<< <i>Steve, come on...I'm hoping this thing goes to 2026 or 2036, let alone 2016. I'm in the weird position of not wanting either side to win. Limbo, anyone? >>
Winning or losing is all about PERCEPTION. What do the spectators think will happen? This spectator thinks the majority of the 3rd court of appeals, after reading all the writings, thinks the government has been wronged by the application of CAFRA and will now work their way thru correcting that wrong. My understanding is that VERY few panel decisions are reversed. I think the pressure was applied and the reversal of the panel decision is going to come out of the next phase. I just think it is a disservice to the Langbords to drag it out with more rehashing of the same facts. As Mr.1874 (Steven) said, the presented evidence about (stealing the coins, etc.) may be heresay to some of us, but when the government continues to say it, some of those judges (a majority) tend to believe it. Of course, I hope I am wrong, but I now think the tide has turned and we will see the process play out. Steve
I suspect that the en banc court took up the case because it was the gummint itself that asked it to do so. Let us hope that they do not rule in the gummint's favor for the same reason.
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.
There is the possibility that the export license was deliberately issued to the Egyptians by "manufactured mistake" in order to give Dr. Howard justification to seize in his effort to recover 1933 double eagles known to be held by various individuals in the states. Nellie Tayloe Ross was the fall gal. She did the deed and was then put on administrative leave for sake of appearances."Special value" or "special interest" is very vague terminology,wide open for interpretation. It is highly likely and most probable that considerable confusion about what to do about 1933 double eagles reigned at the Mint in 1944.
As early as 1937 there were advertisements offering 1933 double eagles for sale. Noone should be so naïve as to think that the first information about some 1933 double eagles finding their way into private hands was suddenly realized in 1944 when the Farouk piece walked into the Mint looking for an export license.Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since 1937,herself created the export form that was used for the Farouk coin. Why did gov wait until 1944 to send Secret Service after "the Coins" very soon (within a few weeks) after Dr. Howard "learned of" the "mistake" that had been made by Mrs. Ross?
As early as 1937,Mint officials might have been very much aware that King Farouk would eventually be looking for an illegal-to-own 1933 double eagle for his collection.Even though there never was any gov intent to officially release '33 doubles for circulation,the gov may have become painfully aware as early as 1937 that some of "the Coins" had been illegally spirited out of the Mint by one or more of their sticky-fingered employees.
When the theft of an entire bag of 250 double eagles was discovered,that set the ball in motion for gov to eventually try to recover '33 double eagles,in addition to trying to recover the stolen bag.If the theft of the bag had never happened,gov might well have "looked the other way" about some '33 doubles getting into private hands. We all have 1930's Mint employee greed to thank for the present state of affairs about 1933 double eagles.In 1937,with the theft of the bag of 250 double eagles,the Mint finally said,"Enough is enough! We're tired of being ripped off!"
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The employee that issued the export license in early 1944 for one 1933 double eagle was Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since May,1933.I've had thoughts that Mrs. Ross was being almost unbelievably naïve when she signed off on the export license after consulting with T. Belote of the Smithsonian.Now,i'm not sure there was any naivety involved on Mrs. Ross' part.
The issue of the export license to the Egyptians could easily have been a key element of a master plan so that the Secret Service seizures of 1933 doubles in the '40's would be considered justified.
The plan worked.Secret Service confiscated eight pieces of 1933 double eagles in the forties.Louis Eliasberg mailed his piece in.Protest of the victims of the seizures fell on deaf ears.All nine '33 double pieces recovered were melted at the Mint into a golden puddle in 1956.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< Roger has stated that he cannot comment on the case until after it is finished in the courts. >> Wonderful! This would be something truly worth reading vs. the U.S. Government's repeated attempts to rehash hearsay, and innuendo, etc. as truth.
“People often claim to hunger for truth, but seldom like the taste when it's served up.” ¯ George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
"A lawsuit is not a search for truth. It's a storytelling contest with a highly particular protocol. The lawyer who constructs a better story,using selected evidence to satisfy the requirements of the law,wins." --Alison Frankel,Double Eagle
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
If the same energy and resources were used to clean up the clandestine operations that go on and have come out of the mint since the turn of the century , there'd be no mules. No "missing edge lettering" presidential dollars. No High or Low leaf Wisconsin quarter specimens. Because anything "not intended" is confiscatable , and we ought to be thankful not prosecutable for having. Gee aren't we free ? With the way standards are not applied there (at the mint), there sure is a broken strong arm of government in a sling. Hanging out for all to see. With employees ( those sneaking treasures out of the mint) basically having the same as diplomatic immunity ( a life time government job) , as do those "chosen" (the elect) to be above the law by "writing it" through precedence set (lawyers in session, legislating for lobbyists). And a Supreme Court justifying it; there is no executive order that cannot have holes punched all in it from here to eternity when it comes to the WILL of THE PEOPLE.
Though this isn't what our founding fathers would have considered worth "fighting" the people for (their own gold), it's entertaining and intriguing all the same.
Now excuse me while I try to get funding on a roll of $50 American Gold Eagles for under $24K . It's only $1000. FV. Time flies when you're having inflation. Those used to be $20 Doubles and junk gold ( 90% ) Nobody cared about them as collectibles but collectors.
Wheaties 20 for a dollar.
Government strong arm for rent ! A new world order is coming. People are changing. Got coins ? No big deal.
I got an idea from a reply to another thread. The Government should just make more 1933 Double Eagles. Exact duplicates.
That way the Langbords can keep their 10 coins and we less fortunate collectors can have one too. Izzy stole them or got them legally? Now it wouldn't matter.
How many could the Mint sell with all this free publicity? The Mint sold 425,000 1 oz American Eagles in 2014.
The court has instructed the attorneys for both sides to forward copies of documents they previously filed in the case to the court (obviously for distribution to the entire panel of Justices on the court) by 8-7-2015.
<< <i>I got an idea from a reply to another thread. The Government should just make more 1933 Double Eagles. Exact duplicates.
That way the Langbords can keep their 10 coins and we less fortunate collectors can have one too. Izzy stole them or got them legally? Now it wouldn't matter.
How many could the Mint sell with all this free publicity? The Mint sold 425,000 1 oz American Eagles in 2014.
The price would be around $1365. Count me in! >>
I doubt they could ever get the dies to match to the point of indistinguishability.
plus, the idea needs an Act of Congress
also, this is in the judicial branch. the president is in the executive branch. there can be no presidential review. the highest it will go is the Supreme Court. Although, I'll bet Congress and the President could pass a law to make these legal to own, but with the Mint's views, I doubt that'll ever happen.
I remember reading F. Lee Bailey's "The Defense Never Rests" and how it demonstrated that guilty or innocent if often the victim of the quality of the lawyers on each side. I feel this case is the same in that in the mists of time, guilt or innocence has been lost regarding these important coins and that the lawyering is what will determine the outcome. Too much He Said, She Said, and very little hard facts to support either side in the case IMHO. I just hope the rarities are NOT melted and that collectors can benefit by their existence.
In fact, I am FOR a COMPLETE Amnesty for ALL 199 Double Eagles in existing as this is written. Who supports this from the numismatic side?
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>Who supports this from the numismatic side? >>
It's much better for collectors for the coins to come out. More publicity, more money flowing in to the hobby.
As for striking a few thousands lookalikes - there is this thing in the Mint Act that says coins have to be dated the year they are made. While the Mint has not been strict on this point, this would constitute a rather deliberate violation.
Lottery is the way to go if gov prevails after the olive branch has been shunned by the Langbords. An olive branch is what lady Liberty on the $20 St. Gaudens piece is extending in her left hand,you know.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
In fact, I am FOR a COMPLETE Amnesty for ALL 199 Double Eagles in existing as this is written. Who supports this from the numismatic side?
You must mean all 1933 Double Eagles that currently exist.Granting complete amnesty for gold coins long regarded as having been stolen from the Mint would be unprecedented?
"The Coins" will never be melted according to the Mint.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
There is an interesting document to be seen at online.wsj.com, Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD,Document 233,Filed 08/29/12.Type in "trial transcripts langbord v. united states" in your browser to see the entire 54-page PDF document.
Following is an excerpt from pp.18-19 of this document.(ss34) means "superscript 34." I don't have a superscript "4" available to put with the "3" on my character map:
"To find the source of the coins,the Secret Service conducted many interviews of coin dealers and collectors. In one such interview, Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister told the Secret Service that,starting in February of 1937,he had purchased five (5) 1933 Double Eagles,all from Israel Switt,for $500 apiece.³³ (Tr. 211,at 27-63). This was a huge sum of money in 1937. (ss34) To put it in perspective, consider that the top ten highest prices realized at auction during the 1930's for any American coin ranged from $650 to $1,250. (TR. 211,at 30-31). So,Switt was charging-and getting-top-dollar for four-year-old domestic coins."
³³ Macallister paid for the coins by check. Prior to the Secret Service investigation, some buyers of the '33 Double Eagles exhibited the coins openly and advertised their interest in magazines. (Tr. 215,at 97-105). Of course, at the time of these transactions,the Secret Service had not yet launched its investigation. Therefore,the coin community may not have known about the cloud hanging over the title to 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr 215,at 101).
(ss34)The Government's expert Eric Rauchway,a historian who focuses on the Great Depression and economic policy,opined that $500 in 1937 would translate to approximately $30,000 today. (Tr. 218,at 37-38). 1
Also, Tripp found it interesting that Switt was able to sell each coin to Macallister for the same high price over a period of time. To Tripp,this reflected Switt's knowledge that he had cornered the market on '33 Double Eagles-if another source existed,one would expect the competition to drive the price down. (Tr. 211,at 31-32).
edit 8/4/15: 1 The $500 to $30,000 translation that Rauchway opined seemed "too high" to me so I sought out an explanation for it:
"The government's final expert witness, Eric Rauchway, a professor of history at University of California,Davis, was extremely brief. He stated that his research focus was on economic history with an emphasis on the New Deal. He was asked how much $500 was worth in 1937; $500 being the amount that Switt sold 1933 double eagles for in 1937. Rauchway replied that $500 in 1937 would be $30,000 today, and that he came up with that number by examining comparatively "how much work does it take to buy something," rather than relying solely on indices such as the Consumer Price Index.
The cross examination by the Langbord's attorney,Barry Berke,was brief. Berke asked if Rauchway went to a website and plugged in a number to get his value, bringing up a prior statement where Rauchway said that calculating purchasing power was a "notoriously squishy area of economics." After it was revealed that Rauchway was getting paid $350 per hour for his work and time, the government declined an opportunity to re-examine the witness and rested its case at 9:57 a.m."
Coin World,1933 double eagle trial:Roger Burdette takes the stand,by Steve Roach- Coin World Staff,07-19-11.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>There is an interesting document to be seen at online.wsj.com, Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD,Document 233,Filed 08/29/12.Type in "trial transcripts langbord v. united states" in your browser to see the entire 54-page PDF document.
Following is an excerpt from pp.18-19 of this document.(ss34) means "superscript 34." I don't have a superscript "4" available to put with the "3" on my character map:
"To find the source of the coins,the Secret Service conducted many interviews of coin dealers and collectors. In one such interview, Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister told the Secret Service that,starting in February of 1937,he had purchased five (5) 1933 Double Eagles,all from Israel Switt,for $500 apiece.³³ (Tr. 211,at 27-63). This was a huge sum of money in 1937. (ss34) To put it in perspective, consider that the top ten highest prices realized at auction during the 1930's for any American coin ranged from $650 to $1,250. (TR. 211,at 30-31). So,Switt was charging-and getting-top-dollar for four-year-old domestic coins."
³³ Macallister paid for the coins by check. Prior to the Secret Service investigation, some buyers of the '33 Double Eagles exhibited the coins openly and advertised their interest in magazines. (Tr. 215,at 97-105). Of course, at the time of these transactions,the Secret Service had not yet launched its investigation. Therefore,the coin community may not have known about the cloud hanging over the title to 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr 215,at 101).
(ss34)The Government's expert Eric Rauchway,a historian who focuses on the Great Depression and economic policy,opined that $500 in 1937 would translate to approximately $30,000 today. (Tr. 218,at 37-38).
Also, Tripp found it interesting that Switt was able to sell each coin to Macallister for the same high price over a period of time. To Tripp,this reflected Switt's knowledge that he had cornered the market on '33 Double Eagles-if another source existed,one would expect the competition to drive the price down. (Tr. 211,at 31-32). >>
if the government doesn't believe its own numbers.....
Using the $8000 number,$20 in 1937,paper currency or gold coin no matter,translates to $320 of purchasing power in 2015. Expert government witness historian Rauchway may have factored in the market value of a generic $20 piece in 2012 to arrive at his number of $30K. How much was a generic St. Gaudens $20 gold piece commanding in 2012?
30,000/8,000=3.75 3.75 x 25 (number of $20 pieces to make $500 face value)x $320=$30,000
I have a new number of lottery scratch tickets for gov to print, 445,500 minus 2.
445,498 scratch tickets total to be printed represents the number of 1933 double eagles (445,469) that gov thought they had melted in the great gold melt that began in Feb. 1937 plus 29 pieces destroyed previously by fire assay. 1
The odds of winning a 1933 double eagle by scratching a single ticket would improve by over 23% (550,000/445,498=1.23) for players.Gov could generate up to $44.5498M. Therefore,after costs,over $40M could be generated by gov for its coffers by having a lottery for the ten "the Coins." After the lottery has been conducted and coins distributed to their lucky winners,lots of good could result from gov properly redistributing (via the Langbord Foundation?) the $40M to the American people.
Langbords would not be able to legally conduct a lottery on their own,so the chances of a 1933 double eagle falling into the hands of your average American coin collector are virtually nil if Langbords win "the Coins." Lots and lots of average,ordinary coin collectors (who knows how many?) would buy a scratch ticket for $100 with the chance to win a coin easily worth over $1M in today's dollars.And don't forget,some of the tickets have "second chance" printed on them 2 for a drawing for coin or coins after the immediate game closes and there are coins left over from unsold,unscratched tickets.
The MS66 piece is a $5M coin for the lucky ticket scratcher?
1 sentence edited for clarity: 445,498=445,000 (1780 sealed bags of 250 each)+ 469 (number in cashier's control as of October,1934)+20 (number destroyed by special assay)+ 9 (number destroyed by annual assay).
2 1/3 to 1/2 of the non-winning immediate tickets allow a "second chance" to win a 1933 double in the drawing.State lottery officials should be able to give good counsel to gov about this.Of course,if the immediate game is a sell-out and all ten immediate winners are verified with all 1933 coins awarded then the "second chance" drawing would not be for one or more 1933 double eagles.Some really nice coin prizes (to be determined) that gov buys especially for the second chance drawing could be won,however. Ten coins valued at 50K to 100K each to be awarded in the second chance drawing? Second chance drawing conducted by an independent company and the drawing televised on the website?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Using the $8000 number,$20 in 1937,paper currency or gold coin no matter,translates to $320 of purchasing power in 2015. Expert government witness historian Rauchway may have factored in the market value of a generic $20 piece in 2012 to arrive at his number of $30K. How much was a generic St. Gaudens $20 gold piece commanding in 2012?
30,000/8,000=3.75 3.75 x 25 (number of $20 pieces to make $500 face value)x $320=$30,000
I have a new number of lottery scratch tickets for gov to print, 445,500 minus 2.
445,498 scratch tickets total printed represents the number of 1933 double eagles that gov thought they had melted in the great gold melt that began in Feb. 1937.
The odds of winning a 1933 double eagle by scratching a single ticket would improve by over 23% (550,000/445,498=1.23) for players.Gov could generate up to $44.5498M. Therefore,after costs,over $40M could be generated by gov for its coffers by having a lottery for the ten "the Coins." After the lottery has been conducted and coins distributed to their lucky winners,lots of good could result from gov properly redistributing (via the Langbord Foundation?) the $40M to the American people.
Langbords would not be able to legally conduct a lottery on their own,so the chances of a 1933 double eagle falling into the hands of your average American coin collector are virtually nil if Langbords win "the Coins." Lots and lots of average,ordinary coin collectors (who knows how many?) would buy a scratch ticket for $100 with the chance to win a coin easily worth over $1M in today's dollars.And don't forget,some of the tickets have "second chance" printed on them for a drawing for coin or coins after the immediate game closes and there are coins left over from unsold,unscratched tickets.
The MS66 piece is a $5M coin for the lucky scratcher? >>
this has turned into a lesson is psychology.
either this has been a running chain yank, or you are taking lessons from the government and tripp about how to throw out junk and see what sticks.
..."Because gold was a “sacred material” and represented the wealth of America, the Mint kept meticulous records on its gold coins. (Tr. 208, at 134). And, according to the Government’s primary expert David Tripp,6 many of the Mint’s records from the relevant time frame still exist in their entirety today.7 (Tr. 208, at 162-75)." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 Tripp literally wrote the book on the 1933 Double Eagle. (Tr. 208, at 90-93). By his estimation, Tripp has spent “the better part of 10 years of [his] life” researching the coin. (Tr.208, at 94-98).
7 The Claimants vigorously disputed the reliability of the Mint’s records, pointing to,among other things, Secret Service reports from 1937 concerning a missing bag of 1928 Double Eagles. In these reports, some individuals characterized the Mint’s record keeping methods as obsolete, inadequate, and lax. (Tr. 214, at 28-29, 39-46). However, Tripp noted that several years later, the Secret Service was able to conclude that the 1933 Double Eagles–the subject of this dispute–were stolen based on the same set of records. (Tr. 214, at 41-42, 44). Moreover,these Secret Service reports concerned the state of the Mint’s vault records, not the cashier’s records on which the Government primarily relied. The fact that the Mint’s vault records were “untidy” and unsophisticated did not change Tripp’s conclusion because he looked at how all the documents fit together and corroborated each other. (Tr. 210, at 82-84; Tr. 213, at 132-38). ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Much of the trial testimony focused on the Philadelphia Mint cashier and the records he kept. The Mint cashier is, for all practical purposes, the “gatekeeper” of the coins. (Tr. 208, at 132). He is the last stop, so to speak, before the Mint’s coins go out into the real world. (Id.). In 1933, the Philadelphia Mint cashier was a Mr. Powell, and his assistant was a Mr. Ott. During this period of time, someone in the cashier’s office–presumably Powell and/or Ott–tracked the movement of coins, including 1933 Double Eagles, into and out of the office. They did so using two complementary documents - the “cashier’s daily settlement” and the “cashier’s daily statement.” (Tr. 208, 162-75, 181, 196-98).
The daily settlement reflects the cashier’s end-of-day accounting of the money in his control. (Tr. 208, at 196-98). Important to this case, the daily settlement is segregated into three (3) categories of coins: one for the current year’s production, i.e., 1933 Double Eagles; one for prior years’ coins; and one for circulated coins (for example, coins that had been in commerce but later came back to the Mint as worn). (Id.). The daily settlement is a handwritten,8unsigned document.9 (Tr. 213, at 165, 179). The daily statements, on the other hand, are typed and signed, but they do not reflect the dates of the coins. (Tr. 213, at 165; 214, at 21-22). In addition to tracking gold coins, the cashier’s records tracked such minutiae as a three (3) cent payout to a customer who evidently received his money in the form of two (2) 1932 pennies and one (1) 1933 penny. (Tr. 209, at 9-25). As should be apparent, the records are exquisitely detailed.
Relying primarily on the cashier’s daily settlements and statements, Tripp reconstructed the day-to-day movement of the 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr. 209, at 26-36).10 Using these two documents in tandem, along with other Mint records,11Tripp figuratively followed the coins around the Mint every day from January of 1933 through November of 1934. (Id.; Tr. 209, at 113-17). By doing so, Tripp accounted for each and every one of the 445,500 1933 Double Eagles and showed that not a single ‘33 Double Eagle was issued to the public. (Tr. 210, at 39)." _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 The Government’s forensic accountant Wayne Geisser opined that a ledger is not necessarily less reliable just because it is handwritten. (Tr. 217, at 51).
9 Tripp admits that he has seen no written rule or regulation requiring the Mint cashier to keep records having this level of detail, e.g., records tracking coins by date. (Tr. 213, at 177-79). Regardless, these records do, in fact, exist. Furthermore, Mint employees were held personally responsible for missing money, which would have given the cashier an incentive to keep detailed records accounting for every last dollar. (Tr. 208, at 180).
In addition, Tripp conceded that he could not be sure that the daily settlements were audited. (Tr. 213, at 179). However, by rule, the Mint cashier’s holdings were to be audited at least once a month, and Tripp believes such an audit would have likely entailed looking at both the daily settlements and the daily statements. (Tr. 213, at 179, 182-85).
10 In conducting his analysis, Tripp did not see any mistakes in the cashier’s daily statements or settlements. (Tr. 209, at 37).
11 In forming his opinion, Tripp also relied upon the Mint’s daily process books, which detail the coining department’s physical production of the coins; delivery books, which record the delivery of coins to the cashier; assay transmittal and report sheets; and basement vault records, among other things. (Tr. 208, at 117-18; Tr. 210, at 40-42). According to Tripp, the records fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, dovetailing with each other to paint a complete picture. (Tr. 209, at 113-17).
Your underlying assumption is that Tripp had no agenda or preconceived notions regarding the 1933 DEs. I would suggest that his work reflected his opinion and was designed to support a certain perspective. Just because he wrote something does not make it fact IMHO. There was much work done, that is clear, but often perspective colors judgements and views of facts open to interpretation.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Just because he wrote something does not make it fact IMHO. There was much work done, that is clear, but often perspective colors judgements and views of facts open to interpretation.
In year 2000,Jane Levine, government lawyer in the Fenton case,discovered a file of documents in the National Archives that had belonged to the Treasury Department lawyer who had assisted on the Barnard case back in 1947. Alison Frankel in Double Eagle writes:
"The first thing she read was a memo the Treasury lawyer had written, explaining how the government could prove the disposition of 1933 Double Eagles. He'd actually studied the handwritten Mint ledger books and re-created the route of the coins as they moved around the Mint. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were accounted for in the Mint records cited by the long-ago lawyer. None had been innocently exchanged across the cashier's counter."
Fact:The meticulous Mint cashier records from 1933-34 showing the movement of 1933 double eagles existed in 1947,and thankfully for investigators,still existed when Tripp and Geisser did their analysis:
"Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). And like Tripp, Geisser found it possible to track all the 1933 Double Eagles and conclude that none had been issued by the cashier to the public. (Tr. 217, at 66-76). In Geisser’s words, there is a “closed circle” to account for each of the coins (from the coining department, to the cashier, to the vault); all of the components balance out perfectly. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."
Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD,Document 233,Filed 08/29/12,p.9,Legrome D. Davis,J.
Indeed,if government can't show that the cashier's daily settlement and the cashier's daily statement "absolutely mathematically line up," then government has no sound basis to claim that 1933 double eagles found to be in private hands left the Mint unlawfully.
The acronym,"CAFRA" first appears on page 27,at the half-way point of Document 233.This suggests to me that CAFRA considerations got equal story time from Judge Davis in his August 29,2012 MEMORANDUM concerning Civil Action No. 06-5315.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
"According to Tripp, the Secret Service focused on determining (1) whether the ‘33 Double Eagles were genuine or counterfeit; (2) if genuine, how the coins had gotten out of the Philadelphia Mint; (3) who had possession of the Double Eagle(s); and (4) the source of the coins. (Tr. 211, at 14). After much digging, the Secret Service concluded that the ‘33 Double Eagles were genuine; the coins left the Mint through unauthorized channels; the “inside source” of the coins was George McCann, 31 the cashier of the Philadelphia Mint from 1934 to 1940; and the sole “outside source” was Israel Switt, Joan Langbord’s father and Roy and David Langbord’s grandfather. 32 (Tr. 211, at 14-15). Tripp independently reviewed the Secret Service...
31 In 1940, McCann was arrested for embezzling silver coins and served time in prison for that offense. (Tr. 211, at 15). We instructed the jury that they may consider McCann’s conviction only as it may bear on the method of theft that was alleged to have occurred at the Mint and the opportunity for McCann to steal these particular coins. (Tr. 222, at 34).
32 At the time, Switt owned an antique store near the Mint here in Philadelphia. (Tr. 218,at 55-56). Joan Langbord has worked at the store her whole life, and the family stills runs the business today. (Tr. 217, at 224-25). Switt himself handled the coin-related aspects of the business. (Tr. 217, at 227; Tr. 218, at 55).
file and came to the same conclusions. (Tr. 211, at 15).
To start, the Secret Service seized the coin up for auction at Stack’s. Stack’s gave the agents the name of another man, Max Berenstein, who worked a few blocks away and also had a ‘33 Double Eagle. The Secret Service seized that coin as well. (Tr. 211, at 15-16; Tr. 214, at 136-37). They then took the coins to the New York Assay Office, which examined them and found them to be genuine ‘33 Double Eagles. (Id.).
Next, to determine whether the ‘33 Double Eagles left the Mint through authorized channels, the Secret Service contacted the United States Treasury and reviewed the Philadelphia Mint’s records–many of the same records that Tripp and Geisser analyzed. (Tr. 211, at 16-27).In the end, the Secret Service opined that the evidence “indicates rather conclusively that no [1933 Double Eagles] were legally circulated with the exception of the two . . . forwarded by the Cashier of the Philadelphia Mint to the Curator of the Smithsonian Institute as of October 2,1934.” (Tr. 211, at 98).
______________________________________________________________18________________________________________________________________________ Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD Document 233 Filed 08/29/12 Legrome D.Davis,J.
According to David Ganz, the James Stack of 1944 is no relation to the New York dealer of Stacks's Rare Coins (now Stacks-Bowers).I had been assuming there was a relationship until I read Ganz's article,Gold Seizure,Here's how it could happen and what you can do about it. We all know what happens when we assume things,right?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Is there some point to all these postings about Tripp? If we were interested we would read the book. The case is the case right now, mostly procedural and NOT about guilt or innocence at this point. Why rehash it all?
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
My last few posts have been primarily the words of presiding Judge Legrome Davis in the jury trial, not the words of the much-misunderstood here and ATS, expert government witness David Tripp. I'm just trying to demonstrate here that Tripp didn't invent his conclusion out of thin air,by writing fiction, that no 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully. That same conclusion was reached by others without Tripp's input.
Someone here asked about trial transcripts. Judge Davis's remarks reference the trial transcripts heavily throughout his 54-page MEMORANDUM. There is information in the MEMORANDUM i discovered about docket numbers for the trial. Anyone interested in the jury trial might be able to read the transcripts verbatim and draw their own conclusions and opinions by wading through the transcripts given that they know some docket numbers to ask for.
Tripp's and other's analysis of the existing evidence, the 1933 and 1934 cashier's daily statement and cashier's settlement, shows that 1933 double eagles must have left the Mint unlawfully. Just how the 1933 double eagles left the Mint through "unauthorized channels," admittedly, is a subject for conjecture. I have my own theory,significantly departing from Tripp's conjecture, as to how 1933 double eagles left the Mint unlawfully but you all will have to wait for my block-buster movie about the story of the 1933 double eagle to come out for details on that.
Judge Davis in his MEMORANDUM remarks alot about CAFRA. Be thankful I have not rehashed CAFRA here. CAFRA analysis I have left for the lawyers. CAFRA is way over my head,the ins-and-outs of employee theft are not. I consider myself as having decent skills as an investigator of employee theft.
Part of my professional career was as an investigator,an Asset Protection Specialist,for a time,with a major retailer (not Walmart ).Much of my work as an APS was doing investigations of product shrinkage. And I'm talking about loss due to shrinkage of high-dollar merchandise not chewing gum and candy bars. Sadly,most shrinkage loss to a company comes from employee theft. As an investigator,one uses whatever tools are available to try to "get to the bottom of it," and hopefully,recover the merchandise and bring the thieves to justice.
Please consider buying a ticket to my movie.I need to scratch up quite a bit of money to make "the Movie" about "the Coins" and will need people to show up in droves at the box office to satisfy my money backers.
Meanwhile...i was just thinkin'....
mr1874,8/2/2015
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Seems like really bad news for the Langbords. From previous posts, the granting of that petition means that a majority of the justices wanted to hear it en blanc. Seems doubtful they would vote to hear it unless they wanted to overturn it.
Although even if the panel over turns the CAFRA finding, maybe they will still agree with the triple hearsay issue and send it back for a new trial without the made us stuff from the secret service and tripp entered as evidence. >>
This is certainly a viable possibility. I think the Langboards should win on the hearsay and other evidentiary matters. I do not, however, agree with the CAFRA ruling previously issued (and now vacated opinion) by the 3 judge panel. I do not think CAFRA applies in that I do not think this is a non-judicial forfeiture. It is a seizure, but not all seizures are non judicial forfeitures. Only the later are protected by CAFRA. A thief never acquires legal title to stolen property, and you cannot forfeit something (legally speaking) that you never held title to; thus, the decision by the 3 judge panel was erroneous in my opinion and was rightfully vacated.
I´m not going to be checking in that often as I expect some time to pass before they schedule the hearing, and we won´t be hearing it live. So, just listening to it afterwards will be what we all get.
'Unjust Enrichment' I think will play in here, as well as the 'stolen' aspect.
<< <i>'Unjust Enrichment' I think will play in here, as well as the 'stolen' aspect. >>
As well as the fact that the Court is part of the Government, and it is very difficult for the Langbords to prevail because of what I call the "home-court advantage".
In my view, the fact that there is no proof that the double eagles were stolen, plus the CAFRA filing omission, would seem to give the Langbords the edge. But we will wait and see what happens.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I´m not going to be checking in that often as I expect some time to pass before they schedule the hearing, and we won´t be hearing it live. So, just listening to it afterwards will be what we all get.
'Unjust Enrichment' I think will play in here, as well as the 'stolen' aspect. >>
Seems to me the government would be 'unjustly enriched" if they got to keep the coins. Had the coins not be "stolen" from them as they allege, the coins would have been melted down, and the government would now have gold worth about 10K. Instead they have coins that are worth many millions. Seems to me the government was the one unjustly enriched.
My opinion is that the right thing to do is for the attorneys on both sides to hammer out an agreement.That is what the en banc panel should recommend. Attorney's can't come to acceptable terms of disposition of the ten pieces then case Langbord v. United States is over with. Government is in possession of the coins and will keep them. Gov should try to make some money on the coins but they all go to the Smithsonian.
What a boring end to the story....
Less boring if Gov decides to do a lottery for the coins.I estimate Gov could clear up to $40M by having a lottery for the nine pieces left after gov decides to keep the pocket piece for itself. Gov would have three specimens of '33 double eagle in the Smithy,the two sent by the Mint in October,1934 joined by the 1933 Lady Liberty that got around a little bit (wink,wink).
I had once read that NGC slabbed the pocket piece as "genuine,cleaned" but not sure if I'm correct about this.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The Mint clearly does not have the dies from the original 1933 Double Eagles. That said, they have the technology to produce any coin they choose. Interestingly, the way the Mint produced dies did not change from the teens until after the turn of this century. I saw the apparatus that transcribed the dies for a plaster mold created by the artists. It was amazing to see such old technology still in use in the year 2000. Of course it is has since been replaced, but I just wanted to share how they produced dies as late at 15 years ago. We now live in a digital world.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
The pocket piece specimen of 1933 double eagle deserves its place in American numismatic history.It is a national treasure to be owned by the American people.The pocket piece is a promise to Americans that government protects the nation's gold from swindlers and thieves. As we speak,the ten ladies of liberty are in Uncle Sam's pants pockets in that place we call Ft. Knox,
What a shame if Langbords get to keep it and then have to sell it. It's highly likely that Langbords would need to sell it. My estimation is that their current legal bill has got to be at least $1M since the case has dragged on for over ten years now.(8/9/15)
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The numismatic community owes the government a huge thank you for not going after the Saddle Ridge coins.The Saddle Ridge coins most certainly were stolen from the San Francisco Mint.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
We are quickly getting into Do Not feed the Troll range here, and I for one shall not post again until SanctionII provides some court related activity or information.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
The next event (a hearing?) is scheduled at the "convenience of the court". Who knows what that means. Next week, next month, next year? Just have to wait and see.
<< <i>The numismatic community owes the government a huge thank you for not going after the Saddle Ridge coins.The Saddle Ridge coins most certainly were stolen from the San Francisco Mint. >>
I quickly ruled out the theory that a rich eccentric collector stuffed his gold coin collection into cans and then buried them on Saddle Ridge. I'm hoping QDB comes out with a new edition of Guidebook of Double Eagle Gold Coins that show some of the Saddle Ridge coins close-up. I would buy the book if it has the Saddle Ridge story with images of the coins.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
#1 is gem,solid gem,just a touch less than #7 in strike quality.#2 compares favorably with #1.Top three #1,#2,#7? It's so hard to decide about quality without having the pieces in hand.It comes down to what the collector finds acceptable for "a look" for his/her coins. Is the collector willing to pay for the look when he or she sees it offered for sale?
What is the proper look for a strictly unc. St. Gaudens double eagle? Are these things heavily counterfeited?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Comments
<< <i>Steve, come on...I'm hoping this thing goes to 2026 or 2036, let alone 2016. I'm in the weird position of not wanting either side to win. Limbo, anyone? >>
Winning or losing is all about PERCEPTION. What do the spectators think will happen? This spectator thinks the majority of the 3rd court of appeals, after reading all the writings, thinks the government has been wronged by the application of CAFRA and will now work their way thru correcting that wrong. My understanding is that VERY few panel decisions are reversed. I think the pressure was applied and the reversal of the panel decision is going to come out of the next phase. I just think it is a disservice to the Langbords to drag it out with more rehashing of the same facts. As Mr.1874 (Steven) said, the presented evidence about (stealing the coins, etc.) may be heresay to some of us, but when the government continues to say it, some of those judges (a majority) tend to believe it. Of course, I hope I am wrong, but I now think the tide has turned and we will see the process play out. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Roger has stated that he cannot comment on the case until after it is finished in the courts. >>
Wonderful! This would be something truly worth reading vs. the U.S. Government's repeated attempts to rehash hearsay, and innuendo, etc. as truth.
As early as 1937 there were advertisements offering 1933 double eagles for sale. Noone should be so naïve as to think that the first information about some 1933 double eagles finding their way into private hands was suddenly realized in 1944 when the Farouk piece walked into the Mint looking for an export license.Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint since 1937,herself created the export form that was used for the Farouk coin. Why did gov wait until 1944 to send Secret Service after "the Coins" very soon (within a few weeks) after Dr. Howard "learned of" the "mistake" that had been made by Mrs. Ross?
As early as 1937,Mint officials might have been very much aware that King Farouk would eventually be looking for an illegal-to-own 1933 double eagle for his collection.Even though there never was any gov intent to officially release '33 doubles for circulation,the gov may have become painfully aware as early as 1937 that some of "the Coins" had been illegally spirited out of the Mint by one or more of their sticky-fingered employees.
When the theft of an entire bag of 250 double eagles was discovered,that set the ball in motion for gov to eventually try to recover '33 double eagles,in addition to trying to recover the stolen bag.If the theft of the bag had never happened,gov might well have "looked the other way" about some '33 doubles getting into private hands. We all have 1930's Mint employee greed to thank for the present state of affairs about 1933 double eagles.In 1937,with the theft of the bag of 250 double eagles,the Mint finally said,"Enough is enough! We're tired of being ripped off!"
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
didn't know he wasn't supposed to.
It's not every day that a civil servant gets a request from a genuine King.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
The issue of the export license to the Egyptians could easily have been a key element of a master plan so that the Secret Service seizures of 1933 doubles in the '40's would be considered justified.
The plan worked.Secret Service confiscated eight pieces of 1933 double eagles in the forties.Louis Eliasberg mailed his piece in.Protest of the victims of the seizures fell on deaf ears.All nine '33 double pieces recovered were melted at the Mint into a golden puddle in 1956.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Wonderful! This would be something truly worth reading vs. the U.S. Government's repeated attempts to rehash hearsay, and innuendo, etc. as truth.
“People often claim to hunger for truth, but seldom like the taste when it's served up.”
¯ George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
"A lawsuit is not a search for truth. It's a storytelling contest with a highly particular protocol. The lawyer who constructs a better story,using selected evidence to satisfy the requirements of the law,wins."
--Alison Frankel,Double Eagle
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
With the way standards are not applied there (at the mint), there sure is a broken strong arm of government in a sling. Hanging out for all to see.
With employees ( those sneaking treasures out of the mint) basically having the same as diplomatic immunity ( a life time government job) , as do those "chosen" (the elect) to be above the law by "writing it" through precedence set (lawyers in session, legislating for lobbyists). And a Supreme Court justifying it; there is no executive order that cannot have holes punched all in it from here to eternity when it comes to the WILL of THE PEOPLE.
Though this isn't what our founding fathers would have considered worth "fighting" the people for (their own gold), it's entertaining and intriguing all the same.
Now excuse me while I try to get funding on a roll of $50 American Gold Eagles for under $24K . It's only $1000. FV. Time flies when you're having inflation. Those used to be $20 Doubles and junk gold ( 90% ) Nobody cared about them as collectibles but collectors.
Wheaties
Government strong arm for rent ! A new world order is coming. People are changing. Got coins ? No big deal.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
make more 1933 Double Eagles. Exact duplicates.
That way the Langbords can keep their 10 coins and we less fortunate collectors
can have one too. Izzy stole them or got them legally? Now it wouldn't matter.
How many could the Mint sell with all this free publicity?
The Mint sold 425,000 1 oz American Eagles in 2014.
The price would be around $1365. Count me in!
<< <i>I got an idea from a reply to another thread. The Government should just
make more 1933 Double Eagles. Exact duplicates.
That way the Langbords can keep their 10 coins and we less fortunate collectors
can have one too. Izzy stole them or got them legally? Now it wouldn't matter.
How many could the Mint sell with all this free publicity?
The Mint sold 425,000 1 oz American Eagles in 2014.
The price would be around $1365. Count me in! >>
I doubt they could ever get the dies to match to the point of indistinguishability.
plus, the idea needs an Act of Congress
also, this is in the judicial branch. the president is in the executive branch. there can be no presidential review. the highest it will go is the Supreme Court. Although, I'll bet Congress and the President could pass a law to make these legal to own, but with the Mint's views, I doubt that'll ever happen.
In fact, I am FOR a COMPLETE Amnesty for ALL 199 Double Eagles in existing as this is written. Who supports this from the numismatic side?
<< <i>Who supports this from the numismatic side? >>
It's much better for collectors for the coins to come out. More publicity, more money flowing in to the hobby.
As for striking a few thousands lookalikes - there is this thing in the Mint Act that says coins have to be dated the year they are made. While the Mint has not been strict on this point, this would constitute a rather deliberate violation.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
You must mean all 1933 Double Eagles that currently exist.Granting complete amnesty for gold coins long regarded as having been stolen from the Mint would be unprecedented?
"The Coins" will never be melted according to the Mint.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Following is an excerpt from pp.18-19 of this document.(ss34) means "superscript 34." I don't have a superscript "4" available to put with the "3" on my character map:
"To find the source of the coins,the Secret Service conducted many interviews of coin dealers and collectors. In one such interview, Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister told the Secret Service that,starting in February of 1937,he had purchased five (5) 1933 Double Eagles,all from Israel Switt,for $500 apiece.³³ (Tr. 211,at 27-63). This was a huge sum of money in 1937. (ss34) To put it in perspective, consider that the top ten highest prices realized at auction during the 1930's for any American coin ranged from $650 to $1,250. (TR. 211,at 30-31). So,Switt was charging-and getting-top-dollar for four-year-old domestic coins."
³³ Macallister paid for the coins by check. Prior to the Secret Service investigation, some buyers of the '33 Double Eagles exhibited the coins openly and advertised their interest in magazines. (Tr. 215,at 97-105). Of course, at the time of these transactions,the Secret Service had not yet launched its investigation. Therefore,the coin community may not have known about the cloud hanging over the title to 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr 215,at 101).
(ss34)The Government's expert Eric Rauchway,a historian who focuses on the Great Depression and economic policy,opined that $500 in 1937 would translate to approximately $30,000 today. (Tr. 218,at 37-38). 1
Also, Tripp found it interesting that Switt was able to sell each coin to Macallister for the same high price over a period of time. To Tripp,this reflected Switt's knowledge that he had cornered the market on '33 Double Eagles-if another source existed,one would expect the competition to drive the price down. (Tr. 211,at 31-32).
edit 8/4/15: 1 The $500 to $30,000 translation that Rauchway opined seemed "too high" to me so I sought out an explanation for it:
"The government's final expert witness, Eric Rauchway, a professor of history at University of California,Davis, was extremely brief. He stated that his research focus was on economic history with an emphasis on the New Deal. He was asked how much $500 was worth in 1937; $500 being the amount that Switt sold 1933 double eagles for in 1937. Rauchway replied that $500 in 1937 would be $30,000 today, and that he came up with that number by examining comparatively "how much work does it take to buy something," rather than relying solely on indices such as the Consumer Price Index.
The cross examination by the Langbord's attorney,Barry Berke,was brief. Berke asked if Rauchway went to a website and plugged in a number to get his value, bringing up a prior statement where Rauchway said that calculating purchasing power was a "notoriously squishy area of economics." After it was revealed that Rauchway was getting paid $350 per hour for his work and time, the government declined an opportunity to re-examine the witness and rested its case at 9:57 a.m."
Coin World,1933 double eagle trial:Roger Burdette takes the stand,by Steve Roach- Coin World Staff,07-19-11.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>There is an interesting document to be seen at online.wsj.com, Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD,Document 233,Filed 08/29/12.Type in "trial transcripts langbord v. united states" in your browser to see the entire 54-page PDF document.
Following is an excerpt from pp.18-19 of this document.(ss34) means "superscript 34." I don't have a superscript "4" available to put with the "3" on my character map:
"To find the source of the coins,the Secret Service conducted many interviews of coin dealers and collectors. In one such interview, Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister told the Secret Service that,starting in February of 1937,he had purchased five (5) 1933 Double Eagles,all from Israel Switt,for $500 apiece.³³ (Tr. 211,at 27-63). This was a huge sum of money in 1937. (ss34) To put it in perspective, consider that the top ten highest prices realized at auction during the 1930's for any American coin ranged from $650 to $1,250. (TR. 211,at 30-31). So,Switt was charging-and getting-top-dollar for four-year-old domestic coins."
³³ Macallister paid for the coins by check. Prior to the Secret Service investigation, some buyers of the '33 Double Eagles exhibited the coins openly and advertised their interest in magazines. (Tr. 215,at 97-105). Of course, at the time of these transactions,the Secret Service had not yet launched its investigation. Therefore,the coin community may not have known about the cloud hanging over the title to 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr 215,at 101).
(ss34)The Government's expert Eric Rauchway,a historian who focuses on the Great Depression and economic policy,opined that $500 in 1937 would translate to approximately $30,000 today. (Tr. 218,at 37-38).
Also, Tripp found it interesting that Switt was able to sell each coin to Macallister for the same high price over a period of time. To Tripp,this reflected Switt's knowledge that he had cornered the market on '33 Double Eagles-if another source existed,one would expect the competition to drive the price down. (Tr. 211,at 31-32). >>
if the government doesn't believe its own numbers.....
inflation calculator
$500 - 1937 = ~$8,000 in 2012
30,000/8,000=3.75
3.75 x 25 (number of $20 pieces to make $500 face value)x $320=$30,000
5 year gold chart 2011-2015
I have a new number of lottery scratch tickets for gov to print, 445,500 minus 2.
445,498 scratch tickets total to be printed represents the number of 1933 double eagles (445,469) that gov thought they had melted in the great gold melt that began in Feb. 1937 plus 29 pieces destroyed previously by fire assay. 1
The odds of winning a 1933 double eagle by scratching a single ticket would improve by over 23% (550,000/445,498=1.23) for players.Gov could generate up to $44.5498M. Therefore,after costs,over $40M could be generated by gov for its coffers by having a lottery for the ten "the Coins." After the lottery has been conducted and coins distributed to their lucky winners,lots of good could result from gov properly redistributing (via the Langbord Foundation?) the $40M to the American people.
Langbords would not be able to legally conduct a lottery on their own,so the chances of a 1933 double eagle falling into the hands of your average American coin collector are virtually nil if Langbords win "the Coins." Lots and lots of average,ordinary coin collectors (who knows how many?) would buy a scratch ticket for $100 with the chance to win a coin easily worth over $1M in today's dollars.And don't forget,some of the tickets have "second chance" printed on them 2 for a drawing for coin or coins after the immediate game closes and there are coins left over from unsold,unscratched tickets.
The MS66 piece is a $5M coin for the lucky ticket scratcher?
1 sentence edited for clarity: 445,498=445,000 (1780 sealed bags of 250 each)+ 469 (number in cashier's control as of October,1934)+20 (number destroyed by special assay)+ 9 (number destroyed by annual assay).
2 1/3 to 1/2 of the non-winning immediate tickets allow a "second chance" to win a 1933 double in the drawing.State lottery officials should be able to give good counsel to gov about this.Of course,if the immediate game is a sell-out and all ten immediate winners are verified with all 1933 coins awarded then the "second chance" drawing would not be for one or more 1933 double eagles.Some really nice coin prizes (to be determined) that gov buys especially for the second chance drawing could be won,however. Ten coins valued at 50K to 100K each to be awarded in the second chance drawing? Second chance drawing conducted by an independent company and the drawing televised on the website?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Using the $8000 number,$20 in 1937,paper currency or gold coin no matter,translates to $320 of purchasing power in 2015. Expert government witness historian Rauchway may have factored in the market value of a generic $20 piece in 2012 to arrive at his number of $30K. How much was a generic St. Gaudens $20 gold piece commanding in 2012?
30,000/8,000=3.75
3.75 x 25 (number of $20 pieces to make $500 face value)x $320=$30,000
5 year gold chart 2011-2015
I have a new number of lottery scratch tickets for gov to print, 445,500 minus 2.
445,498 scratch tickets total printed represents the number of 1933 double eagles that gov thought they had melted in the great gold melt that began in Feb. 1937.
The odds of winning a 1933 double eagle by scratching a single ticket would improve by over 23% (550,000/445,498=1.23) for players.Gov could generate up to $44.5498M. Therefore,after costs,over $40M could be generated by gov for its coffers by having a lottery for the ten "the Coins." After the lottery has been conducted and coins distributed to their lucky winners,lots of good could result from gov properly redistributing (via the Langbord Foundation?) the $40M to the American people.
Langbords would not be able to legally conduct a lottery on their own,so the chances of a 1933 double eagle falling into the hands of your average American coin collector are virtually nil if Langbords win "the Coins." Lots and lots of average,ordinary coin collectors (who knows how many?) would buy a scratch ticket for $100 with the chance to win a coin easily worth over $1M in today's dollars.And don't forget,some of the tickets have "second chance" printed on them for a drawing for coin or coins after the immediate game closes and there are coins left over from unsold,unscratched tickets.
The MS66 piece is a $5M coin for the lucky scratcher? >>
this has turned into a lesson is psychology.
either this has been a running chain yank, or you are taking lessons from the government and tripp about how to throw out junk and see what sticks.
either way, I'm done playing.
That is 1937 dollars to 2012 dollars.
A generic $20 Saint would have been worth around $40-42 in 1937 and
$1650-1950 in 2012.
Government’s primary expert David Tripp,6 many of the Mint’s records from the relevant time frame still exist in their entirety today.7 (Tr. 208, at 162-75)."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 Tripp literally wrote the book on the 1933 Double Eagle. (Tr. 208, at 90-93). By his estimation, Tripp has spent “the better part of 10 years of [his] life”
researching the coin. (Tr.208, at 94-98).
7 The Claimants vigorously disputed the reliability of the Mint’s records, pointing to,among other things, Secret Service reports from 1937 concerning a missing bag of 1928 Double Eagles. In these reports, some individuals characterized the Mint’s record keeping methods as obsolete, inadequate, and lax. (Tr. 214, at 28-29, 39-46). However, Tripp noted that several years later, the Secret Service was able to conclude that the 1933 Double Eagles–the subject of this dispute–were stolen based on the same set of records. (Tr. 214, at 41-42, 44). Moreover,these Secret Service reports concerned the state of the Mint’s vault records, not the cashier’s records on which the Government primarily relied. The fact that the Mint’s vault records were “untidy” and unsophisticated did not change Tripp’s conclusion because he looked at how all the
documents fit together and corroborated each other. (Tr. 210, at 82-84; Tr. 213, at 132-38).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Much of the trial testimony focused on the Philadelphia Mint cashier and the records he kept. The Mint cashier is, for all practical purposes, the “gatekeeper” of the coins. (Tr. 208, at 132). He is the last stop, so to speak, before the Mint’s coins go out into the real world. (Id.). In 1933, the Philadelphia Mint cashier was a Mr. Powell, and his assistant was a Mr. Ott. During this period of time, someone in the cashier’s office–presumably Powell and/or Ott–tracked the movement of coins, including 1933 Double Eagles, into and out of the office. They did so using two complementary documents - the “cashier’s daily settlement” and the “cashier’s daily statement.” (Tr. 208, 162-75, 181, 196-98).
The daily settlement reflects the cashier’s end-of-day accounting of the money in his control. (Tr. 208, at 196-98). Important to this case, the daily settlement is segregated into three (3) categories of coins: one for the current year’s production, i.e., 1933 Double Eagles; one for prior years’ coins; and one for circulated coins (for example, coins that had been in commerce but later came back to the Mint as worn). (Id.). The daily settlement is a handwritten,8unsigned document.9 (Tr. 213, at 165, 179). The daily statements, on the other hand, are typed and signed, but they do not reflect the dates of the coins. (Tr. 213, at 165; 214, at 21-22). In addition to tracking gold coins, the cashier’s records tracked such minutiae as a three (3) cent payout to a customer who evidently received his money in the form of two (2) 1932 pennies and one (1) 1933 penny. (Tr. 209, at 9-25). As should be apparent, the records are exquisitely detailed.
Relying primarily on the cashier’s daily settlements and statements, Tripp reconstructed the day-to-day movement of the 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr. 209, at 26-36).10 Using these two documents in tandem, along with other Mint records,11Tripp figuratively followed the coins around the Mint every day from January of 1933 through November of 1934. (Id.; Tr. 209, at 113-17). By doing so, Tripp accounted for each and every one of the 445,500 1933 Double Eagles and showed that not a single ‘33 Double Eagle was issued to the public. (Tr. 210, at 39)."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 The Government’s forensic accountant Wayne Geisser opined that a ledger is not necessarily less reliable just because it is handwritten. (Tr. 217, at 51).
9 Tripp admits that he has seen no written rule or regulation requiring the Mint cashier to keep records having this level of detail, e.g., records tracking coins by date. (Tr. 213, at 177-79). Regardless, these records do, in fact, exist. Furthermore, Mint employees were held personally responsible for missing money, which would have given the cashier an incentive to keep detailed records accounting for every last dollar. (Tr. 208, at 180).
In addition, Tripp conceded that he could not be sure that the daily settlements were audited. (Tr. 213, at 179). However, by rule, the Mint cashier’s holdings were to be audited at least once a month, and Tripp believes such an audit would have likely entailed looking at both the daily settlements and the daily statements. (Tr. 213, at 179, 182-85).
10 In conducting his analysis, Tripp did not see any mistakes in the cashier’s daily statements or settlements. (Tr. 209, at 37).
11 In forming his opinion, Tripp also relied upon the Mint’s daily process books, which detail the coining department’s physical production of the coins; delivery books, which record the delivery of coins to the cashier; assay transmittal and report sheets; and basement vault records, among other things. (Tr. 208, at 117-18; Tr. 210, at 40-42). According to Tripp, the records fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, dovetailing with each other to paint a complete picture. (Tr. 209, at 113-17).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD,Document 233,Filed 08/29/12,pp.4-7,Legrome D. Davis,J.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
In year 2000,Jane Levine, government lawyer in the Fenton case,discovered a file of documents in the National Archives that had belonged to the Treasury Department lawyer who had assisted on the Barnard case back in 1947. Alison Frankel in Double Eagle writes:
"The first thing she read was a memo the Treasury lawyer had written, explaining how the government could prove the disposition of 1933 Double Eagles. He'd actually studied the handwritten Mint ledger books and re-created the route of the coins as they moved around the Mint. All of the 1933 Double Eagles were accounted for in the Mint records cited by the long-ago lawyer. None had been innocently exchanged across the cashier's counter."
Fact:The meticulous Mint cashier records from 1933-34 showing the movement of 1933 double eagles existed in 1947,and thankfully for investigators,still existed when Tripp and Geisser did their analysis:
"Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser
determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). And like Tripp, Geisser found it possible to track all the 1933 Double Eagles and conclude that none had been issued by the cashier to the public. (Tr. 217, at 66-76). In Geisser’s words, there is a “closed circle” to account for each of the coins (from the coining department, to the cashier, to the vault); all of the components balance out perfectly. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."
Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD,Document 233,Filed 08/29/12,p.9,Legrome D. Davis,J.
Indeed,if government can't show that the cashier's daily settlement and the cashier's daily statement "absolutely mathematically line up," then government has no sound basis to claim that 1933 double eagles found to be in private hands left the Mint unlawfully.
The acronym,"CAFRA" first appears on page 27,at the half-way point of Document 233.This suggests to me that CAFRA considerations got equal story time from Judge Davis in his August 29,2012 MEMORANDUM concerning Civil Action No. 06-5315.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
_____________________________________________________________17_________________________________________________________________________
31 In 1940, McCann was arrested for embezzling silver coins and served time in prison for that offense. (Tr. 211, at 15). We instructed the jury that they may consider McCann’s conviction only as it may bear on the method of theft that was alleged to have occurred at the Mint and the opportunity for McCann to steal these particular coins. (Tr. 222, at 34).
32 At the time, Switt owned an antique store near the Mint here in Philadelphia. (Tr. 218,at 55-56). Joan Langbord has worked at the store her whole life, and the family stills runs the business today. (Tr. 217, at 224-25). Switt himself handled the coin-related aspects of the business. (Tr. 217, at 227; Tr. 218, at 55).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
file and came to the same conclusions. (Tr. 211, at 15).
To start, the Secret Service seized the coin up for auction at Stack’s. Stack’s gave the agents the name of another man, Max Berenstein, who worked a few blocks away and also had a ‘33 Double Eagle. The Secret Service seized that coin as well. (Tr. 211, at 15-16; Tr. 214, at 136-37). They then took the coins to the New York Assay Office, which examined them and found them to be genuine ‘33 Double Eagles. (Id.).
Next, to determine whether the ‘33 Double Eagles left the Mint through authorized channels, the Secret Service contacted the United States Treasury and reviewed the Philadelphia Mint’s records–many of the same records that Tripp and Geisser analyzed. (Tr. 211, at 16-27).In the end, the Secret Service opined that the evidence
“indicates rather conclusively that no [1933 Double Eagles] were legally circulated with the exception of the two . . . forwarded by the Cashier of the Philadelphia Mint to the Curator of the Smithsonian Institute as of October 2,1934.” (Tr. 211, at 98).
______________________________________________________________18________________________________________________________________________
Case 2:06-cv-05315-LDD Document 233 Filed 08/29/12 Legrome D.Davis,J.
According to David Ganz, the James Stack of 1944 is no relation to the New York dealer of Stacks's Rare Coins (now Stacks-Bowers).I had been assuming there was a relationship until I read Ganz's article,Gold Seizure,Here's how it could happen and what you can do about it. We all know what happens when we assume things,right?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Someone here asked about trial transcripts. Judge Davis's remarks reference the trial transcripts heavily throughout his 54-page MEMORANDUM. There is information in the MEMORANDUM i discovered about docket numbers for the trial. Anyone interested in the jury trial might be able to read the transcripts verbatim and draw their own conclusions and opinions by wading through the transcripts given that they know some docket numbers to ask for.
Tripp's and other's analysis of the existing evidence, the 1933 and 1934 cashier's daily statement and cashier's settlement, shows that 1933 double eagles must have left the Mint unlawfully. Just how the 1933 double eagles left the Mint through "unauthorized channels," admittedly, is a subject for conjecture. I have my own theory,significantly departing from Tripp's conjecture, as to how 1933 double eagles left the Mint unlawfully but you all will have to wait for my block-buster movie about the story of the 1933 double eagle to come out for details on that.
Judge Davis in his MEMORANDUM remarks alot about CAFRA. Be thankful I have not rehashed CAFRA here. CAFRA analysis I have left for the lawyers. CAFRA is way over my head,the ins-and-outs of employee theft are not. I consider myself as having decent skills as an investigator of employee theft.
Part of my professional career was as an investigator,an Asset Protection Specialist,for a time,with a major retailer (not Walmart
Please consider buying a ticket to my movie.I need to scratch up quite a bit of money to make "the Movie" about "the Coins" and will need people to show up in droves at the box office to satisfy my money backers.
Meanwhile...i was just thinkin'....
mr1874,8/2/2015
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>The Government should just make more 1933 Double Eagles. Exact duplicates. >>
Is this possible? Even if they still had the original dies, would the dies have deteriorated to the point where one could tell the difference?
<< <i>Seems like really bad news for the Langbords. From previous posts, the granting of that petition means that a majority of the justices wanted to hear it en blanc. Seems doubtful they would vote to hear it unless they wanted to overturn it.
Although even if the panel over turns the CAFRA finding, maybe they will still agree with the triple hearsay issue and send it back for a new trial without the made us stuff from the secret service and tripp entered as evidence. >>
This is certainly a viable possibility. I think the Langboards should win on the hearsay and other evidentiary matters. I do not, however, agree with the CAFRA ruling previously issued (and now vacated opinion) by the 3 judge panel. I do not think CAFRA applies in that I do not think this is a non-judicial forfeiture. It is a seizure, but not all seizures are non judicial forfeitures. Only the later are protected by CAFRA. A thief never acquires legal title to stolen property, and you cannot forfeit something (legally speaking) that you never held title to; thus, the decision by the 3 judge panel was erroneous in my opinion and was rightfully vacated.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I´m not going to be checking in that often as I expect some time to pass before they schedule the hearing, and we won´t be hearing it live. So, just listening to it afterwards will be what we all get.
'Unjust Enrichment' I think will play in here, as well as the 'stolen' aspect.
<< <i>'Unjust Enrichment' I think will play in here, as well as the 'stolen' aspect. >>
As well as the fact that the Court is part of the Government, and it is very difficult for the Langbords to prevail because of what I call the "home-court advantage".
In my view, the fact that there is no proof that the double eagles were stolen, plus the CAFRA filing omission, would seem to give the Langbords the edge. But we will wait and see what happens.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>it costs 10 cents just to view the docket.
I´m not going to be checking in that often as I expect some time to pass before they schedule the hearing, and we won´t be hearing it live. So, just listening to it afterwards will be what we all get.
'Unjust Enrichment' I think will play in here, as well as the 'stolen' aspect. >>
Seems to me the government would be 'unjustly enriched" if they got to keep the coins. Had the coins not be "stolen" from them as they allege, the coins would have been melted down, and the government would now have gold worth about 10K. Instead they have coins that are worth many millions. Seems to me the government was the one unjustly enriched.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
What a boring end to the story....
Less boring if Gov decides to do a lottery for the coins.I estimate Gov could clear up to $40M by having a lottery for the nine pieces left after gov decides to keep the pocket piece for itself. Gov would have three specimens of '33 double eagle in the Smithy,the two sent by the Mint in October,1934 joined by the 1933 Lady Liberty that got around a little bit (wink,wink).
I had once read that NGC slabbed the pocket piece as "genuine,cleaned" but not sure if I'm correct about this.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky
What a shame if Langbords get to keep it and then have to sell it. It's highly likely that Langbords would need to sell it. My estimation is that their current legal bill has got to be at least $1M since the case has dragged on for over ten years now.(8/9/15)
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The next event (a hearing?) is scheduled at the "convenience of the court". Who knows what that means. Next week, next month, next year? Just have to wait and see.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
The so-called "pocket piece" - #4
The NGC MS66 - #9
Jim
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>The numismatic community owes the government a huge thank you for not going after the Saddle Ridge coins.The Saddle Ridge coins most certainly were stolen from the San Francisco Mint. >>
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
What is the proper look for a strictly unc. St. Gaudens double eagle? Are these things heavily counterfeited?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I'm curious, did the govt ever file a police report on the 33 20's?