Options
Langbord Appeal: I looked at the docket for the appeal today.
SanctionII
Posts: 11,727 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have found a second wind for this case and for whatever reason (curiosity and not wanting to leave a job unfinished) I looked at the docket and have decided to post a thread about the status of the appeal.
The appeal was commenced in December, 2012.
The most interesting thing on the docket so far is the filing on 2-12-2013 of a Briefing Schedule by the court. Under this schedule the Langbords are required to file their Appellant's brief on or before 3-25-2013 (along with a Joint Appendix). The government is required to file its Appellee's brief withing 30 days after the Langbords file their brief. The Langbords then have 14 days after the filing of the government's brief to file their Reply Brief (I assume that either side, on a showing of good cause, could obtain an extension from the court of the deadline to file their briefs).
The appeal in this case looks like it will move at a faster pace than the case did in the trial court.
Further, the Langbords filed a summary of the case.
It provides a description of the nature of the case.
It also lists the trial court orders and decisions which are involved in the appeal (these include the 5-11-2009 memorandum and order denying a motion to exclude the opinion of David Tripp; the 6-29-2009 memorandum and order denying the Langbord's cross motion for summary judgment concerning the applicability of CAFRA; the 10-28-2010 memorandum and order granting the government permission to file Count III of its Third Party Complaint (declaratory relief); the 7-5-2011 memorandum and order denying motions in limine brought by the Langbords to exclude evidence and denying a motion by the Langbords for jury instructions based upon the Government violating the Langbords' constitutional rights; the 7-5-2011 order denying the Langbords' motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on the Government's declaratory judgment claim and concluding that a jury trial right does not attached to that claim; the 7-21-2011 jury verdict; the 7-29-2011 order denying in part the Langbords' pretrial motion in support of jury instruction requests; the 8-29-2012 memorandum and order/judgment denying the Langbords' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Government's forfeiture claim, denying their post trial renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law on the Government's forfeiture claim and granting the Government's motion for judgment on its declaratory relief claim; and the 10-23-2012 order entering judgment in favor of the Government).
It provides a statement of the factual and procedural background important to the appeal.
It finally identifies the issues to be raised in the appeal. The listed issues are:
1. Did the trial court err in finding that the protections of CAFRA, including the "death penalty" provision of CAFRA, did not apply to the Government's illegal confiscation of the Langbords' coins?;
2. Did the trial court err in allowing the Government to file and in entertaining a third party claim for declaratory judgment and in deciding that claim itself as opposed to submitting it to the jury as demanded by the Langbords?;
3. Did the district court err in admitting into evidence during the jury trial: (a) significant hearsay statements reflected in Secret Sevice reports for the 1940's; (b) a 1947 federal court decision involving another 1933 Double Eagle and the finding set forth therein; (c) the 1934 arrest of the Langbords' father and grandfather, Israel Switt, and the finding from the ensuing civil forfeiture case that Mr. Switt had illegally possessed gold coins (but not 1933 Double Eagles)?;
4. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury as to the Government's burden of proof and the mental state the government was required to prove to show that the Langbords' coins were stolen or concealed in violation of 11 USC Section 641?; and
5. Can the US forfeit the instrumentalities or proceeds of crimes that are not enumerated by the civil forfeiture statutes?
The above brings you up to date on the Langbord appeal.
The appeal was commenced in December, 2012.
The most interesting thing on the docket so far is the filing on 2-12-2013 of a Briefing Schedule by the court. Under this schedule the Langbords are required to file their Appellant's brief on or before 3-25-2013 (along with a Joint Appendix). The government is required to file its Appellee's brief withing 30 days after the Langbords file their brief. The Langbords then have 14 days after the filing of the government's brief to file their Reply Brief (I assume that either side, on a showing of good cause, could obtain an extension from the court of the deadline to file their briefs).
The appeal in this case looks like it will move at a faster pace than the case did in the trial court.
Further, the Langbords filed a summary of the case.
It provides a description of the nature of the case.
It also lists the trial court orders and decisions which are involved in the appeal (these include the 5-11-2009 memorandum and order denying a motion to exclude the opinion of David Tripp; the 6-29-2009 memorandum and order denying the Langbord's cross motion for summary judgment concerning the applicability of CAFRA; the 10-28-2010 memorandum and order granting the government permission to file Count III of its Third Party Complaint (declaratory relief); the 7-5-2011 memorandum and order denying motions in limine brought by the Langbords to exclude evidence and denying a motion by the Langbords for jury instructions based upon the Government violating the Langbords' constitutional rights; the 7-5-2011 order denying the Langbords' motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on the Government's declaratory judgment claim and concluding that a jury trial right does not attached to that claim; the 7-21-2011 jury verdict; the 7-29-2011 order denying in part the Langbords' pretrial motion in support of jury instruction requests; the 8-29-2012 memorandum and order/judgment denying the Langbords' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Government's forfeiture claim, denying their post trial renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law on the Government's forfeiture claim and granting the Government's motion for judgment on its declaratory relief claim; and the 10-23-2012 order entering judgment in favor of the Government).
It provides a statement of the factual and procedural background important to the appeal.
It finally identifies the issues to be raised in the appeal. The listed issues are:
1. Did the trial court err in finding that the protections of CAFRA, including the "death penalty" provision of CAFRA, did not apply to the Government's illegal confiscation of the Langbords' coins?;
2. Did the trial court err in allowing the Government to file and in entertaining a third party claim for declaratory judgment and in deciding that claim itself as opposed to submitting it to the jury as demanded by the Langbords?;
3. Did the district court err in admitting into evidence during the jury trial: (a) significant hearsay statements reflected in Secret Sevice reports for the 1940's; (b) a 1947 federal court decision involving another 1933 Double Eagle and the finding set forth therein; (c) the 1934 arrest of the Langbords' father and grandfather, Israel Switt, and the finding from the ensuing civil forfeiture case that Mr. Switt had illegally possessed gold coins (but not 1933 Double Eagles)?;
4. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury as to the Government's burden of proof and the mental state the government was required to prove to show that the Langbords' coins were stolen or concealed in violation of 11 USC Section 641?; and
5. Can the US forfeit the instrumentalities or proceeds of crimes that are not enumerated by the civil forfeiture statutes?
The above brings you up to date on the Langbord appeal.
0
Comments
<< <i>The above brings you up to date on the Langbord appeal. >>
ty
that is a lot of arguments
.
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
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Tom
<< <i>That first question presented is argumentative, i.e., claims the confiscation was illegal. That's not a good way to win over an appellate panel. >>
I'm no lawyer, but that's not the way I read it. I read the first question as asking if the trial court made errors in the application of law regarding CAFRA. Conceivably, the court could have made errors in the application of CAFRA but the confiscation could still be legal. I see that the appeals court could go three ways: the application of CAFRA was done in error and the verdict is tainted, the application of CAFRA was done in error but the verdict is sustainable on other grounds, or the application of CAFRA was proper.
Yes, I know question one contains "illegal confiscation" which I agree is argumentative, but we are reading a summary, not the original.
To Sanction: thank you again for the updates. You spend a lot of time digesting this stuff and typing it in for us to read.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Even former IRS tax attorneys and revenue agents agreed with my opinion.
I even go further to state that I would not be a terrible thing to disband the entire Federal Court system except for the Federal appeals and Supreme Court levels while the rest of the Federal Court system reverts back to the state level supreme and criminal court system.
It might help start reducing our federal budget deficits. We need to start downsizing our bloated Federal government.
Thank you for a concise and fabulous update of this appeal.
Thanks for the support, friends.
I did not mean to "stir the pot".
<< <i>The truth sets a lot of men free The first order of business is questioning how legal the executive order was. It should have been repealed by men of truth back then. It's never too late to start being totally honest. Why do the people have a "Freedom of Information Act" ? ....because the truth is hidden long enough to protect those who knew it. (opinion) What is "absolute power" ? Winston Churchill told the PEOPLE, but they do not listen for fear of imprisonment. (it corrupts absolutely)
Don't be afraid, children. Tell the truth. Izzy Switt is not on trial, yet he is the accused. We are innocent until proven guilty. There's no record of a crime. This borders on "ex post facto". How can we judge by "opinion", when possession is the proof ? Just my two cents: whoever has the guns wins the battle, but whoever has the truth wins the war.
Critical and objective reasoning doesn't mean people won't conform to the truth. It just means we must remain vigilant by questioning every possibility.
In other news, we give Zuckerberg man of the year for giving government the ability to spy on us, but we want to hang Julian Assange for giving people the ability to see that this is precisely what WE DO. And do we need physical proof ?... how can we kill Americans abroad now, without a trial ? Based on "investigations" and "guilt" by association. Nice laws, gentlemen. wtf is wrong with this picture ? TIME magazine even had a Russian President as it's Man of the Year. I'm either losing my mind or not focusing on coins enough.
Sorry to go off here, but this is America. What are CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ? We are the PEOPLE. If Obama can keep his Blackberry, why can't Joan Langbord keep her gold nuggets ?
Wielding power is fine. Though when a team of lawmen beging taking pot shot swings at Joan's grandfather, and accusing him of being a thief without any evidence of a crime, then this borders on legal grounds for defamation of character. (albeit post mortum ) . As a family man, at some point, I would be infuriated at having my name drug through the mud because I was smart enough to acquire something the government made , then tried to take back, after they left a window of opportunity for LEGAL OWNERSHIP of collector coins.
I hope and pray for truth and justice and I believe EVERY MAN is free from those arbitrarily created cell walls, after his death. We cannot be free when others hold the key to the locks on the chains that bind us. Let us not enslave our minds by ignoring truth.
Truth and justice is for ALL. It's not rocket science that only the elite receive these benefits paid for with our blood.
Okay, my HUMAN RIGHTS rant is over.
Nice rant Joe TT! post mortum; does that mean post more Tom?
GOOOO LANGBORDS!!
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
But everyone knows that Dillinger pulled that heist.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>
It might help start reducing our federal budget deficits. We need to start downsizing our bloated Federal government.
>>
The federal government is the source of most of the problems and isn't doing the jobs with which
it has been tasked anyway. I'm sure Indiana would be better off if we just pulled the plug on DC.
<< <i>Thanks for the updates, I always appreciate them
What he said.
Sanction II, you have done tremendous work in sifting through all of the legal filings throughout this long case, and we here are definitely the beneficiaries of your efforts! THANK YOU!
It will be very interesting to see how the court rules on the five issues raised in the appeal.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Might you be able to post the Secret Service report of the investigation they conducted in the 40's? I had a copy of that report (via a FOIA request) in the '70's but it cannot now be located after a couple of moves.
As I recall the report was rather thorough with affidavits from a number of mint employees. The report named Ira Reid as well as Switt. A mint employee (George McCann??) was identified as the likely suspect as the back channel in passing the 1933 double eagles.
That report (should it still exist) would make very interesting reading in light of what we now know about the Langbords.
TDN<<Did the Nazis just take the Jews' property cuz they didn't like them? Damn straight.>>
Though this statement is an over-simplification, fair and important points are implied. At the trial regarding the Switt-Langbord 1933s, Attorneys for the U.S. Treasury Dept. made issues of the personalities of Switt, his daughter and his grandson. The attacks on their respective personalities, in my opinion, are not relevant to the point that there is not evidence of any 1933 Double Eagles being stolen. It may be true the members of the jury allowed their respective personal feelings towards the Switt-Langbord family cloud their judgment. The religious views or personalities of the Switt-Langbords should not be considered relevant. Should the judge have allowed only evidence be admitted that relates to events in the 1930s?
As I, QDB and others have repeatedly stated, it was the policy of the Philadelphia Mint, for many decades, perhaps since the 1790s, to allow anyone to trade old coins for new coins, at face value. Furthermore, records of such coin-for-coin trades were often not kept or did not survive. Those involved honestly believed that there was no legal requirement to keep such records. It is sort of like trading ten old rolls for ten rolls of new Lincoln Cents at a bank; it is unlikely that the teller is going to ask for ID and fill out a form. Would someone seriously think that rolls of Lincoln Cents were -stolen- if a record is not kept of trades of Lincoln Cent rolls?
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by QDB and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Thanks so much for your efforts in keeping us appraised on the case. I have always felt that I knew more about the case than, say, a reader of Coin World precisely because of your posts.
P.S. Thanks for the info
FadeToBlack's reply is interesting. I wonder if anyone involved in the case has ever investigated (formally or informally) what the relatives of the other persons involved in the events that took place back in the 1930's and 1940's were told about "what really happened".
For example relatives of George McCann, of Israel Switt's business partner, of the coin dealers and collectors who purchased/possessed 1933 Double Eagles, of the Secret Service Officers who took part in the 1940's and 1950's case that resulted in the surrender of multiple 1933 Double Eagles, of mint, treasury and justice department employees and of administration officials (including President Roosevelt and Treasury Secretary Woodin).
<< <i>Thanks for the kind words everyone.
FadeToBlack's reply is interesting. I wonder if anyone involved in the case has ever investigated (formally or informally) what the relatives of the other persons involved in the events that took place back in the 1930's and 1940's were told about "what really happened".
For example relatives of George McCann, of Israel Switt's business partner, of the coin dealers and collectors who purchased/possessed 1933 Double Eagles, of the Secret Service Officers who took part in the 1940's and 1950's case that resulted in the surrender of multiple 1933 Double Eagles, of mint, treasury and justice department employees and of administration officials (including President Roosevelt and Treasury Secretary Woodin). >>
I think the war against these has always been the result of the actions of a single bureaucrat.
I've often wondered what the family lore on these is as well. I'd guess Swit legally obtained them
from some individual who purchased them in an "improper" manner. There's virtually no chance what-
soever these were stolen unless the mint has the same open door policy our prisons have. Somehow
I seriously doubt it would be much easier to walk into a mint vault than Fort Knox.
Yes, most of the employees of the U.S. Mint were not numismatists. To them, one Double Eagle was equivalent to another. They cared about the total number of Double Eagles on the premises. No one minded when a collector or dealer traded one Double Eagle for another. Would a teller at your bank care if you traded a $20 bill that is five years old for a new $20 bill?
EbayBuyer: << [A particular Treasury Dept. official] decided to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money chasing around gold coins in the 1940's making a name for themselves ...>>
CladKing: << I think the war against these has always been the result of the actions of a single bureaucrat.>>
Maybe so, QDB refers to this same Treasury Dept. official in QDB’s book on Double Eagles (Whitman, 2003). While this is not the greatest book in general, the chapter on 1933 Double Eagles is itself worth the price of the book. QDB had an unrelated experience with this same Treasury Dept. official. QDB questions his motivations and ethics.
EbayBuyer: <<... has anyone ever asked to see the original police report of the theft at the mint in 1933? >>
Perhaps not all forum members realize that EBayBuyer is being facetious here. As far as I know, there was no such police report, which is fair enough. There is no evidence that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. In terms of the total number of Saint Gaudens Double Eagles on the premises, the books balanced, as even Tripp, the government’s only <<expert>> witness, concedes.
BajjerFan: <<That would depend on whether or not the 1933s were approved to be available for exchange. >>
No, there was no such approval process. Many thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally minted, with all proper authorizations. Paperwork would have to have been done if bags of Double Eagles were shipped to banks. The history and traditions of the Philadelphia Mint suggest that all parties involved believed that no paperwork was needed for coin-for-coin exchanges. This is explained in my articles.
There are no records of 1870-S silver dollars, yet no one would seriously suggest that all 1870-S dollars were stolen. Many examples relating to other coins could be provided.
SanctionII: <<FadeToBlack's reply is interesting. I wonder if anyone involved in the case has ever investigated (formally or informally) what the relatives of the other persons involved in the events that took place back in the 1930's and 1940's were told about "what really happened". >>
This is a very misleading point. In the 1930s and early 1940s, 1933 Double Eagles were openly advertised and even in plain view at coin conventions. No one at the U.S Treasury Dept. or in the coin collection community gave any indication that anyone believed that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen. R. W. Julian has made a point of explaining that a prominent Treasury Department official received and certainly read at least one pertinent issue of the The Numismatist (ANA publication), in which the open display of 1933 Double Eagles was discussed. Please read my articles and the cited sources.
ShoreColl: <<I think Switt knew exactly what he was doing ...>>
It is extremely likely that Switt obtained his 1933 Double Eagles in a manner that coin collectors and U.S. Mint officials of the 1930s would have viewed as legitimate, fair, and honest.
ShoreColl: <<... and if he thought he had a snowball's chance he would have tried again years ago to bring them out himself.>>
This is a topic that is different from the concept of how they were obtained. It is true that Switt is likely to have been aware that the U.S. Treasury Dept., years after Switt’s 1933 Double Eagles were obtained, declared that all 1933 Double Eagles are illegal to own. Switt may then have honestly concluded that he had little or no chance of winning a legal battle with the U.S. Treasury Department.
It is difficult for a private individual, who would be spending his own money, to win a legal battle with a branch of the U.S. national government that is spending taxpayer’s money on legal fees. It does not follow logically that the private individual who shies away from such a fight has engaged in wrongdoing or believes that he is wrong.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by QDB and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
<< <i>
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a website:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by QDB and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case >>
Wow! Thanks for the post. I'll read these when I get a little time.
ttt
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
"President Gerald Ford repealed all sanctions against U.S. citizens owning or selling gold to anyone they wished. Gold essentially became a commodity and was now listed on the New York Commodity Stock Exchange."
<< <i>I was surfing around for gold prices over the years and found this statement in one of them. I thought it might be pertinent here. Did Ford not cover the 1933s?
"President Gerald Ford repealed all sanctions against U.S. citizens owning or selling gold to anyone they wished. Gold essentially became a commodity and was now listed on the New York Commodity Stock Exchange." >>
What Ford did would include the 1933 $20's in a rational world. However, the Treasury Dept. claims that all 1933 $20's, other than the two that it gave to the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian, were "stolen" by a Mint employee. It has never produced proof of this alleged theft.
<< <i>
<< <i>I was surfing around for gold prices over the years and found this statement in one of them. I thought it might be pertinent here. Did Ford not cover the 1933s?
"President Gerald Ford repealed all sanctions against U.S. citizens owning or selling gold to anyone they wished. Gold essentially became a commodity and was now listed on the New York Commodity Stock Exchange." >>
What Ford did would include the 1933 $20's in a rational world. However, the Treasury Dept. claims that all 1933 $20's, other than the two that it gave to the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian, were "stolen" by a Mint employee. It has never produced proof of this alleged theft. >>
In a rational world, our Government by the people and for the people would need to actually PROVE said theft before taking said people's property.
Each year they prepare dies for the next year as early as November and usually strike test
pieces before the dies go into use in very early January. It is not in the least unusual for coins
dated the following year to be found in bags of the current date at the end of the year. Such
bags usually spend months in the supply chain so the error isn't caught until much too late to
have any value. But 1933 was very different and any bag of 1932 double eagles could have
sat for many weeks before being shipped off for destruction. Any collector looking for something
special in the bag before shipment would have spotted '33 dates.
The government hs simply engaged in a war on '33's because of inertia. Announcing that anyone
can waltz into the mint and steal valuable coins without even so much as a record of the theft
paints them in an even worse light then correcting this wrong. Bad policy should not be supported
by a great injustice! Even government employees make mistakes and they should be admitted.
<< <i>
<< <i>What Ford did would include the 1933 $20's in a rational world. However, the Treasury Dept. claims that all 1933 $20's, other than the two that it gave to the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian, were "stolen" by a Mint employee. It has never produced proof of this alleged theft. >>
In a rational world, our Government by the people and for the people would need to actually PROVE said theft before taking said people's property. >>
It's surprising how many people are willing to accept a "Because I said so" argument from the government.
First,the Government you speak of has a prima facie case establishing that any1933 dated Double Eagle coin found in possession in private hands must,by definition,be considered as having been stolen since the issue was never intended to be released to the public,the public all of whose members have private hands.
U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 with the following exceptions, Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, with the exception of the following:
(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold. (b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. (c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements. (d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for the other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including gold coin and gold bullion imported for the re-export or held pending action on applications for export license.
The 1933 gold Double Eagles were struck after this executive order, but because they were no longer legal tender, most of the 1933 gold coins were melted down in late 1934 and some were destroyed in tests. Two of the $20 double eagles were presented by the United States Mint to the U.S. National Numismatic Collection. These two coins should have been the only 1933 double eagle coins in existence.
Any 1933 Double Eagles found to be in existence,other than the two in the U.S. National Numismatic Collection,should have been melted down in 1934 with the rest of the issue or destroyed in tests.
The Government's case is solid.All 1933 Double Eagles aside from the two in the U.S. Collection were stolen from the U.S. government.
Next case.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
MR1874: << ... found in possession in private hands must,by definition,be considered as having been stolen since the issue was never intended to be released to the public,the public all of whose members have private hands.>>
No, there are several ways in which they could have been legally released, and probably were legally released. Besides, there were no formal stated intentions. For decades, probably since the founding of the Philadelphia Mint, it was considered perfectly legitimate, and even encouraged, for anyone to walk into the Mint and trade old coins for new coins. No one thought that it was necessary to keep records of such trades. Furthermore, in cases where receipts for trades were written, these were probably for tourists who wished to keep such receipts as souvenirs, perhaps souvenirs to keep if the respective coins received were spent or given away. Besides, how does Mr1974 figure that 1933 Double Eagles <<were never intended to be released to the public.>> Hundreds of thousand were minted following usual procedures. There is every reason to believe that they were being minted for release, not to be abruptly melted after being minted. Besides, researcher Roger Burdette has found documents that indicate that some 1933 Double Eagles were in the Cashier’s Box, at the Philadelphia Mint, in early March 1933.
MR1874: <<The 1933 gold Double Eagles were struck after this executive order ...>>
Anyone who has done some significant reading about 1933 Double Eagles would know that this statement is factually wrong. Indeed, it is terribly wrong. Even the government’s sole -expert- witness, Tripp, acknowledges that 1933 Double Eagles were struck before the end of the Hoover administration. Tens of thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were struck in late Feb. and/or very early March 1933. Tens of thousands more were struck during March. There are documents indicating that gold coins were still being paid out during the month of March. Executive Order 6102 was signed on April 5, 1933.
FDR in this Executive Order 6102: <<... gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.>>
FDR was banning the hoarding of gold bullion. He was allowing coin collectors and coin dealers to possess coins that collectors wanted, or would be likely to demand, for their respective collections. It was known that 1933 Double Eagles could be scarce or rare as 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles were clearly not common. So, the fact that 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles clearly were <<gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins>> necessarily means that 1933 Double Eagles were recognized at the time as being likely to be in this category as well. In the 1930s, there were some collectors who were assembling sets of Saint Gaudens Double Eagles and it would have been fair to reason that more collectors would assemble such sets after the Great Depression ended.
Please consider reading my two articles on this case. For the first piece, I was a winner of the NLG award for the best article published on a website.
The Switt-Langbord Case
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz
Okay,some 1933 Double Eagles were available in March,1933.When did Switt acquire his?
It seems to me that if there was proof that Switt acquired the coins prior to Roosevelt's Executive Order,ie. before April 12,1933 then the coins might be considered legally obtained and the government doesn't have such a strong case anymore.
It seems odd that there are no trade records to be found for Switt or anyone else that might have traded for one or more of the 1933 DE's at the mint.
Records exist for at least some of the 1933 Eagles that left the mint but no records for the Doubles?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Very well written articles Greg.
Okay,some 1933 Double Eagles were available in March,1933.When did Switt acquire his?
It seems to me that if there was proof that Switt acquired the coins prior to Roosevelt's Executive Order,ie. before April 12,1933 then the coins might be considered legally obtained and the government doesn't have such a strong case anymore.
It seems odd that there are no trade records to be found for Switt or anyone else that might have traded for one or more of the 1933 DE's at the mint.
Records exist for at least some of the 1933 Eagles that left the mint but no records for the Doubles? >>
Why would there be a reason for the Mint cashier to record a trade if there was no net change [no pun intended] to either party? My bank teller doesn't keep a record if I ask for 2 fives for a ten or ask for a nice new $20 for an old one.
It seems to me that there must be procedure or mechanism by which a coin [from start to finish] is struck and approved for distribution/release to the cashier.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
It seems to me that there must be procedure or mechanism by which a coin [from start to finish] is struck and approved for distribution/release to the cashier. >>
In 1933, there was no such procedure or mechanism. Remember that 1933 was 80 years ago, a lot of things were a lot less documented than today.
I think the procedure was probably "OK, we made the coins, bagged them, now let's ship them out."
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Regardless of what one thinks of the case and of the parties to the case, credit must be given to the Langbord family and their attorneys for choosing to fight the Government for ownership and possession of the coins. Both sides took part in a trial and presented as best they could their respective cases to the judge and jury. The government victory at the trial court level is the culmination of over 5 years worth of litigation in the trial court, including multiple pretrial and trial rulings by the trial judge.
The Langbord family is now pursuing an appeal. The 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will be required (since a timely filed appeal mandates that the Court Of Appeal hear and decide the appeal) to hear the appeal and determine if the trial court decision should stand or fall.
Mandatory appellate review of a trial court decision in a case is a central component of our legal system. In deciding appeals, courts of appeal look at the case in a less emotional, more academic/intellectual way. The factors which are present at a trial (how witnesses appear and their body language and tone of voice; whether a judge or jury is sympathetic or not to one side or the other, etc.) is not present in an appeal. An appellate court reviews the "record on appeal" (transcripts of hearings, transcripts of trial testimony, trial exhibits, pleadings, motions, briefs, etc. which are all on paper) to determine what happened at the trial court level. The appellate briefs summarize what happened at the trial court level (with supporting references to the record on appeal) and presents legal argument as to why one or more of the events (i.e. trial court rulings on pretrial or trial motions) are legally incorrect/erroneous. The courts of appeal consider what the applicable law is and determines if the trial court decision is in accord with the law. If there is uncertainty as to what the applicable law is (i.e. for a particular issue there is no statute or published appellate court opinion that states what the law is, or there are multiple published appellate decisions that provide different statements of what the law is on the issue) then the courts of appeal can make its own determination of what the law is or should be. If there is certainty as to what the applicable law is, the courts of appeal can determine if the trial court decision correctly applied the law to the facts of the case.
Whatever the outcome of the appeal is in the Langbord case, the case would still not be completely over. Further appellate review is possible (a petition for rehearing of the appeal before the court of appeal, or a petition to the US Supreme Court for it to review the decision of the court of appeal), though these remedies are discretionary (the reviewing court can decline to take up the case) instead of mandatory.
Many persons look at the Langbord case as one where the subject matter of the dispute is merely "who gets the 10 double eagles", the government or the Langbord family". The case has more significance than that. The case raises issues that place before the court of appeal questions regarding the nature of and the extent of the power of the government to take property; and how the provisions of CAFRA [the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act] are to be applied.
To those persons who support a society that recognizes and promotes "private property rights" and who value their own "property", the ultimate outcome of the Langbord case should be of interest. To those persons who are not supporters of "private property rights" the outcome of the Langbord case should also be of interest (are there any persons who truly do not support private property rights, including their own property?).
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Throughout the life of the Langbord case there has been discussion (on the forums and elsewhere) about the case, along with speculation about how the 10 1933 double eagles left the mint. The reality is that is it highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to determine what really happened (unless some where there is a a diary of, or other memorialization by, Israel Switt, George McCann or another person who was directly involved in the 10 coins leaving the premises of the Mint that explains it all).
Regardless of what one thinks of the case and of the parties to the case, credit must be given to the Langbord family and their attorneys for choosing to fight the Government for ownership and possession of the coins. Both sides took part in a trial and presented as best they could their respective cases to the judge and jury. The government victory at the trial court level is the culmination of over 5 years worth of litigation in the trial court, including multiple pretrial and trial rulings by the trial judge.
The Langbord family is now pursuing an appeal. The 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will be required (since a timely filed appeal mandates that the Court Of Appeal hear and decide the appeal) to hear the appeal and determine if the trial court decision should stand or fall.
Mandatory appellate review of a trial court decision in a case is a central component of our legal system. In deciding appeals, courts of appeal look at the case in a less emotional, more academic/intellectual way. The factors which are present at a trial (how witnesses appear and their body language and tone of voice; whether a judge or jury is sympathetic or not to one side or the other, etc.) is not present in an appeal. An appellate court reviews the "record on appeal" (transcripts of hearings, transcripts of trial testimony, trial exhibits, pleadings, motions, briefs, etc. which are all on paper) to determine what happened at the trial court level. The appellate briefs summarize what happened at the trial court level (with supporting references to the record on appeal) and presents legal argument as to why one or more of the events (i.e. trial court rulings on pretrial or trial motions) are legally incorrect/erroneous. The courts of appeal consider what the applicable law is and determines if the trial court decision is in accord with the law. If there is uncertainty as to what the applicable law is (i.e. for a particular issue there is no statute or published appellate court opinion that states what the law is, or there are multiple published appellate decisions that provide different statements of what the law is on the issue) then the courts of appeal can make its own determination of what the law is or should be. If there is certainty as to what the applicable law is, the courts of appeal can determine if the trial court decision correctly applied the law to the facts of the case.
Whatever the outcome of the appeal is in the Langbord case, the case would still not be completely over. Further appellate review is possible (a petition for rehearing of the appeal before the court of appeal, or a petition to the US Supreme Court for it to review the decision of the court of appeal), though these remedies are discretionary (the reviewing court can decline to take up the case) instead of mandatory.
Many persons look at the Langbord case as one where the subject matter of the dispute is merely "who gets the 10 double eagles", the government or the Langbord family". The case has more significance than that. The case raises issues that place before the court of appeal questions regarding the nature of and the extent of the power of the government to take property; and how the provisions of CAFRA [the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act] are to be applied.
To those persons who support a society that recognizes and promotes "private property rights" and who value their own "property", the ultimate outcome of the Langbord case should be of interest. To those persons who are not supporters of "private property rights" the outcome of the Langbord case should also be of interest (are there any persons who truly do not support private property rights, including their own property?). >>
All good points, but one should not assume that the appellate court will take a second look at the evidence. Generally the duty of the appellate court is to correct errors that may have been made by the judge, not to second guess the fact finders.
<< <i>
First,the Government you speak of has a prima facie case establishing that any1933 dated Double Eagle coin found in possession in private hands must,by definition,be considered as having been stolen since the issue was never intended to be released to the public,the public all of whose members have private hands.
>>
"Intention" is irrelevant. What matters is only how 1933 dated $20 gold came into possession of someone.
Indeed, even how they came into possession is fading in importance over time. The bottom line is the mint isn't
missing gold and never reported a crime. Individuals make mistakes and an institution the size of the mint will
not only necessarily make mistakes but the right hand won't know what the left is doing. In other words it's
entirly possible the coins left the mint without anyone having made a true error. The mint does not keep track
of coins by date therefore their intention of melting every single 1933 $20 is wholly irrelevant. The fact that some
exisat outside the mint PROVES beyond question that their numbers are off on the number melted. They intend-
ed to melt them all and failed. Why should anyone owning one of these coins have to pay for the mint's failure?
Switt's only "crime" was not tendering them for $200 in paper or tossing them in the dump.
The so-called Great Depression came about because of disparity of wealth.A few wealthy dealers and collectors trying to circumvent the law by acquiring coins from the mint that the government is saying "no can have" for the rest of the populace doesn't work for me.
No more gold to leave the mint after the Executive Order is what was intended,no? Say "no" to anyone wanting to trade gold coin for gold coin should be understood by the cashier after a read of the Order.Again,it matters not whether one agrees with the Order or not.It's the law.
It's possible the mint was concerned about taking counterfeits in trade for good new product so the receipt would not be such a worthless thing to be implementing if there was concern about taking in counterfeits. I would just say about this,either do the receipts or don't do the receipts.It sounds to me like the receipt issuing for the time-honored tradition of trading coins was sporadic.
I still wonder though why no receipts can be found for any trades involving 1933 Double Eagles yet there are receipts for some of the 1933 Eagles.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
A. There was a directive from either the Dept of the Treasury or the Director of the Mint not to release the coins and that it was issued prior to the coins being delivered to the cashier; or
B. There was an established written regulation or policy governing the release of coins by the cashier that required approval from the Director of the Mint or the Treasury to release of newly minted coins, and no such approval was issued (or no written approval can be found perhaps permitting an inference that none was given); or
C. The standard operating procedures in A or B involved oral directives or approvals and there was some credible evidence that either an oral directive prohibiting release was issued, or oral approval to release the coins was required and none was given. This would seem to require the testimony of someone who was in a position of authority at the Mint or Treasury at the time or some written memo evidencing that in the case of A above an oral directive was issued, or in the case of B above, no oral approval was given.
Otherwise, a jury can only speculate as to what occurred and whether the cashier was acting within standard operating procedures in releasing the coins.
CG