The Mint has about 5 lawyers permanently on staff for a variety of issues. There is little or no input from Treasury lawyers regarding something like this. However, I am certain that there are policy concerns shared with whomever is running the Mint. When you are worried about running the country's finances, the Mint is VERY small potatoes. If anyone in government really cared about the Mint, there would have been a new permanent appointed Director since Ed Moy left. It really is the sleepy backwater area of government.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
I already captured #500. The top item on the 26th page of 20 per page is automatically #500. Of course, the website overlooks a few posts hither and yon so the front page screen underreports them.
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.
this should be a lesson to the government, no you cannot disregard the law and do as you please. I for one feel this is a victory for all citizens of this great country, regardless of how izzy obtained those coins in 1933, the government should have to obey the same law as everyone else does.
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
<< <i>this should be a lesson to the government, no you cannot disregard the law and do as you please. I for one feel this is a victory for all citizens of this great country, regardless of how izzy obtained those coins in 1933, the government should have to obey the same law as everyone else does. >>
+1
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.
Does anybody have a link to a picture I can use of the Sotheby sale of the so-called Farouk coin?
Real tight on deadline.
TD
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.
<< <i>I skimmed the majority opinion. In summary the court of appeal concluded that the failure of the government to file a forfeiture complaint within the CAFRA deadline requires that the government return the coins to the Langbords and be barred from ever having any claim to same. >>
Are you sure the Govt is 'barred' from future claims re the *coins* themselves... or were they just stopped in their tracks re the Langbord family's possession of the coins?
I didn't read the entire decision either, so maybe it's in there, but at this point I'm wondering what is to stop the Govt from going after the coins once they are possessed by someone else?
Imagine winning one at auction, only to have the Feds demand it from you the following day. >>
This was answered a page or two back.
The "possession" of these 10 will be settled by this and any future appeals. After all appeals are done, and if the langbords win, these 10 will be free for anyone to own.
It is interesting to note the appeals court questioned that these were stolen. I'm not sure how that impacts other unknown specimens.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
It sounds like we should know a lot more about how this case will proceed in the next sixteen days.
If the government does NOT file an objection to the court ruling, then the government will probably soon thereafter make arrangements to return the ten coins to the Langbords.
If the government DOES file an objection to the court ruling, then a new clock will start running until we hear whether or not the court will hear the appeal of the government, reject the appeal of the government, or possibly pass the case onto the Supreme Court.
<< <i>Thank you for pulling that from the mix, MsMorrisine.
It seems then, if that's correct, that title to the coins will be lawfully the Langbord's, if the Govt fails to appeal, or loses an appeal.
This text from the decision is what raised my doubts about this decision settling so much.
"The ownership of the property in question and how the appellants obtained possession of it are hotly disputed, but the facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal are not." >>
Exactly.
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.
The Langbords win. thread ATS has got some staying power too.Sanction,do you have time to answer a few questions about the appeal?
Who would make the decision to say yea or nay to Gov on en banc review? Judge McKee? Also,IF there is an en banc review,how many of the twenty-two sitting judges on the 3rd circuit court of appeals would actually be doing the review?
Also (I'm just full of questions today),IF Gov is granted en banc review and loses the Judge vote is that the end of it and Langbords really do win once and for all?
In that case,do Federal Marshalls show up at Ft. Knox to seize the Ft. Knox Ten from the Gov for delivery to the Langbords?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I found nothing in the decision that indicated rightful *title* to the coins had been established/recognized, only that the Govt must return them to the Langbord family.
Interesting.Is there the possibility of another trial then?
Televising a 2nd trial for all Americans to see our system of justice at work would be wonderful,too.Droves of new coin collectors across America would be born if such a thing could happen?
A second trial "winner take all," no appeals,no ifs ands or buts,is exciting to think about.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>The Langbords win. thread ATS has got some staying power too.Sanction,do you have time to answer a few questions about the appeal?
Who would make the decision to say yea or nay to Gov on en banc review? Judge McKee? Also,IF there is an en banc review,how many of the twenty-two sitting judges on the 3rd circuit court of appeals would actually be doing the review?
Also (I'm just full of questions today),IF Gov is granted en banc review and loses the Judge vote is that the end of it and Langbords really do win once and for all?
In that case,do Federal Marshalls show up at Ft. Knox to seize the Ft. Knox Ten from the Gov for delivery to the Langbords? >>
1. They may take a vote of the judges.
2. The Guvmint can appeal to SCOTUS
3. Possibly, if the Government doesn't surrender them willingly. How many instances have you heard of where LEO types have been ordered to return firearms to folks yet refuse to do so.
<< <i>Amazing that this thread is still active. It has staying power. >>
That's because the case ain't over till the Langbord's get their coins back.
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.
I am really impressed with Alison Frankel's book,Double Eagle.Gov should try to get her as an expert witness if there is a 2nd winner take all,no appeals,no ifs ands or buts trial like it should have been in the first place.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I am really impressed with Alison Frankel's book,Double Eagle.Gov should try to get her as an expert witness if there is a 2nd winner take all,no appeals,no ifs ands or buts trial like it should have been in the first place. >>
Steven, I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I don't believe there can be a SECOND government vrs Langbord trial. THIS trial is still going on. Steve
<< <i>I am really impressed with Alison Frankel's book,Double Eagle.Gov should try to get her as an expert witness if there is a 2nd winner take all,no appeals,no ifs ands or buts trial like it should have been in the first place. >>
Not likely even in the remote chance that the government gets another do-over. Ms. Frankel's father is, or was, a partner in the firm that the Langbord's attorney, Barry Berke, works for.
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.
I do not know the answer to your first 2 questions.
For your third question all I can say is that if the executive branch (Treasury Dept., Mint, etc.) refuses to comply with a court judgment awarding the coins to the Langbords, the court can issue follow up orders commanding the executive branch to comply. Such orders would be enforced through the US Marshall Service. Worst case is a stare down between the executive branch and judicial branch. Under the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison the courts have the final say over disputes between branch of government.
Thanks,Sanction.It just seems that there would be well-defined procedures in place for an eventuality like we are now seeing in the Langbord case,though.I see possible conflict of interest issues (for lack of a better way of putting it) at the appeals court level.
What to do? I dream of there being a new,2nd trial.First trial was a practice run.Each side presents their story.Jury decides who is telling the better,more plausible to believe,story.Winner takes all.Case closed.
The Gov needs to be able to present some of the compelling evidence for "originally stolen" in United States v. Barnard (1947),in my opinion.Here's an excerpt from Double Eagle.Jane Levine is the Assistant US Attorney assigned to battle Fenton's lawyer,Barry Berke, over the ex Farouk 1933 Double Eagle.Author Frankel in ch.6 "Splitting the Baby,"says this,
"In December 2000,Mint lawyer Ken Gubin arranged to meet Jane Levine at the National Archives in College Park,Maryland,just to make sure they hadn't somehow overlooked any important documents. For Levine,the onetime history major,the trip was a treat.The National Archives building wasn't the dusty hall of records she'd imagined-it's actually an airy,sunlit facility with a soothing forest view-but she found a windfall in one of the boxes the archivist located for her. It was a file of documents belonging to the Treasury Department lawyer who had assisted on the Barnard case back in 1947. Levine held her breath as she opened the file.The first thing she read was a memo the Treasury lawyer had written,explaining how the government could prove the disposition of 1933 Double Eagles. He'd actually studied the handwritten Mint ledger books and re-created the route of the coins as they moved around the Mint. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were accounted for in the Mint records cited by the long-ago lawyer.None had been innocently exchanged across the cashier's counter."
Get those handwritten Mint ledger books out again and lawyers from both sides can re-create the route together.The Mint ledger either supports the Gov position that no 1933 Double Eagle left the Mint lawfully (excepting the two specimens in the Smithsonian) or not.
How tough can it be?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Thanks,Sanction.It just seems that there would be well-defined procedures in place for an eventuality like we are now seeing in the Langbord case,though.I see possible conflict of interest issues (for lack of a better way of putting it) at the appeals court level.
What to do? I dream of there being a new,2nd trial.First trial was a practice run.Each side presents their story.Jury decides who is telling the better,more plausible to believe,story.Winner takes all.Case closed.
The Gov needs to be able to present some of the compelling evidence for "originally stolen" in United States v. Barnard (1947),in my opinion.Here's an excerpt from Double Eagle.Jane Levine is the Assistant US Attorney assigned to battle Fenton's lawyer,Barry Berke, over the ex Farouk 1933 Double Eagle.Author Frankel in ch.6 "Splitting the Baby,"says this,
"In December 2000,Mint lawyer Ken Gubin arranged to meet Jane Levine at the National Archives in College Park,Maryland,just to make sure they hadn't somehow overlooked any important documents. For Levine,the onetime history major,the trip was a treat.The National Archives building wasn't the dusty hall of records she'd imagined-it's actually an airy,sunlit facility with a soothing forest view-but she found a windfall in one of the boxes the archivist located for her. It was a file of documents belonging to the Treasury Department lawyer who had assisted on the Barnard case back in 1947. Levine held her breath as she opened the file.The first thing she read was a memo the Treasury lawyer had written,explaining how the government could prove the disposition of 1933 Double Eagles. He'd actually studied the handwritten Mint ledger books and re-created the route of the coins as they moved around the Mint. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were accounted for in the Mint records cited by the long-ago lawyer.None had been innocently exchanged across the cashier's counter."
Get those handwritten Mint ledger books out again and lawyers from both sides can re-create the route together.The Mint ledger either supports the Gov position that no 1933 Double Eagle left the Mint lawfully (excepting the two specimens in the Smithsonian) or not.
How tough can it be? >>
Weren't a lot of those records destroyed in the 70s?
Steve I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I don't believe there can be a SECOND government vrs Langbord trial. THIS trial is still going on.
I'm dreaming of Truth,Justice,and........
a speedy 2nd trial.
Wouldn't it be great if both sides could sit down at the table with those old Mint ledgers and figure this thing out? Televised proceedings would be a plus and very much in the spirit of the American Way.Any person who is interested in this case can see for themselves what's going on.Let's bring those 1933 Mint ledger records to the light of day for all to see.
Alison Frankel,in Double Eagle,mentions that lawyer Barry Berke had gotten ribbing from some of his colleagues about how much time he was spending on the fight for ownership of "one ounce of gold."
To be more precise,Ms. Frankel,the fight was over not even one ounce of gold.The fight was over .9675 oz. of gold,to be more exact.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
'Proving' an assertion with demonstrably inaccurate data is no proof at all...
If Berke could successfully demonstrate to a jury that the data is inaccurate I can agree with you.I'm thinking that the Mint Ledger from 1933 is the best we would have to try to get to the truth of the matter.Can you agree with me about this?
We already know that the Mint's records show that not even a single exchange of just one old gold $20 for new gold $20 occurred.These exchanges,if they occurred,were not always recorded.Trivial entries is what I've been hearing they would be.Not so trivial,however,would be the movements of the coins within the Mint.
There would be entries to be seen about movement of sealed bags of '33's and entries about small groups of '33's that came from two bags (each bag contained 250 pieces) that were opened for assay and entries about single '33's (two pieces were sent to the Smithsonian by Cashier G. McCann in October,1934) to look at.The math is simple arithmetic.Either the total adds up to 445,500 or it doesn't.
Are you maintaining that the records were maintained inaccurately despite the "gnarly" accountability that was supposed to be in place for each smidgeon of gold contained within Mint walls? The Mint Supervisors were well aware that they had some sticky-fingered employees to possibly deal with.The accountability,or at least the attempt,would be there by maintaining "well-detailed,meticulous" records (Tripp).Tripp supposedly was able to track the movements of '33's within the Mint walls but I'm not clear about how he accomplished this.This,too, would be a good question to answer.
Was Tripp looking at the old records with his own eyes or was he relying on what the lawyer in 1947 was seeing in the 1933 records?
The question of existence of the old 1933 hand-written records today is a good one,though.Were there no micro-filming capabilities available in the '70's?
The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I can heartily recommend for you all to read Frankel's book Double Eagle if you have not already done so.Ms. Frankel managed to evoke feelings of empathy from me (not an easy task for a writer) for King Farouk, for his is a truly tragic story.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>'Proving' an assertion with demonstrably inaccurate data is no proof at all...
If Berke could successfully demonstrate to a jury that the data is inaccurate I can agree with you.I'm thinking that the Mint Ledger from 1933 is the best we would have to try to get to the truth of the matter.Can you agree with me about this?
We already know that the Mint's records show that not even a single exchange of just one old gold $20 for new gold $20 occurred.These exchanges,if they occurred,were not always recorded.Trivial entries is what I've been hearing they would be.Not so trivial,however,would be the movements of the coins within the Mint.
There would be entries to be seen about movement of sealed bags of '33's and entries about small groups of '33's that came from two bags (each bag contained 250 pieces) that were opened for assay and entries about single '33's (two pieces were sent to the Smithsonian by Cashier G. McCann in October,1934) to look at.The math is simple arithmetic.Either the total adds up to 445,500 or it doesn't.
Are you maintaining that the records were maintained inaccurately despite the "gnarly" accountability that was supposed to be in place for each smidgeon of gold contained within Mint walls? The Mint Supervisors were well aware that they had some sticky-fingered employees to possibly deal with.The accountability,or at least the attempt,would be there by maintaining "well-detailed,meticulous" records (Tripp).Tripp supposedly was able to track the movements of '33's within the Mint walls but I'm not clear about how he accomplished this.This,too, would be a good question to answer.
Was Tripp looking at the old records with his own eyes or was he relying on what the lawyer in 1947 was seeing in the 1933 records?
The question of existence of the old 1933 hand-written records today is a good one,though.Were there no micro-filming capabilities available in the '70's?
The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out? >>
They most likely don't exist now or were destroyed. Tripp should be able to say what documents he looked at and if he had even a smidgen of sense, he'd have kept copies of any documents that he relied upon.
A couple of thoughts. The first is that the possibility of a second trial may be very slim. If the Appeals Court say no thanks, we already spoke, it is over. If the full Court of Appeals hears the appeal, they could concur with the original ruling, again, it is over. Not complying with the rules is a big no no (such technical legal terms..lol).
The second thought is that the supervisors at the Mint in 1933 may not have cared much about exchanges of coins. There was no loss to the Mint in terms of gold on hand. Record keeping was lax and the oversight was not very big. Remember, only 20 years before they made 5 nickels and no one seemed to care, even today.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Logically, it seems to me that if some employee at the MINT had the opportunity to exchange 25 or so 1933 DE's for 25 or so equivalent prior year DE's of the same weight during the apparent period of opportunity from when the coins were first minted until the law prohibiting any exchanges took effect, then, based on what we know now, it PROBABLY happened. Nobody, at the time, was convicted. I say Langbords grandpa, with help from a MINT employee, did it and apparently no law was broken when it happened. Can the Government PROVE a law was broken? Steve
<< <i>Surely someone must know who it was that had a burr under their saddle regarding these coins and made it a point to go after them. >>
That would be F. Leland Howard, vigilante.
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.
Surely someone must know who it was that had a burr under their saddle regarding these coins and made it a point to go after them.
My understanding is that the burr was under saddle of Dr. Leland Howard,acting Director of the Mint. Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross had signed off on export of the Farouk '33 Double on March 11,1944.Then she vanished.I think she may have been put on administrative leave for this "oversight" of granting the export license to the Egyptians. Ms. Ross was taking "the fall?" Or was she just out sick for a time?
Here's what Q. David Bowers has to say:
"While the Farouk specimen was on its appointed way [to its new owner in Egypt],the coin and stamp columnist at the New York Herald-Tribune,Ernest Kehr,was wondering why the 1933 double eagle in the Flanagan collection was so rare that it rated special mention in the Stack's advertisements.He wrote the Mint Bureau asking how many had been actually issued.The letter wound up on the desk of Dr. Leland Howard,who could find no official distribution of the coins in question."
Note:The Mint's own "Timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle" indicates a memo was sent March 30,1944 by Dr. Howard,acting Mint Director, to Chief of United States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of such coins that had been placed in circulation."
Bowers continues,
"Dr. Howard,who seems to have had a general dislike of collectors,then notified the Secret Service of the Great Crime that had been perpetrated. This was clearly So Important that critical war-time investigations might have to be delayed while Special Agents investigated this Terrible Event. And so they did...."
from the Official Red Book:A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins written by Q. David Bowers,p.282
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Bajjerfan They most likely don't exist now or were destroyed. Tripp should be able to say what documents he looked at and if he had even a smidgen of sense, he'd have kept copies of any documents that he relied upon.
There is a picture to be seen on p.59 of Illegal Tenderof "The United States Mint's Coiner's Record,indicating that the first 1933 double eagles were struck (but not delivered) on March 2,1933. (National Archives and Records Administration,Mid Atlantic Region,Center City,Philadelphia).
The question,begging for an answer, in my mind is this,
Do the original 1933 Mint records of interest still exist today,in 2015, that will allow one to track the movement of the 1933 Double eagle coins while the coins were ostensibly within the confines of the Mint?
Copies won't do.Originals are needed.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Bajjerfan They most likely don't exist now or were destroyed. Tripp should be able to say what documents he looked at and if he had even a smidgen of sense, he'd have kept copies of any documents that he relied upon.
There is a picture to be seen on p.59 of Illegal Tenderof "The United States Mint's Coiner's Record,indicating that the first 1933 double eagles were struck (but not delivered) on March 2,1933. (National Archives and Records Administration,Mid Atlantic Region,Center City,Philadelphia).
The question,begging for an answer, in my mind is this,
Do the original 1933 Mint records of interest still exist today,in 2015, that will allow one to track the movement of the 1933 Double eagle coins while the coins were ostensibly within the confines of the Mint?
Copies won't do.Originals are needed. >>
Even copies would be a help, tho with the way things are today the proper original documents could be produced by a good doctor. If they had standard production protocol documents like they had for like coins of prior years, one would think they would/should have been produced when the Guvmint first started going after them. If the documents have since been destroyed, it would seem that the Government is SOL unless credible copies can be produced.
<< <i>'Proving' an assertion with demonstrably inaccurate data is no proof at all...
If Berke could successfully demonstrate to a jury that the data is inaccurate I can agree with you.I'm thinking that the Mint Ledger from 1933 is the best we would have to try to get to the truth of the matter.Can you agree with me about this?
We already know that the Mint's records show that not even a single exchange of just one old gold $20 for new gold $20 occurred.These exchanges,if they occurred,were not always recorded.Trivial entries is what I've been hearing they would be.Not so trivial,however,would be the movements of the coins within the Mint.
There would be entries to be seen about movement of sealed bags of '33's and entries about small groups of '33's that came from two bags (each bag contained 250 pieces) that were opened for assay and entries about single '33's (two pieces were sent to the Smithsonian by Cashier G. McCann in October,1934) to look at.The math is simple arithmetic.Either the total adds up to 445,500 or it doesn't.
Are you maintaining that the records were maintained inaccurately despite the "gnarly" accountability that was supposed to be in place for each smidgeon of gold contained within Mint walls? The Mint Supervisors were well aware that they had some sticky-fingered employees to possibly deal with.The accountability,or at least the attempt,would be there by maintaining "well-detailed,meticulous" records (Tripp).Tripp supposedly was able to track the movements of '33's within the Mint walls but I'm not clear about how he accomplished this.This,too, would be a good question to answer.
Was Tripp looking at the old records with his own eyes or was he relying on what the lawyer in 1947 was seeing in the 1933 records?
The question of existence of the old 1933 hand-written records today is a good one,though.Were there no micro-filming capabilities available in the '70's?
The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out? >>
One of the problems with mint data is it's designed not to account for each individual coin but rather to keep tabs on total coined gold. If they had tried the 1933 dies in 1932 as is customary the coins would have been recorded as 1932 issues and released in bags of 1932 coins. This is rarely a problem for the mint because these bags take weeks or even months rto work through the banking system so there's no big anomaly in getting a few la- ter dates in a bag of the previous year's coins.
There's no evidence any coins were stolen from the mint and it's improbable any were. By whatever means these were acquired it's a near certainty that they cost the original owner $20 each. It is most probably mint accounting at fault and not some nefarious or illegal ac- tivity. There may be numerous ways these could leave the mint without leaving any sort of specific paper trail.
Comments
kickstart
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
21 DAYS TO GO UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
Steve
>>
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
21 DAYS TO GO UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
Steve
>>
>>
Expect it on June 1st.
<< <i>this should be a lesson to the government, no you cannot disregard the law and do as you please. I for one feel this is a victory for all citizens of this great country, regardless of how izzy obtained those coins in 1933, the government should have to obey the same law as everyone else does. >>
+1
Real tight on deadline.
TD
<< <i>I predict they will respond on May 28th. Anyone else care to guess >>
This sounds like a good opportunity for a poll.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>THE CLOCK IS TICKING:
17 DAYS TO GO UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)
Steve
>>
>>
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>I skimmed the majority opinion. In summary the court of appeal concluded that the failure of the government to file a forfeiture complaint within the CAFRA deadline requires that the government return the coins to the Langbords and be barred from ever having any claim to same. >>
Are you sure the Govt is 'barred' from future claims re the *coins* themselves... or were they just stopped in their tracks re the Langbord family's possession of the coins?
I didn't read the entire decision either, so maybe it's in there, but at this point I'm wondering what is to stop the Govt from going after the coins once they are possessed by someone else?
Imagine winning one at auction, only to have the Feds demand it from you the following day. >>
This was answered a page or two back.
The "possession" of these 10 will be settled by this and any future appeals. After all appeals are done, and if the langbords win, these 10 will be free for anyone to own.
It is interesting to note the appeals court questioned that these were stolen. I'm not sure how that impacts other unknown specimens.
<< <i>Bajjerfan.
As I understand the CAFRA death penalty (aka the consequences of the failure of the government to timely file a CAFRA forfeiture action) is that the government:
1. would have to return the property (in this case the 10 1933 double eagles would have to be returned to the Langbords); and
2. would be barred from seeking, in the future, forfeiture of the property (the 10 coins in this case) based upon the facts constituting the offense giving rise to the barred forfeiture claim [in this case the claim that the 10 coins were stolen from the government in the 1930s].
The effect of this death penalty would be that for these 10 coins the government would be required to return same and would be barred from ever asserting ownership of same based past events. Thus if the 10 coins were sold by the Langbords, the buyers would obtain ownership free of any claim by the government to same. In addition to the effect of the CAFRA death penalty statute, general legal principles (including res judicata and collateral estoppel and claim splitting) would apply to prevent the government from seeking a second bite of the apple by bringing new litigation to obtain the 10 coins. The final judgment in the first case would operate as a bar to any second case. >>
Monday May 4
If the government does NOT file an objection to the court ruling, then the government will probably soon thereafter make arrangements to return the ten coins to the Langbords.
If the government DOES file an objection to the court ruling, then a new clock will start running until we hear whether or not the court will hear the appeal of the government, reject the appeal of the government, or possibly pass the case onto the Supreme Court.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Thank you for pulling that from the mix, MsMorrisine.
It seems then, if that's correct, that title to the coins will be lawfully the Langbord's, if the Govt fails to appeal, or loses an appeal.
This text from the decision is what raised my doubts about this decision settling so much.
"The ownership of the property in question and how the appellants obtained possession of it are hotly disputed, but the facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal are not." >>
Exactly.
Who would make the decision to say yea or nay to Gov on en banc review? Judge McKee? Also,IF there is an en banc review,how many of the twenty-two sitting judges on the 3rd circuit court of appeals would actually be doing the review?
Also (I'm just full of questions today),IF Gov is granted en banc review and loses the Judge vote is that the end of it and Langbords really do win once and for all?
In that case,do Federal Marshalls show up at Ft. Knox to seize the Ft. Knox Ten from the Gov for delivery to the Langbords?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Interesting.Is there the possibility of another trial then?
Televising a 2nd trial for all Americans to see our system of justice at work would be wonderful,too.Droves of new coin collectors across America would be born if such a thing could happen?
A second trial "winner take all," no appeals,no ifs ands or buts,is exciting to think about.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>The Langbords win. thread ATS has got some staying power too.Sanction,do you have time to answer a few questions about the appeal?
Who would make the decision to say yea or nay to Gov on en banc review? Judge McKee? Also,IF there is an en banc review,how many of the twenty-two sitting judges on the 3rd circuit court of appeals would actually be doing the review?
Also (I'm just full of questions today),IF Gov is granted en banc review and loses the Judge vote is that the end of it and Langbords really do win once and for all?
In that case,do Federal Marshalls show up at Ft. Knox to seize the Ft. Knox Ten from the Gov for delivery to the Langbords? >>
1. They may take a vote of the judges.
2. The Guvmint can appeal to SCOTUS
3. Possibly, if the Government doesn't surrender them willingly. How many instances have you heard of where LEO types have been ordered to return firearms to folks yet refuse to do so.
<< <i>Amazing that this thread is still active. It has staying power. >>
That's because the case ain't over till the Langbord's get their coins back.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I am really impressed with Alison Frankel's book,Double Eagle.Gov should try to get her as an expert witness if there is a 2nd winner take all,no appeals,no ifs ands or buts trial like it should have been in the first place. >>
Steven,
I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I don't believe there can be a SECOND government vrs Langbord trial. THIS trial is still going on.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I am really impressed with Alison Frankel's book,Double Eagle.Gov should try to get her as an expert witness if there is a 2nd winner take all,no appeals,no ifs ands or buts trial like it should have been in the first place. >>
Not likely even in the remote chance that the government gets another do-over. Ms. Frankel's father is, or was, a partner in the firm that the Langbord's attorney, Barry Berke, works for.
I do not know the answer to your first 2 questions.
For your third question all I can say is that if the executive branch (Treasury Dept., Mint, etc.) refuses to comply with a court judgment awarding the coins to the Langbords, the court can issue follow up orders commanding the executive branch to comply. Such orders would be enforced through the US Marshall Service. Worst case is a stare down between the executive branch and judicial branch. Under the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison the courts have the final say over disputes between branch of government.
What to do? I dream of there being a new,2nd trial.First trial was a practice run.Each side presents their story.Jury decides who is telling the better,more plausible to believe,story.Winner takes all.Case closed.
The Gov needs to be able to present some of the compelling evidence for "originally stolen" in United States v. Barnard (1947),in my opinion.Here's an excerpt from Double Eagle.Jane Levine is the Assistant US Attorney assigned to battle Fenton's lawyer,Barry Berke, over the ex Farouk 1933 Double Eagle.Author Frankel in ch.6 "Splitting the Baby,"says this,
"In December 2000,Mint lawyer Ken Gubin arranged to meet Jane Levine at the National Archives in College Park,Maryland,just to make sure they hadn't somehow overlooked any important documents. For Levine,the onetime history major,the trip was a treat.The National Archives building wasn't the dusty hall of records she'd imagined-it's actually an airy,sunlit facility with a soothing forest view-but she found a windfall in one of the boxes the archivist located for her. It was a file of documents belonging to the Treasury Department lawyer who had assisted on the Barnard case back in 1947. Levine held her breath as she opened the file.The first thing she read was a memo the Treasury lawyer had written,explaining how the government could prove the disposition of 1933 Double Eagles. He'd actually studied the handwritten Mint ledger books and re-created the route of the coins as they moved around the Mint. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were accounted for in the Mint records cited by the long-ago lawyer.None had been innocently exchanged across the cashier's counter."
Get those handwritten Mint ledger books out again and lawyers from both sides can re-create the route together.The Mint ledger either supports the Gov position that no 1933 Double Eagle left the Mint lawfully (excepting the two specimens in the Smithsonian) or not.
How tough can it be?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Thanks,Sanction.It just seems that there would be well-defined procedures in place for an eventuality like we are now seeing in the Langbord case,though.I see possible conflict of interest issues (for lack of a better way of putting it) at the appeals court level.
What to do? I dream of there being a new,2nd trial.First trial was a practice run.Each side presents their story.Jury decides who is telling the better,more plausible to believe,story.Winner takes all.Case closed.
The Gov needs to be able to present some of the compelling evidence for "originally stolen" in United States v. Barnard (1947),in my opinion.Here's an excerpt from Double Eagle.Jane Levine is the Assistant US Attorney assigned to battle Fenton's lawyer,Barry Berke, over the ex Farouk 1933 Double Eagle.Author Frankel in ch.6 "Splitting the Baby,"says this,
"In December 2000,Mint lawyer Ken Gubin arranged to meet Jane Levine at the National Archives in College Park,Maryland,just to make sure they hadn't somehow overlooked any important documents. For Levine,the onetime history major,the trip was a treat.The National Archives building wasn't the dusty hall of records she'd imagined-it's actually an airy,sunlit facility with a soothing forest view-but she found a windfall in one of the boxes the archivist located for her. It was a file of documents belonging to the Treasury Department lawyer who had assisted on the Barnard case back in 1947. Levine held her breath as she opened the file.The first thing she read was a memo the Treasury lawyer had written,explaining how the government could prove the disposition of 1933 Double Eagles. He'd actually studied the handwritten Mint ledger books and re-created the route of the coins as they moved around the Mint. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were accounted for in the Mint records cited by the long-ago lawyer.None had been innocently exchanged across the cashier's counter."
Get those handwritten Mint ledger books out again and lawyers from both sides can re-create the route together.The Mint ledger either supports the Gov position that no 1933 Double Eagle left the Mint lawfully (excepting the two specimens in the Smithsonian) or not.
How tough can it be? >>
Weren't a lot of those records destroyed in the 70s?
I'm not sure what you are thinking, but I don't believe there can be a SECOND government vrs Langbord trial. THIS trial is still going on.
I'm dreaming of Truth,Justice,and........
a speedy 2nd trial.
Wouldn't it be great if both sides could sit down at the table with those old Mint ledgers and figure this thing out? Televised proceedings would be a plus and very much in the spirit of the American Way.Any person who is interested in this case can see for themselves what's going on.Let's bring those 1933 Mint ledger records to the light of day for all to see.
Alison Frankel,in Double Eagle,mentions that lawyer Barry Berke had gotten ribbing from some of his colleagues about how much time he was spending on the fight for ownership of "one ounce of gold."
To be more precise,Ms. Frankel,the fight was over not even one ounce of gold.The fight was over .9675 oz. of gold,to be more exact.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If Berke could successfully demonstrate to a jury that the data is inaccurate I can agree with you.I'm thinking that the Mint Ledger from 1933 is the best we would have to try to get to the truth of the matter.Can you agree with me about this?
We already know that the Mint's records show that not even a single exchange of just one old gold $20 for new gold $20 occurred.These exchanges,if they occurred,were not always recorded.Trivial entries is what I've been hearing they would be.Not so trivial,however,would be the movements of the coins within the Mint.
There would be entries to be seen about movement of sealed bags of '33's and entries about small groups of '33's that came from two bags (each bag contained 250 pieces) that were opened for assay and entries about single '33's (two pieces were sent to the Smithsonian by Cashier G. McCann in October,1934) to look at.The math is simple arithmetic.Either the total adds up to 445,500 or it doesn't.
Are you maintaining that the records were maintained inaccurately despite the "gnarly" accountability that was supposed to be in place for each smidgeon of gold contained within Mint walls? The Mint Supervisors were well aware that they had some sticky-fingered employees to possibly deal with.The accountability,or at least the attempt,would be there by maintaining "well-detailed,meticulous" records (Tripp).Tripp supposedly was able to track the movements of '33's within the Mint walls but I'm not clear about how he accomplished this.This,too, would be a good question to answer.
Was Tripp looking at the old records with his own eyes or was he relying on what the lawyer in 1947 was seeing in the 1933 records?
The question of existence of the old 1933 hand-written records today is a good one,though.Were there no micro-filming capabilities available in the '70's?
The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>'Proving' an assertion with demonstrably inaccurate data is no proof at all...
If Berke could successfully demonstrate to a jury that the data is inaccurate I can agree with you.I'm thinking that the Mint Ledger from 1933 is the best we would have to try to get to the truth of the matter.Can you agree with me about this?
We already know that the Mint's records show that not even a single exchange of just one old gold $20 for new gold $20 occurred.These exchanges,if they occurred,were not always recorded.Trivial entries is what I've been hearing they would be.Not so trivial,however,would be the movements of the coins within the Mint.
There would be entries to be seen about movement of sealed bags of '33's and entries about small groups of '33's that came from two bags (each bag contained 250 pieces) that were opened for assay and entries about single '33's (two pieces were sent to the Smithsonian by Cashier G. McCann in October,1934) to look at.The math is simple arithmetic.Either the total adds up to 445,500 or it doesn't.
Are you maintaining that the records were maintained inaccurately despite the "gnarly" accountability that was supposed to be in place for each smidgeon of gold contained within Mint walls? The Mint Supervisors were well aware that they had some sticky-fingered employees to possibly deal with.The accountability,or at least the attempt,would be there by maintaining "well-detailed,meticulous" records (Tripp).Tripp supposedly was able to track the movements of '33's within the Mint walls but I'm not clear about how he accomplished this.This,too, would be a good question to answer.
Was Tripp looking at the old records with his own eyes or was he relying on what the lawyer in 1947 was seeing in the 1933 records?
The question of existence of the old 1933 hand-written records today is a good one,though.Were there no micro-filming capabilities available in the '70's?
The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out? >>
They most likely don't exist now or were destroyed. Tripp should be able to say what documents he looked at and if he had even a smidgen of sense, he'd have kept copies of any documents that he relied upon.
<< <i>The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out? >>
The National Archives records are open to all. Go to College Park, show them your driver's license, and you can look for yourself.
The second thought is that the supervisors at the Mint in 1933 may not have cared much about exchanges of coins. There was no loss to the Mint in terms of gold on hand. Record keeping was lax and the oversight was not very big. Remember, only 20 years before they made 5 nickels and no one seemed to care, even today.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Surely someone must know who it was that had a burr under their saddle regarding these coins and made it a point to go after them. >>
That would be F. Leland Howard, vigilante.
My understanding is that the burr was under saddle of Dr. Leland Howard,acting Director of the Mint. Mint Director Nellie Tayloe Ross had signed off on export of the Farouk '33 Double on March 11,1944.Then she vanished.I think she may have been put on administrative leave for this "oversight" of granting the export license to the Egyptians. Ms. Ross was taking "the fall?" Or was she just out sick for a time?
Here's what Q. David Bowers has to say:
"While the Farouk specimen was on its appointed way [to its new owner in Egypt],the coin and stamp columnist at the New York Herald-Tribune,Ernest Kehr,was wondering why the 1933 double eagle in the Flanagan collection was so rare that it rated special mention in the Stack's advertisements.He wrote the Mint Bureau asking how many had been actually issued.The letter wound up on the desk of Dr. Leland Howard,who could find no official distribution of the coins in question."
Note:The Mint's own "Timeline for the 1933 Double Eagle" indicates a memo was sent March 30,1944 by Dr. Howard,acting Mint Director,
to Chief of United States Secret Service recounting events leading to granting of Export License to King Farouk. Explains awareness of illicit removal of 1933 Double Eagles from Mint in response to "routine inquiry regarding the number of such coins that had been placed in circulation."
Bowers continues,
"Dr. Howard,who seems to have had a general dislike of collectors,then notified the Secret Service of the Great Crime that had been perpetrated. This was clearly So Important that critical war-time investigations might have to be delayed while Special Agents investigated this Terrible Event. And so they did...."
from the Official Red Book:A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins written by Q. David Bowers,p.282
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
They most likely don't exist now or were destroyed. Tripp should be able to say what documents he looked at and if he had even a smidgen of sense, he'd have kept copies of any documents that he relied upon.
There is a picture to be seen on p.59 of Illegal Tenderof "The United States Mint's Coiner's Record,indicating that the first 1933 double eagles were struck (but not delivered) on March 2,1933. (National Archives and Records Administration,Mid Atlantic Region,Center City,Philadelphia).
The question,begging for an answer, in my mind is this,
Do the original 1933 Mint records of interest still exist today,in 2015, that will allow one to track the movement of the 1933 Double eagle coins while the coins were ostensibly within the confines of the Mint?
Copies won't do.Originals are needed.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Bajjerfan
They most likely don't exist now or were destroyed. Tripp should be able to say what documents he looked at and if he had even a smidgen of sense, he'd have kept copies of any documents that he relied upon.
There is a picture to be seen on p.59 of Illegal Tenderof "The United States Mint's Coiner's Record,indicating that the first 1933 double eagles were struck (but not delivered) on March 2,1933. (National Archives and Records Administration,Mid Atlantic Region,Center City,Philadelphia).
The question,begging for an answer, in my mind is this,
Do the original 1933 Mint records of interest still exist today,in 2015, that will allow one to track the movement of the 1933 Double eagle coins while the coins were ostensibly within the confines of the Mint?
Copies won't do.Originals are needed. >>
Even copies would be a help, tho with the way things are today the proper original documents could be produced by a good doctor. If they had standard production protocol documents like they had for like coins of prior years, one would think they would/should have been produced when the Guvmint first started going after them. If the documents have since been destroyed, it would seem that the Government is SOL unless credible copies can be produced.
<< <i>'Proving' an assertion with demonstrably inaccurate data is no proof at all...
If Berke could successfully demonstrate to a jury that the data is inaccurate I can agree with you.I'm thinking that the Mint Ledger from 1933 is the best we would have to try to get to the truth of the matter.Can you agree with me about this?
We already know that the Mint's records show that not even a single exchange of just one old gold $20 for new gold $20 occurred.These exchanges,if they occurred,were not always recorded.Trivial entries is what I've been hearing they would be.Not so trivial,however,would be the movements of the coins within the Mint.
There would be entries to be seen about movement of sealed bags of '33's and entries about small groups of '33's that came from two bags (each bag contained 250 pieces) that were opened for assay and entries about single '33's (two pieces were sent to the Smithsonian by Cashier G. McCann in October,1934) to look at.The math is simple arithmetic.Either the total adds up to 445,500 or it doesn't.
Are you maintaining that the records were maintained inaccurately despite the "gnarly" accountability that was supposed to be in place for each smidgeon of gold contained within Mint walls? The Mint Supervisors were well aware that they had some sticky-fingered employees to possibly deal with.The accountability,or at least the attempt,would be there by maintaining "well-detailed,meticulous" records (Tripp).Tripp supposedly was able to track the movements of '33's within the Mint walls but I'm not clear about how he accomplished this.This,too, would be a good question to answer.
Was Tripp looking at the old records with his own eyes or was he relying on what the lawyer in 1947 was seeing in the 1933 records?
The question of existence of the old 1933 hand-written records today is a good one,though.Were there no micro-filming capabilities available in the '70's?
The 1933 records either exist today or they don't. A lawyer or two or three should be able to figure this out? >>
One of the problems with mint data is it's designed not to account for each individual
coin but rather to keep tabs on total coined gold. If they had tried the 1933 dies in 1932
as is customary the coins would have been recorded as 1932 issues and released in bags
of 1932 coins. This is rarely a problem for the mint because these bags take weeks or even
months rto work through the banking system so there's no big anomaly in getting a few la-
ter dates in a bag of the previous year's coins.
There's no evidence any coins were stolen from the mint and it's improbable any were. By
whatever means these were acquired it's a near certainty that they cost the original owner
$20 each. It is most probably mint accounting at fault and not some nefarious or illegal ac-
tivity. There may be numerous ways these could leave the mint without leaving any sort
of specific paper trail.