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
And damn! I thought the Govt was gonna do the right thing and just drop the case.
In my heart I know they wouldn't do that -- they have unlimited (=our) funds.
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
This is what we can expect to happen.Attorneys are still shaking their heads side-to-side all across the nation.I'll have a glass of chardonnay with my goose,thank you very much.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Unfortunately the Langbords have not won until the coins are in their hands.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I'm pretty certain that if the Appeals Court refuses to hear it en banc, the US can still appeal to the Supreme Court.
Greg
Greg Lyon, ANA Board of Governors 2011-2017 -- The views represented here are my own personal opinions and do not represent those of the American Numismatic Association.
These last second "appeals" somehow bother me. To hear Ms Morrisine's report on the Court of Appeals practice Guide (July 1st thread in this topic) I would think there wasn't 3 chances in 100 that the court would take the appeal. Somehow I think the decision was already made by the court to take the appeal and that is why the "official appeal" wasn't posted until now. The government wasn't going to make the appeal IF it was going to be turned down. Does this sound like the way it works? Probably not in most cases, but I am beginning to sense this is NOT like most cases. I, of course, could be wrong, but IF the 3rd Circuit agrees at this last minute to hear this by all 13 members or if it sends it back to the trial court for rehearing, then it really seems to me that the government will keep the coins and the reasons for this will come out AFTER the conclusion of the process, probably another two years. I hope I am wrong. We will all know very shortly what the court will do. Steve
<< <i>So know the court can accept this and it goes back to lower court or does it go to same appeals court?
Or the court can deny which ends the case? >>
Here is my understanding of the process now:
The "en blanc" or full appeals court now has to decide if they are going to hear the case. If they do then I believe we have another appellate hearing with the full appeals court, and another opinion/judgment. The losing side could them appeal to SCOTUS.
If the "en blanc" panel refuses to hear it, the government can either give up, or appeal to the SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS will have to decide if they want to take it.
Of course any of the appeals court could overturn the CAFRA finding, and then order a new trial on the hearsay issue.
This could really go on for a number of years yet. I honestly think best case for the Langbords is still a couple of years before they get their hands on the coins.
<< <i>If they go the SCOTUS approach, doesn't that guarantee another year? It would go on next year's docket, not this year, correct? >>
Yes, there will not be a decision until next year, if the Supreme Court takes the case. And if it does go to the Supreme Court, Kennedy will probably have the deciding vote. You can put book on the four hard left justices siding with the government.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>If they go the SCOTUS approach, doesn't that guarantee another year? It would go on next year's docket, not this year, correct? >>
Yes, there will not be a decision until next year, if the Supreme Court takes the case. And if it does go to the Supreme Court, Kennedy will probably have the deciding vote. You can put book on the four hard left justices siding with the government. >>
There is no way we could have a SCOTUS decision in this case next year. We would be much more than a year from the a SCOTUS decision, if that ever even happens. We still have to get the full appeals court to decide to hear the case. Even after that is done, my understanding of the SCOTUS is going to take at least a year to decide if they accept the case, and then another year after that before we would get a decision.
<< <i>Here is my understanding of the process now:
The "en blanc" or full appeals court now has to decide if they are going to hear the case. If they do then I believe we have another appellate hearing with the full appeals court, and another opinion/judgment. The losing side could them appeal to SCOTUS.
If the "en blanc" panel refuses to hear it, the government can either give up, or appeal to the SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS will have to decide if they want to take it.
Of course any of the appeals court could overturn the CAFRA finding, and then order a new trial on the hearsay issue.
This could really go on for a number of years yet. I honestly think best case for the Langbords is still a couple of years before they get their hands on the coins. >>
This is correct. If the petition for en banc review is granted, the Third Circuit will enter an order immediately vacating the previous appellate opinion/judgment and the case will be reheard before the full court.
<< <i>What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. >>
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it.
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case. >>
Does the mint have documentation that the coins were or were not carried fully through the coining/monetization process? Methinks the Govmint didn't file the CAFRA forfeiture because they couldn't meet the burden of proof required to prevail.
Again, in my opinion, this case will be decided depending on whether or not the 3rd circuit court of appeals accepts or denies the government's petition for a rehearing. If a rehearing is ordered then CAFRA will probably be ruled illegal, however, I wouldn't know why this law passed by Congress is illegal. I'm thinking that the governments whole case is now based on the CAFRA ruling. I just don't think they can PROVE the coins were stolen. It is a FACT that in the 1920's and early 1930's coins from earlier years were "traded out" for new year coins at the Philadelphia mint. It is also a FACT that there WAS a couple of weeks period in late March, 1933 to early April, 1933 where such "trade out" was still LEGAL. Steve
<< <i>Again, in my opinion, this case will be decided depending on whether or not the 3rd circuit court of appeals accepts or denies the government's petition for a rehearing. If a rehearing is ordered then CAFRA will probably be ruled illegal, however, I wouldn't know why this law passed by Congress is illegal. I'm thinking that the governments whole case is now based on the CAFRA ruling. I just don't think they can PROVE the coins were stolen. It is a FACT that in the 1920's and early 1930's coins from earlier years were "traded out" for new year coins at the Philadelphia mint. It is also a FACT that there WAS a couple of weeks period in late March, 1933 to early April, 1933 where such "trade out" was still LEGAL. Steve >>
The "FACT" which seems to be missing is whether or not the coins were approved to be made available for exchange. Just because they were struck doesn't mean they were available.
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case. >>
Does the mint have documentation that the coins were or were not carried fully through the coining/monetization process? Methinks the Govmint didn't file the CAFRA forfeiture because they couldn't meet the burden of proof required to prevail. >>
"Monetization" didn't exist in 1933. The term was invented by a government lawyer circa 1995 when the government was going after the Fenton coin.
If monetization is so important, then the government should be able to produce a document from the 1930's containing that word. They won't be able to do it. because the word didn't exist until the 1990's. If anyone has such a document, please provide it.
One of the statements in the appeal is that because the property was stolen, a CAFRA filing was not necessary. This argument was discussed and rejected in the Rendell opinion, which stated that CAFRA specifically was required when the government was trying to retrieve property stolen from it.
I still expect the government's "home-court advantage" to prevail, despite the facts and the law apparently not being in their favor.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The bottom line is that the Mint violated the Langbord's RIGHTS by refusing to follow proper procedure.
If the Government can violate one family's RIGHTS, they can violate YOURS! Remember that!
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 government has been acting as if any 1933 double eagle found to be in private hands is stolen property well before Tripp and Frankel wrote their books,Illegal Tender by Tripp and Double Eagle by Frankel. Attempts by our government to get the Farouk piece back after export license to Egypt was mistakenly issued were to no avail in the '40's.Nine 1933 double eagles were seized from their temporary owners in the '40's.L.G. Barnard sued the government in 1947 to get back the coin that was seized from him.Barnard lost his case.Barnard's coin and eight other seized 1933 doubles were subsequently melted.
Roger Burdette claims that a 1945 memo he discovered allows for the possibility that 1933 coins were comingled with 1932 coins in early March 1933.My main question here,begging for an answer,is WHY are Mint officials discussing 1933 business twelve years later,in 1945?
Government is not required by law to furnish new coins of any particular year for collectors.WHY would there be a mad rush by Mint officials to get 1933 doubles at the Mint window two days after production of same started (Mar 2,1933) and two days before FDR's inauguration (March 6,1933)? My understanding is that there were new 1932 doubles available at the Mint window early in March 1933.There were more 1932 doubles available to the public than the demand for them as year 1932 drew to a close.Similar situation in 1931. Public demand for double eagle coins to cherish as collectibles was simply not there during the Great Depression and especially not there as America entered the depths of the Great Depression in 1933.
Another question:WHY did Izzy wait until after the great gold coin melt (began February 3,1937) to start unloading some of the 1933 doubles in his possession? If Izzy obtained his '33's legally at the Mint window WHY the furtiveness,WHY the evasiveness when asked HOW he (Izzy) obtained the coins?
I've heard the word "hearsay" bantied about in this thread from time-to-time. 1We hear,"That's hearsay,not evidence." Izzy is asked by Secret Service agents where he obtained the coins.What Izzy had to say is on a paper record.Izzy says,"I don't remember." WHY would Izzy answer with "I don't remember" if he obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully? Seriously,how does Izzy's "I don't remember" answer for Secret Service investigators fly with the most pro-Langbord among you?
These are vexing questions that can probably never be answered with absolute certainty,however,how people are acting rather than what they are saying can speak volumes to investigators.
edit: 1 Jane Levine,lead government lawyer in the Fenton case,discovered in the National Archives that a lawyer working on the Barnard case in 1947 claimed to be able to prove,using existing Mint records,that no 1933 double eagle was ever lawfully issued to the public.Government could not use Levine's findings in the Fenton case because of hearsay rules. 8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case. >>
Does the mint have documentation that the coins were or were not carried fully through the coining/monetization process? Methinks the Govmint didn't file the CAFRA forfeiture because they couldn't meet the burden of proof required to prevail. >>
"Monetization" didn't exist in 1933. The term was invented by a government lawyer circa 1995 when the government was going after the Fenton coin.
If monetization is so important, then the government should be able to produce a document from the 1930's containing that word. They won't be able to do it. because the word didn't exist until the 1990's. If anyone has such a document, please provide it.
One of the statements in the appeal is that because the property was stolen, a CAFRA filing was not necessary. This argument was discussed and rejected in the Rendell opinion, which stated that CAFRA specifically was required when the government was trying to retrieve property stolen from it.
I still expect the government's "home-court advantage" to prevail, despite the facts and the law apparently not being in their favor. >>
According to posters in other threads, that is not true at all. Monetization is the general procedure by which money [in this case coins] is produced. It's an implicit term in that process.
It presents legal analysis and argument that is detailed and that provides citation to various statutes, published appellate court opinions, the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, a treatise on Asset Forfeiture Law in the US and other sources. The detail is so great that it would take hours to review the citations to determine what the cited materials say and whether the cited materials support the positions argued by the government.
The petition does present certain themes:
1. The 10 double eagles were stolen from the Mint;
2. The government at the trial proved that the 10 double eagles were stolen from the mint;
3. George McCann stole the 10 double eagles from the mint and he was aided and abetted in doing so by Mr. Switt;
4. Mr. Switt is a thief;
5. The Langbord family came into possession of the 10 double eagles belonging to the government via inheritance from a thief, Mr. Switt;
6. Separate and apart from the CAFRA's of Civil Asset Forfeiture as A remedy (which the Government can use to recover stolen government property), the Government has OTHER remedies available to it in the law (including in this case a separate legal claim for Declaratory Relief asserting the presence of a dispute over ownership of the 10 double eagles and a request that the court determine the dispute by issuing a judgment declaring who owns the 10 coins) ;
7. CAFRA and its 90 day deadline for the government to file a forfeiture complaint should not be interpreted to preclude or bar the government from pursuing other available remedies to determine ownership of the 10 double eagles;
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
9. The 10 double eagles are worth millions of dollars and the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal awards same to the family of a thief.
Court filings made by attorneys for the parties to a case are, by their very nature, one sided as they serve to advocate the position and interests of the party filing same. Completely understandable. If the case progresses to the point where the Langbord family is required to file papers in answer to or in response to the petition filed on Wednesday last, their papers will advocate their position and interest. Such papers will likely point out that which is obvious, that which was mentioned in the 4-17-2015 decision and that which is missing from the petition (specifically that the government's non compliance with the CAFRA 90 deadline for filing a forfeiture complaint was intentional and was done against the recommendation and advice of multiple government agencies [with only the mint taking the position that no forfeiture complaint was necessary]).
CAFRA was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton for the purpose of reforming the Civil Asset Forfeiture laws then on the books to clarify and strengthen those laws in favor of protecting the public from Governmental abuses that had been taking place. Aspect of the revised laws are to require the government to file forfeiture complaints within specified deadlines or lose its rights to the subject property; and to place the burden of proof on the government to prove its right to forfeiture of the subject property. CAFRA applies to cases involving stolen government property.
The court of appeal in its decision of 4-17-2015 dealt with issues regarding the interpretation of provisions of CAFRA. It decided the case in favor of the Langbords when it applied the CAFRA death penalty on the government as a result of its failure to file a forfeiture complaint with the 90 day time period. In the event that the government's petition for rehearing is granted then the full panel of justices on the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will deal with the same issues. If the case progresses from the court of appeal to SOCTUS and if that court agrees to take on the case it will also deal with the same issues. These issues are interesting, because at their core they deal with the nature of the power of the government over the governed regarding ownership of property.
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case?
From what SanctionII is stating above, it seems to me that the government (executive branch) believes it has the SOLE right to determine who owns the PROPERTY. At least under CAFRA, the party disputing the ownership of the property can have its case heard by the COURTS which is the third branch of government. If the government (in this case the executive branch) has complete power (as they seem to claim in this petition for rehearing) then the judicial and legislative branches of government are made ineffectual to the executive branch if the court rules in this case that CAFRA legislation does NOT apply. Steve
RE: earlier poster's references to FACTS, we must consider the lyrics (from "Crosseyed and Painless") of that wonderful 80s band The Talking Heads for guidance....
Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts don't do what I want them to Facts just twist the truth around Facts are living turned inside out Facts are getting the best of them Facts are nothing on the face of things Facts don't stain the furniture Facts go out and slam the door Facts are written all over your face Facts continue to change their shape
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting... I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting... I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I thought you had to have a PACER account in order to read the filing. >>
I don't know how they have it, but the document is now hosted on the WSJ blog site for all to read.
It is an interesting read. They also take the position, in a footnote, that the coins were not released for circulation and aren't money. It is amusing their wording on the first page where they call them gold pieces that were minted as $20 double eagle coins. If they were never coins, my wording at this level, appeal to appeals court, would have been very careful in the use of the word coin on page 1.
I'd love to have the en banc ask the us lawyers: "So.... Exactly how many were stolen, how many were recovered, and how many are remaining?"
As far as switt's words, which I haven't seen in documents, he could be covering for those left outstanding. If he talked the mint might actually find out where they all went. It sure could point to a sign of guilt, but if switt thought the gov't was overreaching ... Well ... This was the improper, incorrect, unethical and cheap-n-easy way out instead of going to court over it.
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.
Regarding Mr1874's recent post. In same he states that the Government's Export License issued to the Egyptian Legation was "mistaken".
I am curious as to what leads Mr1874 to believe that the Export License was a mistake. I would expect that the government made an intentional decision, after reviewing whatever needed to be reviewed, to grant the request for an Export License and issue same. This decision was made by a person or persons in the government that likely had no connection with any then pending investigation or efforts by others in government to find and obtain possession of 1933 double eagles. Simply because events taking place after the Export License had been issued causes the government to opine that the Export License should not have been issued, one can not characterize the issuance of same "mistaken".
I thought you had to have a PACER account in order to read the filing. >>
I don't know how they have it, but the document is now hosted on the WSJ blog site for all to read.
It is an interesting read. They also take the position, in a footnote, that the coins were not released for circulation and aren't money. It is amusing their wording on the first page where they call them gold pieces that were minted as $20 double eagle coins. If they were never coins, my wording at this level, appeal to appeals court, would have been very careful in the use of the word coin on page 1.
I'd love to have the en banc ask the us lawyers: "So.... Exactly how many were stolen, how many were recovered, and how many are remaining?"
As far as switt's words, which I haven't seen in documents, he could be covering for those left outstanding. If he talked the mint might actually find out where they all went. It sure could point to a sign of guilt, but if switt thought the gov't was overreaching ... Well ... This was the improper, incorrect, unethical and cheap-n-easy way out instead of going to court over it. >>
They wouldn't necessarily have to have been released to have been legal money. All they had to do was meet the requirements for assay, size, weight etc. If someone found a bag of 1895 Morgans in a vault, would they not be legal coins because they weren't released to circulation?
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case? >>
I read the filing. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the brief it says that the government didn't need to use CAFRA. CAFRA is for forfeiture of property owned by the person it is being seized from. The government says that title to the property (the double eagles) in this case belonged to the government and always has belonged to the government since the coins were stolen. The government doesn't need to file for forfeiture to get its own property back.
The logic makes sense to me. The case then hinges on who had title to the double eagles, which of course lays on whether the coins were stolen or not. (Which is what I think it really should hinge on. If the government can't prove the coins were stolen, the Langbords ought to keep them.)
If someone steals your car you don't need any forfeiture proceeding to get it back if you can prove it's your car.
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case? >>
I read the filing. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the brief it says that the government didn't need to use CAFRA. CAFRA is for forfeiture of property owned by the person it is being seized from. The government says that title to the property (the double eagles) in this case belonged to the government and always has belonged to the government since the coins were stolen. The government doesn't need to file for forfeiture to get its own property back.
The logic makes sense to me. The case then hinges on who had title to the double eagles, which of course lays on whether the coins were stolen or not. (Which is what I think it really should hinge on. If the government can't prove the coins were stolen, the Langbords ought to keep them.)
If someone steals your car you don't need any forfeiture proceeding to get it back if you can prove it's your car. >>
IIRC CAFRA requires a forfeiture proceeding even in the event of stolen goods.
How does the Gummint substantiate the claim that the coins are "stolen?"
Was there any gold missing?
As I said in the COINage article referenced above, McCann and Switt may have been guilty of some misdemeanors circa 1937, but the statute of limitations on those expired a long time ago.
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>How does the Gummint substantiate the claim that the coins are "stolen?"
Was there any gold missing?
As I said in the COINage article referenced above, McCann and Switt may have been guilty of some misdemeanors circa 1937, but the statute of limitations on those expired a long time ago. >>
I believe the government "substantiates" the claim that the coins are stolen merely by saying so. If they say it often enough, maybe people will believe them. I'm not sure what legal principle describes "they are stolen because we say they are stolen". But no gold was missing and no police report was filed, so how can they say the coins were stolen?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i> 8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case? >>
I read the filing. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the brief it says that the government didn't need to use CAFRA. CAFRA is for forfeiture of property owned by the person it is being seized from. The government says that title to the property (the double eagles) in this case belonged to the government and always has belonged to the government since the coins were stolen. The government doesn't need to file for forfeiture to get its own property back.
The logic makes sense to me. The case then hinges on who had title to the double eagles, which of course lays on whether the coins were stolen or not. (Which is what I think it really should hinge on. If the government can't prove the coins were stolen, the Langbords ought to keep them.)
If someone steals your car you don't need any forfeiture proceeding to get it back if you can prove it's your car. >>
IIRC CAFRA requires a forfeiture proceeding even in the event of stolen goods. >>
And the original 3rd circuit judge made the us do a judicial forfeiture proceeding.
As SanctionII cautioned, this is a one sided interpretation of everything.
I am curious as to what leads Mr1874 to believe that the Export License was a mistake. I would expect that the government made an intentional decision, after reviewing whatever needed to be reviewed, to grant the request for an Export License and issue same. This decision was made by a person or persons in the government that likely had no connection with any then pending investigation or efforts by others in government to find and obtain possession of 1933 double eagles. Simply because events taking place after the Export License had been issued causes the government to opine that the Export License should not have been issued, one can not characterize the issuance of same "mistaken".
The export license for one 1933 double eagle was granted to the Egyptians after Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint,consulted with T. Belote of the Smithsonian.A key question for Belote to consider was,"was the 1933 double eagle a coin of "special interest" to collectors in 1933? The presumption here is that if the coin indeed did have special interest to collectors in 1933 then the Mint could issue the export license.If the coin was deemed to not have special interest in 1933,then the coin would not be eligible for exportation since it represented only what it could buy,ie.valued for it's bullion value only,in 1933.
The 1933 dated double eagle would have been considered as having only bullion value to persons in 1933 says Tripp.Belote concluded that the 1933 double sent to him for inspection,the famous Farouk piece,was of special interest to collectors in 1933.Tripp in Illegal Tender says Belote was wrong and so gave mistaken advice to Director Ross who went on to approve the export of the '33 double for the Egyptians.
Mixing considerations of the "man in the street" with considerations of "rich collectors of the day" is what Tripp does in the chapter of his book devoted to issuance of the export license.Of course there was special interest in 1933 of rich collectors to obtain a specimen of 1933 double eagle for their collections.I suggest that Tripp is wrong about Belote being wrong.
If Tripp were to agree with T. Belote,the Government's position that any 1933 doubles found in private hands is stolen government property would be seriously compromised.Government seizures of 1933 doubles began in 1944.Those government seizures of '33 doubles would likely eventually be seen as mistaken unless the export license for the Farouk coin was deemed to have been issued mistakenly.1933 dated double was of special interest to King Farouk only and no one else?
Within a few weeks of the export license being granted to the Egyptians (1944),Nellie Tayloe Ross vanished from the scene and was replaced by an "acting" Mint Director,Dr. Leland Howard. Secret Service seizures of 1933 double eagles commenced when Howard became acting Director.What happened to Ross? Was she put on administrative leave of absence for her "mistake?" I think that is a distinct possibility.
In my mind,Nellie Tayloe Ross was a dedicated public servant with high integrity but I think she was terribly naïve about the complexity of the problems she would be facing as Director of the Mint starting May,1933.The granting of the export license to the Egyptians for a 1933 double was a Ross mistake in my view,no matter how innocent that mistake might be.
Ross entered the scene as Mint Director in May,1933 in the midst of a perfect storm.Ross left the scene in 1944 after granting the export license.Another perfect storm was not to be denied having its day some eleven years later.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
In the end, the government will show that in the interest of the people, these coins are in safe keeping now. Not that they weren't before, but imagine if they had been in control of the government. We would not be here to discuss this. So , … Happy Independence to the entrepreneur who doesn't get caught and says : "Over my dead body" Because in the end, it is over his dead body that the coins exist.
Long live the memory of Israel Switt. A typical dealer ( um, excuse me; thief) as some would like for him to go down in history as.
A numismatic legend. A hero. A visionary. (okay, for some of you; a thief )
I'd love to have the en banc ask the us lawyers: "So.... Exactly how many were stolen, how many were recovered, and how many are remaining?"
A bag of 1929 dated double eagles,face value $5000, was found to be missing during the 1937 audit just prior to the great gold melt.The bag of 250 double eagle coins were never recovered and are presumed to be stolen.Would it have been possible for mint employee(s) in 1937 to swap out some of those 33's,about to be melted,with some '29's from the stolen bag?
We know that at least twenty 1933 doubles exist or have existed post the great gold melt.Excepting the two '33 doubles in the Smithsonian,eleven '33 doubles currently exist.Nine '33 doubles were melted into gold bricks after being seized in the '40's.There could easily be more '33 doubles extant.Izzy boasted to dealer James Macallister about owning twenty-five '33 doubles.If Izzy's boast to Macallister was truthful,there would be at least five more '33 doubles extant.
# of 1929 doubles known to be stolen (from the 1937 audit)-250 ($5000 face value) # of 1929 doubles recovered from the stolen bag-0.The crime was never solved. # of 1929 doubles remaining from the stolen bag-unknown # of 1933 doubles known to be stolen-20. # of 1933 doubles recovered-19.Nine have been melted.One '33 double is ex Farouk,the only legal '33 double at this writing. # of 1933 doubles remaining-unknown.
edit:to correct "1928" to "1929." 8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Tripp, a fitting name, says the mint kept immaculate records. But nowhere is there a hard number of stolen 1933 $20 coins.
Fascinating.
And he doesn't think a 1933 $20 would merit desire past bullion value? We have threads with pictures of 2015 dated Zincolns from change and this guy is called as an "expert witness?"
Are you saying that $5,000.00 worth of gold was missing and found stolen in 1937? I do not believe the gold records substantiate that assertion. Now there may have been issues regarding the dates in the bags not being correct, but it is my understanding that the gold records do not reflect any missing gold, thus no theft of gold. Different dates in the bags do not equal theft of gold. You could buy a nice house in 1937 for $5,000. That much missing gold would have created a MAJOR flap, even more than today.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
DeepCoin,the missing bag of 250 double eagles is discussed by Tripp on p.117-118 of Illegal Tender.I have attempted to publish excerpts from Tripp's book here but have not been able to do so.Technical problems.I can't even make the "italics button" work this morning.I'm going to reboot my computer after this post.Hopefully,that will work for me.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Comments
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/02/u-s-asks-appeals-court-to-rehear-ruling-over-rare-double-eagle-coins/
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Or the court can deny which ends the case?
And damn! I thought the Govt was gonna do the right thing and just drop the case.
In my heart I know they wouldn't do that -- they have unlimited (=our) funds.
This is what we can expect to happen.Attorneys are still shaking their heads side-to-side all across the nation.I'll have a glass of chardonnay with my goose,thank you very much.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Or the court can deny which ends the case?
This is what we can expect to happen. >>
I'm pretty certain that if the Appeals Court refuses to hear it en banc, the US can still appeal to the Supreme Court.
Greg
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>So know the court can accept this and it goes back to lower court or does it go to same appeals court?
Or the court can deny which ends the case? >>
Here is my understanding of the process now:
The "en blanc" or full appeals court now has to decide if they are going to hear the case. If they do then I believe we have another appellate hearing with the full appeals court, and another opinion/judgment. The losing side could them appeal to SCOTUS.
If the "en blanc" panel refuses to hear it, the government can either give up, or appeal to the SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS will have to decide if they want to take it.
Of course any of the appeals court could overturn the CAFRA finding, and then order a new trial on the hearsay issue.
This could really go on for a number of years yet. I honestly think best case for the Langbords is still a couple of years before they get their hands on the coins.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>If they go the SCOTUS approach, doesn't that guarantee another year? It would go on next year's docket, not this year, correct? >>
Yes, there will not be a decision until next year, if the Supreme Court takes the case. And if it does go to the Supreme Court, Kennedy will probably have the deciding vote. You can put book on the four hard left justices siding with the government.
<< <i>
<< <i>If they go the SCOTUS approach, doesn't that guarantee another year? It would go on next year's docket, not this year, correct? >>
Yes, there will not be a decision until next year, if the Supreme Court takes the case. And if it does go to the Supreme Court, Kennedy will probably have the deciding vote. You can put book on the four hard left justices siding with the government. >>
There is no way we could have a SCOTUS decision in this case next year. We would be much more than a year from the a SCOTUS decision, if that ever even happens. We still have to get the full appeals court to decide to hear the case. Even after that is done, my understanding of the SCOTUS is going to take at least a year to decide if they accept the case, and then another year after that before we would get a decision.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>This case has been going on over 70 years since 1944, so what's another year or ten years?
True, but gay people have been trying to be legally wed since Roman times. Some things take a little longer than others.
<< <i>Here is my understanding of the process now:
The "en blanc" or full appeals court now has to decide if they are going to hear the case. If they do then I believe we have another appellate hearing with the full appeals court, and another opinion/judgment. The losing side could them appeal to SCOTUS.
If the "en blanc" panel refuses to hear it, the government can either give up, or appeal to the SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS will have to decide if they want to take it.
Of course any of the appeals court could overturn the CAFRA finding, and then order a new trial on the hearsay issue.
This could really go on for a number of years yet. I honestly think best case for the Langbords is still a couple of years before they get their hands on the coins. >>
This is correct. If the petition for en banc review is granted, the Third Circuit will enter an order immediately vacating the previous appellate opinion/judgment and the case will be reheard before the full court.
<< <i>What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. >>
<< <i>There was an article on the government asking for a rehearing in the WSJ legal blog.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/02/u-s-asks-appeals-court-to-rehear-ruling-over-rare-double-eagle-coins/ >>
Curse them
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it.
<< <i>
<< <i>There was an article on the government asking for a rehearing in the WSJ legal blog.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/02/u-s-asks-appeals-court-to-rehear-ruling-over-rare-double-eagle-coins/ >>
Curse them
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There was an article on the government asking for a rehearing in the WSJ legal blog.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/02/u-s-asks-appeals-court-to-rehear-ruling-over-rare-double-eagle-coins/ >>
Curse them
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case. >>
Does the mint have documentation that the coins were or were not carried fully through the coining/monetization process? Methinks the Govmint didn't file the CAFRA forfeiture because they couldn't meet the burden of proof required to prevail.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Again, in my opinion, this case will be decided depending on whether or not the 3rd circuit court of appeals accepts or denies the government's petition for a rehearing. If a rehearing is ordered then CAFRA will probably be ruled illegal, however, I wouldn't know why this law passed by Congress is illegal. I'm thinking that the governments whole case is now based on the CAFRA ruling. I just don't think they can PROVE the coins were stolen. It is a FACT that in the 1920's and early 1930's coins from earlier years were "traded out" for new year coins at the Philadelphia mint. It is also a FACT that there WAS a couple of weeks period in late March, 1933 to early April, 1933 where such "trade out" was still LEGAL. Steve
The "FACT" which seems to be missing is whether or not the coins were approved to be made available for exchange. Just because they were struck doesn't mean they were available.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There was an article on the government asking for a rehearing in the WSJ legal blog.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/02/u-s-asks-appeals-court-to-rehear-ruling-over-rare-double-eagle-coins/ >>
Curse them
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case. >>
Does the mint have documentation that the coins were or were not carried fully through the coining/monetization process? Methinks the Govmint didn't file the CAFRA forfeiture because they couldn't meet the burden of proof required to prevail. >>
"Monetization" didn't exist in 1933. The term was invented by a government lawyer circa 1995 when the government was going after the Fenton coin.
If monetization is so important, then the government should be able to produce a document from the 1930's containing that word. They won't be able to do it. because the word didn't exist until the 1990's. If anyone has such a document, please provide it.
One of the statements in the appeal is that because the property was stolen, a CAFRA filing was not necessary. This argument was discussed and rejected in the Rendell opinion, which stated that CAFRA specifically was required when the government was trying to retrieve property stolen from it.
I still expect the government's "home-court advantage" to prevail, despite the facts and the law apparently not being in their favor.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Iirc, the majority opinion questioned if the coins were stolen. This filing says they did not address that.
The plot thickens.
If the Government can violate one family's RIGHTS, they can violate YOURS! Remember that!
Roger Burdette claims that a 1945 memo he discovered allows for the possibility that 1933 coins were comingled with 1932 coins in early March 1933.My main question here,begging for an answer,is WHY are Mint officials discussing 1933 business twelve years later,in 1945?
Government is not required by law to furnish new coins of any particular year for collectors.WHY would there be a mad rush by Mint officials to get 1933 doubles at the Mint window two days after production of same started (Mar 2,1933) and two days before FDR's inauguration (March 6,1933)? My understanding is that there were new 1932 doubles available at the Mint window early in March 1933.There were more 1932 doubles available to the public than the demand for them as year 1932 drew to a close.Similar situation in 1931. Public demand for double eagle coins to cherish as collectibles was simply not there during the Great Depression and especially not there as America entered the depths of the Great Depression in 1933.
Another question:WHY did Izzy wait until after the great gold coin melt (began February 3,1937) to start unloading some of the 1933 doubles in his possession? If Izzy obtained his '33's legally at the Mint window WHY the furtiveness,WHY the evasiveness when asked HOW he (Izzy) obtained the coins?
I've heard the word "hearsay" bantied about in this thread from time-to-time. 1We hear,"That's hearsay,not evidence." Izzy is asked by Secret Service agents where he obtained the coins.What Izzy had to say is on a paper record.Izzy says,"I don't remember." WHY would Izzy answer with "I don't remember" if he obtained the 1933 doubles lawfully? Seriously,how does Izzy's "I don't remember" answer for Secret Service investigators fly with the most pro-Langbord among you?
These are vexing questions that can probably never be answered with absolute certainty,however,how people are acting rather than what they are saying can speak volumes to investigators.
edit: 1 Jane Levine,lead government lawyer in the Fenton case,discovered in the National Archives that a lawyer working on the Barnard case in 1947 claimed to be able to prove,using existing Mint records,that no 1933 double eagle was ever lawfully issued to the public.Government could not use Levine's findings in the Fenton case because of hearsay rules.
8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There was an article on the government asking for a rehearing in the WSJ legal blog.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/07/02/u-s-asks-appeals-court-to-rehear-ruling-over-rare-double-eagle-coins/ >>
Curse them
15 page limit and the filing is just at 15 pages with a cover page. (No word limit). For those who watch the gov't seize property and wonder... This is must read. The doom and gloom forecasted in the appellate oral arguments is written out here.
Giving the Langbords stolen property is a miscarriage of justice.
I hope there are oral arguments for this one. Perhaps the could quote Benedict Arnold in it. >>
You should read the article in "COINage" this month about the short period of time during which FDR's gold surrender order was being implemented. Although the coins might have been stolen, I tend to doubt it. The question is would it have been legal to have exchanged older $20 gold pieces for the 1933 coins at the Philadelphia Mint at the time. If it was, the coins are legal, and the government has no case. >>
Does the mint have documentation that the coins were or were not carried fully through the coining/monetization process? Methinks the Govmint didn't file the CAFRA forfeiture because they couldn't meet the burden of proof required to prevail. >>
"Monetization" didn't exist in 1933. The term was invented by a government lawyer circa 1995 when the government was going after the Fenton coin.
If monetization is so important, then the government should be able to produce a document from the 1930's containing that word. They won't be able to do it. because the word didn't exist until the 1990's. If anyone has such a document, please provide it.
One of the statements in the appeal is that because the property was stolen, a CAFRA filing was not necessary. This argument was discussed and rejected in the Rendell opinion, which stated that CAFRA specifically was required when the government was trying to retrieve property stolen from it.
I still expect the government's "home-court advantage" to prevail, despite the facts and the law apparently not being in their favor. >>
According to posters in other threads, that is not true at all. Monetization is the general procedure by which money [in this case coins] is produced. It's an implicit term in that process.
<< <i>Is the filing available for view? >>
There is a link in the wsj blog link posted.
As expected the government filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the entire panel of justices sitting on the 3rd District Court Of Appeal.
Reading the petition and will post a follow up reply after I finish.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is the filing available for view? >>
There is a link in the wsj blog link posted. >>
I thought you had to have a PACER account in order to read the filing.
It presents legal analysis and argument that is detailed and that provides citation to various statutes, published appellate court opinions, the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, a treatise on Asset Forfeiture Law in the US and other sources. The detail is so great that it would take hours to review the citations to determine what the cited materials say and whether the cited materials support the positions argued by the government.
The petition does present certain themes:
1. The 10 double eagles were stolen from the Mint;
2. The government at the trial proved that the 10 double eagles were stolen from the mint;
3. George McCann stole the 10 double eagles from the mint and he was aided and abetted in doing so by Mr. Switt;
4. Mr. Switt is a thief;
5. The Langbord family came into possession of the 10 double eagles belonging to the government via inheritance from a thief, Mr. Switt;
6. Separate and apart from the CAFRA's of Civil Asset Forfeiture as A remedy (which the Government can use to recover stolen government property), the Government has OTHER remedies available to it in the law (including in this case a separate legal claim for Declaratory Relief asserting the presence of a dispute over ownership of the 10 double eagles and a request that the court determine the dispute by issuing a judgment declaring who owns the 10 coins) ;
7. CAFRA and its 90 day deadline for the government to file a forfeiture complaint should not be interpreted to preclude or bar the government from pursuing other available remedies to determine ownership of the 10 double eagles;
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
9. The 10 double eagles are worth millions of dollars and the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal awards same to the family of a thief.
Court filings made by attorneys for the parties to a case are, by their very nature, one sided as they serve to advocate the position and interests of the party filing same. Completely understandable. If the case progresses to the point where the Langbord family is required to file papers in answer to or in response to the petition filed on Wednesday last, their papers will advocate their position and interest. Such papers will likely point out that which is obvious, that which was mentioned in the 4-17-2015 decision and that which is missing from the petition (specifically that the government's non compliance with the CAFRA 90 deadline for filing a forfeiture complaint was intentional and was done against the recommendation and advice of multiple government agencies [with only the mint taking the position that no forfeiture complaint was necessary]).
CAFRA was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton for the purpose of reforming the Civil Asset Forfeiture laws then on the books to clarify and strengthen those laws in favor of protecting the public from Governmental abuses that had been taking place. Aspect of the revised laws are to require the government to file forfeiture complaints within specified deadlines or lose its rights to the subject property; and to place the burden of proof on the government to prove its right to forfeiture of the subject property. CAFRA applies to cases involving stolen government property.
The court of appeal in its decision of 4-17-2015 dealt with issues regarding the interpretation of provisions of CAFRA. It decided the case in favor of the Langbords when it applied the CAFRA death penalty on the government as a result of its failure to file a forfeiture complaint with the 90 day time period. In the event that the government's petition for rehearing is granted then the full panel of justices on the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals will deal with the same issues. If the case progresses from the court of appeal to SOCTUS and if that court agrees to take on the case it will also deal with the same issues. These issues are interesting, because at their core they deal with the nature of the power of the government over the governed regarding ownership of property.
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case?
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is the filing available for view? >>
There is a link in the wsj blog link posted. >>
I thought you had to have a PACER account in order to read the filing. >>
I don't know how they have it, but the document is now hosted on the WSJ blog site for all to read.
It is an interesting read. They also take the position, in a footnote, that the coins were not released for circulation and aren't money. It is amusing their wording on the first page where they call them gold pieces that were minted as $20 double eagle coins. If they were never coins, my wording at this level, appeal to appeals court, would have been very careful in the use of the word coin on page 1.
I'd love to have the en banc ask the us lawyers: "So.... Exactly how many were stolen, how many were recovered, and how many are remaining?"
As far as switt's words, which I haven't seen in documents, he could be covering for those left outstanding. If he talked the mint might actually find out where they all went. It sure could point to a sign of guilt, but if switt thought the gov't was overreaching ... Well ... This was the improper, incorrect, unethical and cheap-n-easy way out instead of going to court over it.
You are welcome.
Regarding Mr1874's recent post. In same he states that the Government's Export License issued to the Egyptian Legation was "mistaken".
I am curious as to what leads Mr1874 to believe that the Export License was a mistake. I would expect that the government made an intentional decision, after reviewing whatever needed to be reviewed, to grant the request for an Export License and issue same. This decision was made by a person or persons in the government that likely had no connection with any then pending investigation or efforts by others in government to find and obtain possession of 1933 double eagles. Simply because events taking place after the Export License had been issued causes the government to opine that the Export License should not have been issued, one can not characterize the issuance of same "mistaken".
Or can you?
"Do overs" for everyone?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is the filing available for view? >>
There is a link in the wsj blog link posted. >>
I thought you had to have a PACER account in order to read the filing. >>
I don't know how they have it, but the document is now hosted on the WSJ blog site for all to read.
It is an interesting read. They also take the position, in a footnote, that the coins were not released for circulation and aren't money. It is amusing their wording on the first page where they call them gold pieces that were minted as $20 double eagle coins. If they were never coins, my wording at this level, appeal to appeals court, would have been very careful in the use of the word coin on page 1.
I'd love to have the en banc ask the us lawyers: "So.... Exactly how many were stolen, how many were recovered, and how many are remaining?"
As far as switt's words, which I haven't seen in documents, he could be covering for those left outstanding. If he talked the mint might actually find out where they all went. It sure could point to a sign of guilt, but if switt thought the gov't was overreaching ... Well ... This was the improper, incorrect, unethical and cheap-n-easy way out instead of going to court over it. >>
They wouldn't necessarily have to have been released to have been legal money. All they had to do was meet the requirements for assay, size, weight etc. If someone found a bag of 1895 Morgans in a vault, would they not be legal coins because they weren't released to circulation?
<< <i>
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case? >>
I read the filing. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the brief it says that the government didn't need to use CAFRA. CAFRA is for forfeiture of property owned by the person it is being seized from. The government says that title to the property (the double eagles) in this case belonged to the government and always has belonged to the government since the coins were stolen. The government doesn't need to file for forfeiture to get its own property back.
The logic makes sense to me. The case then hinges on who had title to the double eagles, which of course lays on whether the coins were stolen or not. (Which is what I think it really should hinge on. If the government can't prove the coins were stolen, the Langbords ought to keep them.)
If someone steals your car you don't need any forfeiture proceeding to get it back if you can prove it's your car.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case? >>
I read the filing. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the brief it says that the government didn't need to use CAFRA. CAFRA is for forfeiture of property owned by the person it is being seized from. The government says that title to the property (the double eagles) in this case belonged to the government and always has belonged to the government since the coins were stolen. The government doesn't need to file for forfeiture to get its own property back.
The logic makes sense to me. The case then hinges on who had title to the double eagles, which of course lays on whether the coins were stolen or not. (Which is what I think it really should hinge on. If the government can't prove the coins were stolen, the Langbords ought to keep them.)
If someone steals your car you don't need any forfeiture proceeding to get it back if you can prove it's your car. >>
IIRC CAFRA requires a forfeiture proceeding even in the event of stolen goods.
Was there any gold missing?
As I said in the COINage article referenced above, McCann and Switt may have been guilty of some misdemeanors circa 1937, but the statute of limitations on those expired a long time ago.
<< <i>How does the Gummint substantiate the claim that the coins are "stolen?"
Was there any gold missing?
As I said in the COINage article referenced above, McCann and Switt may have been guilty of some misdemeanors circa 1937, but the statute of limitations on those expired a long time ago. >>
I believe the government "substantiates" the claim that the coins are stolen merely by saying so. If they say it often enough, maybe people will believe them. I'm not sure what legal principle describes "they are stolen because we say they are stolen". But no gold was missing and no police report was filed, so how can they say the coins were stolen?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
8. Upholding the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal in favor of the Langbords will result in harsh consequences to the government by restricting/limiting its ability to recover/protect its property (which the government holds, "in trust for the people"); and
>>
WHAT A CROCK OF CHIT!
If the Government had proof that the coins were stolen, why didn't they file under CAFRA, show the proof and win the case? >>
I read the filing. I'm no lawyer, but if I understand the brief it says that the government didn't need to use CAFRA. CAFRA is for forfeiture of property owned by the person it is being seized from. The government says that title to the property (the double eagles) in this case belonged to the government and always has belonged to the government since the coins were stolen. The government doesn't need to file for forfeiture to get its own property back.
The logic makes sense to me. The case then hinges on who had title to the double eagles, which of course lays on whether the coins were stolen or not. (Which is what I think it really should hinge on. If the government can't prove the coins were stolen, the Langbords ought to keep them.)
If someone steals your car you don't need any forfeiture proceeding to get it back if you can prove it's your car. >>
IIRC CAFRA requires a forfeiture proceeding even in the event of stolen goods. >>
And the original 3rd circuit judge made the us do a judicial forfeiture proceeding.
As SanctionII cautioned, this is a one sided interpretation of everything.
The export license for one 1933 double eagle was granted to the Egyptians after Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint,consulted with T. Belote of the Smithsonian.A key question for Belote to consider was,"was the 1933 double eagle a coin of "special interest" to collectors in 1933? The presumption here is that if the coin indeed did have special interest to collectors in 1933 then the Mint could issue the export license.If the coin was deemed to not have special interest in 1933,then the coin would not be eligible for exportation since it represented only what it could buy,ie.valued for it's bullion value only,in 1933.
The 1933 dated double eagle would have been considered as having only bullion value to persons in 1933 says Tripp.Belote concluded that the 1933 double sent to him for inspection,the famous Farouk piece,was of special interest to collectors in 1933.Tripp in Illegal Tender says Belote was wrong and so gave mistaken advice to Director Ross who went on to approve the export of the '33 double for the Egyptians.
Mixing considerations of the "man in the street" with considerations of "rich collectors of the day" is what Tripp does in the chapter of his book devoted to issuance of the export license.Of course there was special interest in 1933 of rich collectors to obtain a specimen of 1933 double eagle for their collections.I suggest that Tripp is wrong about Belote being wrong.
If Tripp were to agree with T. Belote,the Government's position that any 1933 doubles found in private hands is stolen government property would be seriously compromised.Government seizures of 1933 doubles began in 1944.Those government seizures of '33 doubles would likely eventually be seen as mistaken unless the export license for the Farouk coin was deemed to have been issued mistakenly.1933 dated double was of special interest to King Farouk only and no one else?
Within a few weeks of the export license being granted to the Egyptians (1944),Nellie Tayloe Ross vanished from the scene and was replaced by an "acting" Mint Director,Dr. Leland Howard. Secret Service seizures of 1933 double eagles commenced when Howard became acting Director.What happened to Ross? Was she put on administrative leave of absence for her "mistake?" I think that is a distinct possibility.
In my mind,Nellie Tayloe Ross was a dedicated public servant with high integrity but I think she was terribly naïve about the complexity of the problems she would be facing as Director of the Mint starting May,1933.The granting of the export license to the Egyptians for a 1933 double was a Ross mistake in my view,no matter how innocent that mistake might be.
Ross entered the scene as Mint Director in May,1933 in the midst of a perfect storm.Ross left the scene in 1944 after granting the export license.Another perfect storm was not to be denied having its day some eleven years later.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Long live the memory of Israel Switt. A typical dealer ( um, excuse me; thief) as some would like for him to go down in history as.
A numismatic legend. A hero. A visionary. (okay, for some of you; a thief
Whatever…. It takes a thief.
A bag of 1929 dated double eagles,face value $5000, was found to be missing during the 1937 audit just prior to the great gold melt.The bag of 250 double eagle coins were never recovered and are presumed to be stolen.Would it have been possible for mint employee(s) in 1937 to swap out some of those 33's,about to be melted,with some '29's from the stolen bag?
We know that at least twenty 1933 doubles exist or have existed post the great gold melt.Excepting the two '33 doubles in the Smithsonian,eleven '33 doubles currently exist.Nine '33 doubles were melted into gold bricks after being seized in the '40's.There could easily be more '33 doubles extant.Izzy boasted to dealer James Macallister about owning twenty-five '33 doubles.If Izzy's boast to Macallister was truthful,there would be at least five more '33 doubles extant.
# of 1929 doubles known to be stolen (from the 1937 audit)-250 ($5000 face value)
# of 1929 doubles recovered from the stolen bag-0.The crime was never solved.
# of 1929 doubles remaining from the stolen bag-unknown
# of 1933 doubles known to be stolen-20.
# of 1933 doubles recovered-19.Nine have been melted.One '33 double is ex Farouk,the only legal '33 double at this writing.
# of 1933 doubles remaining-unknown.
edit:to correct "1928" to "1929."
8/3/15
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Fascinating.
And he doesn't think a 1933 $20 would merit desire past bullion value? We have threads with pictures of 2015 dated Zincolns from change and this guy is called as an "expert witness?"
Tripp.
Are you saying that $5,000.00 worth of gold was missing and found stolen in 1937? I do not believe the gold records substantiate that assertion. Now there may have been issues regarding the dates in the bags not being correct, but it is my understanding that the gold records do not reflect any missing gold, thus no theft of gold. Different dates in the bags do not equal theft of gold. You could buy a nice house in 1937 for $5,000. That much missing gold would have created a MAJOR flap, even more than today.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein