<< <i>My opinion,FWIW, is that the government will keep the coins because they have long been considered contraband.According to CAFRA,no person can have a property interest in contraband. I doubt they will ever be melted or sold by the government,however. >>
I find the CAFRA mention interesting. The government wants to use CAFRA to keep the coins. But it clearly did not meet the requirement in CAFRA to file a timely forfeiture notification. (For which the trial judge allowed the government to file its forfeiture motion late, and accepted it. Sort of like a legal mulligan.)
So the government wants to use the provisions in CAFRA to keep the coins, but it doesn't have to follow the rules in CAFRA on filing the forfeiture. Doesn't this seem really inconsistent? And to some, not legal?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
CAFRA puts the burden of proof on the Government...
‘‘(c) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property— ‘‘(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;
but the claimant argues,
‘‘(d) INNOCENT OWNER DEFENSE.— ‘‘(1) An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.
however,
‘‘(4) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess.
In court,which side will get to use the contraband weight to advantage each and every time?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The Langbords' attorney filed a motion in the Court Of Appeal for permission to submit an opening brief that exceeds by 60% the maximum number of words (set by court rule) allowed in an opening brief, due to the length and complexity of the events that took place in the trial court. The Langbords' attorney represented that their opening brief would not exceed 22,400 words. The court of appeal issued an order that gives the Langbords 21 days after the court issues an order deciding the pending motion within which to file their opening brief.
I would contend you read further back at what Woodrow Wilson says . If we are to go on "principle", let us go to the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Or how about Colonel Green having an "inside" track to the only 5 Liberty Nickels ever made ? Come on now... let's not talk about principle at this juncture.
I think you're right.The fuddy duddy in me was coming out (insert chagrin emoticon here) but I've snapped out of it.
What are the precedents and what is the law then?
Wouldn't "the other side" have to get 1933 double eagles "decontrabandized" to have even a snowball's chance in you know where of having CAFRA work to advantage for them?
Before confiscating a person's property, I would hope more than just assumptions were considered by the government. Am I hoping for too much?
I was reading CAFRA,bored to tears,agonizing over subsections.So I then escaped into ILLEGAL TENDER,reading about the "golden link" for awhile.It was a fruitful diversion for it lead to my discovery,at least in my own mind, of the full implications of,the gravity of the meaning of, the word 'contraband.'
So to address your question,mr potatohead,
Does our Government hope for too much if it assumes that it can legally confiscate contraband,that for which no ownership interest can be asserted?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
mr1794: <<David Tripp testified that there was a window of opportunity from March 15 to April 5,1933 for one to obtain 1933 double eagle legally.There is no record,despite the dutiful government accounting that was the order of the day,that shows that anyone took advantage of this window of opportunity to acquire 1933 double eagle legally.>>
Since it is likely that 1933 Double Eagles were first minted in Feb. 1933, coin-for-coin exchanges could have started long before March 15. Indeed, Roger Burdette found documents that indicate that 1933 Double Eagles were in the cashier's box and readily available long before March 15.
From the 1790s until the 1930s and probably even later, it was standard practice for collectors or dealers who walked into the Philadelphia Mint to trade old coins for new coins, without anyone thinking that there was a need to keep records of such coin-for-coin trades. If Mr1794 had studied the history of the Philadelphia Mint and the relationships between this Mint and the coin community, he would know already know that unrecorded exchanges were common and not considered thefts.
For example, there are no such records of 1870-S silver dollars. The faulty reasoning of Mr1794 would suggest that all 1870-S dollars were stolen. No coin expert or numismatic scholar has ever suggested that any 1870-S silver dollars were stolen.
The remark that there was <<dutiful government accounting>> is terribly misleading. They kept tract of the total number of Double Eagles, not of the dates on the coins. Consider that Roger Burdette found that 1933 Double Eagles in the cashier's box were recorded as 1932 Double Eagles in the records.
Tripp said that there are records of just four 1933 single Eagles ($10 pieces) being released, yet it is known that there are certainly more than eighteen 1933 tens around. It is very unlikely that any of the other fourteen plus were stolen. Do Tripp and Mr1794 think that all 1933 single Eagles ($10 pieces) should be seized, too?
The main point here is that, from the 1790s to the 1930s, it was a standard practice to effect UNRECORDED coin-for-coin exchanges at the Philadelphia Mint.
There are not such records of Ultra High Relief 1907 Saints. Is Mr1794 saying that most or all UHR Saints were stolen?
In his book, Tripp gives an example of a tourist asking for a receipt for a 1933 $10 gold piece. The tourist probably wanted a receipt, and thus a record, not because anyone thought that a receipt was necessary, but because the receipt itself would serve as a souvenir of a visit to the Philadelphia Mint even if the 1933 single Eagle was spent by this tourist at a later time.
Philadelphia Mint Double Eagles of 1931 and 1932 are rare, too. Most of them left the Mint in the same way that it is likely that all 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, through legitimate, unrecorded coin-for-coin exchanges with people who were known by U.S. Mint employees. Such exchanges were considered legitimate, not thefts, and were a standard practice for decades, probably since the 1790s. There are no records of anyone <paying for> for the Oswald coins; in 1795, a British visitor probably just effected unrecorded coin-for-coin exchanges. Would Mr1794 suggest that all the Oswald coins were stolen, too?
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. In the second piece, I quote R. W. Julian and Q. David Bowers. Has Mr1794 read any of QDB's writings on the history of the Philadelphia Mint and unrecorded releases of coins?
Since it is likely that 1933 Double Eagles were first minted in Feb. 1933, coin-for-coin exchanges could have started long before March 15. Indeed, Roger Burdette found documents that indicate that 1933 Double Eagles were in the cashier's box and readily available long before March 15.
Were the 1933 double eagles first minted in February or March? The U.S. Mint's Coiner's Record indicating that the first 1933 double eagles were struck (but not delivered) on March 2,1933 is my information.
The remark that there was <<dutiful government accounting>> is terribly misleading. They kept tract of the total number of Double Eagles, not of the dates on the coins. Consider that Roger Burdette found that 1933 Double Eagles in the cashier's box were recorded as 1932 Double Eagles in the records.
Isn't Burdette really just speculating that 1933 double eagles were put in the cashier's box? Why wouldn't the recorder make an accurate record? Why write down "1932" if "1932" is not the case,in other words?
You say they kept tract (sic) of the total number of Double Eagles,not of the dates on the coins yet in the next sentence you say Burdette found that the record indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were recorded as 1932 Double Eagles. Did the Mint keep track of double eagle dates or not?
The subject here is 1933 double eagles not what I think went on with coinage from other years.
Is Mr1794 saying that most or all UHR Saints were stolen?
No sir.Getting back on subject,mr1874 is saying that "the gold contained within any double eagles ever minted was not stolen from the mint," either.mr1874 thinks that the 1933 double eagles found in private hands were spirited out of the Mint after being illegally replaced with double eagles bearing dates from earlier years.That makes 1933 double eagles contraband,or that which is illegal to possess and for which no property right can be asserted.
Tripp's theory,which is the theory I subscribe too,is that there was a window of opportunity,March 15 to April 5,1933 for persons interested in acquiring a 1933 double eagle legally but,for whatever reason or reasons and assuming the coins were made available to the Cashier for public distribution,no one availed themselves of that opportunity.
If any new information comes out,I might post my most current thoughts about this fascinating case but have decided at this juncture to make this my last post here.
Have a good day,Analyst.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The case is in a holding pattern and nothing will happen to move things forward until the court of appeal rules upon a motion filed by the Langbord's months ago asking for permission to present an opening brief on the appeal that exceeds the maximum amount of words permissible (under the applicable rule of the court) in an opening brief.
The deadline for the Langbords to file their opening brief has been deferred until a set number of days after the court rules on the Langbord's motion for permission to exceed the word count limit. The government does not oppose the Langbord motion.
Hopefully any forumites who have trouble getting to sleep tonight can use this update as a sleep aid.
Comments
<< <i>My opinion,FWIW, is that the government will keep the coins because they have long been considered contraband.According to CAFRA,no person can have a property interest in contraband. I doubt they will ever be melted or sold by the government,however. >>
I find the CAFRA mention interesting. The government wants to use CAFRA to keep the coins. But it clearly did not meet the requirement in CAFRA to file a timely forfeiture notification. (For which the trial judge allowed the government to file its forfeiture motion late, and accepted it. Sort of like a legal mulligan.)
So the government wants to use the provisions in CAFRA to keep the coins, but it doesn't have to follow the rules in CAFRA on filing the forfeiture. Doesn't this seem really inconsistent? And to some, not legal?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
‘‘(c) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In a suit or action brought under
any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—
‘‘(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject
to forfeiture;
but the claimant argues,
‘‘(d) INNOCENT OWNER DEFENSE.—
‘‘(1) An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not
be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant
shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an
innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.
however,
‘‘(4) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, no
person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection
in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess.
In court,which side will get to use the contraband weight to advantage each and every time?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Pretty compelling stuff, isn't it.
I think you're right.The fuddy duddy in me was coming out (insert chagrin emoticon here) but I've snapped out of it.
What are the precedents and what is the law then?
Wouldn't "the other side" have to get 1933 double eagles "decontrabandized" to have even a snowball's chance in you know where of having CAFRA work to advantage for them?
Before confiscating a person's property, I would hope more than just assumptions were considered by the government. Am I hoping for too much?
I was reading CAFRA,bored to tears,agonizing over subsections.So I then escaped into ILLEGAL TENDER,reading about the "golden link" for awhile.It was a fruitful diversion for it lead to my discovery,at least in my own mind, of the full implications of,the gravity of the meaning of, the word 'contraband.'
So to address your question,mr potatohead,
Does our Government hope for too much if it assumes that it can legally confiscate contraband,that for which no ownership interest can be asserted?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
mr1794: <<David Tripp testified that there was a window of opportunity from March 15 to April 5,1933 for one to obtain 1933 double eagle legally.There is no record,despite the dutiful government accounting that was the order of the day,that shows that anyone took advantage of this window of opportunity to acquire 1933 double eagle legally.>>
Since it is likely that 1933 Double Eagles were first minted in Feb. 1933, coin-for-coin exchanges could have started long before March 15. Indeed, Roger Burdette found documents that indicate that 1933 Double Eagles were in the cashier's box and readily available long before March 15.
From the 1790s until the 1930s and probably even later, it was standard practice for collectors or dealers who walked into the Philadelphia Mint to trade old coins for new coins, without anyone thinking that there was a need to keep records of such coin-for-coin trades. If Mr1794 had studied the history of the Philadelphia Mint and the relationships between this Mint and the coin community, he would know already know that unrecorded exchanges were common and not considered thefts.
For example, there are no such records of 1870-S silver dollars. The faulty reasoning of Mr1794 would suggest that all 1870-S dollars were stolen. No coin expert or numismatic scholar has ever suggested that any 1870-S silver dollars were stolen.
The remark that there was <<dutiful government accounting>> is terribly misleading. They kept tract of the total number of Double Eagles, not of the dates on the coins. Consider that Roger Burdette found that 1933 Double Eagles in the cashier's box were recorded as 1932 Double Eagles in the records.
Tripp said that there are records of just four 1933 single Eagles ($10 pieces) being released, yet it is known that there are certainly more than eighteen 1933 tens around. It is very unlikely that any of the other fourteen plus were stolen. Do Tripp and Mr1794 think that all 1933 single Eagles ($10 pieces) should be seized, too?
The main point here is that, from the 1790s to the 1930s, it was a standard practice to effect UNRECORDED coin-for-coin exchanges at the Philadelphia Mint.
There are not such records of Ultra High Relief 1907 Saints. Is Mr1794 saying that most or all UHR Saints were stolen?
In his book, Tripp gives an example of a tourist asking for a receipt for a 1933 $10 gold piece. The tourist probably wanted a receipt, and thus a record, not because anyone thought that a receipt was necessary, but because the receipt itself would serve as a souvenir of a visit to the Philadelphia Mint even if the 1933 single Eagle was spent by this tourist at a later time.
Philadelphia Mint Double Eagles of 1931 and 1932 are rare, too. Most of them left the Mint in the same way that it is likely that all 1933 Double Eagles left the Mint, through legitimate, unrecorded coin-for-coin exchanges with people who were known by U.S. Mint employees. Such exchanges were considered legitimate, not thefts, and were a standard practice for decades, probably since the 1790s. There are no records of anyone <paying for> for the Oswald coins; in 1795, a British visitor probably just effected unrecorded coin-for-coin exchanges. Would Mr1794 suggest that all the Oswald coins were stolen, too?
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. In the second piece, I quote R. W. Julian and Q. David Bowers. Has Mr1794 read any of QDB's writings on the history of the Philadelphia Mint and unrecorded releases of coins?
The Switt-Langbord Case
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case, with comments by QDB and David Ganz
Were the 1933 double eagles first minted in February or March? The U.S. Mint's Coiner's Record indicating that the first 1933 double eagles were struck (but not delivered) on March 2,1933 is my information.
The remark that there was <<dutiful government accounting>> is terribly misleading. They kept tract of the total number of Double Eagles, not of the dates on the coins. Consider that Roger Burdette found that 1933 Double Eagles in the cashier's box were recorded as 1932 Double Eagles in the records.
Isn't Burdette really just speculating that 1933 double eagles were put in the cashier's box? Why wouldn't the recorder make an accurate record? Why write down "1932" if "1932" is not the case,in other words?
You say they kept tract (sic) of the total number of Double Eagles,not of the dates on the coins yet in the next sentence you say Burdette found that the record indicates that 1933 Double Eagles were recorded as 1932 Double Eagles. Did the Mint keep track of double eagle dates or not?
The subject here is 1933 double eagles not what I think went on with coinage from other years.
Is Mr1794 saying that most or all UHR Saints were stolen?
No sir.Getting back on subject,mr1874 is saying that "the gold contained within any double eagles ever minted was not stolen from the mint," either.mr1874 thinks that the 1933 double eagles found in private hands were spirited out of the Mint after being illegally replaced with double eagles bearing dates from earlier years.That makes 1933 double eagles contraband,or that which is illegal to possess and for which no property right can be asserted.
Tripp's theory,which is the theory I subscribe too,is that there was a window of opportunity,March 15 to April 5,1933 for persons interested in acquiring a 1933 double eagle legally but,for whatever reason or reasons and assuming the coins were made available to the Cashier for public distribution,no one availed themselves of that opportunity.
If any new information comes out,I might post my most current thoughts about this fascinating case but have decided at this juncture to make this my last post here.
Have a good day,Analyst.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Do not know.
Have not thought about the case for a while. Last time I looked, nothing new was present.
Want me to look and see?
<< <i>TDN.
Do not know.
Have not thought about the case for a while. Last time I looked, nothing new was present.
Want me to look and see? >>
Pretty please with sugar on it!
Will do.
Back in a moment.
The case is in a holding pattern and nothing will happen to move things forward until the court of appeal rules upon a motion filed by the Langbord's months ago asking for permission to present an opening brief on the appeal that exceeds the maximum amount of words permissible (under the applicable rule of the court) in an opening brief.
The deadline for the Langbords to file their opening brief has been deferred until a set number of days after the court rules on the Langbord's motion for permission to exceed the word count limit. The government does not oppose the Langbord motion.
Hopefully any forumites who have trouble getting to sleep tonight can use this update as a sleep aid.
Perhaps it won't be moving faster than the original after all...
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Reporting on the appeal has, thus far, been easier than reporting on the trial court proceedings.
Or listening on the radio to the extended dance-mix of some disco song from the 1970s wondering how they could possibly make a song that long.
In any case, thanks to SanctionII for the continued updates.
I've never understood why the government thinks the 1933 DE's are stolen but the 1913 Liberty nickels aren't
because the SS agent who had the hardon for the 1933 saints wasn't aware of the 1913 libs ?