<< <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. >>
How about a significant interest on their part of doing their job right the first time from now on?
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>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. >>
How about a significant interest on their part of doing their job right the first time from now on? >>
In oral arguments one of the points the Langbord's attorney made, was that the whole point of the "death penalty" in the CAFRA law is to create an incentive to make sure the government does not violate the rights of the citizens.
<< <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. >>
How about a significant interest on their part of doing their job right the first time from now on? >>
That's actually a pretty serious question. Back in the quill pen days when I was in law school, I remember that one of the hardest concepts to accept was that the government would very often be protected even if its employees messed up.
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>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. >>
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
PCGS says there are MORE known 1933 DEs (15-20) than 1927-Ds (15-18).
Who has the other 4-9 1933s that PCGS knows about? >>
Indeed. THere are the Langbord 10, the Smithsonian 2, the Fenton coin and the other coin illustrated in one of the books. I know of no others.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
Glorified?......Maybe. But, with a much better "story line" than most any coin in US history excepting possibly the 1804 dollars. There are about the same number of 1804's out there.....are they glorified 1927-d Saints?
Collectors have been able to own any of the 1804's and 1927-d's since they were minted. That's not the case for all but one of the 1933's.
How about this angle. If given your choice of one of the MS65's 1933 Saints OR the 1870-s half dime....OR a MS65/66 1927-d....OR one of the type 2 1804's in 63 or lower grade.... which would you take?
Methinks if you were able to swing the purchase of the 1907 $20 Indian pattern (formerly J-1776) you'd do it in a heart beat. And it ain't no dollar either.
<< <i>How about this angle. If given your choice of one of the MS65's 1933 Saints OR the 1870-s half dime....OR a MS65/66 1927-d....OR one of the type 2 1804's in 63 or lower grade.... which would you take? >>
I have no interest in J1776, nor in a 1933 $20 - no matter how cool the story. And I don't count re strikes (Class II & III) when determining the desirability of an 1804 dollar. They are abominations
<< <i>How about this angle. If given your choice of one of the MS65's 1933 Saints OR the 1870-s half dime....OR a MS65/66 1927-d....OR one of the type 2 1804's in 63 or lower grade.... which would you take?
Methinks if you were able to swing the purchase of the 1907 $20 Indian pattern (formerly J-1776) you'd do it in a heart beat. And it ain't no dollar either. >>
I'd say no to all of the above, in favor of either a 1794 silver dollar or a Brasher doubloon
Also most importantly, I want to add my thanks to SanctionII for keeping us all informed of the case's progress through the legal labrynth (and as I'm a San Diego Charger fan and he's a Denver Bronco fan, that is kind of painful for me to do ).
When these are released to the market how soon will some be crossed to PCGS holders and will they upgrade. These will go into "moon money" collections and most of us will just read about them.
I am not a legal beagle, but in the end I believe justice has been served. I still believe that the 1933s were traded for other DE's back in the day during the window where they were produced, but not released. The Mint never showed a discrepancy in terms of gold on hand. That would allow for coins to be traded as opposed to being sold. Yes, it was "under the counter" but I still do not believe they were stolen. Just MHO.
I look forward to a final (if there ever is one) resolution. The question is, how long before the government needs to appeal before the Langbords can sell some of the coins in order to pay off their legal team, etc. Not to mention put them on the market for the feeding frenzy.
One last thought, how many coins will end up in holders with higher grades in the future. I would love to see opinions on that issue.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
I look forward to a final (if there ever is one) resolution. The question is, how long before the government needs to appeal before the Langbords can sell some of the coins in order to pay off their legal team, etc. Not to mention put them on the market for the feeding frenzy. >>
KEY to all of this is: IF the government actually PHYSICALLY turns over the ten 1933 double eagles to the Langbords'. Until and IF that happens, nothing changes. I believe the legal team for the Langbords has long ago been paid for everything they have done. Steve
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal.
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items?
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items? >>
The CAFRA filing is a filing done by the government to legally obtain assets by forfeiture. The appeals court held that without a timely CAFRA filing, the seizure by the government is invalid. If the seizure is invalid, the appeals court said that the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
Other posts have outlined the government's alternative courses of action at this point.
The government has been after these coins since 1944. The Langbord case has been going on since 2006.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items? >>
The CAFRA filing is a filing done by the government to legally obtain assets by forfeiture. The appeals court held that without a timely CAFRA filing, the seizure by the government is invalid. If the seizure is invalid, the appeals court said that the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
Other posts have outlined the government's alternative courses of action at this point.
The government has been after these coins since 1944. The Langbord case has been going on since 2006. >>
My understanding is that CAFRA is for seizing property. The question is whether a CAFRA filing is required for illegal to own assets as the government contends the coins are, or are the courts, in effect, saying the coins are legal to own which is why CAFRA is required.
Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items?
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items? >>
The CAFRA filing is a filing done by the government to legally obtain assets by forfeiture. The appeals court held that without a timely CAFRA filing, the seizure by the government is invalid. If the seizure is invalid, the appeals court said that the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
Other posts have outlined the government's alternative courses of action at this point.
The government has been after these coins since 1944. The Langbord case has been going on since 2006. >>
My understanding is that CAFRA is for seizing property. The question is whether a CAFRA filing is required for illegal to own assets as the government contends the coins are, or are the courts, in effect, saying the coins are legal to own which is why CAFRA is required.
Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items? >>
This comment from member CalGold.
"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 would not think it is the exclusive remedy available to the Government. It would probably be worthwhile to read the act. Maybe someone familiar with it will respond.
<< <i>Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items? >>
Good question. If you have illegal drugs in your possession, is CAFRA necessary to seize them? No.
But there is an explicit law against drugs. There is no codified law saying you can't possess a 1933 DE. It would be a judgment call as to when/where CAFRA should be invoked, and in this case the court seems to be saying, if there is any doubt, you better observe CAFRA.
How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap.
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
The Court has ruled: if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck & walks like a duck...it's a duck. Seizure is as seizure does....
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
One could argue that after the voluntary submission of the coins for authentication by the Langbords, the Mint's refusal to return them constituted a seizure.
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 inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
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>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law.
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law. >>
Well they weren't seized in the classical sense where the Government usually gets wind of something and takes them by force, trickery or entrapment. That being said the author Stempel should clarify the nature of the seizure.
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law. >>
Well they weren't seized in the classical sense where the Government usually gets wind of something and takes them by force, trickery or entrapment. That being said the author Stempel should clarify the nature of the seizure. >>
Government: Yes, we are open to some sort of a deal why don't you send them to us so we can authenticate them.
Longbords: OK, but these are still ours we are not relinquishing any rights to them.
Government: Got the 10 - '33, their authentic! BTW we are not returning them Suck'a
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law. >>
Well they weren't seized in the classical sense where the Government usually gets wind of something and takes them by force, trickery or entrapment. That being said the author Stempel should clarify the nature of the seizure. >>
Government: Yes, we are open to some sort of a deal why don't you send them to us so we can authenticate them.
Longbords: OK, but these are still ours we are not relinquishing any rights to them.
Government: Got the 10 - '33, their authentic! BTW we are not returning them Suck'a
Longbords:
Yep, no government trickery there. >>
Yep, no government trickery there. You're absolutely right.
IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was.
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim?
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim? >>
I have a strong hunch that that was Berke's plan all along. He may have gotten an idea of how they would handle it during the Fenton trial. Did the Government file a "complaint of judicial forfeiture" in that case after Fenton asked for the coin back?
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.
Berke, who was also the attorney representing Fenton during his legal battle, argued that the coins could have left the Mint legitimately through a "window of opportunity" between March 15 and April 5, 1933.
The 1873 Coinage Act still in effect when the first 1933 double eagles were coined. The Mint started minting 1933 double eagles on March 15. Roosevelt signed the Executive Order prohibiting the private ownership of most gold coins three weeks later, on April 5. Theoretically, under the Coinage Act for those three weeks it would have been legal for a coin collector to go to the Mint Cashier’s window and exchange gold bullion, or even older $20 gold coins, for the newly minted 1933 double eagles. The coins continued to be minted until May 19.
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim? >>
I have a strong hunch that that was Berke's plan all along. He may have gotten an idea of how they would handle it during the Fenton trial. Did the Government file a "complaint of judicial forfeiture" in that case after Fenton asked for the coin back? >>
If that was his plan he did not need to let it drag out 10 years.
It would be interesting to know what the outline for his handling of the case was.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Berke, who was also the attorney representing Fenton during his legal battle, argued that the coins could have left the Mint legitimately through a "window of opportunity" between March 15 and April 5, 1933.
The 1873 Coinage Act still in effect when the first 1933 double eagles were coined. The Mint started minting 1933 double eagles on March 15. Roosevelt signed the Executive Order prohibiting the private ownership of most gold coins three weeks later, on April 5. Theoretically, under the Coinage Act for those three weeks it would have been legal for a coin collector to go to the Mint Cashier’s window and exchange gold bullion, or even older $20 gold coins, for the newly minted 1933 double eagles. The coins continued to be minted until May 19. >>
Coining began on March 2nd.
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>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim? >>
I have a strong hunch that that was Berke's plan all along. He may have gotten an idea of how they would handle it during the Fenton trial. Did the Government file a "complaint of judicial forfeiture" in that case after Fenton asked for the coin back? >>
If that was his plan he did not need to let it drag out 10 years.
It would be interesting to know what the outline for his handling of the case was. >>
The government is responsible for it dragging on for ten years. THe Langbordfs should have gotten the coins in 2009, when the CAFRA deficiency was first acknowledged by the courts, but then the courts let the Mint argue for a do-over on the CAFRA filing.
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 recall seeing the coins on display at the ANA show in Denver in 2006, but never thought they would be returned to the Langbords. This decision helps to restore my faith in the justice system. A HUGE thank you to Sanction II for keeping us up to date on this case.
<< <i>I recall seeing the coins on display at the ANA show in Denver in 2006, but never thought they would be returned to the Langbords. This decision helps to restore my faith in the justice system. A HUGE thank you to Sanction II for keeping us up to date on this case.
Jim >>
I wonder if they will get to keep the giant display case as well!!!!
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 cannot imagine that the government will stop now and accept the court of appeal decision (I would think the same of the Langbords if they lost). The decision of the court of appeal in summary awards the coins to the Langbords and precludes the Government from asserting any claim to same, based upon the government not filing a CAFRA forfeiture complaint within the statutory deadline. Some have called this a Langbord win based on a "technicality" and I can see merit to this characterization.
Seeking en banc review before the entire panel of the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals [petition for rehearing?] and possibly thereafter seeking review by the US Supreme Court [petition for review?] seems to be a logical path for this case to take.
Perhaps some of the other attorneys on the forums who have experience in federal court appellate practice and procedure can post a reply to this thread that discusses the procedures applicable to both of these possible paths for the government to take; the percentage of these types of petitions that are granted; and for those cases where petitions are granted, the percentage of same where the outcome of the petitions is a reversal of the decision of the court of appeal. Those percentages would be very interesting to know as they would give a real and concrete indication of the likelihood that the government will be successful in the case.
Some have called this a Langbord win based on a "technicality" and I can see merit to this characterization.
A Langbord win based on a technicality.They get the coins back this way is a travesty of justice.I've estimated that the ten coins at auction would fetch about as much as one coin at auction.There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell.
The more 1933 DE's that get to hang around in private hands,the more opportunity for someone or ones to make some serious money.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I read the entire opinion in detail last night.
I cannot imagine that the government will stop now and accept the court of appeal decision (I would think the same of the Langbords if they lost). The decision of the court of appeal in summary awards the coins to the Langbords and precludes the Government from asserting any claim to same, based upon the government not filing a CAFRA forfeiture complaint within the statutory deadline. Some have called this a Langbord win based on a "technicality" and I can see merit to this characterization.
Seeking en banc review before the entire panel of the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals [petition for rehearing?] and possibly thereafter seeking review by the US Supreme Court [petition for review?] seems to be a logical path for this case to take.
Perhaps some of the other attorneys on the forums who have experience in federal court appellate practice and procedure can post a reply to this thread that discusses the procedures applicable to both of these possible paths for the government to take; the percentage of these types of petitions that are granted; and for those cases where petitions are granted, the percentage of same where the outcome of the petitions is a reversal of the decision of the court of appeal. Those percentages would be very interesting to know as they would give a real and concrete indication of the likelihood that the government will be successful in the case. >>
How big is that en banc panel? Would they need just a simple majority to uphold or overturn?
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>There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell.
>>
mr1874, I'm sure you will agree there are at least 1,000 people in this country "who have the money for an item like this." Now if just 1% of those people had some interest in coins, collecting, or history, they could each buy one, don't you think? Steve
<< <i>I've estimated that the ten coins at auction would fetch about as much as one coin at auction.There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell. >>
Are you saying that the ten Langbord coins would sell, in total, for the same amount the Fenton coin sold for ($7.59 million)?
It should be noted that a well-known dealer on the Forum has already offered over $20 million for the group. And I am certain that this dealer plans to make money on the purchase, so the market value, at least determined by one person, is over $20 million.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Comments
<< <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. >>
How about a significant interest on their part of doing their job right the first time from now on?
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
How about a significant interest on their part of doing their job right the first time from now on? >>
In oral arguments one of the points the Langbord's attorney made, was that the whole point of the "death penalty" in the CAFRA law is to create an incentive to make sure the government does not violate the rights of the citizens.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
How about a significant interest on their part of doing their job right the first time from now on? >>
That's actually a pretty serious question. Back in the quill pen days when I was in law school, I remember that one of the hardest concepts to accept was that the government would very often be protected even if its employees messed up.
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
PCGS says there are MORE known 1933 DEs (15-20) than 1927-Ds (15-18).
Who has the other 4-9 1933s that PCGS knows about?
<< <i>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. >>
I wonder if he'll get paid in coins?
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
PCGS says there are MORE known 1933 DEs (15-20) than 1927-Ds (15-18).
Who has the other 4-9 1933s that PCGS knows about? >>
Indeed. THere are the Langbord 10, the Smithsonian 2, the Fenton coin and the other coin illustrated in one of the books. I know of no others.
<< <i>Don't go too overboard on pricing - these things are just glorified 1927-Ds now >>
Glorified?......Maybe. But, with a much better "story line" than most any coin in US history excepting possibly the 1804 dollars. There are about the same number of 1804's out there.....are they glorified 1927-d Saints?
Collectors have been able to own any of the 1804's and 1927-d's since they were minted. That's not the case for all but one of the 1933's.
How about this angle. If given your choice of one of the MS65's 1933 Saints OR the 1870-s half dime....OR a MS65/66 1927-d....OR one of the type 2 1804's in 63 or lower grade.... which would you take?
Methinks if you were able to swing the purchase of the 1907 $20 Indian pattern (formerly J-1776) you'd do it in a heart beat. And it ain't no dollar either.
<< <i>How about this angle. If given your choice of one of the MS65's 1933 Saints OR the 1870-s half dime....OR a MS65/66 1927-d....OR one of the type 2 1804's in 63 or lower grade.... which would you take? >>
The 1933 Saint without a doubt.
<< <i>How about this angle. If given your choice of one of the MS65's 1933 Saints OR the 1870-s half dime....OR a MS65/66 1927-d....OR one of the type 2 1804's in 63 or lower grade.... which would you take?
Methinks if you were able to swing the purchase of the 1907 $20 Indian pattern (formerly J-1776) you'd do it in a heart beat. And it ain't no dollar either.
I'd say no to all of the above, in favor of either a 1794 silver dollar or a Brasher doubloon
Also most importantly, I want to add my thanks to SanctionII for keeping us all informed of the case's progress through the legal labrynth
Steve
<< <i>I have no interest in J-1776. >>
Well, that is downright unpatriotic. For shame
Coinweek article
Lafayette Grading Set
I look forward to a final (if there ever is one) resolution. The question is, how long before the government needs to appeal before the Langbords can sell some of the coins in order to pay off their legal team, etc. Not to mention put them on the market for the feeding frenzy.
One last thought, how many coins will end up in holders with higher grades in the future. I would love to see opinions on that issue.
<< <i>
I look forward to a final (if there ever is one) resolution. The question is, how long before the government needs to appeal before the Langbords can sell some of the coins in order to pay off their legal team, etc. Not to mention put them on the market for the feeding frenzy.
>>
KEY to all of this is: IF the government actually PHYSICALLY turns over the ten 1933 double eagles to the Langbords'. Until and IF that happens, nothing changes. I believe the legal team for the Langbords has long ago been paid for everything they have done. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items? >>
The CAFRA filing is a filing done by the government to legally obtain assets by forfeiture. The appeals court held that without a timely CAFRA filing, the seizure by the government is invalid. If the seizure is invalid, the appeals court said that the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
Other posts have outlined the government's alternative courses of action at this point.
The government has been after these coins since 1944. The Langbord case has been going on since 2006.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items? >>
The CAFRA filing is a filing done by the government to legally obtain assets by forfeiture. The appeals court held that without a timely CAFRA filing, the seizure by the government is invalid. If the seizure is invalid, the appeals court said that the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
Other posts have outlined the government's alternative courses of action at this point.
The government has been after these coins since 1944. The Langbord case has been going on since 2006. >>
My understanding is that CAFRA is for seizing property. The question is whether a CAFRA filing is required for illegal to own assets as the government contends the coins are, or are the courts, in effect, saying the coins are legal to own which is why CAFRA is required.
Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items?
<< <i>
Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items? >>
Great question Zoins!
Has this question ever been answered in a US court case?
If so, can one of our legal experts site it. Thanks,
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the court is requiring a CAFRA filing, does that mean it views the coins as legal to own? >>
The court wasn't requiring a CAFRA filing. The deadline to have done that had long since passed. In the previous trial the jury ruled against the Langbords saying the coins were stolen property. However the Government failed to file the CAFRA to repo the coins in a timely manner and the Jedge said no big deal that's ok. On appeal, the Court of Appeals took a dim view of that ruling and said it was a big deal. >>
What I meant is that if the Court of Appeals is saying that CAFRA is a big deal, then they aren't buying into the idea that the coins are illegal to own and thus no civil procedure is necessary, hence legal to own.
Put another way, is the primary reason a CAFRA filing is necessary is that the coins are legal to own? Or is a CAFRA filing necessary even for illegal to own items? >>
The CAFRA filing is a filing done by the government to legally obtain assets by forfeiture. The appeals court held that without a timely CAFRA filing, the seizure by the government is invalid. If the seizure is invalid, the appeals court said that the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
Other posts have outlined the government's alternative courses of action at this point.
The government has been after these coins since 1944. The Langbord case has been going on since 2006. >>
My understanding is that CAFRA is for seizing property. The question is whether a CAFRA filing is required for illegal to own assets as the government contends the coins are, or are the courts, in effect, saying the coins are legal to own which is why CAFRA is required.
Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items? >>
This comment from member CalGold.
"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 would not think it is the exclusive remedy available to the Government. It would probably be worthwhile to read the act. Maybe someone familiar with it will respond.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Simple question: Is CAFRA necessary for seizing of illegal to own items? >>
Good question. If you have illegal drugs in your possession, is CAFRA necessary to seize them? No.
But there is an explicit law against drugs. There is no codified law saying you can't possess a 1933 DE. It would be a judgment call as to when/where CAFRA should be invoked, and in this case the court seems to be saying, if there is any doubt, you better observe CAFRA.
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
The Court has ruled: if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck & walks like a duck...it's a duck. Seizure is as seizure does....
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
One could argue that after the voluntary submission of the coins for authentication by the Langbords, the Mint's refusal to return them constituted a seizure.
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
The name is LEE!
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law. >>
Well they weren't seized in the classical sense where the Government usually gets wind of something and takes them by force, trickery or entrapment. That being said the author Stempel should clarify the nature of the seizure.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law. >>
Well they weren't seized in the classical sense where the Government usually gets wind of something and takes them by force, trickery or entrapment. That being said the author Stempel should clarify the nature of the seizure. >>
Government: Yes, we are open to some sort of a deal why don't you send them to us so we can authenticate them.
Longbords: OK, but these are still ours we are not relinquishing any rights to them.
Government: Got the 10 - '33, their authentic! BTW we are not returning them Suck'a
Longbords:
Yep, no government trickery there.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How inappropriate of Stempel to report the nature of this case so far out of context:
"(Reuters) - The U.S. government must return 10 exceptionally rare gold coins worth millions of dollars each to a Pennsylvania family from which the purloined coins were seized a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
The coins were voluntarily submitted to the government by the Langbord family. They were NOT seized. This is the kind of sloppy mainstream journalism that has created such a divisive atmosphere in this country today. Reuters should at minimum print a complete correction of Stempel's article, and publicly admonish Stempel for writing such crap. >>
You need to retract this post, Stempel was right on that point. As SanctionII and others have pointed out, the coins were in fact seized. I recommend that you read through the published opinion and the dissent, it is very interesting. They spell out that the Langbords were only giving the coins to the government for the purpose of authentication, and when the government refused to return them it was a seizure. The fact that this was a seizure is not being disputed by any of the parties or any judges involved in this case, even the trial judge that made so many mistakes in this case, ruled that it was a seizure, and an illegal one at that. The debate among the judges is the remedy for this illegal seizure.
The majority said that the law is clear and the remedy is a return of the items, and a barring of any future claims to the property. The dissenter said that is too harsh of a remedy, and that was not what the legislators meant when they wrote that part of the law. >>
Well they weren't seized in the classical sense where the Government usually gets wind of something and takes them by force, trickery or entrapment. That being said the author Stempel should clarify the nature of the seizure. >>
Government: Yes, we are open to some sort of a deal why don't you send them to us so we can authenticate them.
Longbords: OK, but these are still ours we are not relinquishing any rights to them.
Government: Got the 10 - '33, their authentic! BTW we are not returning them Suck'a
Longbords:
Yep, no government trickery there. >>
Yep, no government trickery there. You're absolutely right.
IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim?
<< <i>
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim? >>
I have a strong hunch that that was Berke's plan all along. He may have gotten an idea of how they would handle it during the Fenton trial. Did the Government file a "complaint of judicial forfeiture" in that case after Fenton asked for the coin back?
The 1873 Coinage Act still in effect when the first 1933 double eagles were coined. The Mint started minting 1933 double eagles on March 15. Roosevelt signed the Executive Order prohibiting the private ownership of most gold coins three weeks later, on April 5. Theoretically, under the Coinage Act for those three weeks it would have been legal for a coin collector to go to the Mint Cashier’s window and exchange gold bullion, or even older $20 gold coins, for the newly minted 1933 double eagles. The coins continued to be minted until May 19.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim? >>
I have a strong hunch that that was Berke's plan all along. He may have gotten an idea of how they would handle it during the Fenton trial. Did the Government file a "complaint of judicial forfeiture" in that case after Fenton asked for the coin back? >>
If that was his plan he did not need to let it drag out 10 years.
It would be interesting to know what the outline for his handling of the case was.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Berke, who was also the attorney representing Fenton during his legal battle, argued that the coins could have left the Mint legitimately through a "window of opportunity" between March 15 and April 5, 1933.
The 1873 Coinage Act still in effect when the first 1933 double eagles were coined. The Mint started minting 1933 double eagles on March 15. Roosevelt signed the Executive Order prohibiting the private ownership of most gold coins three weeks later, on April 5. Theoretically, under the Coinage Act for those three weeks it would have been legal for a coin collector to go to the Mint Cashier’s window and exchange gold bullion, or even older $20 gold coins, for the newly minted 1933 double eagles. The coins continued to be minted until May 19.
>>
Coining began on March 2nd.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>IIRC the strategy was to submit them for authentication with the expectation that they wouldn't be returned. Apparently, Barry Berke was pretty confident that he could win their return. That's what that deal was. >>
I wonder if the strategy included the government not filing a CAFRA claim? >>
I have a strong hunch that that was Berke's plan all along. He may have gotten an idea of how they would handle it during the Fenton trial. Did the Government file a "complaint of judicial forfeiture" in that case after Fenton asked for the coin back? >>
If that was his plan he did not need to let it drag out 10 years.
It would be interesting to know what the outline for his handling of the case was. >>
The government is responsible for it dragging on for ten years. THe Langbordfs should have gotten the coins in 2009, when the CAFRA deficiency was first acknowledged by the courts, but then the courts let the Mint argue for a do-over on the CAFRA filing.
Jim
<< <i>I recall seeing the coins on display at the ANA show in Denver in 2006, but never thought they would be returned to the Langbords. This decision helps to restore my faith in the justice system. A HUGE thank you to Sanction II for keeping us up to date on this case.
Jim >>
I wonder if they will get to keep the giant display case as well!!!!
<< <i>I thought the coins were subsequently graded by NGC. Anyone know if that is, in fact the case. >>
I also recall seeing them in NGC holders. They are not listed in the NGC census.
I cannot imagine that the government will stop now and accept the court of appeal decision (I would think the same of the Langbords if they lost). The decision of the court of appeal in summary awards the coins to the Langbords and precludes the Government from asserting any claim to same, based upon the government not filing a CAFRA forfeiture complaint within the statutory deadline. Some have called this a Langbord win based on a "technicality" and I can see merit to this characterization.
Seeking en banc review before the entire panel of the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals [petition for rehearing?] and possibly thereafter seeking review by the US Supreme Court [petition for review?] seems to be a logical path for this case to take.
Perhaps some of the other attorneys on the forums who have experience in federal court appellate practice and procedure can post a reply to this thread that discusses the procedures applicable to both of these possible paths for the government to take; the percentage of these types of petitions that are granted; and for those cases where petitions are granted, the percentage of same where the outcome of the petitions is a reversal of the decision of the court of appeal. Those percentages would be very interesting to know as they would give a real and concrete indication of the likelihood that the government will be successful in the case.
A Langbord win based on a technicality.They get the coins back this way is a travesty of justice.I've estimated that the ten coins at auction would fetch about as much as one coin at auction.There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell.
The more 1933 DE's that get to hang around in private hands,the more opportunity for someone or ones to make some serious money.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I read the entire opinion in detail last night.
I cannot imagine that the government will stop now and accept the court of appeal decision (I would think the same of the Langbords if they lost). The decision of the court of appeal in summary awards the coins to the Langbords and precludes the Government from asserting any claim to same, based upon the government not filing a CAFRA forfeiture complaint within the statutory deadline. Some have called this a Langbord win based on a "technicality" and I can see merit to this characterization.
Seeking en banc review before the entire panel of the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals [petition for rehearing?] and possibly thereafter seeking review by the US Supreme Court [petition for review?] seems to be a logical path for this case to take.
Perhaps some of the other attorneys on the forums who have experience in federal court appellate practice and procedure can post a reply to this thread that discusses the procedures applicable to both of these possible paths for the government to take; the percentage of these types of petitions that are granted; and for those cases where petitions are granted, the percentage of same where the outcome of the petitions is a reversal of the decision of the court of appeal. Those percentages would be very interesting to know as they would give a real and concrete indication of the likelihood that the government will be successful in the case. >>
How big is that en banc panel? Would they need just a simple majority to uphold or overturn?
<< <i>There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell.
>>
mr1874, I'm sure you will agree there are at least 1,000 people in this country "who have the money for an item like this." Now if just 1% of those people had some interest in coins, collecting, or history, they could each buy one, don't you think? Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I've estimated that the ten coins at auction would fetch about as much as one coin at auction.There's only so many who have the money for an item like this so the demand is limited even though the supply is definitely limited.The 1933 Double eagle is a wish coin for the masses.Anyone who buys one has a limited buyer audience when comes time to sell. >>
Are you saying that the ten Langbord coins would sell, in total, for the same amount the Fenton coin sold for ($7.59 million)?
It should be noted that a well-known dealer on the Forum has already offered over $20 million for the group. And I am certain that this dealer plans to make money on the purchase, so the market value, at least determined by one person, is over $20 million.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.