Options
The Langbords opening brief in their appeal is.........
SanctionII
Posts: 12,570 ✭✭✭✭✭
........ a total of 17495 words contained within a main document of 83 pages in length (12 pages of Table Of Contents and Table Of Authorities) and 71 pages of their presentation to the Court Of Appeal (including Jurisdiction, Issues Presented For Review, Statement Of The Case, Statement Of Facts, Statement Of Related Cases, Standards Of Review, Summary Of Argument, Argument and Conclusion).
The Langbords present 5 issues to the Court Of Appeal for review.
The first issue is whether the Federal District Court erred in finding that the 90-day deadline set by CAFRA for the government to file a judicial forfeiture complaint or return property (18 USC Section 983(a)(3) did not apply to the government's illegal seizure and confiscation of the ten 1933 Double Eagles [this issue is interesting since it deals with the District Court finding that the government violated the Constitutional rights of the Langbords, but then giving the government a mulligan or do over by allowing it to file a belated forfeiture complaint].
Other issues presented are whether the District Court:
1. erred in allowing and then not submitting to a jury the government's claim for declaratory judgment;
2. erred in determining thatprejudical hearsay statements in Secret Service Reports from the 1940's were admissible under the ancient documents exception (Fed. R. Evid, 803(16);
3. erred in allowing the government to: (a) introduce a 65 year old finding of another court that the 1933 Double Eagle at issue in that case was taken illegally from the Philly Mint; (b) introduce the 1934 arrest of Israel Switt; and (c) use its expert improperly as a hearsay conduit; and
4. erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the government was required to (a) establish specific intent or willfulness to prove a violation of 18 USC Section 641; and (b) prove a theft on or after September 1, 1948 when 18 USC Section 641 became law.
If anyone would like a copy PM me.
The Langbords present 5 issues to the Court Of Appeal for review.
The first issue is whether the Federal District Court erred in finding that the 90-day deadline set by CAFRA for the government to file a judicial forfeiture complaint or return property (18 USC Section 983(a)(3) did not apply to the government's illegal seizure and confiscation of the ten 1933 Double Eagles [this issue is interesting since it deals with the District Court finding that the government violated the Constitutional rights of the Langbords, but then giving the government a mulligan or do over by allowing it to file a belated forfeiture complaint].
Other issues presented are whether the District Court:
1. erred in allowing and then not submitting to a jury the government's claim for declaratory judgment;
2. erred in determining thatprejudical hearsay statements in Secret Service Reports from the 1940's were admissible under the ancient documents exception (Fed. R. Evid, 803(16);
3. erred in allowing the government to: (a) introduce a 65 year old finding of another court that the 1933 Double Eagle at issue in that case was taken illegally from the Philly Mint; (b) introduce the 1934 arrest of Israel Switt; and (c) use its expert improperly as a hearsay conduit; and
4. erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the government was required to (a) establish specific intent or willfulness to prove a violation of 18 USC Section 641; and (b) prove a theft on or after September 1, 1948 when 18 USC Section 641 became law.
If anyone would like a copy PM me.
0
Comments
The issues the Langbords raise seem to be relevant, any idea whether or not this court will be more impartial than the District Court was?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
"Appeal denied." is the two words I hope to hear.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I still think it was interesting how this forum was officially associated with the 1933 DEs.
I'm curious to see how this plays out.
<< <i>........ a total of 17495 words contained within a main document of 83 pages in length (12 pages of Table Of Contents and Table Of Authorities) and 71 pages of their presentation to the Court Of Appeal (including Jurisdiction, Issues Presented For Review, Statement Of The Case, Statement Of Facts, Statement Of Related Cases, Standards Of Review, Summary Of Argument, Argument and Conclusion).
The Langbords present 5 issues to the Court Of Appeal for review.
The first issue is whether the Federal District Court erred in finding that the 90-day deadline set by CAFRA for the government to file a judicial forfeiture complaint or return property (18 USC Section 983(a)(3) did not apply to the government's illegal seizure and confiscation of the ten 1933 Double Eagles [this issue is interesting since it deals with the District Court finding that the government violated the Constitutional rights of the Langbords, but then giving the government a mulligan or do over by allowing it to file a belated forfeiture complaint].
Other issues presented are whether the District Court:
1. erred in allowing and then not submitting to a jury the government's claim for declaratory judgment;
2. erred in determining thatprejudical hearsay statements in Secret Service Reports from the 1940's were admissible under the ancient documents exception (Fed. R. Evid, 803(16);
3. erred in allowing the government to: (a) introduce a 65 year old finding of another court that the 1933 Double Eagle at issue in that case was taken illegally from the Philly Mint; (b) introduce the 1934 arrest of Israel Switt; and (c) use its expert improperly as a hearsay conduit; and
4. erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the government was required to (a) establish specific intent or willfulness to prove a violation of 18 USC Section 641; and (b) prove a theft on or after September 1, 1948 when 18 USC Section 641 became law.
If anyone would like a copy PM me. >>
Point 3(c) (the government using its expert to get hearsay before the jury) is most interesting. An expert is typically allowed, and even required, to disclose what he has relied on in coming to his opinions - hearsay included! The opposing party can point out the weakness of what was relied upon in impeaching or otherwise challenging the expert's opinion. The real error would be if the Court failed to give an instruction to the jury that had been requested at the trial explaining this - and as a consequence counsel was denied an opportunity to argue the point in its closing argument. Just curious, was such an instruction requested by Langfords' attorneys, and if so was it not given? That would be a winning point IMHO assuming Langfords' attorneys set the framework by requesting the instruction and the Court failed to give it.
<< <i>Let me know if they want me to testify as to the judge's comments that specifically mentioned my CU title and how wrong he was in his assumptions concerning my feelings. >>
Is it possible for CaptHenway to address his issues in a letter to the appellate judge?
"Hey,everyone makes mistakes.Appeal denied."
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>A good answer to the appeal would be,
"Hey,everyone makes mistakes.Appeal denied." >>
Cool - let me know how that goes over for you after the Government has seized YOUR property....
The first issue probably has the most meat as the bone as it is likely a question of law and hence a de novo review.
I'd fear a harmless error determination on the other issues even if they succeed.
SanctionII - If you read the brief what were your impressions?
I'm not worried about government seizing my contraband since I don't own,or rather,possess,any contraband.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Make no mistake,the Langbord 1933 DE's are contraband.There is no ownership right to contraband.
I'm not worried about government seizing my contraband since I don't own,or rather,possess,any contraband.
But you could have gotten your house illegally. Therefore if the Government says you did then they should be able to seize it - right?
Or maybe they should have to PROVE it? What a novel concept...
<< <i>
<< <i>Make no mistake,the Langbord 1933 DE's are contraband.There is no ownership right to contraband.
I'm not worried about government seizing my contraband since I don't own,or rather,possess,any contraband.
But you could have gotten your house illegally. Therefore if the Government says you did then they should be able to seize it - right?
Or maybe they should have to PROVE it? What a novel concept... >>
More likely they could/would seize it without cause and the onus would be on YOU to prove you got it legally. In hindsight, the Langbords were very foolish to turn them over to the Government.
Cut and dried , it's THE PEOPLE VS. the hobby
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
However, they never proved that there was a theft, they never showed that the gold was missing from their inventory, they never proved that anyone did anything illegal.
Yet, they prevailed.
In the absence of any proof to the contrary, i.e. proof of an illegal transaction, they (the government) prevailed in stating that the coins were not legally distributed, in spite of documentation to the contrary that there was a legal window for the coins to have been distributed to the public.
So, it is now guilty until proven innocent.
BHNC #203
The problem here is that government had to know that if they didn't take the coins when they did,they would never see the coins again.The 1933 DE was long considered illegal to own by the time the government saw the Langbord coins.The government saw an opportunity and they seized it.Think about it.
Technically,i suppose,the government could have decided not to seize the contraband but then they would have made yet another error in this saga.
The attorneys for the Langbords could have,and most likely would have,come up with,"Why didn't the government not take the coins from the Langbords if they think the coins are contraband."
And so it goes......
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Lafayette Grading Set
<< <i>The gov't claimed that the coins were stolen, and that is their basis for 're-claiming' them.
However, they never proved that there was a theft, they never showed that the gold was missing from their inventory, they never proved that anyone did anything illegal.
Yet, they prevailed.
In the absence of any proof to the contrary, i.e. proof of an illegal transaction, they (the government) prevailed in stating that the coins were not legally distributed, in spite of documentation to the contrary that there was a legal window for the coins to have been distributed to the public.
So, it is now guilty until proven innocent. >>
1. Who got these coins "slabbed and graded" ? The Langbords, or THE PEOPLE ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
This is true.I think the 1933's taken were replaced by common date pieces.
This,albeit on a grand scale,would be like me looking over a non-collectors accumulation of Indian Head Pennies and having a few 1909 P's on me so that I could substitute them for one or more 1909-S coins that I might find in the accumulation.
Needless to say,unethical in the extreme no matter whether you are talking about Indian Head Pennies or $20 gold pieces.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>they never showed that the gold was missing from their inventory,
This is true.I think the 1933's taken were replaced by common date pieces.
This,albeit on a grand scale,would be like me looking over a non-collectors accumulation of Indian Head Pennies and having a few 1909 P's on me so that I could substitute them for one or more 1909-S coins that I might find in the accumulation.
Needless to say,unethical in the extreme no matter whether you are talking about Indian Head Pennies or $20 gold pieces. >>
With ONE exception. The intent of the one to swindle is criminal in nature.
The exchange of OLD for new was a totally legitimate , legal and ACCEPTED practice every year.
Now I pay a premium for fiat money from the mint on a credit card, but the idea remains the same. Acquisition !
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
*sigh*
Would the exchange be legitimate if the exchanger opened up a sealed mint bag of freshly minted 1933 Double Eagles to obtain a few to be sent for assay and then slips a few "old" 1928's that he has in his pocket for some "new" '33's?
Those Langbord '33's look like they spent time in pants pocket to me.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The article says that the (10 person) jury (unanimously) found the Government proved their case that the coins were obtained illicitly. I seem to recall reading that the Government showed the process of coin minting, a layout of the facilities, where coins went during the process, etc.
The article says the Langbord's used an argument along the lines of "I don't know how I got them". Why did the WSJ article say this instead of saying the Langbord's argued Switt got them by exchanging like for like coin during the window of opportunity in 1933? Aren't most, if not all, of the legitimate arguments based on Switt getting them during the exchange window? Did the WSJ article get it wrong or was the argument really "I don't know how they appeared in the SDB"?
<< <i>According to the Inquirer, after about five hours of deliberation after a seven day trial, the jury said the government proved that when the rare “Double-Eagle” coins ended up in Switt’s hands, they did not get there legitimately. That is, there was no legal way any of the coins could have been removed from the Mint.[...]
The family contended they were legally entitled to the coins because there was no way to know exactly how the got out of the mint, and ended up in the Switt family’s safety deposit box.[...]
But Romero said the circumstantial evidence pointed to theft. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me know if they want me to testify as to the judge's comments that specifically mentioned my CU title and how wrong he was in his assumptions concerning my feelings. >>
Is it possible for CaptHenway to address his issues in a letter to the appellate judge? >>
I'm game!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me know if they want me to testify as to the judge's comments that specifically mentioned my CU title and how wrong he was in his assumptions concerning my feelings. >>
Is it possible for CaptHenway to address his issues in a letter to the appellate judge? >>
I'm game! >>
I believe anyone can file a friend-of-the-court brief ("amicus curiae"), even CaptHenway
<< <i>The exchange of OLD for new was a totally legitimate , legal and ACCEPTED practice every year.
*sigh*
Would the exchange be legitimate if the exchanger opened up a sealed mint bag of freshly minted 1933 Double Eagles to obtain a few to be sent for assay and then slips a few "old" 1928's that he has in his pocket for some "new" '33's?
Those Langbord '33's look like they spent time in pants pocket to me. >>
I did not see the "ThePeople's/Langbord/Switt/ specimens. If they were kept all those years in a pocket and look like pocket pieces, I only know that the law allowed for ownership of any coins that were deemed "collectible" in the aggregate of $200 as I recall, from reading. Anyone who buys NEW coins from the mint does it to "collect" or flip, nowadays. A lot of people send coins back, but mint sewn bags and the way the operation worked is something I do not know the protocol of back in those days.
In the old days they just "exchanged" , apparently. I don't think old Izzy was concerned about the grades. I'm not sure they'd get green stickers and I personally think PCGS should have graded them. And to top that off, I also think whoever got them SLABBED erred, in judgement. If they are not legitimate, why parade them around or get them slabbed and graded ?
<sigh>
Now to ownership adding a point :
That, my friend, is where " Possession is 9/10ths of the law" lies.
The appeal process is sad , in itself.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>The exchange of OLD for new was a totally legitimate , legal and ACCEPTED practice every year.
*sigh*
Would the exchange be legitimate if the exchanger opened up a sealed mint bag of freshly minted 1933 Double Eagles to obtain a few to be sent for assay and then slips a few "old" 1928's that he has in his pocket for some "new" '33's?
Those Langbord '33's look like they spent time in pants pocket to me. >>
I did not see the "ThePeople's/Langbord/Switt/ specimens. If they were kept all those years in a pocket and look like pocket pieces, I only know that the law allowed for ownership of any coins that were deemed "collectible" in the aggregate of $200 as I recall, from reading. Anyone who buys NEW coins from the mint does it to "collect" or flip, nowadays. A lot of people send coins back, but mint sewn bags and the way the operation worked is something I do not know the protocol of back in those days.
In the old days they just "exchanged" , apparently. I don't think old Izzy was concerned about the grades. I'm not sure they'd get green stickers and I personally think PCGS should have graded them. And to top that off, I also think whoever got them SLABBED erred, in judgement. If they are not legitimate, why parade them around or get them slabbed and graded ?
<sigh>
Now to ownership adding a point :
That, my friend, is where " Possession is 9/10ths of the law" lies.
The appeal process is sad , in itself. >>
I saw them on display at an ANA (Denver?) One looked like a pocket piece. The others looked BU.
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
https://www.omnicoin.com/collection/colind?page=1&sort=sort&sale=1&country=0
<< <i>Were the Langbords found guilty of a crime? >>
I doubt the Government has proof a crime was committed.
1. This had to be a difficult case for the Langbords' attorneys. In a trial you need to have a theory to present. You build around that theory in the presentation of evidence, and poking holes in the adverse parties' case. In this situation their claim was severely limited as the Langbords stated they didn't know were the coins came from.
2. The trial reports read like the Langbords were defending against a criminal charge and the "reasonable doubt" standard. Even when defending a criminal case you want to have a general theory that you present throughout the trial. When you fall back on the, "well the other side didn't prove their case," you are more than likely in a heap of trouble.
3. Izzy's statement that he didn't get the coins from the mint had to further limit what the Landbords' could present. It appears that, at a minimum, Izzy was involved in some activities that were legally suspect. Any new statement contrary to his sworn statement would further damage their and his credibility.
4. In the end the Langbords' were left arguing that there was a possibility that the coins left the mint in a legal manner. From a burden of proof perspective this is a very weak argument. That "possibility" may have resulted in an acquittal in a criminal case, but is not sufficient to carry the day in a civil matter.
5. This case was essentially decided back in the 40's when the other 1933's were confiscated. Had the coins been legally obtained if would have been much easier to demonstrate it back when fact witnesses were still around (I understand the political climate was a different world). That Izzy stashed the coins at that time is probative.
<< <i>odd that the case has became a test of how far each side will go to win and they will not quit till one is totally defeated >>
Well, if my attorney had a potential $20M payday and was working on contingency, that pretty much what I would want them to do.........
I believe there was a miscarriage of justice in that case.
And thanks once again to SanctionII for keeping us all in the loop.
<< <i>I just read through the trial thread. As a trial attorney these were my initial thoughts -
1. This had to be a difficult case for the Langbords' attorneys. In a trial you need to have a theory to present. You build around that theory in the presentation of evidence, and poking holes in the adverse parties' case. In this situation their claim was severely limited as the Langbords stated they didn't know were the coins came from.
2. The trial reports read like the Langbords were defending against a criminal charge and the "reasonable doubt" standard. Even when defending a criminal case you want to have a general theory that you present throughout the trial. When you fall back on the, "well the other side didn't prove their case," you are more than likely in a heap of trouble.
3. Izzy's statement that he didn't get the coins from the mint had to further limit what the Landbords' could present. It appears that, at a minimum, Izzy was involved in some activities that were legally suspect. Any new statement contrary to his sworn statement would further damage their and his credibility.
4. In the end the Langbords' were left arguing that there was a possibility that the coins left the mint in a legal manner. From a burden of proof perspective this is a very weak argument. That "possibility" may have resulted in an acquittal in a criminal case, but is not sufficient to carry the day in a civil matter.
5. This case was essentially decided back in the 40's when the other 1933's were confiscated. Had the coins been legally obtained if would have been much easier to demonstrate it back when fact witnesses were still around (I understand the political climate was a different world). That Izzy stashed the coins at that time is probative. >>
Good commentary. This matches some of my thoughts on the case. It seems like Izzy saying he didn't receive these coins from the Mint contradicts the theory that he got them from the Mint by exchanging gold for gold.
<< <i>
<< <i>I just read through the trial thread. As a trial attorney these were my initial thoughts -
1. This had to be a difficult case for the Langbords' attorneys. In a trial you need to have a theory to present. You build around that theory in the presentation of evidence, and poking holes in the adverse parties' case. In this situation their claim was severely limited as the Langbords stated they didn't know were the coins came from.
2. The trial reports read like the Langbords were defending against a criminal charge and the "reasonable doubt" standard. Even when defending a criminal case you want to have a general theory that you present throughout the trial. When you fall back on the, "well the other side didn't prove their case," you are more than likely in a heap of trouble.
3. Izzy's statement that he didn't get the coins from the mint had to further limit what the Landbords' could present. It appears that, at a minimum, Izzy was involved in some activities that were legally suspect. Any new statement contrary to his sworn statement would further damage their and his credibility.
4. In the end the Langbords' were left arguing that there was a possibility that the coins left the mint in a legal manner. From a burden of proof perspective this is a very weak argument. That "possibility" may have resulted in an acquittal in a criminal case, but is not sufficient to carry the day in a civil matter.
5. This case was essentially decided back in the 40's when the other 1933's were confiscated. Had the coins been legally obtained if would have been much easier to demonstrate it back when fact witnesses were still around (I understand the political climate was a different world). That Izzy stashed the coins at that time is probative. >>
Good commentary. This matches some of my thoughts on the case. It seems like Izzy saying he didn't receive these coins from the Mint contradicts the theory that he got them from the Mint by exchanging gold for gold. >>
Maybe someone other than Izzy exchanged gold for gold. It seems to me that the Langbords only needed to prove that the minting of the 1933 DEs was handled in the same manner as all previous DEs that were legal to own.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I just read through the trial thread. As a trial attorney these were my initial thoughts -
1. This had to be a difficult case for the Langbords' attorneys. In a trial you need to have a theory to present. You build around that theory in the presentation of evidence, and poking holes in the adverse parties' case. In this situation their claim was severely limited as the Langbords stated they didn't know were the coins came from.
2. The trial reports read like the Langbords were defending against a criminal charge and the "reasonable doubt" standard. Even when defending a criminal case you want to have a general theory that you present throughout the trial. When you fall back on the, "well the other side didn't prove their case," you are more than likely in a heap of trouble.
3. Izzy's statement that he didn't get the coins from the mint had to further limit what the Landbords' could present. It appears that, at a minimum, Izzy was involved in some activities that were legally suspect. Any new statement contrary to his sworn statement would further damage their and his credibility.
4. In the end the Langbords' were left arguing that there was a possibility that the coins left the mint in a legal manner. From a burden of proof perspective this is a very weak argument. That "possibility" may have resulted in an acquittal in a criminal case, but is not sufficient to carry the day in a civil matter.
5. This case was essentially decided back in the 40's when the other 1933's were confiscated. Had the coins been legally obtained if would have been much easier to demonstrate it back when fact witnesses were still around (I understand the political climate was a different world). That Izzy stashed the coins at that time is probative. >>
Good commentary. This matches some of my thoughts on the case. It seems like Izzy saying he didn't receive these coins from the Mint contradicts the theory that he got them from the Mint by exchanging gold for gold. >>
Maybe someone other than Izzy exchanged gold for gold. >>
That's a possibility, but so far it appears all of these coins went through Izzy. If someone else did exchange them gold for gold, it seems that all the known coins were delivered to Izzy. At the same time, it seems the Langbords chose to argue that they didn't know how they came into possession of the coins rather than saying someone exchanged them gold for gold and delivered them to Izzy which then landed the coins in their SDB.
Is the theory:
(1) Someone, not Izzy, got the coins legally from the Mint
(2) Somehow, unknown and not through Izzy, the coins ended up in their SDB
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I just read through the trial thread. As a trial attorney these were my initial thoughts -
1. This had to be a difficult case for the Langbords' attorneys. In a trial you need to have a theory to present. You build around that theory in the presentation of evidence, and poking holes in the adverse parties' case. In this situation their claim was severely limited as the Langbords stated they didn't know were the coins came from.
2. The trial reports read like the Langbords were defending against a criminal charge and the "reasonable doubt" standard. Even when defending a criminal case you want to have a general theory that you present throughout the trial. When you fall back on the, "well the other side didn't prove their case," you are more than likely in a heap of trouble.
3. Izzy's statement that he didn't get the coins from the mint had to further limit what the Landbords' could present. It appears that, at a minimum, Izzy was involved in some activities that were legally suspect. Any new statement contrary to his sworn statement would further damage their and his credibility.
4. In the end the Langbords' were left arguing that there was a possibility that the coins left the mint in a legal manner. From a burden of proof perspective this is a very weak argument. That "possibility" may have resulted in an acquittal in a criminal case, but is not sufficient to carry the day in a civil matter.
5. This case was essentially decided back in the 40's when the other 1933's were confiscated. Had the coins been legally obtained if would have been much easier to demonstrate it back when fact witnesses were still around (I understand the political climate was a different world). That Izzy stashed the coins at that time is probative. >>
Good commentary. This matches some of my thoughts on the case. It seems like Izzy saying he didn't receive these coins from the Mint contradicts the theory that he got them from the Mint by exchanging gold for gold. >>
Maybe someone other than Izzy exchanged gold for gold. >>
That's a possibility, but so far it appears all of these coins went through Izzy. If someone else did exchange them gold for gold, it seems that all the known coins were delivered to Izzy. At the same time, it seems the Langbords chose to argue that they didn't know how they came into possession of the coins rather than saying someone exchanged them gold for gold and delivered them to Izzy which then landed the coins in their SDB.
Is the theory:
(1) Someone, not Izzy, got the coins legally from the Mint
(2) Somehow, unknown and not through Izzy, the coins ended up in their SDB >>
(3) Someone got the coins from the mint for Izzy? Didn't the mint director at the time authorize the exchange of 40 or so coins from the vault bags? Maybe she got them for Izzy?