<< <i>What is relevant is that the government cannot PROVE the coins were not obtained legally. (Because they cannot prove that the coins were not obtained during the legal window discussed above.) In the absence of any proof the coins were acquired illegally, the coins therefore must be legal. >>
In a criminal matter, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. In a *civil* matter, the burden of proof is lower -- "preponderance of the evidence". I'm virtually certain the criminal standard has not been met, but since this is primarily a civil forfeiture procedure and not a criminal case, it depends on preponderance of the evidence, and I'm not sure even that was met.
But the government doesn't have to *prove* its case in order to gain the civil seizure of the coins. It merely has to provide "preponderance of the evidence" that the coins were stolen. >>
That doesn't seem to be the issue now. Now it's whether CAFRA was applicable and if the Government's failure to file a CAFRA claim in a timely manner precludes their ever having claims to the coins as the 3 judges decided.
By the time this case completes its journey through the appellate court system, THIS TIME (one scenario is that the case is ordered back to the trial court for further proceedings and thereafter makes a subsequent trip into the appellate court system), this thread will likely exceed 1000 posts.
In any event, on 4-17-2015 when this thread was first posted the title of the thread was accurate.
Given the fact that the chances the current Petition for En Banc review being granted is very small and given the fact that the chances of a subsequent Petition to the US Supreme Court for it to review the case is also very small it may be that the title of this thread remains accurate forever.
Just checked the docket. Today the court issued an order directing the Langbords to file an Answer to the Government's Petition For Rehearing within 15 days.
That doesn't seem to be the issue now. Now it's whether CAFRA was applicable and if the Government's failure to file a CAFRA claim in a timely manner precludes their ever having claims to the coins as the 3 judge decided. >>
Tom
Given the fact that the chances the current Petition for En Banc review being granted is very small and given the fact that the chances of a subsequent Petition to the US Supreme Court for it to review the case is also very small it may be that the title of this thread remains accurate forever. SanctionII
I agree. The answer from the Court of Appeals to the request from the government for review is what we all are now waiting for. Let's hope we don't have to wait very long. Steve
In a criminal matter, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. In a *civil* matter, the burden of proof is lower -- "preponderance of the evidence". I'm virtually certain the criminal standard has not been met, but since this is primarily a civil forfeiture procedure and not a criminal case, it depends on preponderance of the evidence, and I'm not sure even that was met. But the government doesn't have to *prove* its case in order to gain the civil seizure of the coins. It merely has to provide "preponderance of the evidence" that the coins were stolen.
The trial jury seemed to think that preponderance of the evidence standard had been sufficiently met.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"To make sure nothing,not a single piece,was missing,the entire output of the past three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines.About 750 pieces didn't pass muster and were tossed into the discard bins like undersized fingerlings.The shifting piles of glistening discs that had made the cut were returned to another of the Coiner's vaults,a substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room. Over the next two days,the coins were reviewed for quality control and then counted-not mechanically like the one-cent pieces but,because they were gold,by hand."
Illegal Tender,p.60
Above I have taken a quoted paragraph you put in your last thread today which I assume is in Tripp's book. I would like to ask you a few questions about the information in that paragraph.
(1) What were the days of the week and dates of the month and year referred to by Tripp as "the entire output of the past three days'work"?
Production of 1933 double eagles commenced Thursday,March 2,1933.The first day,March 2,"the entire supply of more than four thousand readied blanks was now fully struck...In less than an hour...The day's output was wheeled to the coiner's vault and locked away."
Illegal Tender,p.58
Tripp shows an image of the Daily Process Record for the Coining Department for ProcessStampings? DenominationD. EaglesPeriod Mar. 1933 on p.59 of his book. Production days for 1933 double eagles total nineteen for March.The hand-written production numbers are not easy to read from the image which is only 2-1/2" x 4" and takes up the top 1/3 of page 59. The page with it's numbers in the various columns is cryptic.Perhaps DeepCoin would be able to make sense of the numbers seen on the page for us if he has a copy of Illegal Tender. Double eagles were stamped with "A hundred and seventy tons of pressure...Ninety times a minute the process repeated itself."
Illegal Tender,p.58
Production resumed next day,Friday,March 3,1933.The men of the Coining Department got the weekend March 4-5 off.Third day of double eagle production was Monday, March 6,1933.
How Tripp knows that "the entire output of the last three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines" I don't know.This might be indicated in another record (Weigh room record? Counting room record?) that Tripp didn't publish an image of.
What I'm getting is that 1. Blanks are struck 2. Day's output is stored in coiner's vault 3.After several days of production,coins are moved to the weigh room.Coins that "don't pass muster" are thrown into discard bins.The coins that have "made the cut" are returned to another of the Coiner's vaults just off the Counting room.4.Coins are reviewed for quality and then hand counted.5.Coins are bagged,two-hundred-fifty coins in each serial numbered bag,$5,000 face value.6. Bags are sealed and tossed onto a dolly.7. The dolly with the bags goes into the Coiner's vault until one-hundred bags have been filled (25,000 pieces,$500,000 face value).
"Finally,a week later,on March 15,1933,the magic number was fulfilled. With no fanfare,with nothing more than clerks scribbling away in ledgers and on receipts,the 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7 was made from the Coiner to the Cashier: twenty-five thousand shimmering new 1933 double eagles."
Illegal Tender,p.61
(2) The substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room which was one of the Coiner's vaults, How does Tripp KNOW that was the holding cell that the good coins were put from that three day output?
Are we safe in assuming that the proper procedure and location for securing freshly struck coins before they are weighed,counted and bagged is detailed in the Mint's Rules and Regulations and this is what Tripp is relying on? Tripp does refer to the Mint Rules and Regulations from time-to-time in his book.
(3) What kinds of verification of the so called facts he portrays in the above paragraph does he support with documentation which YOU as a reader of the book could feel reasonably certain actually occurred as described?
I'm comfortable with the truthfulness of Tripp's description in Illegal Tender,p.57-61. of how the Mint's double eagle production goes (or is supposed to go), Coiner to Cashier.
Thank you,Steve,for asking these questions.I enjoyed the refreshment.If you have more questions,feel free to ask.
As you can see, since I have never read his book and only can judge from what you and others say here, I want to ask you WHY you are so convinced that his "story" actually happened and is not "fiction" as others here say. I appreciate your comments. Steve
You are welcome,Steve.I recommend that you buy a copy of Illegal Tender by David Tripp for your library.Hardcopy new,$20.Postage,$4. I can tell you that I've spent $20 in far worse ways than on this well-written,well-researched,non-fictional book.The five page listing of "Selected Bibliography" alone is worth $20,in my opinion.
WHY:Tripp writes with power,conviction and style.Illegal Tender resonates with truth.Compelling reading!
"A solid-gold spellbinder.David Tripp's Illegal Tender has all the elements of a classic thriller-foreign intrigue with Egyptian royalty and American presidents,a government sting,a rare object with a multimillion-dollar price tag-and most amazing of all,the story he so deftly weaves together is all true." Linda Fairstein,author of the New York Times bestseller The Kills
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Steven, Thank you for your reply to my questions. I can now see how Mr. Tripp's ability to present detail in an entertaining and realistic way makes for good reading. In any case each of us has our own "feelings" as to whether or not the Langbords or the government should own the coins. The legal decision still waits for the courts to answer. It looks like the Langbords lawyer has 15 days to respond to the governments petition for a rehearing with his comments on why the courts decision was correct. After that I assume the 3rd district court will decide whether the CAFRA law death penalty applies to the government or not. If yes, then the Langbords will most likely win. If no, then a rehearing en banc or return to the original court will most likely happen in which case I believe the government will ultimately win (after another year or two). Steve
I ran across this blurb in Double Eagle by Frankel. Ms. Frankel was having lunch with Roy Langbord:
"He was at the Mint three times a day every day," said Langbord,toward the end of our lunch in October,2005."It could have been like going to the shoe store to buy a pair of shoes when the clerk says,'Oh,we just got a new brand in.' Who would have been in a better position than my grandfather?"
Double Eagle,Epilogue,p. 275
In the interests of accurate fiction,edits to an earlier post i made are in order.The bolded parts,excepting the dates,seen below reflect newly discovered information,
Monday,April 3,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the third time this day asking about '33 double eagles.Cashier to Izzy:"Sir,as I have told you twice earlier today, the '33's aren't available for distribution yet.The assay results from Washington for the '33's have not yet arrived." (Lie.The assay results had come in last Thursday or Friday.Doc didn't say what the exact day was,just that "results were in.")
Tuesday,April 4,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window again,for the third time this cold and rainy day.Cashier to Izzy:"Doc has just started to review the assay results which came in moments before you got here.What is this? Your third time here today?Check back tomorrow.(sigh)" (Lie: What Doc (the Assayer) really told his fellow Horseman (Cashier McCann) was,"The '33's did pass assay but for the time being we're going to sit on 'em.Don't release.There's no money in it for us if we do exchanges at the window.")
Wednesday,April 5,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the ninth (3x3) time this week. It's late in the day,around 4 p.m. Cashier McCann,cringing, to Izzy:"Sorry,Izzy.FDR's Executive Order 6102 which came down to us this morning expressly forbids us from releasing any gold coins,old or new,even on an exchange basis.I would have told you earlier but we wanted to make sure we fully understood what the EO is saying." (The truth is being told here.Even liars occasionally tell the truth,especially if it's to their advantage.)
I'm finding writing fiction to be lots of fun.Fun,but at the same time,lots of work.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I ran across this blurb in Double Eagle by Frankel. Ms. Frankel was having lunch with Roy Langbord:
"He was at the Mint three times a day every day," said Langbord,toward the end of our lunch in October,2005."It could have been like going to the shoe store to buy a pair of shoes when the clerk says,'Oh,we just got a new brand in.' Who would have been in a better position than my grandfather?"
Double Eagle,Epilogue,p. 275
In the interests of accurate fiction,edits to an earlier post i made are in order.The bolded parts,excepting the dates,seen below reflect newly discovered information,
Monday,April 3,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the third time this day asking about '33 double eagles.Cashier to Izzy:"Sir,as I have told you twice earlier today, the '33's aren't available for distribution yet.The assay results from Washington for the '33's have not yet arrived." (Lie.The assay results had come in last Thursday or Friday.Doc didn't say what the exact day was,just that "results were in.")
Tuesday,April 4,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window again,for the third time this cold and rainy day.Cashier to Izzy:"Doc has just started to review the assay results which came in moments before you got here.What is this? Your third time here today?Check back tomorrow.(sigh)" (Lie: What Doc (the Assayer) really told his fellow Horseman (Cashier McCann) was,"The '33's did pass assay but for the time being we're going to sit on 'em.Don't release.There's no money in it for us if we do exchanges at the window.")
Wednesday,April 5,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the ninth (3x3) time this week. It's late in the day,around 4 p.m. Cashier McCann,cringing, to Izzy:"Sorry,Izzy.FDR's Executive Order 6102 which came down to us this morning expressly forbids us from releasing any gold coins,old or new,even on an exchange basis.I would have told you earlier but we wanted to make sure we fully understood what the EO is saying." (The truth is being told here.Even liars occasionally tell the truth,especially if it's to their advantage.)
I'm finding writing fiction to be lots of fun.Fun,but at the same time,lots of work.
>>
Nice piece of fiction, if the case ever goes back for a re-trial you could testify for the government, just like that other fiction writter Tripp did. LOL
"ALL WERE TO HAVE BEEN MELTED, at the mint." That's a strange use of the English language, in any book and in any case.
There's the "intent" of the government (clearly). The government did not get it's way and they're still riding that same old broken English pony. There is not a law mandating melting, in the executive order, is there ? I think that may have been an "INTERNAL MEMO". But I'm a speculator and a blue collar gold panning, blue collar type citizen. And silly as I may be, I'm here to SHOUT…
I don't believe that last statement in the red book is accurate when it says, "Only one, the King Farouk Specimen, has ever been sold at auction." Weren't their auctions of them before the government started confiscating then?
<< <i>I don't believe that last statement in the red book is accurate when it says, "Only one, the King Farouk Specimen, has ever been sold at auction." Weren't their auctions of them before the government started confiscating then? >>
No, they were sold by dealers to collectors. It was when one of them attempted to resell at auction that the Mint got a bee up their backside and seized the coin.
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 don't believe that last statement in the red book is accurate when it says, "Only one, the King Farouk Specimen, has ever been sold at auction." Weren't their auctions of them before the government started confiscating then?
Redbook is accurate.The first '33 double seized by the Secret Service was Colonel Flanagan's which was to be auctioned. Flanagan had payed $2200 for his specimen and it was to be sold at a Stack's auction in New York on March 25,1944:
"... Lot 1681 would be offered sometime in the late afternoon on March 25,....THE EXCESSIVELY RARE 1933 DOUBLE EAGLE. 1933 Brilliant Uncirculated. Perfect gem with full mint bloom,the last year of issue. Although this is the first one that ever came up in any public auction and there is not a price set on this in the standard catalog we know that 8 or ten of the pieces were sold for privately from $1,000.00 to $2.200.00. This piece has cost the Col. the tidy sume of $2,200.00 which has set a new high for this coin. He paid this price to one of our leading dealers in the south. Excessively rare and in great demand,no buy orders on this particular coin will be accepted."
Illegal Tender,p.86
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"ALL WERE TO HAVE BEEN MELTED, at the mint." That's a strange use of the English language, in any book and in any case.
The Red Book usage is not so strange as it is awkward,in my opinion.A better way to put it would have been,"NONE WERE TO HAVE FALLEN INTO PRIVATE HANDS."
"ALL WERE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN MELTED" works better if the editor insists on using the word "melted" in the sentence.Presumed by who? The government,of course.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Just checked the docket. Today the court issued an order directing the Langbords to file an Answer to the Government's Petition For Rehearing within 15 days. >>
Guess what! The clock is ticking again. The date for the Langbords answer is TUESDAY, JULY 21ST (or sooner) If anyone here or our OP has PACER and wants to check daily to see what the Langbords lawyer has to say, I'm sure many of us on this thread would appreciate it. I guess the reality of it is we probably won't hear anything until at least July 20th. (Why did I say that?) Steve
I have just re-read an article in the April 2012 issue of The Numismatist written by Q. David Bowers entitled "The 1933 Double Eagles: A Question of Legality".
Great article by QDB. He states that "Over the course of many years, I have conducted much research on it, including reviewing thousands of U. S. Mint and Treasury Department documents and interviews with dealers who were active in the 1930s." A few interesting takeaways I got from his article:
1. During the late 1930s, Mint and Treasury employees sorted through the gold coins that were received at the Mint, and substituted common gold coins of similar face value for them. The government employees were the main source of late rare date gold coins for many dealers.
2. The Secretary of the U. S. Treasury when the 1933 double eagles were struck was William H. Woodin, a noted numismatist. He was stated to own 5 or more of the 1933 double eagles.
3. It was suggested that Mint Cashier George McCann stole some coins and then presumably sold them to Switt, but [Bowers quote] "I am not aware of the slightest shred of evidence of such a transaction."
I presented this because I thought it might be helpful to know what the most prolific numismatic writer of our generation had to say on the topic of the 1933 double eagles.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
2. The Secretary of the U. S. Treasury when the 1933 double eagles were struck was William H. Woodin, a noted numismatist. He was stated to own 5 or more of the 1933 double eagles.
Did Woodin make the statement that he owned 5 or more 1933 double eagles? What does QDB say Woodin did with his 1933 double eagles? I had read in Illegal Tender that no 1933 double eagles were found in Woodin's coin holdings which were sold privately to F.C.C Boyd after Woodin's wife Annie died in 1941.None of the rare gold coins plucked out of coins received by the Mint in the late '30's would have found their way into Mr. Woodins' holdings since he died in May,1934.My impression after reading about William Woodin in Illegal Tender is that the last thing he would have had on his mind in '33-'34 would be accumulating '33 double eagles,as he was a very ill man.
"William Woodin was a man of intellect,wit,and most of all integrity and character.When Roosevelt invoked war powers over gold,Woodin was by his side. To have played fast and loose with still amorphous law would have smacked of hypocrisy at any time but most especially at the outset of the new administration and during a grave national crisis. Woodin and his family were honorable-at a time when honor was still considered a virtue-and while being one of "Morgan's preferred" was in no way illegal,the public reaction to his inclusion shamed,humbled,and appalled him.
His job,his service to his country,cost him his life. This "Peter Pan in the Treasury," had held the controls of the Treasury and brought us safely through.This labor cost him years of peaceful twilight,and since he had the means and talent for happy leisure,his sacrifice was very great.
And the only person who had ever claimed to see William Woodin raising his eyebrows,and winking with five 1933 double eagles in his small hands was Stephen Nagy-'the biggest crook of them all.'"
Illegal Tender,p.158-159.
Because of Woodin's poor health, for some weeks in 1933 Treasury Under-Secretary Dean Acheson served as the Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Suggesting that a gravely ill William Woodin,who served as Secretary of the Treasury for a scant nine months in 1933, was involved with accumulating 1933 double eagles,valued for their gold bullion content only in 1933, doesn't work for me.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If Woodin had 5 1933 Double Eagles he would have told his wife to be careful with them and how she disposed of them. He might have obtained them legally during that window often mentioned in previous posts.
Owning 5 Double Eagles post FDR after gold was required to be turned in would have been legal.
<< <i>Just checked the docket. Today the court issued an order directing the Langbords to file an Answer to the Government's Petition For Rehearing within 15 days. >>
Guess what! The clock is ticking again. The date for the Langbords answer is TUESDAY, JULY 21ST (or sooner) If anyone here or our OP has PACER and wants to check daily to see what the Langbords lawyer has to say, I'm sure many of us on this thread would appreciate it. I guess the reality of it is we probably won't hear anything until at least July 20th. (Why did I say that?) Steve) >>
Sorry to break this "quiet time", but I just noted in the latest COIN WORLD article about the 3rd Circuit appeal, that the Langbords lawyer has 14 days to respond to the governments petition for rehearing, not 15 days as quoted above. Therefore, as the clock continues to tick, the Langbords response is due by MONDAY, JULY 20TH which is EIGHT DAYS from today. Steve
Now would be the perfect time for the Langbords to propose a deal made with Gov.I think "government blessing" is important for the coins to have no matter their disposition.
Langbords pick one coin for themselves.The other nine coins are jointly owned by Gov (51%) and Langbord (49%).These coins go to auction. Proceeds go to various good "people" organizations across the land.Is this what a Foundation does? Call it the Langbord Foundation. Tax-exempt status.Win-Win.As good as it can get.
I must be dreaming.......
Langbords should pick the pocket piece to keep for themselves.......zzzzzzzzz
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The government could save everyone a great deal of time and money if they just declared that ALL coins produced by the Mint were legal to own, be they the 5 1913 Nickels that went out the back door or the various 1804 dollars created in the dark of the night or the 1933 DEs that got out in some manner.
There is no reason to continue this absurd charade, let the numismatic history be what it is and treat all of these coins the same. Think of the millions of dollars that would have been saved in various legal fees supporting something that is so trivial in terms of the government and unequal treatment of the past.
Free ALL the 1933 DEs wherever they may be for once and for all time. I cannot believe this has been beneficial other than making the 1933 DEs be in the news, as well as the government once again showing their arrogance (not their best move as demonstrated by recent rulings).
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
There is no reason to continue this absurd charade, let the numismatic history be what it is and treat all of these coins the same. Think of the millions of dollars that would have been saved in various legal fees supporting something that is so trivial in terms of the government and unequal treatment of the past.
It used to puzzle me why Gov didn't go after the Saddle Ridge coins.Now I know why.Gov resources are insufficient to battle every private individual who claims for their own originally stolen government property.Gov's hands were full with the Langbord case before the Saddle Ridge coins were discovered.Another case would accomplish only one thing for Gov,dividing the forces. In retrospect,my opinion is Gov did the right thing here.
The Numismatic community has all those gold pieces from Saddle Ridge to fuss over.Perhaps a thank you to Gov from the numismatic community for the uncontested Saddle Ridge coins might be in order.
DeepCoin,is there not more concern about gold losses at the Mint than anything else? That's where the money is.It's in the gold,not in the silver,not in the copper.
I wondered what Gov would do if the other 1849 $20 were to surface.This is another stolen,never recovered coin.
Treat all the coins the same,DeepCoin,messes with my sense of the history of coins.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
As I recall the numerous people claiming that the Saddle Ridge coins "must be stolen" were all wrong.
The people claiming that the Langbord Ten "must be stolen," i.e. the U.S. Mint et al, can be wrong also.
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.
Once again, in my opinion, we will soon have a clear indication as to how the 3rd circuit court will rule in this case. Shortly after the Lanboards response to the government petition is submitted by next Monday we should hear from the court whether or not they will rehear the government petition by the 13 members of the court. If they DO rehear the case, I believe they are saying (1) the CAFRA law does NOT apply to this case, and (2) they will ultimately reverse the panel's decision and rule for the government. Obviously, if they deny the petition and therefore confirm the panel's determination that the CAFRA law DOES apply, then, in all likelihood, the Langboards will have won the case. That is the way I see it now. Steve
I've heard some sound legal logic speak regarding the Saddle Ridge coins.The devil is in the details.The details of the Saddle Ridge coins all point in the direction of "This is no coin collection.Most probably stolen from the San Francisco Mint."
I will buy a new edition of A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins if the Saddle Ridge story,featuring photographs of some of the nicer more valuable pieces,comes with it. My Guide Book has copyright date 2004 so that's over ten years ago.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I've heard some sound legal logic speak regarding the Saddle Ridge coins.The devil is in the details.The details of the Saddle Ridge coins all point in the direction of "This is no coin collection.Most probably stolen from the San Francisco Mint."
I will buy a new edition of A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins if the Saddle Ridge story,featuring photographs of some of the nicer more valuable pieces,comes with it. My Guide Book has copyright date 2004 so that's over ten years ago. >>
A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint.
<< <i>I've heard some sound legal logic speak regarding the Saddle Ridge coins.The devil is in the details.The details of the Saddle Ridge coins all point in the direction of "This is no coin collection.Most probably stolen from the San Francisco Mint."
I will buy a new edition of A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins if the Saddle Ridge story,featuring photographs of some of the nicer more valuable pieces,comes with it. My Guide Book has copyright date 2004 so that's over ten years ago. >>
A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint. >>
Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
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 did not read the entire 42 page thread, why don't they do like the previous and sell 'em and split the proceeds? Why spend more money in court that is going to be challenged again, and again, and again, etc...
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
Your reply indicating that now would be the perfect time for a settlement is both spot on and way off base, both at the same time.
Within the framework of litigation there are scheduled events (the day before a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, the day before the commencement of trial, after closing arguments are made and jury instructions are given, etc.) where the pressure on one or both sides is greatest and thus causes parties to a case to reconsider whether they want to place the outcome of a dispute in the hand of a judge or jury that they have no control over or whether they want to keep control of the outcome of the dispute by working out a settlement with the other side on terms set by the parties. Now is one of those scheduled events (prior to the court of appeals granting or denying the government's petition for rehearing).
However, neither side (including the Langbords who you suggest extend an olive branch and offer a settlement where the family keeps one coin and the other 9 are jointly owned with them being auctioned and the proceeds given to charity) has shown any inclination to give in.
Given the position, acts and decisions of the government over the past decade plus which in summary is "the 10 coins belong to the government, period and end of story"; given everything that the Langbords have had to do to pursue their claim to ownership of the 10 coins; given the negative characterization of the Langbords by the government; and given the fact that Joan Langbord and her sons have real life experiences with Mr. Switt and thus a personal, first hand, connection to the history surrounding these 10 coins it is simply unrealistic to expect that the Langbord family would extend any olive branch at all.
If any settlement proposal is made, it would come from the government; and only in situation where the government is faced with losing the case completely.
If the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside under circumstances where the government's position in the case is strengthened then the government would have no incentive to make any settlement proposal.
<< <i>I did not read the entire 42 page thread, why don't they do like the previous and sell 'em and split the proceeds? Why spend more money in court that is going to be challenged again, and again, and again, etc... >>
No doubt part of the reason is they promised the buyer of the Farouk specimen that no more would ever come to market. They simply assumed there were no more legal specimens.
A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint.
Did the Secret Service get to chime in? A Saddle Ridge case did have the potential to eclipse the Langbord case but case not pursued because of limited resources.Gov has had its hands full with the Langbord case for over ten years now.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If any settlement proposal is made, it would come from the government; and only in situation where the government is faced with losing the case completely.
I see that point as now so the government should be making the initial proposal with terms,1.Langbords choose one coin for themselves.Gov will bless said coin and confer upon it the same rights and responsibilities as the ex Farouk 1933 double.2. Langbord-Gov joint owners of nine coins.Coins to be auctioned.Proceeds to go to worthy organizations across the land through the Langbord Foundation.
Who can be unhappy with arrangements such as seen above?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint.
Did the Secret Service get to chime in? A Saddle Ridge case did have the potential to eclipse the Langbord case but case not pursued because of limited resources.Gov has had its hands full with the Langbord case for over ten years now. >>
The SS would more likely chime in at the behest of the Mint, not tuther way round. If the Mint had any claim at all, they would have started an action before the coins were allowed to be released. Also, I doubt that lack of resources would have stopped them from pursuing the coins if they thought they had a reason to do so.
<< <i>"Who can be unhappy with the arrangements such as seen above?"
I can think of two:
#1.The Government; and
#2. The Langbords.
>>
The time for negotiation is long past. If the gummint had responded to the initial request to authenticate the ten with an amicable offer for an even split I suspect the Langbords might have taken it. Now the Langbords have a good case, high legal bills and no reason to negotiate.
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>"Who can be unhappy with the arrangements such as seen above?"
I can think of two:
#1.The Government; and
#2. The Langbords.
>>
I think that this is an all or nothing deal. Even if the Langbords wanted to deal, I don't think that the government would.
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
This person will have a dilemma if the Langbord coins go to the family. The Farouk coin owner has carefully guarded his identity, but will have to go public if they wish to litigate against the government for violating the terms of sale.
This person will have a dilemma if the Langbord coins go to the family. The Farouk coin owner has carefully guarded his identity, but will have to go public if they wish to litigate against the government for violating the terms of sale. >>
The Government promised no others would be monetized. I see no reason for them to again put on the charade of collecting $20 at the sale. They can easily keep that promise.
Comments
<< <i>This thread is getting sillier and sillier, and obviously the title is premature. >>
Not sure why I keep reading it. We'll all be dead before it is settled. What we really need is a filter to just read what SanctionII says.
<< <i>
<< <i>What is relevant is that the government cannot PROVE the coins were not obtained legally. (Because they cannot prove that the coins were not obtained during the legal window discussed above.) In the absence of any proof the coins were acquired illegally, the coins therefore must be legal. >>
In a criminal matter, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. In a *civil* matter, the burden of proof is lower -- "preponderance of the evidence". I'm virtually certain the criminal standard has not been met, but since this is primarily a civil forfeiture procedure and not a criminal case, it depends on preponderance of the evidence, and I'm not sure even that was met.
But the government doesn't have to *prove* its case in order to gain the civil seizure of the coins. It merely has to provide "preponderance of the evidence" that the coins were stolen. >>
That doesn't seem to be the issue now. Now it's whether CAFRA was applicable and if the Government's failure to file a CAFRA claim in a timely manner precludes their ever having claims to the coins as the 3 judges decided.
In any event, on 4-17-2015 when this thread was first posted the title of the thread was accurate.
Given the fact that the chances the current Petition for En Banc review being granted is very small and given the fact that the chances of a subsequent Petition to the US Supreme Court for it to review the case is also very small it may be that the title of this thread remains accurate forever.
<< <i>
That doesn't seem to be the issue now. Now it's whether CAFRA was applicable and if the Government's failure to file a CAFRA claim in a timely manner precludes their ever having claims to the coins as the 3 judge decided. >>
Tom
Given the fact that the chances the current Petition for En Banc review being granted is very small and given the fact that the chances of a subsequent Petition to the US Supreme Court for it to review the case is also very small it may be that the title of this thread remains accurate forever. SanctionII
I agree. The answer from the Court of Appeals to the request from the government for review is what we all are now waiting for. Let's hope we don't have to wait very long. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The trial jury seemed to think that preponderance of the evidence standard had been sufficiently met.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>This thread is getting sillier and sillier, and obviously the title is premature. >>
Not sure why I keep reading it. We'll all be dead before it is settled. What we really need is a filter to just read what SanctionII says. >>
Great.
I get the hint. I will go back and delete all my posts. That ought to get rid of the silly.
Illegal Tender,p.60
Above I have taken a quoted paragraph you put in your last thread today which I assume is in Tripp's book. I would like to ask you a few questions about the information in that paragraph.
(1) What were the days of the week and dates of the month and year referred to by Tripp as "the entire output of the past three days'work"?
Production of 1933 double eagles commenced Thursday,March 2,1933.The first day,March 2,"the entire supply of more than four thousand readied blanks was now fully struck...In less than an hour...The day's output was wheeled to the coiner's vault and locked away."
Illegal Tender,p.58
Tripp shows an image of the Daily Process Record for the Coining Department for ProcessStampings? DenominationD. EaglesPeriod Mar. 1933 on p.59 of his book. Production days for 1933 double eagles total nineteen for March.The hand-written production numbers are not easy to read from the image which is only 2-1/2" x 4" and takes up the top 1/3 of page 59. The page with it's numbers in the various columns is cryptic.Perhaps DeepCoin would be able to make sense of the numbers seen on the page for us if he has a copy of Illegal Tender. Double eagles were stamped with "A hundred and seventy tons of pressure...Ninety times a minute the process repeated itself."
Illegal Tender,p.58
Production resumed next day,Friday,March 3,1933.The men of the Coining Department got the weekend March 4-5 off.Third day of double eagle production was Monday, March 6,1933.
How Tripp knows that "the entire output of the last three days' work was taken back upstairs and passed through the automatic weighing machines" I don't know.This might be indicated in another record (Weigh room record? Counting room record?) that Tripp didn't publish an image of.
What I'm getting is that 1. Blanks are struck 2. Day's output is stored in coiner's vault 3.After several days of production,coins are moved to the weigh room.Coins that "don't pass muster" are thrown into discard bins.The coins that have "made the cut" are returned to another of the Coiner's vaults just off the Counting room.4.Coins are reviewed for quality and then hand counted.5.Coins are bagged,two-hundred-fifty coins in each serial numbered bag,$5,000 face value.6. Bags are sealed and tossed onto a dolly.7. The dolly with the bags goes into the Coiner's vault until one-hundred bags have been filled (25,000 pieces,$500,000 face value).
"Finally,a week later,on March 15,1933,the magic number was fulfilled. With no fanfare,with nothing more than clerks scribbling away in ledgers and on receipts,the 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7 was made from the Coiner to the Cashier: twenty-five thousand shimmering new 1933 double eagles."
Illegal Tender,p.61
(2) The substantial holding cell just off the Counting Room which was one of the Coiner's vaults, How does Tripp KNOW that was the holding cell that the good coins were put from that three day output?
Are we safe in assuming that the proper procedure and location for securing freshly struck coins before they are weighed,counted and bagged is detailed in the Mint's Rules and Regulations and this is what Tripp is relying on? Tripp does refer to the Mint Rules and Regulations from time-to-time in his book.
(3) What kinds of verification of the so called facts he portrays in the above paragraph does he support with documentation which YOU as a reader of the book could feel reasonably certain actually occurred as described?
I'm comfortable with the truthfulness of Tripp's description in Illegal Tender,p.57-61. of how the Mint's double eagle production goes (or is supposed to go), Coiner to Cashier.
Thank you,Steve,for asking these questions.I enjoyed the refreshment.If you have more questions,feel free to ask.
As you can see, since I have never read his book and only can judge from what you and others say here, I want to ask you WHY you are so convinced that his "story" actually happened and is not "fiction" as others here say. I appreciate your comments. Steve
You are welcome,Steve.I recommend that you buy a copy of Illegal Tender by David Tripp for your library.Hardcopy new,$20.Postage,$4. I can tell you that I've spent $20 in far worse ways than on this well-written,well-researched,non-fictional book.The five page listing of "Selected Bibliography" alone is worth $20,in my opinion.
WHY:Tripp writes with power,conviction and style.Illegal Tender resonates with truth.Compelling reading!
"A solid-gold spellbinder.David Tripp's Illegal Tender has all the elements of a classic thriller-foreign intrigue with Egyptian royalty and American presidents,a government sting,a rare object with a multimillion-dollar price tag-and most amazing of all,the story he so deftly weaves together is all true." Linda Fairstein,author of the New York Times bestseller The Kills
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Thank you for your reply to my questions. I can now see how Mr. Tripp's ability to present detail in an entertaining and realistic way makes for good reading. In any case each of us has our own "feelings" as to whether or not the Langbords or the government should own the coins. The legal decision still waits for the courts to answer. It looks like the Langbords lawyer has 15 days to respond to the governments petition for a rehearing with his comments on why the courts decision was correct. After that I assume the 3rd district court will decide whether the CAFRA law death penalty applies to the government or not. If yes, then the Langbords will most likely win. If no, then a rehearing en banc or return to the original court will most likely happen in which case I believe the government will ultimately win (after another year or two). Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
"He was at the Mint three times a day every day," said Langbord,toward the end of our lunch in October,2005."It could have been like going to the shoe store to buy a pair of shoes when the clerk says,'Oh,we just got a new brand in.' Who would have been in a better position than my grandfather?"
Double Eagle,Epilogue,p. 275
In the interests of accurate fiction,edits to an earlier post i made are in order.The bolded parts,excepting the dates,seen below reflect newly discovered information,
Monday,April 3,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the third time this day asking about '33 double eagles.Cashier to Izzy:"Sir,as I have told you twice earlier today, the '33's aren't available for distribution yet.The assay results from Washington for the '33's have not yet arrived." (Lie.The assay results had come in last Thursday or Friday.Doc didn't say what the exact day was,just that "results were in.")
Tuesday,April 4,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window again,for the third time this cold and rainy day.Cashier to Izzy:"Doc has just started to review the assay results which came in moments before you got here.What is this? Your third time here today?Check back tomorrow.(sigh)" (Lie: What Doc (the Assayer) really told his fellow Horseman (Cashier McCann) was,"The '33's did pass assay but for the time being we're going to sit on 'em.Don't release.There's no money in it for us if we do exchanges at the window.")
Wednesday,April 5,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the
I'm finding writing fiction to be lots of fun.Fun,but at the same time,lots of work.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I ran across this blurb in Double Eagle by Frankel. Ms. Frankel was having lunch with Roy Langbord:
"He was at the Mint three times a day every day," said Langbord,toward the end of our lunch in October,2005."It could have been like going to the shoe store to buy a pair of shoes when the clerk says,'Oh,we just got a new brand in.' Who would have been in a better position than my grandfather?"
Double Eagle,Epilogue,p. 275
In the interests of accurate fiction,edits to an earlier post i made are in order.The bolded parts,excepting the dates,seen below reflect newly discovered information,
Monday,April 3,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the third time this day asking about '33 double eagles.Cashier to Izzy:"Sir,as I have told you twice earlier today, the '33's aren't available for distribution yet.The assay results from Washington for the '33's have not yet arrived." (Lie.The assay results had come in last Thursday or Friday.Doc didn't say what the exact day was,just that "results were in.")
Tuesday,April 4,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window again,for the third time this cold and rainy day.Cashier to Izzy:"Doc has just started to review the assay results which came in moments before you got here.What is this? Your third time here today?Check back tomorrow.(sigh)" (Lie: What Doc (the Assayer) really told his fellow Horseman (Cashier McCann) was,"The '33's did pass assay but for the time being we're going to sit on 'em.Don't release.There's no money in it for us if we do exchanges at the window.")
Wednesday,April 5,1933.Izzy is at the Mint window for the
I'm finding writing fiction to be lots of fun.Fun,but at the same time,lots of work.
Nice piece of fiction, if the case ever goes back for a re-trial you could testify for the government, just like that other fiction writter Tripp did. LOL
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
"ALL WERE TO HAVE BEEN MELTED, at the mint." That's a strange use of the English language, in any book and in any case.
There's the "intent" of the government (clearly). The government did not get it's way and they're still riding that same old broken English pony.
There is not a law mandating melting, in the executive order, is there ? I think that may have been an "INTERNAL MEMO". But I'm a speculator and a blue collar gold panning, blue collar type citizen. And silly as I may be, I'm here to SHOUT…
if THE PEOPLE win, the people lose.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I don't believe that last statement in the red book is accurate when it says, "Only one, the King Farouk Specimen, has ever been sold at auction." Weren't their auctions of them before the government started confiscating then? >>
No, they were sold by dealers to collectors. It was when one of them attempted to resell at auction that the Mint got a bee up their backside and seized the coin.
Redbook is accurate.The first '33 double seized by the Secret Service was Colonel Flanagan's which was to be auctioned. Flanagan had payed $2200 for his specimen and it was to be sold at a Stack's auction in New York on March 25,1944:
"... Lot 1681 would be offered sometime in the late afternoon on March 25,....THE EXCESSIVELY RARE 1933 DOUBLE EAGLE. 1933 Brilliant Uncirculated. Perfect gem with full mint bloom,the last year of issue. Although this is the first one that ever came up in any public auction and there is not a price set on this in the standard catalog we know that 8 or ten of the pieces were sold for privately from $1,000.00 to $2.200.00. This piece has cost the Col. the tidy sume of $2,200.00 which has set a new high for this coin. He paid this price to one of our leading dealers in the south. Excessively rare and in great demand,no buy orders on this particular coin will be accepted."
Illegal Tender,p.86
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Red Book usage is not so strange as it is awkward,in my opinion.A better way to put it would have been,"NONE WERE TO HAVE FALLEN INTO PRIVATE HANDS."
"ALL WERE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN MELTED" works better if the editor insists on using the word "melted" in the sentence.Presumed by who? The government,of course.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Better: AT THIS WRITING,13 ARE KNOWN TO EXIST.
"NONE WERE TO HAVE FALLEN INTO PRIVATE HANDS.AT THIS WRITING,13 ARE KNOWN TO EXIST," is the way to say it,in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Just checked the docket. Today the court issued an order directing the Langbords to file an Answer to the Government's Petition For Rehearing within 15 days. >>
Guess what! The clock is ticking again. The date for the Langbords answer is TUESDAY, JULY 21ST (or sooner) If anyone here or our OP has PACER and wants to check daily to see what the Langbords lawyer has to say, I'm sure many of us on this thread would appreciate it. I guess the reality of it is we probably won't hear anything until at least July 20th. (Why did I say that?) Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Great article by QDB. He states that "Over the course of many years, I have conducted much research on it, including reviewing thousands of U. S. Mint and Treasury Department documents and interviews with dealers who were active in the 1930s." A few interesting takeaways I got from his article:
1. During the late 1930s, Mint and Treasury employees sorted through the gold coins that were received at the Mint, and substituted common gold coins of similar face value for them. The government employees were the main source of late rare date gold coins for many dealers.
2. The Secretary of the U. S. Treasury when the 1933 double eagles were struck was William H. Woodin, a noted numismatist. He was stated to own 5 or more of the 1933 double eagles.
3. It was suggested that Mint Cashier George McCann stole some coins and then presumably sold them to Switt, but [Bowers quote] "I am not aware of the slightest shred of evidence of such a transaction."
I presented this because I thought it might be helpful to know what the most prolific numismatic writer of our generation had to say on the topic of the 1933 double eagles.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Did Woodin make the statement that he owned 5 or more 1933 double eagles? What does QDB say Woodin did with his 1933 double eagles? I had read in Illegal Tender that no 1933 double eagles were found in Woodin's coin holdings which were sold privately to F.C.C Boyd after Woodin's wife Annie died in 1941.None of the rare gold coins plucked out of coins received by the Mint in the late '30's would have found their way into Mr. Woodins' holdings since he died in May,1934.My impression after reading about William Woodin in Illegal Tender is that the last thing he would have had on his mind in '33-'34 would be accumulating '33 double eagles,as he was a very ill man.
"William Woodin was a man of intellect,wit,and most of all integrity and character.When Roosevelt invoked war powers over gold,Woodin was by his side. To have played fast and loose with still amorphous law would have smacked of hypocrisy at any time but most especially at the outset of the new administration and during a grave national crisis. Woodin and his family were honorable-at a time when honor was still considered a virtue-and while being one of "Morgan's preferred" was in no way illegal,the public reaction to his inclusion shamed,humbled,and appalled him.
His job,his service to his country,cost him his life. This "Peter Pan in the Treasury," had held the controls of the Treasury and brought us safely through.This labor cost him years of peaceful twilight,and since he had the means and talent for happy leisure,his sacrifice was very great.
And the only person who had ever claimed to see William Woodin raising his eyebrows,and winking with five 1933 double eagles in his small hands was Stephen Nagy-'the biggest crook of them all.'"
Illegal Tender,p.158-159.
Because of Woodin's poor health, for some weeks in 1933 Treasury Under-Secretary Dean Acheson served as the Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Suggesting that a gravely ill William Woodin,who served as Secretary of the Treasury for a scant nine months in 1933, was involved with accumulating 1933 double eagles,valued for their gold bullion content only in 1933, doesn't work for me.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
how she disposed of them. He might have obtained them legally during that window often
mentioned in previous posts.
Owning 5 Double Eagles post FDR after gold was required to be turned in would have been legal.
They could still be out there somewhere.
<< <i>
<< <i>Just checked the docket. Today the court issued an order directing the Langbords to file an Answer to the Government's Petition For Rehearing within 15 days. >>
Guess what! The clock is ticking again. The date for the Langbords answer is TUESDAY, JULY 21ST (or sooner) If anyone here or our OP has PACER and wants to check daily to see what the Langbords lawyer has to say, I'm sure many of us on this thread would appreciate it. I guess the reality of it is we probably won't hear anything until at least July 20th. (Why did I say that?) Steve) >>
Sorry to break this "quiet time", but I just noted in the latest COIN WORLD article about the 3rd Circuit appeal, that the Langbords lawyer has 14 days to respond to the governments petition for rehearing, not 15 days as quoted above. Therefore, as the clock continues to tick, the Langbords response is due by MONDAY, JULY 20TH which is EIGHT DAYS from today. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Langbords pick one coin for themselves.The other nine coins are jointly owned by Gov (51%) and Langbord (49%).These coins go to auction. Proceeds go to various good "people" organizations across the land.Is this what a Foundation does? Call it the Langbord Foundation. Tax-exempt status.Win-Win.As good as it can get.
I must be dreaming.......
Langbords should pick the pocket piece to keep for themselves.......zzzzzzzzz
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Now would be the perfect time for the Langbords to propose a deal made with Gov. >>
I see that during the ANA a class on numismatic negotiation will be offered.
I'm a rotten negotiator, but even I know that you wait for the other guy to make an offer first. Especially when you are ahead.
The government imprimatur on these coins means nothing. They may even be more notorious (ie. valuable) without it.
15 page limit typically
There is no reason to continue this absurd charade, let the numismatic history be what it is and treat all of these coins the same. Think of the millions of dollars that would have been saved in various legal fees supporting something that is so trivial in terms of the government and unequal treatment of the past.
Free ALL the 1933 DEs wherever they may be for once and for all time. I cannot believe this has been beneficial other than making the 1933 DEs be in the news, as well as the government once again showing their arrogance (not their best move as demonstrated by recent rulings).
It used to puzzle me why Gov didn't go after the Saddle Ridge coins.Now I know why.Gov resources are insufficient to battle every private individual who claims for their own originally stolen government property.Gov's hands were full with the Langbord case before the Saddle Ridge coins were discovered.Another case would accomplish only one thing for Gov,dividing the forces. In retrospect,my opinion is Gov did the right thing here.
The Numismatic community has all those gold pieces from Saddle Ridge to fuss over.Perhaps a thank you to Gov from the numismatic community for the uncontested Saddle Ridge coins might be in order.
DeepCoin,is there not more concern about gold losses at the Mint than anything else? That's where the money is.It's in the gold,not in the silver,not in the copper.
I wondered what Gov would do if the other 1849 $20 were to surface.This is another stolen,never recovered coin.
Treat all the coins the same,DeepCoin,messes with my sense of the history of coins.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The people claiming that the Langbord Ten "must be stolen," i.e. the U.S. Mint et al, can be wrong also.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I will buy a new edition of A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins if the Saddle Ridge story,featuring photographs of some of the nicer more valuable pieces,comes with it. My Guide Book has copyright date 2004 so that's over ten years ago.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Whose lawyers are going to be able to tell the best story about CAFRA is what it is coming down to.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I've heard some sound legal logic speak regarding the Saddle Ridge coins.The devil is in the details.The details of the Saddle Ridge coins all point in the direction of "This is no coin collection.Most probably stolen from the San Francisco Mint."
I will buy a new edition of A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins if the Saddle Ridge story,featuring photographs of some of the nicer more valuable pieces,comes with it. My Guide Book has copyright date 2004 so that's over ten years ago. >>
A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint.
<< <i>
<< <i>I've heard some sound legal logic speak regarding the Saddle Ridge coins.The devil is in the details.The details of the Saddle Ridge coins all point in the direction of "This is no coin collection.Most probably stolen from the San Francisco Mint."
I will buy a new edition of A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins if the Saddle Ridge story,featuring photographs of some of the nicer more valuable pieces,comes with it. My Guide Book has copyright date 2004 so that's over ten years ago. >>
A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint. >>
Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Your reply indicating that now would be the perfect time for a settlement is both spot on and way off base, both at the same time.
Within the framework of litigation there are scheduled events (the day before a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, the day before the commencement of trial, after closing arguments are made and jury instructions are given, etc.) where the pressure on one or both sides is greatest and thus causes parties to a case to reconsider whether they want to place the outcome of a dispute in the hand of a judge or jury that they have no control over or whether they want to keep control of the outcome of the dispute by working out a settlement with the other side on terms set by the parties. Now is one of those scheduled events (prior to the court of appeals granting or denying the government's petition for rehearing).
However, neither side (including the Langbords who you suggest extend an olive branch and offer a settlement where the family keeps one coin and the other 9 are jointly owned with them being auctioned and the proceeds given to charity) has shown any inclination to give in.
Given the position, acts and decisions of the government over the past decade plus which in summary is "the 10 coins belong to the government, period and end of story"; given everything that the Langbords have had to do to pursue their claim to ownership of the 10 coins; given the negative characterization of the Langbords by the government; and given the fact that Joan Langbord and her sons have real life experiences with Mr. Switt and thus a personal, first hand, connection to the history surrounding these 10 coins it is simply unrealistic to expect that the Langbord family would extend any olive branch at all.
If any settlement proposal is made, it would come from the government; and only in situation where the government is faced with losing the case completely.
If the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside under circumstances where the government's position in the case is strengthened then the government would have no incentive to make any settlement proposal.
<< <i>I did not read the entire 42 page thread, why don't they do like the previous and sell 'em and split the proceeds? Why spend more money in court that is going to be challenged again, and again, and again, etc... >>
No doubt part of the reason is they promised the buyer of the Farouk specimen that no more
would ever come to market. They simply assumed there were no more legal specimens.
Did the Secret Service get to chime in? A Saddle Ridge case did have the potential to eclipse the Langbord case but case not pursued because of limited resources.Gov has had its hands full with the Langbord case for over ten years now.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Reuters article
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I see that point as now so the government should be making the initial proposal with terms,1.Langbords choose one coin for themselves.Gov will bless said coin and confer upon it the same rights and responsibilities as the ex Farouk 1933 double.2. Langbord-Gov joint owners of nine coins.Coins to be auctioned.Proceeds to go to worthy organizations across the land through the Langbord Foundation.
Who can be unhappy with arrangements such as seen above?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>A spokeperson for the Mint said that the coins WERE NOT stolen from the Mint.
Did the Secret Service get to chime in? A Saddle Ridge case did have the potential to eclipse the Langbord case but case not pursued because of limited resources.Gov has had its hands full with the Langbord case for over ten years now. >>
The SS would more likely chime in at the behest of the Mint, not tuther way round. If the Mint had any claim at all, they would have started an action before the coins were allowed to be released. Also, I doubt that lack of resources would have stopped them from pursuing the coins if they thought they had a reason to do so.
I can think of two:
#1.The Government; and
#2. The Langbords.
<< <i>"Who can be unhappy with the arrangements such as seen above?"
I can think of two:
#1.The Government; and
#2. The Langbords.
The time for negotiation is long past. If the gummint had responded to the initial request to authenticate the ten with an amicable offer for an even split I suspect the Langbords might have taken it. Now the Langbords have a good case, high legal bills and no reason to negotiate.
<< <i>"Who can be unhappy with the arrangements such as seen above?"
I can think of two:
#1.The Government; and
#2. The Langbords.
I think that this is an all or nothing deal. Even if the Langbords wanted to deal, I don't think that the government would.
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>"Who can be unhappy with the arrangements such as seen above?"
I can think of two:
#1.The Government; and
#2. The Langbords.
And the owner of the Farouk specimen.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>And the owner of the Farouk specimen. >>
This person will have a dilemma if the Langbord coins go to the family. The Farouk coin owner has carefully guarded his identity, but will have to go public if they wish to litigate against the government for violating the terms of sale.
<< <i>
<< <i>And the owner of the Farouk specimen. >>
This person will have a dilemma if the Langbord coins go to the family. The Farouk coin owner has carefully guarded his identity, but will have to go public if they wish to litigate against the government for violating the terms of sale. >>
The Government promised no others would be monetized. I see no reason for them to again put on the charade of collecting $20 at the sale. They can easily keep that promise.