Langbords win.

WillieBoyd2 · June 28, 2015 12:00PM

Why would the Supreme Court hear this case?

So the justices could "handle the evidence".

Steve · June 28, 2015 10:30PM

<< THE CLOCK IS TICKING:

The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.

TWO (2) DAYS TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)

Steve

>>

Tomthecoinguy · June 28, 2015 11:14PM

<< 

<< I could not imagine the government giving up at this point, they have too much invested. Not to mention the fact that the appeals court was split 2-1. Why wouldn't you go for it with the full appeals court, or appeal it to the Supreme court. I think the main question is do the government go to the full appeals court, or do they skip to the supreme court (if that is an option.) >>

Why would the SCOTUS even hear the case? >>

I could see SCOTUS taking this, if they want to weigh in on CAFRA. I could see them wanting to un-write the CAFRA law to remove the death penalty for missing the deadline. Just like the dissenting judge wanted to do in the last appeals court ruling.

mr1931S · June 28, 2015 11:22PM

Information I've been getting is to forget SCOTUS.They have too much to do.CAFRA not for them not at this point anyway.Gov goose is cooked.Crack out the champagne and caviar July 1.

Wouldn't McCann be a part of the public if he walked into Izzy's shop/store? Or McCann had others do it for him.

It's a real stretch for Izzy to be saying that he bought 1933 double eagles from members of the public from across his counter in the jewelry store.No paper exists of purchases and sales from the Izzy's jewelry shop business.It's possible Izzy could have taken a few deliveries of '33 doubles that McCann had walked out the door of the Mint with that very day.Izzy's old shop on Jeweller's Row is only a few blocks away from,a short walk from the Philadelphia Mint.

.

TwoSides2aCoin · June 28, 2015 11:23PM

The title should be edited to read : "Lawyers win".

DeepCoin · June 28, 2015 11:32PM

I predict the filing will come on June 30th. The Mint lawyers have a long history of filing one day before the deadline. Just a guess based upon my own perspective after 15 years of watching them operate.

Steve · June 29, 2015 12:13AM

<< I predict the filing will come on June 30th. The Mint lawyers have a long history of filing one day before the deadline. Just a guess based upon my own perspective after 15 years of watching them operate. >>

Richard,
Last month, with the deadline set for June 1, 2015 the government filed for a 30 day extension on May 20th and it was granted on May 21st. I appreciate your input, but I suspect, as with other events in this long ordeal, we may or may NOT hear from the government today, on June 30th tomorrow, or on July 1st. We must all just "stay tuned in".
Steve

BAJJERFAN · June 29, 2015 12:14AM

<< 

<< 

<< I could not imagine the government giving up at this point, they have too much invested. Not to mention the fact that the appeals court was split 2-1. Why wouldn't you go for it with the full appeals court, or appeal it to the Supreme court. I think the main question is do the government go to the full appeals court, or do they skip to the supreme court (if that is an option.) >>

Why would the SCOTUS even hear the case? >>

I could see SCOTUS taking this, if they want to weigh in on CAFRA. I could see them wanting to un-write the CAFRA law to remove the death penalty for missing the deadline. Just like the dissenting judge wanted to do in the last appeals court ruling. >>

IIRC the Government had no valid excuse for missing the deadline. Even after being advised to file, they pretty much chose to snub the law. Unless there is some history of the death penalty being applied inappropriately, I don't see SCOTUS taking this case for one instance. Congress put it there for a reason.

BAJJERFAN · June 29, 2015 12:16AM

<< Information I've been getting is to forget SCOTUS.They have too much to do.CAFRA not for them not at this point anyway.Gov goose is cooked.Crack out the champagne and caviar July 1.

Wouldn't McCann be a part of the public if he walked into Izzy's shop/store? Or McCann had others do it for him.

It's a real stretch for Izzy to be saying that he bought 1933 double eagles from members of the public from across his counter in the jewelry store.No paper exists of purchases and sales from the Izzy's jewelry shop business.It's possible Izzy could have taken a few deliveries of '33 doubles that McCann had walked out the door of the Mint with that very day.Izzy's old shop on Jeweller's Row is only a few blocks,a short walk from the Philadelphia Mint. >>

No doubt Izzy was selective about which business transactions were recorded and which weren't. Probably fairly common even today.

BAJJERFAN · June 29, 2015 12:20AM

<< I predict the filing will come on June 30th. The Mint lawyers have a long history of filing one day before the deadline. Just a guess based upon my own perspective after 15 years of watching them operate. >>

They probably didn't need the extension. I suspect they were just trying to see how much love they could curry from the judicial system.

Tomthecoinguy · June 29, 2015 12:35AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< I could not imagine the government giving up at this point, they have too much invested. Not to mention the fact that the appeals court was split 2-1. Why wouldn't you go for it with the full appeals court, or appeal it to the Supreme court. I think the main question is do the government go to the full appeals court, or do they skip to the supreme court (if that is an option.) >>

Why would the SCOTUS even hear the case? >>

I could see SCOTUS taking this, if they want to weigh in on CAFRA. I could see them wanting to un-write the CAFRA law to remove the death penalty for missing the deadline. Just like the dissenting judge wanted to do in the last appeals court ruling. >>

IIRC the Government had no valid excuse for missing the deadline. Even after being advised to file, they pretty much chose to snub the law. Unless there is some history of the death penalty being applied inappropriately, I don't see SCOTUS taking this case for one instance. Congress put it there for a reason. >>

I hope you are right, I am a bit cynical of the SCOTUS of late. In King they seemed to ignore the plain wording of the statute to come to the result they wanted.

DeepCoin · June 29, 2015 2:00AM

Steve, you are right about the last filing not being a the end. I just remember watching this case from day one, long ago when I still worked at the Mint. They never filed early, always took until about the end. Given today is the 29th, we are very close to the end again. Will be interesting to see and once again
;

Thank you SanctionII !!!!

Tomthecoinguy · June 29, 2015 2:20AM

<< Steve, you are right about the last filing not being a the end. I just remember watching this case from day one, long ago when I still worked at the Mint. They never filed early, always took until about the end. Given today is the 29th, we are very close to the end again. Will be interesting to see and once again
;

Thank you SanctionII !!!! >>

It does make sense that you would not wait until the end to file an request for an extension. If it is denied you would need some time to adjust.

BAJJERFAN · June 29, 2015 2:54AM

<< 

<< Steve, you are right about the last filing not being a the end. I just remember watching this case from day one, long ago when I still worked at the Mint. They never filed early, always took until about the end. Given today is the 29th, we are very close to the end again. Will be interesting to see and once again
;

Thank you SanctionII !!!! >>

It does make sense that you would not wait until the end to file an request for an extension. If it is denied you would need some time to adjust. >>

They've been getting favorable treatment all along so why should they expect anything different this time?

SanctionII · June 29, 2015 7:03AM

Saw that this thread is becoming active again so I looked at the case docket. As of 2:00 p.m. PDT today there are no new filings.

The post count for this thread continues to climb.

keyman64 · June 29, 2015 8:01AM

<< Saw that this thread is becoming active again so I looked at the case docket. As of 2:00 p.m. PDT today there are no new filings.

The post count for this thread continues to climb. >>

Thanks again, SanctionII.

MsMorrisine · June 29, 2015 9:25AM

I'm a bit under 70 posts short of my guess

how many +1's can I get away with?

MacCrimmon · June 29, 2015 9:33AM

<< I'm a bit under 70 posts short of my guess

how many +1's can I get away with? >>

+1

Here's my first .....

Steve · June 29, 2015 8:21PM

<< THE CLOCK IS TICKING:

The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.

ONE (1) DAY TO GO UNTIL WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST!!!(for the government to file an official request to dispute the Court of Appeals decision of April 17th)

Steve

>>

CaptHenway · June 29, 2015 9:17PM

I had this one, 666!

DeepCoin · June 30, 2015 6:19AM

Any filling news of yet?

CaptHenway · June 30, 2015 12:07PM

Cue the "Final Jeopardy" music!

TwoSides2aCoin · June 30, 2015 1:55PM

Some day the court system will get better… after maybe another 250 years of practice by competent wallet rustlers…. Er, non-gold panhandlers.

Steve · June 30, 2015 7:01PM

<< THE CLOCK IS TICKING:

The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.

TODAY, WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST IS THE LAST DAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FILE AN OFFICIAL REQUEST TO DISPUTE THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION OF APRIL 17TH.

Steve

>>

keyman64 · June 30, 2015 7:56PM

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 12:36AM

(drum roll)

MsMorrisine · July 1, 2015 2:07AM

while desperately trying to hit 750 replies.... I find this

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Third Circuit Practice Guide

Chapter VIII. Petitions For Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc

Although counsel for the party that did not prevail tend to reflexively file a
petitions for rehearing, it is important to recognize that petitions for rehearing, whether
by the panel or by the Court en banc, are granted only in very rare and “exceptional”
circumstances. Exceptional circumstances include instances in which the panel
overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact that truly affect the outcome of the
appeal, where the panel opinion directly conflicts with another panel decision, or where
a pivotal point of the case has been affected by a new precedential decision or by a new
statute that could not have been cited in the briefs or at oral argument (and was not
cited in the Court’s decision). Because such petitions are granted only rarely, counsel
should balance the effort and expense involved in preparing the petition against the
very high likelihood that the petition will be denied.

Timing.
A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 days (45 days in civil
cases in which the United States is a party). Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). That deadline can
be extended for good cause.

Technical Requirements.
A petition for rehearing must be filed electronically.
Paper copies are not filed unless requested by the Clerk. Mind the 15-page limitation
and the 14-point, double-space requirements. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b). Only one petition
should be filed per party. The petition must include a copy of the Court’s decision
(order, judgment, and opinion, if any) as an exhibit. LAR 40.0(a). If your petition relies
on new decision or statute, attach a copy.

Substantive Requirements.
A petition for rehearing must specify:
(a) the point(s) of law or fact that the panel overlooked or misapprehended and that affected
the outcome of the appeal; (b) the pivotal effect of a new precedential decision or
statute; or (c) the issue of exceptional importance that calls out for en banc attention. In
the Third Circuit, all petitions for rehearing are presumed to seek both panel and en
banc rehearing unless the petition expressly requests only panel rehearing.
Where the party is seeking rehearing en banc, the petition must contain this
statement and its required citations:

<< I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment,
that the panel decision is contrary to decisions of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and
maintain uniformity of decisions in this court, i.e., the panel’s decision is
contrary to the decision of this court or the Supreme Court in [citing
specifically the case or cases], OR, that this appeal involves a question of
exceptional importance, i.e., [set forth in one sentence].” >>

LAR 35.1. Also keep in mind that the Court ordinarily will not grant rehearing en banc
either when: (a) the panel’s statement of the law is correct and the issue is solely the
application of the law to the circumstances or the case; or (b) the only issue presented is
one of state law. IOPs 9.3.2, 9.3.3.

Answer To A Petition For Rehearing.
No response to a petition for rehearing is
required and none will be accepted unless the Court directs that one be filed. Fed. R.
App. P. 40(a)(3). Usually, no answer will be requested unless an active judge asks for
one within 10 days of the filing of the petition. IOP 8.1. Often (but not necessarily), a
petition will not be granted unless the Court gives the opposing party the opportunity
to file an answer. If the Court requests an answer (typically due in 14 days), opposing
counsel should explain in concise detail why the decision was correct, why rehearing
would not alter the outcome of the case, or why the petition does not meet the
standards for rehearing. If the movant is seeking rehearing en banc, the opposing party
will want to argue that the petition does not meet the strict standards of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 35(a) and LAR 35.4. The answer is limited to 15 pages and must be
in 14-point type, double-spaced.

MsMorrisine · July 1, 2015 2:09AM

It is important to remember, however, that an appeal is not a probabilistic
event. Statistics provide context, but reversal rates say little about the
merits of any individual appeal.

Q. What is the likelihood that the Court will grant a petition for rehearing en banc?
A. Low. In the year ending September 30, 2011, for example, the Third
Circuit granted rehearing en banc in only three cases.

Q. The issues in my appeal are complex, and I cannot make my brief fit within the length
limitations. What should I do?

A. First, strongly reconsider seeking additional words. The Third Circuit
recently has warned that “motions to exceed the page or word limitations
for briefs are strongly disfavored and will be granted only upon
demonstration of extraordinary circumstances.” If you nevertheless
intend to make such a motion, it should be filed as early as possible, and
the reasons given should be specific and compelling.

File Petition for
Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc

Due 14 days from the date
judgment was entered; 45 days in
civil cases in which the United
States is a party.

FRAP 35, 40;
LAR 35.0; IOPs
8, 9

MsMorrisine · July 1, 2015 3:21AM

I don't recall and will skip looking it up, but e-filing has until 11:59pm ... If a technical error (e-problem) occurs they have some hope of filing after midnight with a good "your dog ate your internet connection" excuse

So I think the prime time to check for an en banc request is tomorrow.

mr1931S · July 1, 2015 4:42AM

keyman64 · July 1, 2015 5:09AM

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 11:10AM

"...a three hour tour; a three hour tour!"

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 12:29PM

<< Saw that this thread is becoming active again so I looked at the case docket. As of 2:00 p.m. PDT today there are no new filings.

The post count for this thread continues to climb. >>

If they were to file at, say, 11:55 tonight EDT, how long would it be before the filing would show up online?

DeepCoin · July 1, 2015 12:42PM

Does anyone know if the government made the deadline today?? The filing might not show up until after it was actually processed.

Tomthecoinguy · July 1, 2015 1:13PM

We are 47 minutes from the deadline as I post this (I am assuming Eastern Time), I don't know if they filed yet or not. Is anyone checking? Is their any delay or do we know real time when it happens?

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 1:57PM

As Brunhilde enters, stage left, and begins warming up her vocal chords.....

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 2:04PM

link

Tomthecoinguy · July 1, 2015 2:11PM

Any night owls on this board with access to PACER? Per the 3rd district website FAQ, the electronically filed documents should appear immediately. So theoretically, if the government appealed and made the deadline, it should be accessible in PACER.

keyman64 · July 1, 2015 3:19PM

Steve · July 1, 2015 10:15PM

<< THE CLOCK HAS STOPPED TICKING:

The Court Of Appeal granted the motion of the government for a 30 day extension of the deadline for it to file a petition for rehearing. The new deadline is 7-1-2015.

SINCE IT IS NOW PAST JULY 1ST, IT APPEARS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE CASE IN A TIMELY MANNER. WE ALL AWAIT WORD FROM THE COURT ON THIS.

Steve

>>

TwoSides2aCoin · July 1, 2015 10:18PM

Maybe some of the accountants talked to some of the lawyers and realized they went a little over budget on $13K worth of bullion. And higher ups saw this thread and told the lawyers… Fuggetaboutit.

And the fat lady sang.

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 10:34PM

As I asked earlier, if they did file at the last minute, how long would it take to show up?

TheRaven · July 1, 2015 11:09PM

No news.... interesting....

Tomthecoinguy · July 1, 2015 11:17PM

Has anyone checked PACER, or with the court directly, to verify that nothing has been filed? What if they went right to SCOTUS, would the filings be at the 3rd district site too?

CaptHenway · July 2, 2015 12:03AM

Good question.

MsMorrisine · July 2, 2015 2:41AM

I called the supreme court
got al the way to the right person to ask
no answer, mailbox full

keyman64 · July 2, 2015 3:23AM

GregL · July 2, 2015 3:31AM

Just looked in PACER and saw this:

07/01/2015 Open Document ECF FILER: Petition filed by Appellee USA for Rehearing before original panel and the court en banc. Certificate of Service dated 07/01/2015. (RAZ)

Greg

Tomthecoinguy · July 2, 2015 3:35AM

<< Just looked in PACER and saw this:

07/01/2015 Open Document ECF FILER: Petition filed by Appellee USA for Rehearing before original panel and the court en banc. Certificate of Service dated 07/01/2015. (RAZ)

Greg >>

Thank you Greg, for the info!

This of course was no surprise, we were expecting this, but it is good to have confirmation.

Anyone know how long it usually takes for the court to act on a petition like this?

CaptHenway · July 2, 2015 3:43AM

Another round on the merry-go-round!

Langbords win.

Comments

Leave a Comment