.</i>
Um, no one has proven that anything was stolen. The mint melted the proper quantity of $20 gold pieces. They obviously had nothing stolen.
<i>Personally, I am a little surprised and dismayed at the "take the coins out of the country and sell them" comments.
Just another illegal and dishonest way to handle these things.</i>
If anyone here believed the government would act fairly and not like an overzealous bully with an infinite supply of lawyers then I'm sure you would be hearing a different tone. And there is nothing illegal or dishonest about it. Just because I think I have proper ownership of an item doesn't mean I don't believe the government won't harass me and be able to successfully wrest control of that item from me through their court system. Taking the item out of the country is just the safest way to proceed.
To all those who say the poor old government only wants to display these in their museums for the benefit of the masses, here is my response. If the government cared so much about preserving numismatic history, they wouldn't have melted them all in the first place.
-KHayse >>
So, when "you" hypothetically take these coins out of the country, you would be declaring them on the customs form, right? Since you are a law abiding person and are just believing that there is nothing illegal or dishonest about owning them.....so, you wouldn't lie on your customs form, right?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>So, when "you" hypothetically take these coins out of the country, you would be declaring them on the customs form, right? Since you are a law abiding person and are just believing that there is nothing illegal or dishonest about owning them.....so, you wouldn't lie on your customs form, right? >>
Have you ever travelled out of the US? You do not declare items to US Customs on the way out, only on the way in. I do not recall ever having to fill out customs forms when entering a foreign country as a tourist or on business.
CG
<< <i>
<< <i>So, when "you" hypothetically take these coins out of the country, you would be declaring them on the customs form, right? Since you are a law abiding person and are just believing that there is nothing illegal or dishonest about owning them.....so, you wouldn't lie on your customs form, right? >>
Have you ever travelled out of the US? You do not declare items to US Customs on the way out, only on the way in. I do not recall ever having to fill out customs forms when entering a foreign country as a tourist or on business.
CG >>
Yes, I have. It's been a couple of years, but I do recall something when flying into a different country. They all have forms to fill out when you go there. I have not be to Europe but I have been to different Asian countries.
Edited to add: Even given that "you" go to a country that doesn't ask for any declarations around money.....you WOULD pay US taxes when you sold, right? Being that you are an honest person. And, you WOULD declare any of the sales monies that come from it, right?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>And, you WOULD declare any of the sales monies that come from it, right?
Crossing the IRS may be an even bigger offense than holding on to some coins. See IRS Pub 17:
<< <i>Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21 >>
AND you would also be checking to see that you weren't flying into any countries with extradtion treaties with the US (in case the Feds did raise a ruckus), as well as any issues involving the protection of historical artifacts...
I'm not sure if this would have a bearing on the 1933 DE case since regardless of whether 6102 was in effect or not, the Mint theoretically hadn't released the coins.
<< <i>.....you WOULD pay US taxes when you sold, right? Being that you are an honest person. And, you WOULD declare any of the sales monies that come from it, right? >>
Of course, and I would not be so cynical as to infer that anyone else, especially someone that I do not know, would not do so as well. The issue at hand is whether the Langbords could have sold the coins overseas without litigating title, not the income tax consequences of the sale.
CG