Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
<< <i>Unless it can be shown by attorneys for the Langbords that the coins were legally obtained by Izzy or another individual who innocently presented themselves at the Mint window for the traditional exchange of old coin for new in that tiny window of opportunity in 1933,the coins are contraband,illegal for anyone,including the Langbords, to possess... >>
Actually, if you listen to the audio of the appeal arguments, you will see that no one is disputing that the burden of proof is on the Government.
I think the point of the open window of opportunity is not to prove that is how they got out, but to counter the governments claim that they had to have been stolen because it is the only way they could have gotten out. It is a subtle difference, but relevant when you consider the burden of proof.
<< <i>Unless it can be shown by attorneys for the Langbords that the coins were legally obtained by Izzy or another individual who innocently presented themselves at the Mint window for the traditional exchange of old coin for new in that tiny window of opportunity in 1933,the coins are contraband,illegal for anyone,including the Langbords, to possess... >>
Actually, if you listen to the audio of the appeal arguments, you will see that no one is disputing that the burden of proof is on the Government.
I think the point of the open window of opportunity is not to prove that is how they got out, but to counter the governments claim that they had to have been stolen because it is the only way they could have gotten out. It is a subtle difference, but relevant when you consider the burden of proof. >>
I hope that is true, because if that really is the case -- the Langbords will win.
The coins absolutely could have gotten out by legal means.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
If the Langbords win it seems to me that the government might be pressed to make good on the 1933 dated Double Eagles that were seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's.
I would be okay with this kind of "making it right" if part of the settlement is to give the Black Hills of South Dakota back to the Indians.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>If the Langbords win it seems to me that the government might be pressed to make good on the 1933 dated Double Eagles that were seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's.
I would be okay with this kind of "making it right" if part of the settlement is to give the Black Hills of South Dakota back to the Indians. >>
as far as payment for the seized & melted coins alone, I'd think they'd only owe those seized from $20 per, right?
<< <i>Unless it can be shown by attorneys for the Langbords that the coins were legally obtained by Izzy or another individual who innocently presented themselves at the Mint window for the traditional exchange of old coin for new in that tiny window of opportunity in 1933,the coins are contraband,illegal for anyone,including the Langbords, to possess... >>
Actually, if you listen to the audio of the appeal arguments, you will see that no one is disputing that the burden of proof is on the Government.
I think the point of the open window of opportunity is not to prove that is how they got out, but to counter the governments claim that they had to have been stolen because it is the only way they could have gotten out. It is a subtle difference, but relevant when you consider the burden of proof. >>
I hope that is true, because if that really is the case -- the Langbords will win.
The coins absolutely could have gotten out by legal means. >>
Well the jury did say in the first trial that the government did meet their burden of proof. Although the Langbords attorney in this appeal is saying that is because hearsay evidence got in that should not have. I would agree that if the court gives them a new trial it will be really tough for the Government to prove their case without the hearsay evidence. Interestingly, if you check out the audio of the oral arguments posted earlier, one on of the judges asks the Government lawyer if he could prove his case if the judges rule the hearsay evidence inadmissible and ordered a new trial. The government attorney said that he could.
<< <i>If the Langbords win it seems to me that the government might be pressed to make good on the 1933 dated Double Eagles that were seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's.
I would be okay with this kind of "making it right" if part of the settlement is to give the Black Hills of South Dakota back to the Indians. >>
I don't see how any ruling in this case could affect the coins seized by the IRS in the '40s. If the judges rule for the Langbords because the government failed to follow CAFRA then what happened in the '40's would be irrelevant since CAFRA was passed in 2000. If the judges order a new trial based on the hearsay issue, it would be about the evidence in this case, I don't see how that would affect any case from the '40's.
Nothing that happened in the 1930's, 1940's and forward through the Fenton case and the Langbord case has any "legal precedent".
The 1947 federal district court opinion in the Barnard case has no "legal precedent".
"Legal Precedent" has a specific meaning. It means a decision/opinion issued by an Appellate Court or a Supreme Court that is "published" in the "Official Reports" of the court. Such a published decision/opinion and the rules of law announced in same are legally binding on other pending and future cases located in lower courts located in the geographic area covered by the issuing court. Binding means that the rules of law announced in the decision/opinion must be followed by lower courts in other pending and future cases [even if the judge handling the case disagrees with the rule].
There has never been any published appellate court decision/opinion concerning the 1933 double eagles. Barnard was issued by a federal trial court judge. While another judge (and attorneys) may consider the Barnard decision in making up his or her mind on how to rule in a pending case, the judge is not legally bound to follow Barnard.
The decision of the Court Of Appeal in the Langbord case will be published and will be "legal precedent" (unless the decision is vacated and overturned).
if the appeals court makes a finding that establishes a legal precedence, e.g. ancient documents can be entered but with heresay portions omitted, is it binding across the usa or only in their district?
hypothetically, suppose the finding is just for the CAFRA 90 day window being closed and the court awards them back to the Langbords, that would not necessarily mean any other existing 33's are then legal, right?
<< <i>The Feds ought to say Oops, sorry someone sent them to the melting pot. >>
Believe it or not, they actually talked about what would happen if something happened to the coins while they were in the Government's custody. The Langbord's attorney was commenting about how the government was taking them on a road show. The judge made some comment that it wasn't a big deal because if the coins were lost or stolen "we know what they are worth" and the government could compensate the Langbord's if they lose the case. I thought it was an interesting exchange because the judge thought they were worth 70 million, but the Langbord's attorney was down playing the value pointing out that one sold for 7 million, but that was when it was thought there was only one of them in private hands. I thought it was a funny exchange, because if the coins were actually lost, I bet that lawyer would be saying the coins were worth 100 million.
If anyone has not already done so, I recommend they listen to the oral arguments in this case, it is very interesting. They covered a lot of ground.
Illegal Tender: Gold,Greed,and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle is available in new condition (paperback) for about $20, including shipping, on Amazon.
Anyone who is interested in the true history of the 1933 Double Eagle prior to the Langbord case owes it to themselves to read this important,authoritative work by David Tripp.
"Coin experts in the numismatic world have advanced an argument that Switt could have legally obtained the 1933 coins when he was exchanging gold bullion for coins. Although the Mint records clearly show that no 1933 double eagles were issued, there were allegedly three weeks in March 1933 when new double eagles could possibly have been legally obtained.[6] The mint began striking double eagles on March 15, and Roosevelt's executive order to ban them was not finalized until April 5. On March 6, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the Director of the Mint to pay gold only under license issued by the Secretary, and the United States Mint cashier's daily statements do not reflect that any 1933 double eagles were paid out.[6]"
"Until the early 1970s (when President Nixon took the United States off the gold standard and President Ford signed legislation that again made it legal for the public to own gold bullion) any recovered 1933 double eagle, as gold bullion, was required to be melted.[citation needed] Therefore, while double eagles recovered prior to 1974 were melted down, any double eagle recovered now can be spared this fate. Currently, with the exception of the one sold on July 30, 2002, 1933 double eagle coins cannot be the legal possession of any member of the public, as they were never issued and hence remain the property of the United States government.[7]"
Gold $20's were legal to own long before gold bullion became legal to own in 1974.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
"Gold $20's were legal to own long before gold bullion became legal to own in 1974."
You are correct.The gold coins considered "numismatic" up to a certain face dollar amount were legal to own.However,none of the nine 1933 DE's seized from or asked to be returned to the government by their wealthy holders/owners in the '40's escaped exemption because the 1933 DE was never issued as legal tender,thus their legal status has been and still is, "illegal to own."
The ex Farouk coin was on foreign soil (Egypt) in the '40's,unavailable for seizure.The politics of the times precluded the US from taking any serious effort to recover this particular coin.
Twenty 1933 DE's total are known to have been "spirited away" from the Mint, not counting the two in the Smithsonian.One is ex Farouk and is legal to own since it was "monetized" after the auction in 2002.Nine returned to the government were melted long ago.Ten coins,of course,were discovered by the Langbords in a SDB.I think it is highly likely that more 1933 DE's are out there just waiting to be "discovered."
I continue to try to win Powerball to muster up $25 million.That is my estimate of this coin's value if it were to go to auction.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>"Gold $20's were legal to own long before gold bullion became legal to own in 1974."
You are correct.The gold coins considered "numismatic" up to a certain face dollar amount were legal to own.However,none of the nine 1933 DE's seized from or asked to be returned to the government by their wealthy holders/owners in the '40's escaped exemption because the 1933 DE was never issued as legal tender,thus their legal status has been and still is, "illegal to own."
The ex Farouk coin was on foreign soil (Egypt) in the '40's,unavailable for seizure.The politics of the times precluded the US from taking any serious effort to recover this particular coin.
Twenty 1933 DE's total are known to have been "spirited away" from the Mint, not counting the two in the Smithsonian.One is ex Farouk and is legal to own since it was "monetized" after the auction in 2002.Nine returned to the government were melted long ago.Ten coins,of course,were discovered by the Langbords in a SDB.I think it is highly likely that more 1933 DE's are out there just waiting to be "discovered."
I continue to try to win Powerball to muster up $25 million.That is my estimate of this coin's value if it were to go to auction. >>
more than that left out here? Then the implication is the the records from back then were not so perfect, huh?
No record has ever surfaced documenting a legal exchange of old coin for a new 1933 Double Eagle was ever made at the Mint window.
"Then there was the Cashier: George McCann,the clumsy liar.During the three years he had had exclusive control of the 1933 double eagles his unexplained income had risen majestically. He said he hadn't sent the coins to the Smithsonian;the Mint's records and officials,McKernan, and Roland said he had. He said he had no access to the Pyx Box;McKernan,Roland,and Mint tradition said he did. He denied having had access to any 1933 double eagles; repeated testimony said he had them in his office under his sole control. He said he didn't know Switt or Silver,and they said they didn't know him;but witness after witness had seen them talking knowingly. And in 1936 his nearly ten-thousand-dollar windfall neatly matched Edward Silver's withdrawals. Some of his denials were more outrageous than others. All were demonstrably false.McCann had opportunity,motive,and means."......
"After McCann-the "magician"-spirited the coins from the Mint,probably in his pocket,one at a time-he was senior,trusted, and there were no metal detectors-it was:McCann to Switt.Switt to Macallister,Reed,and Kosoff. Macallister,Reed and,Kosoff to their bevy of connections-dealers,collectors,and of course,King Farouk."
Illegal Tender,p.195-196
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>No record has ever surfaced documenting a legal exchange of old coin for a new 1933 Double Eagle was ever made at the Mint window.
"Then there was the Cashier: George McCann,the clumsy liar.During the three years he had had exclusive control of the 1933 double eagles his unexplained income had risen majestically. He said he hadn't sent the coins to the Smithsonian;the Mint's records and officials,McKernan, and Roland said he had. He said he had no access to the Pyx Box;McKernan,Roland,and Mint tradition said he did. He denied having had access to any 1933 double eagles; repeated testimony said he had them in his office under his sole control. He said he didn't know Switt or Silver,and they said they didn't know him;but witness after witness had seen them talking knowingly. And in 1936 his nearly ten-thousand-dollar windfall neatly matched Edward Silver's withdrawals. Some of his denials were more outrageous than others. All were demonstrably false.McCann had opportunity,motive,and means."......
"After McCann-the "magician"-spirited the coins from the Mint,probably in his pocket,one at a time-he was senior,trusted, and there were no metal detectors-it was:McCann to Switt.Switt to Macallister,Reed,and Kosoff. Macallister,Reed and,Kosoff to their bevy of connections-dealers,collectors,and of course,King Farouk."
Illegal Tender,p.195-196 >>
I hope that I am never on trial for my life with this horsecrap allowed as 'expert testimony'
From the beginning of this case the issue of who would have the burden of proof has been ever present. If the Langbords win the appeal and end up getting a second trial with the government being limited in what it can introduce into evidence the odds may be more favorable to them.
<< <i>No record has ever surfaced documenting a legal exchange of old coin for a new 1933 Double Eagle was ever made at the Mint window.
"Then there was the Cashier: George McCann,the clumsy liar.During the three years he had had exclusive control of the 1933 double eagles his unexplained income had risen majestically. He said he hadn't sent the coins to the Smithsonian;the Mint's records and officials,McKernan, and Roland said he had. He said he had no access to the Pyx Box;McKernan,Roland,and Mint tradition said he did. He denied having had access to any 1933 double eagles; repeated testimony said he had them in his office under his sole control. He said he didn't know Switt or Silver,and they said they didn't know him;but witness after witness had seen them talking knowingly. And in 1936 his nearly ten-thousand-dollar windfall neatly matched Edward Silver's withdrawals. Some of his denials were more outrageous than others. All were demonstrably false.McCann had opportunity,motive,and means."......
"After McCann-the "magician"-spirited the coins from the Mint,probably in his pocket,one at a time-he was senior,trusted, and there were no metal detectors-it was:McCann to Switt.Switt to Macallister,Reed,and Kosoff. Macallister,Reed and,Kosoff to their bevy of connections-dealers,collectors,and of course,King Farouk."
Illegal Tender,p.195-196 >>
I hope that I am never on trial for my life with this horsecrap allowed as 'expert testimony' >>
who needs to source facts when it's all in one tidy place? I'm sure no errors nor interpretation errors could be made with facts.
Sanction II, I double ditto this comment: Sanction II, in case no one has said it, thanks for keeping us updated and for providing your informative insights.
In your opinion, do you think there will be a second trial?
who needs to source facts when it's all in one tidy place?
As far as I know,Illegal Tender is considered the Bible on the history/story of the 1933 Double Eagle prior to the Langbord case.Mr. Tripp's book has no less than four pages of "Selected Bibliography." There are thirty pages of "Notes" with entries like:
Page 44: affidavit:Even the need for minuscule amounts of gold required these documents to be filled out. J. Brown,a gilder on Fulton Street in New York City,purchased two pennyweights of gold,worth $2.67,to continue his work on April 25, 1933. C.262.2A,FRBNYA.
Page 65: Cage Number 1: Vault Custodian Edward McKernan's records.Abstracted by United States Mint personnel for report to Director of the Mint (NTR),March 21,1944 (for forwarding to the United States Secret Service).Report signed by Helen C. Moore,Acting Superintendent at Philadelphia.Report of the Settlement Committee to EHD,March 23,1937,NARA RG 104,Entry 703,NARA (CCP).
There is a page of "Abbreviations." Here's a few referencing the authors notes seen above:
EHD:Edwin H. Dressel FDRP:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Papers FDRPL:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidential Library NARA: National Archives and Records Administration. NARA (CCP):National Archives and Records Administration Mid Atlantic Region (Center City Philadelphia) NTR: Nellie Tayloe Ross OF: Official File (FDR) RG: Record Group
<< <i> As far as I know,Illegal Tender is considered the Bible on the history/story of the 1933 Double Eagle prior to the Langbord case.Mr. Tripp's book has no less than four pages of "Selected Bibliography." There are thirty pages of "Notes" with entries like:
Page 44: affidavit:Even the need for minuscule amounts of gold required these documents to be filled out. J. Brown,a gilder on Fulton Street in New York City,purchased two pennyweights of gold,worth $2.67,to continue his work on April 25, 1933. C.262.2A,FRBNYA.
Page 65: Cage Number 1: Vault Custodian Edward McKernan's records.Abstracted by United States Mint personnel for report to Director of the Mint (NTR),March 21,1944 (for forwarding to the United States Secret Service).Report signed by Helen C. Moore,Acting Superintendent at Philadelphia.Report of the Settlement Committee to EHD,March 23,1937,NARA RG 104,Entry 703,NARA (CCP). >>
This might seem daunting at first glance if you haven't done a lot of archival research. But understand both sides of this case have a whole team of people who have forgotten more about digging through dusty stacks than most of us will ever know. That they haven't written books about it qualifies them no less, and may even be to their advantage if they can produce fresh material in court.
The Langbords acted correctly by surrendering to the people the ten '33 DE's they found in the SDB. Perhaps a satisfactory settlement might be to allow them to keep one of the coins of their choosing and the people can proceed to melt the other nine.After all,the people already have two specimens of 1933 DE's in the US collection in the Smithsonian.The people don't need eleven of them for their collection,do they?
The '33 that survives the melting pot shall forever be known as the "Langbord Specimen." The Langbords would be free to do whatever they want with this coin.They would have to pay $20 to the people,via the US Treasury,to monetize the coin and make it legal for them to own,of course.They would be in possession of the second legal-to-own 1933 DE, and as such,an extremely valuable coin worth at least $10 million,in my estimation.
Someone asked why would the government encapsulate the ten '33 DE's that were once in the possession of the Langbords?
These coins are ten pieces of evidence.Encapsulating them makes it easy to tell them apart.The value of them on the market place is wide open for speculation.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I do not recall the details, but the term "monetize" is of relatively recent creation.
It may have been a term that was created (or "coined") during the settlement of the Fenton case.
I do not recall in any prior discussions anyone indicating that the term "monetize" was in existence and in use back at the time that the 1933 double eagles were minted or in the 1940's. I do not recall anyone indicating that this term was used at any time from 1792-1932 either.
The term "monetize" sure has become part of the lexicon of this case.
Some people appear to place significant meaning to same when, in reality, it may not have any significance at all.
The ex Farouk coin was "monetized" for $20 after the auction in 2002.Do this again for the Langbord coin.It's only $20.
The irony,Sanction.
I volunteer to pick out the best coin for the Langbords.I would need only to-and-from expenses plus a crisp,signed Andrew Jackson,series 1934,for my currency collection.
You must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. Andrew Jackson
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
granting a single $20 would make it seem like an act of guilt on the government's part.
they'd never do it.
All the Langbords need is a few ancient text based articles to the contrary. If it's ancient it must be true. Like those books on blood letting. I feel my fever reducing with every drop of blood the leeches suck from my body. My Good Nurse Martha Corey .. wait ... wha? The ancient texts have found her to be a witch? It must be wikitrue... or it will be on the article's 20th anniversary!
2. what the definition of the term "monetize" is? >>
I would guess that it's probably the natural end result of the manufacturing/coining process, but in all likelihood it's never singled out as such. One approved for release to circulation it becomes money.
2. what the definition of the term "monetize" is? >>
1. I checked out Merrian-webster.com and it says the first known use of the word was in 1879.
2. Also from Merrian-Webster.com "1: to coin into money; also : to establish as legal tender"
Based on this definition of monetized, I believe that every one of the 1933 double eagles were "monetized" as soon as they were struck. The way I see it, the US Constitution gives congress the power to coin money, and they authorized the mint to make the double eagles.
If a coin is authorized by congress as soon as the die hits the planchet a fully monetized coin is born in my view. I don't buy into this whole, argument by the government that the 1933 double eagles were never monetized, it is a bunch of BS made up by the Mint in the Farouk double eagle case, it was a big contrivance. I bet some government employee was all proud of him or herself when they thought up that idea of making them pay an extra $20 to the government. It was just a stupid show. Besides if they really were not monetized the mint would not be able to do it just by getting $20, it would take an act of congress.
I think this whole monetizing thing is irrelevant anyway, since I don't see anyone actually spending a 1933 double eagle for face value. Wouldn't it be funny if the appeals court awarded the Langbords the coins based on a CAFRA violation, but warned them, you can sell them if you want, but we had better not every catch you sending them for $20, because they were never "monetized."
Actually, I can see an advantage of them not being monetized, since you could then sell them in MN without a license.
I'm not an attorney and have no idea of the backstory, but I was working with a client in the late 1980's that informed me that they had just settled a case that was originally filed in 1923. They waited to settle until everyone in the original case had died, the last survivor was a corporate mail boy. Maybe we can hope this case stays on appeal that long.
My understanding about the meaning of the word "monetize," as it might apply here,is to "legalize as money." I blew the dust off my four-inch-thick Webster's Dictionary and there it is,in black ink on the white paper of my dictionary,as one of the definitions of "monetize."
The ex Farouk 1933 DE was not legal as "money" until our government,to expand on the words of Andrew Jackson a bit,"conferred the blessing (of the People)" on the coin.Price for the blessing? Twenty bucks.
The act of "monetizing" the ex Farouk piece secured the blessing of the People,as I see it.Symbolic,Ironic,Win-Win.All of those things.
Should a deal be worked out with the Langbords,and they are allowed to keep one coin,then we have symbolic,ironic,win-win once again and the final chapter of LANGBORD et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al. can be written.It's time for the insanity to end.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
For each coin produced by the Mint for use in circulation since 1792 were they "monetized", with a separate payment of money representing the face value of each such coin produced by the Mint being paid to the Mint or Treasury Dept. (by someone, including other departments of the government) as a condition to, or contemporaneous with, the Mint allowing said coins to leave it's possession and control? If so, who made the payments?
If the above did not happen the "monetization" of the Fenton 1933 double eagle is meaningless.
For each coin produced by the Mint for use in circulation since 1792 were they "monetized", with a separate payment of money representing the face value of each such coin produced by the Mint being paid to the Mint or Treasury Dept. (by someone, including other departments of the government) as a condition to, or contemporaneous with, the Mint allowing said coins to leave it's possession and control? If so, who made the payments?
Let's pretend that the ex Farouk piece was at the Mint window in 1933 just waiting for someone to step up and exchange "other money" for it.
Give the Cashier $20 and its yours.That coin is the property of the United States,the People,until you,a private individual,pay the required $20,the "other money," for it,right?
"Monetize" might be poor word choice.Let's throw it away.I propose that paying $20 allows for the coin,the ex Farouk 1933 DE,to be officially "issued."
"Issued" means the coin is put forth or distributed officially.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Mr1874: <<Let's pretend that the ex Farouk piece was at the Mint window in 1933 just waiting for someone to step up and exchange "other money" for it. ...Give the Cashier $20 and its yours.That coin is the property of the United States,the People,until you,a private individual,pay the required $20,the "other money," for it,right?>>
Roger Burdette found historical evidence that there were multiple 1933 Doube Eagles in a box at the cashier's window in late Feb. and early March 1933. Even if RWB had not found such evidence, we should use our intelligence and a basic understanding of the history of the Philadelphia Mint to conclude that they would likely to have been there, especially if dealers or collectors were asking for them. There are compelling reasons to believe that collectors and/or dealers walked up to the window and exchanged common Double Eagles, like those dated 1924 and 1928, for 1933 Double Eagles.
While tourists might have asked for receipts as the receipts became souvenirs even if the coins are spent, collectors and dealers probably did not bother with the receipts and probably no one involved then thought there was a reason for such a receipt to be needed.
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:
Comments
This is ridiculous.
Speculation can take on a life of its own.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Unless it can be shown by attorneys for the Langbords that the coins were legally obtained by Izzy or another individual who innocently presented themselves at the Mint window for the traditional exchange of old coin for new in that tiny window of opportunity in 1933,the coins are contraband,illegal for anyone,including the Langbords, to possess... >>
Actually, if you listen to the audio of the appeal arguments, you will see that no one is disputing that the burden of proof is on the Government.
I think the point of the open window of opportunity is not to prove that is how they got out, but to counter the governments claim that they had to have been stolen because it is the only way they could have gotten out. It is a subtle difference, but relevant when you consider the burden of proof.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>Unless it can be shown by attorneys for the Langbords that the coins were legally obtained by Izzy or another individual who innocently presented themselves at the Mint window for the traditional exchange of old coin for new in that tiny window of opportunity in 1933,the coins are contraband,illegal for anyone,including the Langbords, to possess... >>
Actually, if you listen to the audio of the appeal arguments, you will see that no one is disputing that the burden of proof is on the Government.
I think the point of the open window of opportunity is not to prove that is how they got out, but to counter the governments claim that they had to have been stolen because it is the only way they could have gotten out. It is a subtle difference, but relevant when you consider the burden of proof. >>
I hope that is true, because if that really is the case -- the Langbords will win.
The coins absolutely could have gotten out by legal means.
I would be okay with this kind of "making it right" if part of the settlement is to give the Black Hills of South Dakota back to the Indians.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>If the Langbords win it seems to me that the government might be pressed to make good on the 1933 dated Double Eagles that were seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's.
I would be okay with this kind of "making it right" if part of the settlement is to give the Black Hills of South Dakota back to the Indians. >>
as far as payment for the seized & melted coins alone, I'd think they'd only owe those seized from $20 per, right?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Unless it can be shown by attorneys for the Langbords that the coins were legally obtained by Izzy or another individual who innocently presented themselves at the Mint window for the traditional exchange of old coin for new in that tiny window of opportunity in 1933,the coins are contraband,illegal for anyone,including the Langbords, to possess... >>
Actually, if you listen to the audio of the appeal arguments, you will see that no one is disputing that the burden of proof is on the Government.
I think the point of the open window of opportunity is not to prove that is how they got out, but to counter the governments claim that they had to have been stolen because it is the only way they could have gotten out. It is a subtle difference, but relevant when you consider the burden of proof. >>
I hope that is true, because if that really is the case -- the Langbords will win.
The coins absolutely could have gotten out by legal means. >>
Well the jury did say in the first trial that the government did meet their burden of proof. Although the Langbords attorney in this appeal is saying that is because hearsay evidence got in that should not have. I would agree that if the court gives them a new trial it will be really tough for the Government to prove their case without the hearsay evidence. Interestingly, if you check out the audio of the oral arguments posted earlier, one on of the judges asks the Government lawyer if he could prove his case if the judges rule the hearsay evidence inadmissible and ordered a new trial. The government attorney said that he could.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>If the Langbords win it seems to me that the government might be pressed to make good on the 1933 dated Double Eagles that were seized from their owners by the Secret Service in the '40's.
I would be okay with this kind of "making it right" if part of the settlement is to give the Black Hills of South Dakota back to the Indians. >>
I don't see how any ruling in this case could affect the coins seized by the IRS in the '40s. If the judges rule for the Langbords because the government failed to follow CAFRA then what happened in the '40's would be irrelevant since CAFRA was passed in 2000. If the judges order a new trial based on the hearsay issue, it would be about the evidence in this case, I don't see how that would affect any case from the '40's.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The 1947 federal district court opinion in the Barnard case has no "legal precedent".
"Legal Precedent" has a specific meaning. It means a decision/opinion issued by an Appellate Court or a Supreme Court that is "published" in the "Official Reports" of the court. Such a published decision/opinion and the rules of law announced in same are legally binding on other pending and future cases located in lower courts located in the geographic area covered by the issuing court. Binding means that the rules of law announced in the decision/opinion must be followed by lower courts in other pending and future cases [even if the judge handling the case disagrees with the rule].
There has never been any published appellate court decision/opinion concerning the 1933 double eagles. Barnard was issued by a federal trial court judge. While another judge (and attorneys) may consider the Barnard decision in making up his or her mind on how to rule in a pending case, the judge is not legally bound to follow Barnard.
The decision of the Court Of Appeal in the Langbord case will be published and will be "legal precedent" (unless the decision is vacated and overturned).
hypothetically, suppose the finding is just for the CAFRA 90 day window being closed and the court awards them back to the Langbords, that would not necessarily mean any other existing 33's are then legal, right?
<< <i>The Feds ought to say Oops, sorry someone sent them to the melting pot .
Believe it or not, they actually talked about what would happen if something happened to the coins while they were in the Government's custody. The Langbord's attorney was commenting about how the government was taking them on a road show. The judge made some comment that it wasn't a big deal because if the coins were lost or stolen "we know what they are worth" and the government could compensate the Langbord's if they lose the case. I thought it was an interesting exchange because the judge thought they were worth 70 million, but the Langbord's attorney was down playing the value pointing out that one sold for 7 million, but that was when it was thought there was only one of them in private hands. I thought it was a funny exchange, because if the coins were actually lost, I bet that lawyer would be saying the coins were worth 100 million.
If anyone has not already done so, I recommend they listen to the oral arguments in this case, it is very interesting. They covered a lot of ground.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Anyone who is interested in the true history of the 1933 Double Eagle prior to the Langbord case owes it to themselves to read this important,authoritative work by David Tripp.
"Coin experts in the numismatic world have advanced an argument that Switt could have legally obtained the 1933 coins when he was exchanging gold bullion for coins. Although the Mint records clearly show that no 1933 double eagles were issued, there were allegedly three weeks in March 1933 when new double eagles could possibly have been legally obtained.[6] The mint began striking double eagles on March 15, and Roosevelt's executive order to ban them was not finalized until April 5. On March 6, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the Director of the Mint to pay gold only under license issued by the Secretary, and the United States Mint cashier's daily statements do not reflect that any 1933 double eagles were paid out.[6]"
"Until the early 1970s (when President Nixon took the United States off the gold standard and President Ford signed legislation that again made it legal for the public to own gold bullion) any recovered 1933 double eagle, as gold bullion, was required to be melted.[citation needed] Therefore, while double eagles recovered prior to 1974 were melted down, any double eagle recovered now can be spared this fate. Currently, with the exception of the one sold on July 30, 2002, 1933 double eagle coins cannot be the legal possession of any member of the public, as they were never issued and hence remain the property of the United States government.[7]"
1933 Double Eagle
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Foolish hope
You are correct.The gold coins considered "numismatic" up to a certain face dollar amount were legal to own.However,none of the nine 1933 DE's seized from or asked to be returned to the government by their wealthy holders/owners in the '40's escaped exemption because the 1933 DE was never issued as legal tender,thus their legal status has been and still is, "illegal to own."
The ex Farouk coin was on foreign soil (Egypt) in the '40's,unavailable for seizure.The politics of the times precluded the US from taking any serious effort to recover this particular coin.
Twenty 1933 DE's total are known to have been "spirited away" from the Mint, not counting the two in the Smithsonian.One is ex Farouk and is legal to own since it was "monetized" after the auction in 2002.Nine returned to the government were melted long ago.Ten coins,of course,were discovered by the Langbords in a SDB.I think it is highly likely that more 1933 DE's are out there just waiting to be "discovered."
I continue to try to win Powerball to muster up $25 million.That is my estimate of this coin's value if it were to go to auction.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>"Gold $20's were legal to own long before gold bullion became legal to own in 1974."
You are correct.The gold coins considered "numismatic" up to a certain face dollar amount were legal to own.However,none of the nine 1933 DE's seized from or asked to be returned to the government by their wealthy holders/owners in the '40's escaped exemption because the 1933 DE was never issued as legal tender,thus their legal status has been and still is, "illegal to own."
The ex Farouk coin was on foreign soil (Egypt) in the '40's,unavailable for seizure.The politics of the times precluded the US from taking any serious effort to recover this particular coin.
Twenty 1933 DE's total are known to have been "spirited away" from the Mint, not counting the two in the Smithsonian.One is ex Farouk and is legal to own since it was "monetized" after the auction in 2002.Nine returned to the government were melted long ago.Ten coins,of course,were discovered by the Langbords in a SDB.I think it is highly likely that more 1933 DE's are out there just waiting to be "discovered."
I continue to try to win Powerball to muster up $25 million.That is my estimate of this coin's value if it were to go to auction. >>
more than that left out here? Then the implication is the the records from back then were not so perfect, huh?
"Then there was the Cashier: George McCann,the clumsy liar.During the three years he had had exclusive control of the 1933 double eagles his unexplained income had risen majestically. He said he hadn't sent the coins to the Smithsonian;the Mint's records and officials,McKernan, and Roland said he had. He said he had no access to the Pyx Box;McKernan,Roland,and Mint tradition said he did. He denied having had access to any 1933 double eagles; repeated testimony said he had them in his office under his sole control. He said he didn't know Switt or Silver,and they said they didn't know him;but witness after witness had seen them talking knowingly. And in 1936 his nearly ten-thousand-dollar windfall neatly matched Edward Silver's withdrawals. Some of his denials were more outrageous than others. All were demonstrably false.McCann had opportunity,motive,and means."......
"After McCann-the "magician"-spirited the coins from the Mint,probably in his pocket,one at a time-he was senior,trusted, and there were no metal detectors-it was:McCann to Switt.Switt to Macallister,Reed,and Kosoff. Macallister,Reed and,Kosoff to their bevy of connections-dealers,collectors,and of course,King Farouk."
Illegal Tender,p.195-196
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>No record has ever surfaced documenting a legal exchange of old coin for a new 1933 Double Eagle was ever made at the Mint window.
"Then there was the Cashier: George McCann,the clumsy liar.During the three years he had had exclusive control of the 1933 double eagles his unexplained income had risen majestically. He said he hadn't sent the coins to the Smithsonian;the Mint's records and officials,McKernan, and Roland said he had. He said he had no access to the Pyx Box;McKernan,Roland,and Mint tradition said he did. He denied having had access to any 1933 double eagles; repeated testimony said he had them in his office under his sole control. He said he didn't know Switt or Silver,and they said they didn't know him;but witness after witness had seen them talking knowingly. And in 1936 his nearly ten-thousand-dollar windfall neatly matched Edward Silver's withdrawals. Some of his denials were more outrageous than others. All were demonstrably false.McCann had opportunity,motive,and means."......
"After McCann-the "magician"-spirited the coins from the Mint,probably in his pocket,one at a time-he was senior,trusted, and there were no metal detectors-it was:McCann to Switt.Switt to Macallister,Reed,and Kosoff. Macallister,Reed and,Kosoff to their bevy of connections-dealers,collectors,and of course,King Farouk."
Illegal Tender,p.195-196 >>
I hope that I am never on trial for my life with this horsecrap allowed as 'expert testimony'
<< <i>
<< <i>No record has ever surfaced documenting a legal exchange of old coin for a new 1933 Double Eagle was ever made at the Mint window.
"Then there was the Cashier: George McCann,the clumsy liar.During the three years he had had exclusive control of the 1933 double eagles his unexplained income had risen majestically. He said he hadn't sent the coins to the Smithsonian;the Mint's records and officials,McKernan, and Roland said he had. He said he had no access to the Pyx Box;McKernan,Roland,and Mint tradition said he did. He denied having had access to any 1933 double eagles; repeated testimony said he had them in his office under his sole control. He said he didn't know Switt or Silver,and they said they didn't know him;but witness after witness had seen them talking knowingly. And in 1936 his nearly ten-thousand-dollar windfall neatly matched Edward Silver's withdrawals. Some of his denials were more outrageous than others. All were demonstrably false.McCann had opportunity,motive,and means."......
"After McCann-the "magician"-spirited the coins from the Mint,probably in his pocket,one at a time-he was senior,trusted, and there were no metal detectors-it was:McCann to Switt.Switt to Macallister,Reed,and Kosoff. Macallister,Reed and,Kosoff to their bevy of connections-dealers,collectors,and of course,King Farouk."
Illegal Tender,p.195-196 >>
I hope that I am never on trial for my life with this horsecrap allowed as 'expert testimony' >>
who needs to source facts when it's all in one tidy place? I'm sure no errors nor interpretation errors could be made with facts.
<< <i>Sanction II, in case no one has said it, thanks for keeping us updated and for providing your informative insights. >>
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
In your opinion, do you think there will be a second trial?
I have no clue how the appeal will turn out.
As far as I know,Illegal Tender is considered the Bible on the history/story of the 1933 Double Eagle prior to the Langbord case.Mr. Tripp's book has no less than four pages of "Selected Bibliography." There are thirty pages of "Notes" with entries like:
Page 44: "unmanufactured gold": Regulation Number 25.FDRP,OF 21,Box 1,FDRPL.NYT,March 14, 1933.
Page 44: affidavit:Even the need for minuscule amounts of gold required these documents to be filled out. J. Brown,a gilder on Fulton Street in New York City,purchased two pennyweights of gold,worth $2.67,to continue his work on April 25, 1933. C.262.2A,FRBNYA.
Page 65: Cage Number 1: Vault Custodian Edward McKernan's records.Abstracted by United States Mint personnel for report to Director of the Mint (NTR),March 21,1944 (for forwarding to the United States Secret Service).Report signed by Helen C. Moore,Acting Superintendent at Philadelphia.Report of the Settlement Committee to EHD,March 23,1937,NARA RG 104,Entry 703,NARA (CCP).
There is a page of "Abbreviations." Here's a few referencing the authors notes seen above:
EHD:Edwin H. Dressel
FDRP:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Papers
FDRPL:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidential Library
NARA: National Archives and Records Administration.
NARA (CCP):National Archives and Records Administration Mid Atlantic Region (Center City Philadelphia)
NTR: Nellie Tayloe Ross
OF: Official File (FDR)
RG: Record Group
Mr. Tripp's work,Illegal Tender:Gold,Greed,and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle©2004 is exhaustive.I'm so impressed with it that I'm considering sending my hardbound copy to him and see if he'll sign it if I cover postage cost and expenses to mail it back to me.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
As far as I know,Illegal Tender is considered the Bible on the history/story of the 1933 Double Eagle prior to the Langbord case.Mr. Tripp's book has no less than four pages of "Selected Bibliography." There are thirty pages of "Notes" with entries like:
Page 44: "unmanufactured gold": Regulation Number 25.FDRP,OF 21,Box 1,FDRPL.NYT,March 14, 1933.
Page 44: affidavit:Even the need for minuscule amounts of gold required these documents to be filled out. J. Brown,a gilder on Fulton Street in New York City,purchased two pennyweights of gold,worth $2.67,to continue his work on April 25, 1933. C.262.2A,FRBNYA.
Page 65: Cage Number 1: Vault Custodian Edward McKernan's records.Abstracted by United States Mint personnel for report to Director of the Mint (NTR),March 21,1944 (for forwarding to the United States Secret Service).Report signed by Helen C. Moore,Acting Superintendent at Philadelphia.Report of the Settlement Committee to EHD,March 23,1937,NARA RG 104,Entry 703,NARA (CCP).
>>
This might seem daunting at first glance if you haven't done a lot of archival research. But understand both sides of this case have a whole team of people who have forgotten more about digging through dusty stacks than most of us will ever know. That they haven't written books about it qualifies them no less, and may even be to their advantage if they can produce fresh material in court.
The Langbords acted correctly by surrendering to the people the ten '33 DE's they found in the SDB. Perhaps a satisfactory settlement might be to allow them to keep one of the coins of their choosing and the people can proceed to melt the other nine.After all,the people already have two specimens of 1933 DE's in the US collection in the Smithsonian.The people don't need eleven of them for their collection,do they?
The '33 that survives the melting pot shall forever be known as the "Langbord Specimen." The Langbords would be free to do whatever they want with this coin.They would have to pay $20 to the people,via the US Treasury,to monetize the coin and make it legal for them to own,of course.They would be in possession of the second legal-to-own 1933 DE, and as such,an extremely valuable coin worth at least $10 million,in my estimation.
Someone asked why would the government encapsulate the ten '33 DE's that were once in the possession of the Langbords?
These coins are ten pieces of evidence.Encapsulating them makes it easy to tell them apart.The value of them on the market place is wide open for speculation.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
It may have been a term that was created (or "coined"
I do not recall in any prior discussions anyone indicating that the term "monetize" was in existence and in use back at the time that the 1933 double eagles were minted or in the 1940's. I do not recall anyone indicating that this term was used at any time from 1792-1932 either.
The term "monetize" sure has become part of the lexicon of this case.
Some people appear to place significant meaning to same when, in reality, it may not have any significance at all.
The irony,Sanction.
I volunteer to pick out the best coin for the Langbords.I would need only to-and-from expenses plus a crisp,signed Andrew Jackson,series 1934,for my currency collection.
You must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.
Andrew Jackson
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
they'd never do it.
All the Langbords need is a few ancient text based articles to the contrary. If it's ancient it must be true. Like those books on blood letting. I feel my fever reducing with every drop of blood the leeches suck from my body. My Good Nurse Martha Corey .. wait ... wha? The ancient texts have found her to be a witch? It must be wikitrue... or it will be on the article's 20th anniversary!
1. when the term "monetize" was created; and
2. what the definition of the term "monetize" is?
<< <i>Does anyone know:
1. when the term "monetize" was created; and
2. what the definition of the term "monetize" is? >>
I would guess that it's probably the natural end result of the manufacturing/coining process, but in all likelihood it's never singled out as such. One approved for release to circulation it becomes money.
<< <i>The government agreed to never monetize another 1933 $20 when the Farouk Fenton specimen was sold. >>
Which government TDN? They seem to change every two to four years. Rules change with them.
<< <i>Does anyone know:
1. when the term "monetize" was created; and
2. what the definition of the term "monetize" is? >>
Oh, a few months before the first one sold in auction. There is no formal government definition.
<< <i>Does anyone know:
1. when the term "monetize" was created; and
2. what the definition of the term "monetize" is? >>
1. I checked out Merrian-webster.com and it says the first known use of the word was in 1879.
2. Also from Merrian-Webster.com "1: to coin into money; also : to establish as legal tender"
Based on this definition of monetized, I believe that every one of the 1933 double eagles were "monetized" as soon as they were struck. The way I see it, the US Constitution gives congress the power to coin money, and they authorized the mint to make the double eagles.
If a coin is authorized by congress as soon as the die hits the planchet a fully monetized coin is born in my view. I don't buy into this whole, argument by the government that the 1933 double eagles were never monetized, it is a bunch of BS made up by the Mint in the Farouk double eagle case, it was a big contrivance. I bet some government employee was all proud of him or herself when they thought up that idea of making them pay an extra $20 to the government. It was just a stupid show. Besides if they really were not monetized the mint would not be able to do it just by getting $20, it would take an act of congress.
I think this whole monetizing thing is irrelevant anyway, since I don't see anyone actually spending a 1933 double eagle for face value. Wouldn't it be funny if the appeals court awarded the Langbords the coins based on a CAFRA violation, but warned them, you can sell them if you want, but we had better not every catch you sending them for $20, because they were never "monetized."
Actually, I can see an advantage of them not being monetized, since you could then sell them in MN without a license.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
The ex Farouk 1933 DE was not legal as "money" until our government,to expand on the words of Andrew Jackson a bit,"conferred the blessing (of the People)" on the coin.Price for the blessing? Twenty bucks.
The act of "monetizing" the ex Farouk piece secured the blessing of the People,as I see it.Symbolic,Ironic,Win-Win.All of those things.
Should a deal be worked out with the Langbords,and they are allowed to keep one coin,then we have symbolic,ironic,win-win once again and the final chapter of LANGBORD et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al. can be written.It's time for the insanity to end.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
If the above did not happen the "monetization" of the Fenton 1933 double eagle is meaningless.
Let's pretend that the ex Farouk piece was at the Mint window in 1933 just waiting for someone to step up and exchange "other money" for it.
Give the Cashier $20 and its yours.That coin is the property of the United States,the People,until you,a private individual,pay the required $20,the "other money," for it,right?
"Monetize" might be poor word choice.Let's throw it away.I propose that paying $20 allows for the coin,the ex Farouk 1933 DE,to be officially "issued."
"Issued" means the coin is put forth or distributed officially.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Mr1874: <<Let's pretend that the ex Farouk piece was at the Mint window in 1933 just waiting for someone to step up and exchange "other money" for it. ...Give the Cashier $20 and its yours.That coin is the property of the United States,the People,until you,a private individual,pay the required $20,the "other money," for it,right?>>
Roger Burdette found historical evidence that there were multiple 1933 Doube Eagles in a box at the cashier's window in late Feb. and early March 1933. Even if RWB had not found such evidence, we should use our intelligence and a basic understanding of the history of the Philadelphia Mint to conclude that they would likely to have been there, especially if dealers or collectors were asking for them. There are compelling reasons to believe that collectors and/or dealers walked up to the window and exchanged common Double Eagles, like those dated 1924 and 1928, for 1933 Double Eagles.
While tourists might have asked for receipts as the receipts became souvenirs even if the coins are spent, collectors and dealers probably did not bother with the receipts and probably no one involved then thought there was a reason for such a receipt to be needed.
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
The government agreed to never monetize another 1933 $20 when the Farouk Fenton specimen was sold.
Even if true, how could it possibly affect the Langbords' rights?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Ed. S.
(EJS)