<< <i>The gummint will probably just use the IRS to get even with them after relinquishing the coins. >>
Well, if the Langbords sell some of the coins, of course there will be taxes that they have to pay. And when their lawyers get paid, they will have to pay taxes also.
If the government had accepted a 50 - 50 split at the start, considering all of the taxes that will have to be paid anyway, they would be way ahead of where they are now. And if they don't want the Langbords to profit too much, they should legalize any and all 1933 double eagles. If there are more out there, that will decrease the value of the Langbord coins.
So, will the government use this easy, no-cost solution? Or will they be angry and vindictive and appeal to either the full court or the Supreme Court? And if they do appeal, on what grounds do they appeal this verdict? >>
Hmmmm. Six year statute of limitations on the estate tax have passed...so that's out the window. 28% collectible capital gains on the coins will apply but what is the basis? >>
I am guessing but I think the basis for each one is $20 each plus one tenth of the legal fees. >>
I would make the argument that the basis is the market value at the time of Izzy's passing. Step up in basis upon inheritance.
<< <i>Bad news for the owner of the original one that was "legal" to own. That price realized will plummet if these all come to market. >>
Totally. Don't remember all of the details, but wasn't it part of the deal in monetizing that one 1933 $20 that the Government also guaranteed that it would be the only 1933 $20 to be monetized/legal to own? If that was the case, I wonder if the owner of that 1933 $20 can/will file a suit in the near future. >>
IIRC, the Government merely promised not to monetize another. They can easily keep that promise.
As far as damages due the buyer of the Fenton coin, the mere existence of the Langbord coins already impaired its value significantly. The Government has no control over that short of destroying the coins.
The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time.
The dissent also gives too much weight to the outcome of the jury trial; too much weight here meaning any weight. As the majority points out, the trial should never have taken place because the government did not initiate the CAFRA forfeiture proceeding until 2009, four years late. The fact the coins may have been illegally obtained is not relevant, since forfeiture proceedings are intended, among other things, as a means of the government recovering stolen property.
<< <i>No kidding, the Farouk coin left the mint the same way these 10 did (and all other known examples except perhaps 1). I wish they could have charged switt back in the 40's for and took it to trial at that time and none of this stuff would be happening now. Still makes you wonder why the people with money to fight this in the 50's didn't. >>
You can't be serious? The environment was WAY different back then as many legal precedents have been set since then. Back when these were being confiscated they WOULD have thrown Izzy in Jail and thrown away the key had he NOT helped them!
They DID have that assumed authority as agents of the Federal Government. Remember the Communist Witch Hunt of the 50's, Sen Joseph McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee? Many lives and careers were destroyed by the government and the media over what people "believed" in.
Imagine that scenario today?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>IIRC, the Government merely promised not to monetize another. They can easily keep that promise. >>
That's rich - imagine this scenario - Treasury comes out with a statement that the Langbord specimens have not been "monetized," they are merely "legally held chattel," etc., etc., in a lame attempt to sustain the notion that the Stack's/Sotheby's coin is the only "legitimate" example. I think there a few more twists coming.
<< <i>The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time.
The dissent also gives too much weight to the outcome of the jury trial; too much weight here meaning any weight. As the majority points out, the trial should never have taken place because the government did not initiate the CAFRA forfeiture proceeding until 2009, four years late. The fact the coins may have been illegally obtained is not relevant, since forfeiture proceedings are intended, among other things, as a means of the government recovering stolen property.
CG >>
I think you are exactly right on this one, while the dissent made some good points, if her interpretation of the statue is correct then why did the congress put a 90 day requirement in the law at all. They also made the law clear that if the government does not file a claim within 90 days, they are relinquishing all claims to the property. Because of their arrogance the government missed the deadline by about 4 years. Seems the majority came to the only conclusion they could. In the oral arguments the dissenting judge keep talking about how they were the government's coins, I think she ultimately made up a rational so she could come to the judgment she thought was right.
I think you are exactly right on this one, while the dissent made some good points, if her interpretation of the statue is correct then why did the congress put a 90 day requirement in the law at all. They also made the law clear that if the government does not file a claim within 90 days, they are relinquishing all claims to the property. Because of their arrogance the government missed the deadline by about 4 years. Seems the majority came to the only conclusion they could. In the oral arguments the dissenting judge keep talking about how they were the government's coins, I think she ultimately made up a rational so she could come to the judgment she thought was right. >>
I don't think it's over. So the government did not file a claim and waited 4 years to do what should have been done in 90 days. The dissent says: (1) The triers of fact (i.e, the jury) decided that - after hearing the evidence - the coins were stolen and so do not rightfully belong to the Langbords. (2) Yes, the government didn't follow procedure - but should the coins be given to the Langbords merely because procedure wasn't followed? Or as the dissent asserts "no harm, no foul." The four year delay may have made no difference whatsoever since when the forfeiture claim was tried the government won - and would have won anyway if the trial had taken place when it should have. The dissent is saying that the purpose of this rule to to allow one to defend against forfeiture claims in a timely manner, but the Langbords' rights weren't compromised because the 4 year delay wouldn't have changed the outcome.
<< <i>The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time. CG >>
Agreed. The statute clearly reads that there is a 90 day period from the time that the government takes the property. That is when the clock starts to run. It is ludicrous to think that the 90 day period would begin only when the government decides it did; if this were the case, the entire CAFRA statute becomes irrelevant and that is clearly not the intent nor the wording of the statute.
The government created the CAFRA law, the least they could do is abide by their own law!
Edit to add: If the 90 day period begins only when the government says it does, then what is to prevent the government from holding the coins for 100 years?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time.
The dissent also gives too much weight to the outcome of the jury trial; too much weight here meaning any weight. As the majority points out, the trial should never have taken place because the government did not initiate the CAFRA forfeiture proceeding until 2009, four years late. The fact the coins may have been illegally obtained is not relevant, since forfeiture proceedings are intended, among other things, as a means of the government recovering stolen property.
CG >>
I think you are exactly right on this one, while the dissent made some good points, if her interpretation of the statue is correct then why did the congress put a 90 day requirement in the law at all. They also made the law clear that if the government does not file a claim within 90 days, they are relinquishing all claims to the property. Because of their arrogance the government missed the deadline by about 4 years. Seems the majority came to the only conclusion they could. In the oral arguments the dissenting judge keep talking about how they were the government's coins, I think she ultimately made up a rational so she could come to the judgment she thought was right. >>
But this wasn't a non judicial forfeiture which CAFRA was meant to seemingly address. If you give weight to the fact finder and the declaratory judgment entered by district court, the government was the lawful owner of the coins and the Langbords didn't have ownership/title. How can you forfeit an interest you never had? It doesn't seem logical that the government would need to institute a forfeiture proceeding to reclaim its own property and reading the statute as a whole and not isolated fragments, I am still not sure that the statute cited was even applicable notwithstanding the majority's conclusion to the contrary.
And even if the government cannot institute a civil forfeiture action, can it still press criminal charges for possession of stolen property? Regardless of CAFRA, I think it was improper to vacate the declaratory judgment as it was still pertinent even if the government was in fact time barred in civil proceedings.
The law, both at the trial court and the appellate court levels many times functions in a manner whereby the parties and attorneys Feel that they have fallen down the rabbit hole with Alice and are in Wonderland.
Many times the mechanical application of statutes, case law and/or regulations to a case (for example the CAFRA death penalty applied to the government in this case since it did not file a forfeiture complaint by the deadline set by Congress and enacted by President Clinton) result in an outcome that logic dictates is correct, but emotions, feelings, philosophies, ideology, self interest, etc. reject.
This is evident in the Langbord case and today's decision by the court of appeal.
Some may say no detriment was suffered by the Langbords as a result of the government not filing the forfeiture complaint within the deadline set by CAFRA. I think years of litigation, time, costs and attorney fees devoted and incurred by the Langbords simply to get a court order directing the government to do what it should have done is detriment and harm.
Some would say that giving title and possession of the coins to the Langbords due to a "technicality" (not meeting the filing deadline) is wrong and unjust since at the trial a jury determined the coins are government property.
The majority applied CAFRA death penalty. The dissent seeks to excuse the government from the death penalty by interpreting the CAFRA statute in a manner that would vitae or negate same in this case.
There is no doubt that rules are selectively applied and enforced, many times against the "little guy" and not against the big, powerful and we'll connected.
Given today's decision I would be very surprised if the government did not seek further appellate review. Though some have said en banc review by the 3rd Circuit and/or Supreme Court review is unlikely, it would not surprise me to see either court take the case.
The reason I think further review could happen is that this case, at its core, deals with the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed with respect to how, when and under what circumstances can property owned and/or possessed by a person can taken by government.
It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.
<< <i>Given today's decision I would be very surprised if the government did not seek further appellate review. Though some have said en banc review by the 3rd Circuit and/or Supreme Court review is unlikely, it would not surprise me to see either court take the case >>
Why on earth would SCOTUS touch this? There are no circuit splits.
<< I'd love to know how much taxpayer money was wasted on this case. >>>
< I would like to know how much was spent but remember, the government attorney's get paid the same amount regardless of what they do. I'd think that the only relevant costs might be with filing fee's, grading fee's (wink wink), storage fee's, evidential fee's and what not.>
and millions of dollars in trial fees, expert witnesses, etc ....
Just think of all the dealers who are now salivating at the thought of being able to sell (for a significant markup) one of these coins. Do you think they care less about the legal ramifications of the case?
If, and this is still a big if, the Treasury obeys the court order and returns the ten coins to the Langbords, what it to stop the Langbords from hopping on a jet to Switzerland and opening up a safety deposit box?
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>Just think of all the dealers who are now salivating at the thought of being able to sell (for a significant markup) one of these coins. Do you think they care less about the legal ramifications of the case?
Money, money, money money! >>
In the form of 10 collectible coins it is money. The dealers are not the guys drooling. Collectors are. Dealers are hoping to get a little spit on their lapels, maybe like Izzy Spitt. A jury decided they were stolen ? And they're "illegal" ? How so ? When the executive order signed by then , president Roosevelt even allows for the ownership in the aggregate of $200.
Just because there's a loophole doesn't mean it's "illegal" or unlawful. A window of opportunity was exercised and we , nor a jury , will ever know if there was a "fair exchange" prior to the executive order being signed because NOBODY alive is there to disprove this little "unknown" fact. Why do we keep overlooking this "window" ?
<< <i>The gummint will probably just use the IRS to get even with them after relinquishing the coins. >>
Well, if the Langbords sell some of the coins, of course there will be taxes that they have to pay. And when their lawyers get paid, they will have to pay taxes also.
If the government had accepted a 50 - 50 split at the start, considering all of the taxes that will have to be paid anyway, they would be way ahead of where they are now. And if they don't want the Langbords to profit too much, they should legalize any and all 1933 double eagles. If there are more out there, that will decrease the value of the Langbord coins.
So, will the government use this easy, no-cost solution? Or will they be angry and vindictive and appeal to either the full court or the Supreme Court? And if they do appeal, on what grounds do they appeal this verdict? >>
Hmmmm. Six year statute of limitations on the estate tax have passed...so that's out the window. 28% collectible capital gains on the coins will apply but what is the basis? >>
I am guessing but I think the basis for each one is $20 each plus one tenth of the legal fees. >>
I would make the argument that the basis is the market value at the time of Izzy's passing. Step up in basis upon inheritance. >>
I think you are right, the basis would be FMV at date of Izzy's death, so after all the legal fees probably no taxes due on a sale by the Langbords.
Government throw in the towel after a 2-1 decision that "orders" the government to turn the 1933 DE's over to the Langbords? Not gonna happen.mr1874,4/18/15.
Actually,I'm thinking this is a more or less necessary government move to open the door for some kind of settlement with the Langbords.A settlement like this one,
We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time.
In exchange for the one coin,the Langbords wrould agree to drop the lawsuit.The Langbords are temporary winners courtesy of 2 out of 3 judges.It's a strategy.Watch.You'll see.
Langbords get one coin.The government melts the other nine.
You now have two legal 1933 double eagles that are possible to obtain by collectors.One is "ex Farouk",the other is the "Langbord" specimen,the one coin they selected for themselves and thus settled the lawsuit against the government.
This is an extremely valuable coin and the Langbords are going to need an extreme amount of money to pay off their legal team.I would say it would be put in an auction within a few years of the settlement.Or it is possible that the single coin could be "sold" by private treaty for a huge chunk of change,amount not disclosed,of course.At the end of the day,it doesn't matter what they do since the coin is legally theirs and they can do what they want with it.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time. >>
The Langbord's have the upper hand. No reason to settle on such crappy terms. They can negotiate a lot more than one coin.
Don't remember all of the details, but wasn't it part of the deal in monetizing that one 1933 $20 that the Government also guaranteed that it would be the only 1933 $20 to be monetized/legal to own? If that was the case, I wonder if the owner of that 1933 $20 can/will file a suit in the near future.
Precisely what I was about to post! Perhaps the most significant part of the whole deal was that THAT one coin was to be the ONLY monetized example, regardless of whether other pieces were later discovered. So, the Government has a vested interest in taking this all the way on appeal, as they will undoubtedly be facing a lawsuit from the owners of the previous "only" monetized piece. With all that in mind, this is certainly far from over. No one has officially "won" just yet.
<< <i>We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time. >>
The Langbord's have the upper hand. No reason to settle on such crappy terms. They can negotiate a lot more than one coin. >>
Coinosaurus nailed it. If you were the Langbords, would you settle for one coin? Remember, their legal fees are huge!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Precisely what I was about to post! Perhaps the most significant part of the whole deal was that THAT one coin was to be the ONLY monetized example, regardless of whether other pieces were later discovered. So, the Government has a vested interest in taking this all the way on appeal, as they will undoubtedly be facing a lawsuit from the owners of the previous "only" monetized piece. With all that in mind, this is certainly far from over. No one has officially "won" just yet.
That's right.The Langbord Double Eagles are just big gold tokens unless the government declares them to be money.It seems that should be an issue for the collector wealthy enough to buy one of these.
At least with my plan,the "token" that the Langbords get is unique.How much less than the monetized ex Farouk specimen of 1933 DE would the Langbord token fetch? I'm thinking half.
ex Farouk specimen fetch $20M.Langbord specimen (token-unique) $10M.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
How about an auction of the ten, the gummint gets one-third, the Langbords get one-third, and the Langbord's lawyer gets one-third and it's done.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>How much less than the monetized ex Farouk specimen of 1933 DE would the Langbord token fetch? I'm thinking half. ex Farouk specimen fetch $20M.Langbord specimen (token-unique) $10M. >>
I disagree - the market is at a point, where, if PCGS puts it in a holder and calls it a double eagle, the government's opinion of monetization status won't be worth $10M. The problem is no one respect's the government's opinion on this point, esp. since the concept was only recently invented as part of the legal strategy surrounding the DE. If "monetization" was an explicit concept from the earliest days of the Mint, and explained as such in the early legislative documents, the story would be different.
It's just semantics. Does the market value of a 1792 half disme depend on whether it is a "pattern" or a "regular-issue coin?" It does not. When it comes to pricing no one cares.
<< <i>Precisely what I was about to post! Perhaps the most significant part of the whole deal was that THAT one coin was to be the ONLY monetized example, regardless of whether other pieces were later discovered. So, the Government has a vested interest in taking this all the way on appeal, as they will undoubtedly be facing a lawsuit from the owners of the previous "only" monetized piece. With all that in mind, this is certainly far from over. No one has officially "won" just yet.
That's right.The Langbord Double Eagles are just big gold tokens unless the government declares them to be money.It seems that should be an issue for the collector wealthy enough to buy one of these.
At least with my plan,the "token" that the Langbords get is unique.How much less than the monetized ex Farouk specimen of 1933 DE would the Langbord token fetch? I'm thinking half.
ex Farouk specimen fetch $20M.Langbord specimen (token-unique) $10M. >>
I think the difference in value between a monetized '33 and a non-monetized '33 (assuming Langbord's prevail) will be about 20 bucks, grades being equal.
<< <i>We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time. >>
The Langbord's have the upper hand. No reason to settle on such crappy terms. They can negotiate a lot more than one coin. >>
The legal team probably has a agreement for x number of coins plus $$$$$$$$$$
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
In this country today, there are a number of people who can easily afford millions of dollars to acquire whatever they want. (ie) The Koch brothers. Many CEO's of large companies, etc. If someone like that happens to enjoy collecting special historical coins, only the government can stop them. I don't think the government should interfere. What do YOU think? Steve
Congratulations to the Appeals Court, the Langbords, and to Mr. Frankel. I am pretty sure that the legal fees are a contingency, so all are covered.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up. >>
The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Could I interest you in a Continental Dollar in gold???
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.
SanctionII, thanks for all you have done to keep us up to date on this case. The lawyer I know who has the best claim to expertise on CAFRA was of the opinion that the government would be allowed a do over. Another lawyer who knows the Federal Rules of Evidence like the back of his hand said the trial court got it wrong on the hearsay within hearsay evidence, and footnote 5 says he is right, but the dissent says there was enough other evidence to support the jury verdict. (I frankly can't see why the majority even referenced the evidentiary issue.)
I doubt we have heard the end of this case. A competent government lawyer could certainly find enough to allege a Circuit split with a straight face, but the Supreme Court may or may not agree, and even then they are not required to resolve every single arguable split that is out there. What the factors are in deciding whether to ask for a review by the entire circuit, or whether such a review would be granted, is beyond my expertise. However, if the section of the DOJ that supervises CAFRA cases reads this case as establishing a precedent that missing a deadline automatically means the seized property must be returned, then I suspect there will be significant interest in getting the case reversed.
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up. >>
The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Really, no interest in a 1907 $20 gold Indian Head?
Seriously though I am just teasing you about the 1933, I believe you that you have no interest in those. I think you have a good point that many people are probably over estimating their value. Although you should also not underestimate the premium someone is willing to pay for a coin with a cool history.
Some further thoughts. Does this case forever quiet title as to the coins, or does it just prevent the government from instituting forfeiture against the Langbords?
Edited: Took another look at the opinion and statute. CAFRA bars the government from bringing another civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same underlying offense. So that would seem to quiet title as far as forfeiture is concerned but leaves unanswered the question of whether a criminal prosecution for trafficking in stolen goods could be brought, if there is an applicable federal statute, but the burden of proof would be higher.
<< <i>Just think of all the dealers who are now salivating at the thought of being able to sell (for a significant markup) one of these coins. Do you think they care less about the legal ramifications of the case?
Money, money, money money! >>
Heh Heh Heh 291fifth. You nailed it.
As soon as we are done sacrificing a goat and giving thanks to our beloved overlord (Satan), we dealers will dance around a bonfire and roll in piles of money. As usual.
Seriously though -- congrats to the Langbords. It looked very bleak for justice to prevail, but this is a big ray of light and of hope.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
<< <i>Some further thoughts. Does this case forever quiet title as to the coins, or does it just prevent the government from instituting forfeiture against the Langbords?
If it does not forever quiet title, then it raises other questions:
If the Langbord sell the coins, would the government be collaterally estopped from bringing a forfeiture action against the buyer/new owner, since the Langbord case was decided on procedural grounds with respect to the Langbord’s claim and not on the merits as to ownership?
Is there a Federal law against trafficking in stolen goods? If there is, could the government bring an action against a buyer or even against the Langbord’s for trafficking in stolen goods? To the extent that is a criminal action the burden of proof would be higher and much of the hearsay, Tripp evidence might be excluded. Still, the risk of prosecution could have an in terrorem effect on prospective purchasers.
The point here being that it might not be so easy for the Langbords to sell the coins in the U.S. And if they try to sell them abroad, could the government file a claim for ownership under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction claiming legal ownership?
CG >>
My reading of the Appellate Court's ruling is that if the Government doesn't appeal, the coins belong to the Langbords, who can do whatever they wish with them. I'm sure Heritage and Stacks Bowers have already contacted the Langbords about selling the coins, if the Government doesn't appeal and returns the coins to them.
IMO since the Appellate Court held that the forfeiture action was invalid, therefore the whole original trial is vacated, the coins are not stolen, and question #2 about trafficking in stolen goods is moot.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>SanctionII, thanks for all you have done to keep us up to date on this case. The lawyer I know who has the best claim to expertise on CAFRA was of the opinion that the government would be allowed a do over. Another lawyer who knows the Federal Rules of Evidence like the back of his hand said the trial court got it wrong on the hearsay within hearsay evidence, and footnote 5 says he is right, but the dissent says there was enough other evidence to support the jury verdict. (I frankly can't see why the majority even referenced the evidentiary issue.)
I doubt we have heard the end of this case. A competent government lawyer could certainly find enough to allege a Circuit split with a straight face, but the Supreme Court may or may not agree, and even then they are not required to resolve every single arguable split that is out there. What the factors are in deciding whether to ask for a review by the entire circuit, or whether such a review would be granted, is beyond my expertise. However, if the section of the DOJ that supervises CAFRA cases reads this case as establishing a precedent that missing a deadline automatically means the seized property must be returned, then I suspect there will be significant interest in getting the case reversed. >>
Why wouldn't the Government simply comply with the CAFRA provisions and file in a timely manner like they're supposed to?
<< <i>Why on earth would SCOTUS touch this? There are no circuit splits. >>
The Supreme Court does not get involved solely when circuit splits are involved.
Greg
Greg Lyon, ANA Board of Governors 2011-2017 -- The views represented here are my own personal opinions and do not represent those of the American Numismatic Association.
It appears that the government did not file a forfeiture complaint by the CAFRA deadline because the Mint ' s position that no such filing was necessary prevailed.
With respect to whether or not the government would, notwithstanding a loss in this case, still be able to sue for ownership on the theory that the government is the owner of the coins and this legal ground is separate from the ground of claiming ownership via asset forfeiture laws, the government made these arguments and claims in this case. Thus a new case should be barred by a final judgment against the government in this case based on principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
With respect to other 1933 double eagles that may exist, judgment for the Langbords in this case would not operate to prevent the government from claiming ownership of same.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The gummint will probably just use the IRS to get even with them after relinquishing the coins. >>
Well, if the Langbords sell some of the coins, of course there will be taxes that they have to pay. And when their lawyers get paid, they will have to pay taxes also.
If the government had accepted a 50 - 50 split at the start, considering all of the taxes that will have to be paid anyway, they would be way ahead of where they are now. And if they don't want the Langbords to profit too much, they should legalize any and all 1933 double eagles. If there are more out there, that will decrease the value of the Langbord coins.
So, will the government use this easy, no-cost solution? Or will they be angry and vindictive and appeal to either the full court or the Supreme Court? And if they do appeal, on what grounds do they appeal this verdict? >>
Hmmmm. Six year statute of limitations on the estate tax have passed...so that's out the window. 28% collectible capital gains on the coins will apply but what is the basis? >>
I am guessing but I think the basis for each one is $20 each plus one tenth of the legal fees. >>
I would make the argument that the basis is the market value at the time of Izzy's passing. Step up in basis upon inheritance.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bad news for the owner of the original one that was "legal" to own. That price realized will plummet if these all come to market. >>
Totally. Don't remember all of the details, but wasn't it part of the deal in monetizing that one 1933 $20 that the Government also guaranteed that it would be the only 1933 $20 to be monetized/legal to own? If that was the case, I wonder if the owner of that 1933 $20 can/will file a suit in the near future. >>
IIRC, the Government merely promised not to monetize another. They can easily keep that promise.
As far as damages due the buyer of the Fenton coin, the mere existence of the Langbord coins already impaired its value significantly. The Government has no control over that short of destroying the coins.
The dissent also gives too much weight to the outcome of the jury trial; too much weight here meaning any weight. As the majority points out, the trial should never have taken place because the government did not initiate the CAFRA forfeiture proceeding until 2009, four years late. The fact the coins may have been illegally obtained is not relevant, since forfeiture proceedings are intended, among other things, as a means of the government recovering stolen property.
CG
<< <i>No kidding, the Farouk coin left the mint the same way these 10 did (and all other known examples except perhaps 1). I wish they could have charged switt back in the 40's for and took it to trial at that time and none of this stuff would be happening now. Still makes you wonder why the people with money to fight this in the 50's didn't. >>
You can't be serious? The environment was WAY different back then as many legal precedents have been set since then. Back when these were being confiscated they WOULD have thrown Izzy in Jail and thrown away the key had he NOT helped them!
They DID have that assumed authority as agents of the Federal Government. Remember the Communist Witch Hunt of the 50's, Sen Joseph McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee? Many lives and careers were destroyed by the government and the media over what people "believed" in.
Imagine that scenario today?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>IIRC, the Government merely promised not to monetize another. They can easily keep that promise. >>
That's rich - imagine this scenario - Treasury comes out with a statement that the Langbord specimens have not been "monetized," they are merely "legally held chattel," etc., etc., in a lame attempt to sustain the notion that the Stack's/Sotheby's coin is the only "legitimate" example. I think there a few more twists coming.
<< <i>The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time.
The dissent also gives too much weight to the outcome of the jury trial; too much weight here meaning any weight. As the majority points out, the trial should never have taken place because the government did not initiate the CAFRA forfeiture proceeding until 2009, four years late. The fact the coins may have been illegally obtained is not relevant, since forfeiture proceedings are intended, among other things, as a means of the government recovering stolen property.
CG >>
I think you are exactly right on this one, while the dissent made some good points, if her interpretation of the statue is correct then why did the congress put a 90 day requirement in the law at all. They also made the law clear that if the government does not file a claim within 90 days, they are relinquishing all claims to the property. Because of their arrogance the government missed the deadline by about 4 years. Seems the majority came to the only conclusion they could. In the oral arguments the dissenting judge keep talking about how they were the government's coins, I think she ultimately made up a rational so she could come to the judgment she thought was right.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
CG >>
I think you are exactly right on this one, while the dissent made some good points, if her interpretation of the statue is correct then why did the congress put a 90 day requirement in the law at all. They also made the law clear that if the government does not file a claim within 90 days, they are relinquishing all claims to the property. Because of their arrogance the government missed the deadline by about 4 years. Seems the majority came to the only conclusion they could. In the oral arguments the dissenting judge keep talking about how they were the government's coins, I think she ultimately made up a rational so she could come to the judgment she thought was right. >>
I don't think it's over. So the government did not file a claim and waited 4 years to do what should have been done in 90 days. The dissent says:
(1) The triers of fact (i.e, the jury) decided that - after hearing the evidence - the coins were stolen and so do not rightfully belong to the Langbords.
(2) Yes, the government didn't follow procedure - but should the coins be given to the Langbords merely because procedure wasn't followed? Or as the dissent asserts "no harm, no foul." The four year delay may have made no difference whatsoever since when the forfeiture claim was tried the government won - and would have won anyway if the trial had taken place when it should have. The dissent is saying that the purpose of this rule to to allow one to defend against forfeiture claims in a timely manner, but the Langbords' rights weren't compromised because the 4 year delay wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Look for appeals....
Edited for typos
<< <i>The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time.
CG >>
Agreed. The statute clearly reads that there is a 90 day period from the time that the government takes the property. That is when the clock starts to run. It is ludicrous to think that the 90 day period would begin only when the government decides it did; if this were the case, the entire CAFRA statute becomes irrelevant and that is clearly not the intent nor the wording of the statute.
The government created the CAFRA law, the least they could do is abide by their own law!
Edit to add: If the 90 day period begins only when the government says it does, then what is to prevent the government from holding the coins for 100 years?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>The dissent reads the statute in a manner that nullifies both its purpose and the plain meaning of its provisions. The dissent would sanction government mischief by permitting the government to effectively nullify the statute by declining to give the requisite forfeiture notice or to institute the required forfeiture proceeding within the statutorily mandated time.
The dissent also gives too much weight to the outcome of the jury trial; too much weight here meaning any weight. As the majority points out, the trial should never have taken place because the government did not initiate the CAFRA forfeiture proceeding until 2009, four years late. The fact the coins may have been illegally obtained is not relevant, since forfeiture proceedings are intended, among other things, as a means of the government recovering stolen property.
CG >>
I think you are exactly right on this one, while the dissent made some good points, if her interpretation of the statue is correct then why did the congress put a 90 day requirement in the law at all. They also made the law clear that if the government does not file a claim within 90 days, they are relinquishing all claims to the property. Because of their arrogance the government missed the deadline by about 4 years. Seems the majority came to the only conclusion they could. In the oral arguments the dissenting judge keep talking about how they were the government's coins, I think she ultimately made up a rational so she could come to the judgment she thought was right. >>
But this wasn't a non judicial forfeiture which CAFRA was meant to seemingly address. If you give weight to the fact finder and the declaratory judgment entered by district court, the government was the lawful owner of the coins and the Langbords didn't have ownership/title. How can you forfeit an interest you never had? It doesn't seem logical that the government would need to institute a forfeiture proceeding to reclaim its own property and reading the statute as a whole and not isolated fragments, I am still not sure that the statute cited was even applicable notwithstanding the majority's conclusion to the contrary.
And even if the government cannot institute a civil forfeiture action, can it still press criminal charges for possession of stolen property? Regardless of CAFRA, I think it was improper to vacate the declaratory judgment as it was still pertinent even if the government was in fact time barred in civil proceedings.
Many times the mechanical application of statutes, case law and/or regulations to a case (for example the CAFRA death penalty applied to the government in this case since it did not file a forfeiture complaint by the deadline set by Congress and enacted by President Clinton) result in an outcome that logic dictates is correct, but emotions, feelings, philosophies, ideology, self interest, etc. reject.
This is evident in the Langbord case and today's decision by the court of appeal.
Some may say no detriment was suffered by the Langbords as a result of the government not filing the forfeiture complaint within the deadline set by CAFRA. I think years of litigation, time, costs and attorney fees devoted and incurred by the Langbords simply to get a court order directing the government to do what it should have done is detriment and harm.
Some would say that giving title and possession of the coins to the Langbords due to a "technicality" (not meeting the filing deadline) is wrong and unjust since at the trial a jury determined the coins are government property.
The majority applied CAFRA death penalty. The dissent seeks to excuse the government from the death penalty by interpreting the CAFRA statute in a manner that would vitae or negate same in this case.
There is no doubt that rules are selectively applied and enforced, many times against the "little guy" and not against the big, powerful and we'll connected.
Given today's decision I would be very surprised if the government did not seek further appellate review. Though some have said en banc review by the 3rd Circuit and/or Supreme Court review is unlikely, it would not surprise me to see either court take the case.
The reason I think further review could happen is that this case, at its core, deals with the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed with respect to how, when and under what circumstances can property owned and/or possessed by a person can taken by government.
It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.
<< <i>Given today's decision I would be very surprised if the government did not seek further appellate review. Though some have said en banc review by the 3rd Circuit and/or Supreme Court review is unlikely, it would not surprise me to see either court take the case >>
Why on earth would SCOTUS touch this? There are no circuit splits.
< I would like to know how much was spent but remember, the government attorney's get paid the same amount regardless of what they do. I'd think that the only relevant costs might be with filing fee's, grading fee's (wink wink), storage fee's, evidential fee's and what not.>
and millions of dollars in trial fees, expert witnesses, etc ....
Money, money, money money!
<< <i>Just think of all the dealers who are now salivating at the thought of being able to sell (for a significant markup) one of these coins. Do you think they care less about the legal ramifications of the case?
Money, money, money money! >>
In the form of 10 collectible coins it is money. The dealers are not the guys drooling. Collectors are. Dealers are hoping to get a little spit on their lapels, maybe like Izzy Spitt.
A jury decided they were stolen ? And they're "illegal" ? How so ? When the executive order signed by then , president Roosevelt even allows for the ownership in the aggregate of $200.
Just because there's a loophole doesn't mean it's "illegal" or unlawful. A window of opportunity was exercised and we , nor a jury , will ever know if there was a "fair exchange" prior to the executive order being signed because NOBODY alive is there to disprove this little "unknown" fact.
Why do we keep overlooking this "window" ?
<< <i>If, and this is still a big if, the Treasury obeys the court order and returns the ten coins to the Langbords... >>
This assumes the government throws in the towel.
I sure wouldn't count on that scenario anytime soon.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The gummint will probably just use the IRS to get even with them after relinquishing the coins. >>
Well, if the Langbords sell some of the coins, of course there will be taxes that they have to pay. And when their lawyers get paid, they will have to pay taxes also.
If the government had accepted a 50 - 50 split at the start, considering all of the taxes that will have to be paid anyway, they would be way ahead of where they are now. And if they don't want the Langbords to profit too much, they should legalize any and all 1933 double eagles. If there are more out there, that will decrease the value of the Langbord coins.
So, will the government use this easy, no-cost solution? Or will they be angry and vindictive and appeal to either the full court or the Supreme Court? And if they do appeal, on what grounds do they appeal this verdict? >>
Hmmmm. Six year statute of limitations on the estate tax have passed...so that's out the window. 28% collectible capital gains on the coins will apply but what is the basis? >>
I am guessing but I think the basis for each one is $20 each plus one tenth of the legal fees. >>
I would make the argument that the basis is the market value at the time of Izzy's passing. Step up in basis upon inheritance. >>
I think you are right, the basis would be FMV at date of Izzy's death, so after all the legal fees probably no taxes due on a sale by the Langbords.
Not gonna happen.mr1874,4/18/15.
Actually,I'm thinking this is a more or less necessary government move to open the door for some kind of settlement with the Langbords.A settlement like this one,
We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time.
In exchange for the one coin,the Langbords wrould agree to drop the lawsuit.The Langbords are temporary winners courtesy of 2 out of 3 judges.It's a strategy.Watch.You'll see.
Langbords get one coin.The government melts the other nine.
You now have two legal 1933 double eagles that are possible to obtain by collectors.One is "ex Farouk",the other is the "Langbord" specimen,the one coin they selected for themselves and thus settled the lawsuit against the government.
This is an extremely valuable coin and the Langbords are going to need an extreme amount of money to pay off their legal team.I would say it would be put in an auction within a few years of the settlement.Or it is possible that the single coin could be "sold" by private treaty for a huge chunk of change,amount not disclosed,of course.At the end of the day,it doesn't matter what they do since the coin is legally theirs and they can do what they want with it.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time. >>
The Langbord's have the upper hand. No reason to settle on such crappy terms. They can negotiate a lot more than one coin.
Precisely what I was about to post! Perhaps the most significant part of the whole deal was that THAT one coin was to be the ONLY monetized example, regardless of whether other pieces were later discovered. So, the Government has a vested interest in taking this all the way on appeal, as they will undoubtedly be facing a lawsuit from the owners of the previous "only" monetized piece. With all that in mind, this is certainly far from over. No one has officially "won" just yet.
Edit for typo.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time. >>
The Langbord's have the upper hand. No reason to settle on such crappy terms. They can negotiate a lot more than one coin. >>
Coinosaurus nailed it. If you were the Langbords, would you settle for one coin? Remember, their legal fees are huge!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
That's right.The Langbord Double Eagles are just big gold tokens unless the government declares them to be money.It seems that should be an issue for the collector wealthy enough to buy one of these.
At least with my plan,the "token" that the Langbords get is unique.How much less than the monetized ex Farouk specimen of 1933 DE would the Langbord token fetch? I'm thinking half.
ex Farouk specimen fetch $20M.Langbord specimen (token-unique) $10M.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Bad news for the owner of the original one that was "legal" to own. That price realized will plummet if these all come to market. >>
<< <i>How much less than the monetized ex Farouk specimen of 1933 DE would the Langbord token fetch? I'm thinking half. ex Farouk specimen fetch $20M.Langbord specimen (token-unique) $10M. >>
I disagree - the market is at a point, where, if PCGS puts it in a holder and calls it a double eagle, the government's opinion of monetization status won't be worth $10M. The problem is no one respect's the government's opinion on this point, esp. since the concept was only recently invented as part of the legal strategy surrounding the DE. If "monetization" was an explicit concept from the earliest days of the Mint, and explained as such in the early legislative documents, the story would be different.
It's just semantics. Does the market value of a 1792 half disme depend on whether it is a "pattern" or a "regular-issue coin?" It does not. When it comes to pricing no one cares.
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Precisely what I was about to post! Perhaps the most significant part of the whole deal was that THAT one coin was to be the ONLY monetized example, regardless of whether other pieces were later discovered. So, the Government has a vested interest in taking this all the way on appeal, as they will undoubtedly be facing a lawsuit from the owners of the previous "only" monetized piece. With all that in mind, this is certainly far from over. No one has officially "won" just yet.
That's right.The Langbord Double Eagles are just big gold tokens unless the government declares them to be money.It seems that should be an issue for the collector wealthy enough to buy one of these.
At least with my plan,the "token" that the Langbords get is unique.How much less than the monetized ex Farouk specimen of 1933 DE would the Langbord token fetch? I'm thinking half.
ex Farouk specimen fetch $20M.Langbord specimen (token-unique) $10M. >>
I think the difference in value between a monetized '33 and a non-monetized '33 (assuming Langbord's prevail) will be about 20 bucks, grades being equal.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>We,the People,shall let the Langbords have one coin,and one coin only.The coin shall be of their choosing.The government shall retain the other 9 items of US government property to wit,nine $20 coins bearing the date 1933.Terms and conditions of their disposition will be discussed at a later time. >>
The Langbord's have the upper hand. No reason to settle on such crappy terms. They can negotiate a lot more than one coin. >>
The legal team probably has a agreement for x number of coins plus $$$$$$$$$$
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up. >>
The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up. >>
The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Smart!
<< <i>The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Yes......until the Pogue sales are over
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up. >>
The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Could I interest you in a Continental Dollar in gold???
I doubt we have heard the end of this case. A competent government lawyer could certainly find enough to allege a Circuit split with a straight face, but the Supreme Court may or may not agree, and even then they are not required to resolve every single arguable split that is out there. What the factors are in deciding whether to ask for a review by the entire circuit, or whether such a review would be granted, is beyond my expertise. However, if the section of the DOJ that supervises CAFRA cases reads this case as establishing a precedent that missing a deadline automatically means the seized property must be returned, then I suspect there will be significant interest in getting the case reversed.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
I see you are already trying to talk them down, so you can snatch them up. >>
The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Really, no interest in a 1907 $20 gold Indian Head?
Seriously though I am just teasing you about the 1933, I believe you that you have no interest in those. I think you have a good point that many people are probably over estimating their value. Although you should also not underestimate the premium someone is willing to pay for a coin with a cool history.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>The only gold coins I have any interest in owning are dated 17xx >>
Yes......until the Pogue sales are over
Never been a gold guy. Silver dollars are where it's at...
Edited: Took another look at the opinion and statute. CAFRA bars the government from bringing another civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same underlying offense. So that would seem to quiet title as far as forfeiture is concerned but leaves unanswered the question of whether a criminal prosecution for trafficking in stolen goods could be brought, if there is an applicable federal statute, but the burden of proof would be higher.
CG
<< <i>Just think of all the dealers who are now salivating at the thought of being able to sell (for a significant markup) one of these coins. Do you think they care less about the legal ramifications of the case?
Money, money, money money! >>
Heh Heh Heh 291fifth. You nailed it.
As soon as we are done sacrificing a goat and giving thanks to our beloved overlord (Satan), we dealers will dance around a bonfire and roll in piles of money. As usual.
Seriously though -- congrats to the Langbords. It looked very bleak for justice to prevail, but this is a big ray of light and of hope.
<< <i>Some further thoughts. Does this case forever quiet title as to the coins, or does it just prevent the government from instituting forfeiture against the Langbords?
If it does not forever quiet title, then it raises other questions:
If the Langbord sell the coins, would the government be collaterally estopped from bringing a forfeiture action against the buyer/new owner, since the Langbord case was decided on procedural grounds with respect to the Langbord’s claim and not on the merits as to ownership?
Is there a Federal law against trafficking in stolen goods? If there is, could the government bring an action against a buyer or even against the Langbord’s for trafficking in stolen goods? To the extent that is a criminal action the burden of proof would be higher and much of the hearsay, Tripp evidence might be excluded. Still, the risk of prosecution could have an in terrorem effect on prospective purchasers.
The point here being that it might not be so easy for the Langbords to sell the coins in the U.S. And if they try to sell them abroad, could the government file a claim for ownership under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction claiming legal ownership?
CG >>
My reading of the Appellate Court's ruling is that if the Government doesn't appeal, the coins belong to the Langbords, who can do whatever they wish with them. I'm sure Heritage and Stacks Bowers have already contacted the Langbords about selling the coins, if the Government doesn't appeal and returns the coins to them.
IMO since the Appellate Court held that the forfeiture action was invalid, therefore the whole original trial is vacated, the coins are not stolen, and question #2 about trafficking in stolen goods is moot.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>SanctionII, thanks for all you have done to keep us up to date on this case. The lawyer I know who has the best claim to expertise on CAFRA was of the opinion that the government would be allowed a do over. Another lawyer who knows the Federal Rules of Evidence like the back of his hand said the trial court got it wrong on the hearsay within hearsay evidence, and footnote 5 says he is right, but the dissent says there was enough other evidence to support the jury verdict. (I frankly can't see why the majority even referenced the evidentiary issue.)
I doubt we have heard the end of this case. A competent government lawyer could certainly find enough to allege a Circuit split with a straight face, but the Supreme Court may or may not agree, and even then they are not required to resolve every single arguable split that is out there. What the factors are in deciding whether to ask for a review by the entire circuit, or whether such a review would be granted, is beyond my expertise. However, if the section of the DOJ that supervises CAFRA cases reads this case as establishing a precedent that missing a deadline automatically means the seized property must be returned, then I suspect there will be significant interest in getting the case reversed. >>
Why wouldn't the Government simply comply with the CAFRA provisions and file in a timely manner like they're supposed to?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Why on earth would SCOTUS touch this? There are no circuit splits. >>
The Supreme Court does not get involved solely when circuit splits are involved.
Greg
With respect to whether or not the government would, notwithstanding a loss in this case, still be able to sue for ownership on the theory that the government is the owner of the coins and this legal ground is separate from the ground of claiming ownership via asset forfeiture laws, the government made these arguments and claims in this case. Thus a new case should be barred by a final judgment against the government in this case based on principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
With respect to other 1933 double eagles that may exist, judgment for the Langbords in this case would not operate to prevent the government from claiming ownership of same.