No Izzy would not have felt bad at all, and communism is the only reason someone would want there heirs to give away Millions of dollars in coins to people who did not affectively fight for their property rights.
Not a give away.Thinking of "the solution" as reparations might prove helpful to you.
There were some fights over the coins,some quite vigorous:
"In June 1947,Barnard's fight against government confiscation finally came to a head.The two sides agreed only that apart from the two '33 double eagles in the Smithsonian,the rest had been melted,and that the weights had balanced,before and after melting."
"The government's case was backed by reams of official documents and bolstered by an all-star cast of employees who had worked at the Mint in 1933. It contended that the double eagles had been "removed illegally from the vaults," probably replaced with other coins,and that in any event they were not currency,but property of the government."
"Barnard's attorneys countered with a laundry list of arguments that tried to have it all ways:their client had purchased the rare and unusual coin in good faith;it had been minted as currency,"issued as such" and was therefore negotiable and transferable;even if stolen,it was cash,and therefore their client's claim was protected as he had acquired it legitimately;and since the government's weights all balanced,it couldn't have been stolen in the first place."
"On July 22,1947,in Memphis,Tennessee,two weeks after the end of the trial,Judge Marion S. Boyd's decision on United States of America vs. L.G.Barnard was filed.In the jurist's opinion,the facts tilted inexorably toward the State.He found that the 1933 double eagle,never left the mint legally.At no time,opined Judge Boyd,was it "money or currency" but "chattel,or an article of virtu." Thus good title had never passed. The 1933 double eagle,in the view of the court,was now legally illegal:the property of the United States of America,not L.G. Barnard."
"It was a crushing defeat.Barnard considered his options.He might be right but not in the eyes of the law,and perhaps it wasn't worth the mounting costs. He chose not to appeal,but the loss continued to rankle,and Abe Kosoff reported that he later went broke,possibly even insane.On August 13,1947,the Secret Service retrieved the Barnard coin from the District Court Clerk,who had held the coin for the past two years,and forwarded it to Washington,D.C. For Harry J. Stein (Fifth Avenue New York lawyer) it was a similarly devastating defeat-doubly so,as T. James Clarke's coin was also forfeited. His case was dismissed with prejudice on August 26,1947."
from Illegal Tender by David Tripp,p.205.
Doesn't trial precedent mean anything anymore in the court system? Can a lawyer here explain why the Langbord coins should be exempt from confiscation as suffered by Barnard's coin,T. James Clarke's coin,James F. Bell's coin,F.C.C. Boyd's coin,Charles M. Williams' coin,James Stack's coin,Max Barenstein's coin,Colonel James Flanagan's coin,and Louis Eliasberg's coin?
The only 1933 D.E. that escaped seizure in those days was Farouk's coin purchased from Fort Worth,Texas dealer B. Max Mehl.That coin was allowed export to Egypt from the United States because of a mistake by Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the mint.It's February,1944.Didn't she get the memo that ALL the 1933 double eagles,save the two examples in the Smithsonian,were supposed to have been melted almost seven years earlier in 1937? In other words,Ms. Ross,at the least,should have denied the export,but she didn't.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Can a lawyer here explain why the Langbord coins should be exempt from confiscation >>
Haven't you read the thread and the court decision that is linked? The coins were NOT exempt from confiscation. In fact the government did confiscate them, but did so without complying with the procedures required by CAFRA and as a result the government forfeited its right to claim the coins.
<< <i>Can a lawyer here explain why the Langbord coins should be exempt from confiscation >>
Haven't you read the thread and the court decision that is linked? The coins were NOT exempt from confiscation. In fact the government did confiscate them, but did so without complying with the procedures required by CAFRA and as a result the government forfeited its right to claim the coins.
CG >>
Exactly. There's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it and the Mint did it the wrong way. They got a do-over by the lower court in 2009, but the Appeals Court through out the do-over as unlawful.
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.
Haven't you read the thread and the court decision that is linked? The coins were NOT exempt from confiscation. In fact the government did confiscate them, but did so without complying with the procedures required by CAFRA and as a result the government forfeited its right to claim the coins.
It may be that the government,meaning the Treasury Department,is suspicious of CAFRA for reason that if the government did comply with provisions of CAFRA they are essentially acknowledging that the 1933 coins are indeed Langbord assets.That CAFRA thing could easily bite the government in the you know what,in other words,and they know it.
The government has been consistent ever since the first confiscations of 1933 D.E.'s occurred,insisting,supported by court decisions,that anyone in possession of 1933 double eagle is in possession of stolen government property,contraband,and therefore has no right to claim the property as theirs.See United States of America vs L.G. Barnard (1947).
This case,LANGBORD ET AL V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ET AL,is important enough to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States and it looks to me like that's where it's going.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
That is what the lead Mint attorney told me. The coins were stolen, thus no need to respond to confiscated property. Clearly, he was wrong. It was a simple perspective, NOT the Treasury Department being suspicious of anything. Treasury did not interfere with the Mint attorneys, at least at this stage of the proceedings. I doubt they are on the radar now, as the Mint has a staff of attorneys and this is small potatoes to the Treasury Department.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
While it would not surprise me to see either side in this case not give up and thus pursue every remedy available to them (including Petition For Rehearing by the full 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals and thereafter a Petition asking the US Supreme Court to review the case), it is my understanding that the chances of either court agreeing to take the case [again there is a right to an appeal from the trial court to the court of appeal but any further appellate review beyond the decision of the court of appeal is discretionary with the court, so neither side can force or compel a court to hear the case] are very small.
Each year thousands of cases from across the country are submitted to the US Supreme Court asking for it to agree to accept the case for review. Each you the US Supreme Court accepts, hears and decides 100 cases or less.
Same situation with Petitions For Rehearing in Court's Of Appeal.
Thus even if the government or the Langbords sought further appellate review of the court of appeal decision, the chance of convincing a reviewing court to accept the case is very small.
I am sure the statistics on cases accepted and denied are published somewhere. If I can find same I will post a further reply.
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<from Illegal Tender by David Tripp>>
Other than Tripp, are there any coin experts or recognized numismatic researchers who argue that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen? Before 2000, was Tripp really a well known writer or researcher regarding coins?
Tripp was paid by the Treasury Department for research and testimony regarding 1933 Double Eagles. Were such payments a significant percentage of his income during some years?
If the Fenton case had gone to trial, then Fenton's attorney would have called Q. David Bowers and other experts to argue that it is likely that 1933 Double Eagles were legally obtained. Who would the Treasury Department have called as a witness in 2002 or thereabouts?
Mr. 1874 :<<There were some fights over the coins, some quite vigorous ... >>
This is a very misleading remark by Mr. 1874.
1) The owners of such coins felt they had no choice other than to believe that they were stolen after government officials asserted that they were so.
2) According to www.FOIA.gov, <<Enacted on July 4, 1966, and taking effect one year later, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. >>
So, in the 1940s and the 1950s, the owners of the 1933 Double Eagles could not access many of the records of the Philadelphia Mint. Also, according to R. W. Julian, many such records were destroyed in the 1970s, which may have contained details of perfectly legal distributions of 1933 Double Eagles.
3) More is known to collectors now about the history of the U.S. Mint than was known to collectors in the 1940s and early 1950s. Research by QDB, Breen, R. W. Julian Taxay, RWB, and others shows that collectors obtained coins at face by trading common coins for rarer coins at the Philadelphia Mint. From early March (or even late Feb.) until the middle of April 1933, anyone could have traded a 1928 DE for a 1933 DE. It is likely that such a coin-for-coin exchange would have been considered legal, ethical and routine, by all those involved.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site:
For the Langbord pieces to be considered actual coins or money for exchange they must be declared such by the government.My understanding is that's what "monetization" was about after the ex Farouk piece was auctioned earlier this century.
Somehow I don't see an offer to monetize the Langbord pieces ever happening if the Langbords are awarded the full enchilada,all ten pieces with the government receiving nothing,except taxes of course,when the pieces are sold.
Big,shiny,expensive gold token residing with the rest of my legitimately issued D.E.'s wouldn't work for me.This collector would want the full blessing of the United States of America for my '33 dated D.E. like the ex Farouk piece enjoys or I wouldn't want it at all.
Alison Frankel's book will soon become a part of my numismatic library.It will be interesting for me to see how much Frankel draws on David Tripp's work since Tripp's book was published before hers.
Thank you,Sanction for the updates on the Langbord case.I'm looking forward to seeing some statistics on Supreme Court acceptance of cases.
My last post in this thread.Have a good day everyone.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>For the Langbord pieces to be considered actual coins or money for exchange they must be declared such by the government.My understanding is that's what "monetization" was about after the ex Farouk piece was auctioned earlier this century.
Somehow I don't see an offer to monetize the Langbord pieces ever happening if the Langbords are awarded the full enchilada,all ten pieces with the government receiving nothing,except taxes of course,when the pieces are sold.
Big,shiny,expensive gold token residing with the rest of my legitimately issued D.E.'s wouldn't work for me.This collector would want the full blessing of the United States of America for my '33 dated D.E. like the ex Farouk piece enjoys or I wouldn't want it at all.
Alison Frankel's book will soon become a part of my numismatic library.It will be interesting for me to see how much Frankel draws on David Tripp's work since Tripp's book was published before hers.
Thank you,Sanction for the updates on the Langbord case.I'm looking forward to seeing some statistics on Supreme Court acceptance of cases.
My last post in this thread.Have a good day everyone. >>
They're already monetized. When the Government gives them back they'll be legal to own. They already confirmed them as authentic.
What does the Government consider the 2 coins in the Smithsonian to be?
I see why lawyers charge so much. Makes me want to take up practicing law. It's never too late to learn a new trade. This case alone is 10 years closer to retirement.
<< <i>Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do. . . . . .
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present. >>
Mr1874, with all due respect, you have stated that neither the government can prove the coins were stolen, and the Langbords cannot prove they were not stolen.
In our legal system, if the Government cannot prove that the coins were stolen, then the coins were not stolen. There is no middle ground.
If the government claimed that your TV was stolen, but can't prove it, but you can't produce a receipt or canceled check to prove that you own it, then what? You still own it, because the government hasn't proven it was stolen. Same situation here.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i> If the government claimed that your TV was stolen, but can't prove it, but you can't produce a receipt or canceled check to prove that you own it, then what? You still own it, because the government hasn't proven it was stolen. Same situation here. >>
I have not read this whole thread. I think that the government makes out more by losing this case then winning it. If they (the government) win the case, then all they have is bullion as they will have to melt the coins. If they lose the case they make more money by collecting taxes when the sale occurs and they also win favor in the court of public opinion because they will be looked on more favorably as being fair, rather then being regimentaly rigid as a totalitarian entity. The coins belong in the numismatic community. However, they are just another coin that I will never be able to afford. This is a big win for everyone. The government wins even with a loss in court. The Langbords win. The whole coin collecting community wins. However this is just my opinion. The absolute final decision no matter what it is, will have no effect on me.
<< <i>I have not read this whole thread. I think that the government makes out more by losing this case then winning it. If they (the government) win the case, then all they have is bullion as they will have to melt the coins. If they lose the case they make more money by collecting taxes when the sale occurs and they also win favor in the court of public opinion because they will be looked on more favorably as being fair, rather then being regimentaly rigid as a totalitarian entity. The coins belong in the numismatic community. However, they are just another coin that I will never be able to afford. This is a big win for everyone. The government wins even with a loss in court. The Langbords win. The whole coin collecting community wins. However this is just my opinion. The absolute final decision no matter what it is, will have no effect on me.
Bob >>
I don't think that Treasury cares about the money. This is a holy cause for them, and they must prove that they are RIGHT!
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.
If I say more it becomes historically significant, but perhaps religiously or politically polarizing. Don't want that. Have a great day neighbors. My views were expressed about these numismatic treasures. I know Izzy weren't a Saint. He just tried to rescue a few.
The whole monetization concept is something that did not exist in 1933. It is a recent invention and I think mostly connected with the release of coins after 1964 when the silver content was reduced and removed from coins. When a bag of quarters sits on one side of a locked room it is valued at the cost of making the coin. Upon moving to the delivery side to the Federal Reserve, the coins become "monetized" and are now worth face value. It is all an accounting thing that was corrupted to the Mint's case in the original dealings with the Farouk DE. There was no monetization before 1965 because the coins were effectively bullion, the cost and transfer value to the Federal Reserve being fundamentally the same with small variations.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
<< <i>There was no monetization before 1965 because the coins were effectively bullion, the cost and transfer value to the Federal Reserve being fundamentally the same with small variations. >>
I would argue there was no monetization because the law never defined it. Where in the Mint-related legislation is "monetization" defined? They can codify all sorts of acts for commemorative coins and such, but not one word about "monetization" which is arguably a much more important concept than the issuance of some proof or commemorative one-off. "Monetization" is a concept invented by administrative fiat which sounds like a law, but isn't.
As for the issue of bullion, there was seignorage on copper starting in 1793, and Congress never felt the need to define monetization w/respect to copper.
Monetization means nothing for the 10 Langbord Double Eagles. All US gold coins minted up to 1933 were de-monetized. What is the difference?
These 10 coins were made by the mint and were just as monetized as a common $10 Eagle.
It has already been demonstrated that there was a window where they might have been acquired by exchanging Double Eagles with other dates. Why would the Mint bother recording such a transaction? If I go to the bank and exchange a $20 bill for 4 $5 dollar bills does the bank record the transaction?
<< <i>Monetization means nothing for the 10 Langbord Double Eagles. All US gold coins minted up to 1933 were de-monetized. What is the difference? >>
I'm not sure that they were de-monetized. The only coin that was de-monetized was the trade dollar. Gold coins were called in but never de-monetized as far as I know. They always had a face value.
"Monetization" is a term invented by government lawyers arguing the Fenton case in 1995. There is no mention of it in Mint-related law.
It should have no applicability to the 1933 double eagles because the term "monetization" and the concept underlying it were invented 62 years after the 1933 double eagles were minted.
Additionally, I remember seeing an ad in an old publication, either The Numismatist or another one, offering a 1933 double eagle for about $900. Has anyone seen this ad? The fact that 1933 double eagles weren't worth millions of dollars probably entered into the owners' decisions not to appeal their losses in court.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Monetization has to do with circulating coinage. It is when the coin changes from Mint inventory held at cost to make, i.e. twelve cents for a quarter to full face value when sold to the Federal Reserve. The Mint has a cage where the coins move from one place to another and then they are "monetized". Otherwise, how do you account for the difference between production cost and sale to the FED?
FYI, I was the Accounting Project Manger when the Mint changed over from PeopleSoft to Oracle a few years back. This is not something I thought up or someone told me.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
DeepCoin:Monetization has to do with circulating coinage. It is when the coin changes from Mint inventory held at cost to make, i.e. twelve cents for a quarter to full face value when sold to the Federal Reserve. The Mint has a cage where the coins move from one place to another and then they are "monetized". Otherwise, how do you account for the difference between production cost and sale to the FED?
FYI, I was the Accounting Project Manger when the Mint changed over from PeopleSoft to Oracle a few years back. This is not something I thought up or someone told me.
Do you have a number,a guesstimate will do, for how much it cost Uncle SAm to make a $20 gold piece in 1933?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I could understand confiscating mules but the donkeys and elephants have gone too far, for the saints, while hiding behind a seal protecting the eagle.
Also, on Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4," 1933.
The first 1933 D.E.'s were struck March 2,1933.Two days later the Mint Cashier has forty-three of them? Does Burdette explain how this might have happened? Is there a written entry in the daily ledger that supports Burdette's claim? Did a mint employee go to the production room,where the coins are being made,and obtain forty-three of them,literally "hot off the press?" How would this get pulled off by an ordinary mint worker?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Monetization has to do with circulating coinage. It is when the coin changes from Mint inventory held at cost to make, i.e. twelve cents for a quarter to full face value when sold to the Federal Reserve. The Mint has a cage where the coins move from one place to another and then they are "monetized". Otherwise, how do you account for the difference between production cost and sale to the FED?
FYI, I was the Accounting Project Manger when the Mint changed over from PeopleSoft to Oracle a few years back. This is not something I thought up or someone told me. >>
Sounds like something that's been in effect a long time, but never actually mentioned or singled out as such.
<< <i>Also, on Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4," 1933.
The first 1933 D.E.'s were struck March 2,1933.Two days later the Mint Cashier has forty-three of them? Does Burdette explain how this might have happened? Is there a written entry in the daily ledger that supports Burdette's claim? Did a mint employee go to the production room,where the coins are being made,and obtain forty-three of them,literally "hot off the press?"
How would this get pulled off by an ordinary mint worker? >>
According to the article linked above Roger Burdette did indeed find written records; he didn't just make that up. Were these the same coins supposedly ordered removed from the vault by the Mint director?
Roger Burdette testified on July 18th. As I discussed in my Dec. 28th column, The Ten Leading Topics of 2010, Burdette discovered documents that show that the “first 1933 Double Eagles were struck March 2nd, during the Hoover administration.” Additionally, documents discovered by Burdette indicate that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4. According to Burdette, these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some of the already counted 1932 Double Eagles were determined to be defective and thus replaced with 1933 Double Eagles.
According to the article linked above Roger Burdette did indeed find written records; he didn't just make that up. Were these the same coins supposedly ordered removed from the vault by the Mint director?
The daily ledger should show that this happened,if it happened? "Written records?" Where are they? What do they look like?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>According to the article linked above Roger Burdette did indeed find written records; he didn't just make that up. Were these the same coins supposedly ordered removed from the vault by the Mint director?
The daily ledger should show that this happened,if it happened? "Written records?" Where are they? What do they look like? >>
I'm not particularly sympathetic towards the Langbords. Dollars to donuts they knew all about the coins and their shady history and a double dunk says the circumstantial case is loaded with merit. The gummint moved against them in an arrogant manner. Case turned on a technicality, one that the dissent identified some weakness thereto.
Without much doubt, I say the gummint appeals. I wouldn't be too surprised if a settlement results now that both sides have seen how they lose it all.
The concept of monetization was an internal one that was not publicized. It stems from the decision of when a coin becomes a coin and not inventory or WIP. The key point is release to the FRB who pays full face value. Before that, it is WIP or finished goods, but held on the books at cost. When coins are moved into the FRB cage, they become monetized and the Mint records them at face value instead of cost. The difference is seniorage. There was no seniorage when coins were comprised of mostly precious metal.
MR1874,
When the 1933 DEs were most likely traded for common DEs, there was a trade of like for like. Back then, the Mint was an appropriated agency and depended upon Congress to vote the funds to operate. FDR paid 20.67 per ounce for gold turned in after May 1, 1933. They contain .9675 ounces of gold. There was no profit to the government from making coins at that time. Thus the concept of monetization and seniorage did not occur until 1965 when the Mint began making clad coins. By then, they were out of the gold coin business, at least temporarily.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
The concept of monetization was an internal one that was not publicized. It stems from the decision of when a coin becomes a coin and not inventory or WIP. The key point is release to the FRB who pays full face value. Before that, it is WIP or finished goods, but held on the books at cost. When coins are moved into the FRB cage, they become monetized and the Mint records them at face value instead of cost. The difference is seniorage. There was no seniorage when coins were comprised of mostly precious metal.
MR1874,
When the 1933 DEs were most likely traded for common DEs, there was a trade of like for like. Back then, the Mint was an appropriated agency and depended upon Congress to vote the funds to operate. FDR paid 20.67 per ounce for gold turned in after May 1, 1933. They contain .9675 ounces of gold. There was no profit to the government from making coins at that time. Thus the concept of monetization and seniorage did not occur until 1965 when the Mint began making clad coins. By then, they were out of the gold coin business, at least temporarily. >>
Isn't that sorta what I said? It sounds like it was used internally, but little if ever talked about outside the Mint accounting department.
I wouldn't be too surprised if a settlement results now that both sides have seen how they lose it all.
After doing extensive reading on this case,I would be surprised if there is a settlement forthcoming.The Government has insisted since the '40's that all '33 D.E.'s were stolen and wants to recover all of them currently in existence,the only exception being the ex Farouk piece,of course.
Whether the Government gets to keep the ten disputed 1933 D.E.'s that the Langbord's found in their possession or not,I'm sensing this is an "all or nothing" deal.
If this case gets heard by the United States Supreme Court,the final score will definitely be 10-0.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
With regard to the timing of possible future events in the case, it appears that if petitions for rehearing en banc to the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals and for US Supreme Court review are brought and summarily denied [both court's simply declining to take the case with the result that the 4-17-2015 court of appeal decision becomes final and binding] the case would be finished later this year. Maybe sometime in this summer.
If either court chooses to take the case and review the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal then the time period would be extended and the ultimate outcome would remain uncertain.
<< <i>With regard to the timing of possible future events in the case, it appears that if petitions for rehearing en banc to the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals and for US Supreme Court review are brought and summarily denied [both court's simply declining to take the case with the result that the 4-17-2015 court of appeal decision becomes final and binding] the case would be finished later this year. Maybe sometime in this summer.
If either court chooses to take the case and review the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal then the time period would be extended and the ultimate outcome would remain uncertain. >>
SanctionII: Does this mean that if the Government fails to file by Monday, June 1st (45 days after the announced decision) that the Government MUST then turn the coins back to the Langbords? Thanks. Steve
Question for those with the legal-smarts, and maybe its been answered already, but I don't recall reading in the thread.
If an appeal is denied, and the coins end up back in the hands of the Langbords, the CAFRA protects the Langbords only from future action or all/all future owners? Would the government be able to file suit against a buyer of these coins claiming they are "stolen property" again?
Why wouldn't the Government meet the CAFRA deadlines for filing papers? After all,Government won the Langbord case only to have it reversed based on a "technicality." Is there a bona-fide reason for the Government to not file papers in a timely way,a reason that is even more fundamental than "we shouldn't have to answer a call for forteiture of our own property,property which is currently in our possession,property which was deemed by a jury to be our property?"
As a tax-paying citizen of the United States,I'm partial owner of the "our property" as are all Americans.Each and every Americans has an interest in the ten 1933 D.E.'s that were discovered by the Langbords to be in their possession.Am I and other Americans being faithfully and dutifully served when Government entities get away with sitting on their thumbs when they should be dealing with matters efficiently as they can?
The majority opinion of the Third District Court of Appeals holds that Government needs to,in fact,is "ordered" to, give up the 10 1933 D.E.'s to the Langbords.There's something wrong here.We have a dinky trial by three appeals court judges, trumping the big trial,the 10-day trial by jury,LANGBORD et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al.
Three-judge panel is too small for one thing.Five-judge panel would be much,much better.Then it would take three,not two,judges to uphold a verdict.
Vacate the decision of the trial court over a "technicality?" It's a slap in the face,an insult, to the jurists who heard the case in the first place,in my opinion.
These are vexing questions to me.Maybe if individuals in the Government were made responsible to the point of having strong penalties imposed upon them for not doing their job properly,we would see some progress as measured by speedier trials,less money wasted,and more satisfactory outcomes in general for both Defendants and Plaintiffs.
Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess.Felix Frankfurter
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The government did not file a timely CAFRA forfeiture action. Multiple federal agencies were in favor of doing so. The Mint was the only agency that was not in favor of doing so.
Whatever the government decision making process was, the government chose not to file. The Langbords sued and in 2009 prevailed in motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that the government violated the Langbords' rights (including certain constitutional rights). The trial court remedy for the violation of the Langbords' rights was an order that required the government to file a CAFRA forfeiture action. The trial court declined to apply the CAFRA death penalty to the government, reasoning that a "mulligan" or a "do over" was appropriate due to the government's "misguided legal strategy".
During the time I have practiced law I have never seen a court give a party a mulligan or do over based upon a "misguided legal strategy".
The court of appeal disagreed with the decision of the trial court to give the government a mulligan or do over. The court of appeal decided that the CAFRA death penalty applies, requiring that the 10 double eagles be returned to the Langbords and that the government be barred from claiming same. The court of appeal decided that the trial that took place in the trial court should never have taken place.
If the government does not seek further appellate review then after the court of appeal decision becomes final, the case would return to the trial court. Once back in the trial court the trial judge would issue an new judgment that complies with the decision of the court of appeal.
I do not know what administrative regulations exist that would apply to this case to set a deadline for the government to return the 10 coins to the Langbords.
The government could voluntarily return the 10 double eagles to the Langbords, or it could delay further and refuse to do so.
In that case the trial court judge could issue follow up orders to compel the return of the coins, including the issuance of a Writ Of Possession directed at the appropriate US Marshal's office to go to where the coins are located [Fort Knox?] to take possession of the coins and deliver them to the Langbords.
No one alive today has personal, first hand, knowledge of how the 10 double eagles left the mint and ended up in the possession of the Langbords. There is speculation about how the 10 coins left the mint, but the facts of how they actually left is a mystery that will never be known.
So the decade long legal fight over these 10 coins has involved legal tactics and strategies, decisions by both sides on how to proceed, legal actions filed, prosecuted, defended and appealed. The parties conducted a jury trial at which documents and testimony were introduced into evidence [over strenuous objections] and a decision in favor of the government was made by the jury. The trial court also found in favor of the government on a separate claim that was not tried before the jury. The court of appeal decision commented on the introduction of documentary evidence at trial in violation of hearsay rules [and indicated this was a problem, but that the it did not have to reach and decide same given its decision to apply the CAFRA death penalty].
Did the government prove its case with legally admissible evidence? Maybe, or maybe not. At this point in time the decision of the court of appeal makes that question moot. If the case eventually makes it further into the appellate court system and ends up back in the trial court for a new trial [with instruction from an appellate court on the claim that the trial court improperly admitted evidence at trial which should have been excluded] would the government be able to prove its case with admissible evidence? Maybe, or maybe not.
This has been one of the most active threads on the Langbords lawsuit. Interesting to see the comments and opinions expressed herein.
Future events will play out and no doubt more comments and opinions will be made. Had this all happened 20 years ago the exchange of information on this case presented on the Forums would not be.
Thanks PCGS For hosting the US Coin Forum. It is an updated version of the office watercooler.
Try not filing your taxes until 4 years and 9 months after they are due. Then blame a "misguided accounting strategy". Wonder whether the judge will give you a "mulligan" or "do over"?
The reason the government lost in the Appeals Court is that they didn't follow the law regarding what they had to do in order to reacquire the property they allege was stolen. If you want to call this a technicality, then so be it.
As has been said many times in this thread, no one alive knows how or when the 1933 double eagles left the Mint. However, there was a "window of opportunity" during which they could have left the Mint legally. Furthermore, we know that in 1933, one double eagle was considered equal to another. And we know that when the 1933 double eagles were melted, the gold obtained was exactly the amount that was expected.
I am a taxpayer also, and I don't relish the Government giving up the double eagles, as they could be considered a national treasure. Should the government win in the end, I hope they auction them and use the proceeds for something numismatically useful, like upgrading the Smithsonian Collection and displaying it. I hope they don't do something stupid like melting them.
On the other hand, I don't like the government's view that something is stolen just because they say so. And regardless of one's personal opinion of the Langbords, in my opinion, no one in this country should have his or her property confiscated by the government without due process of law. And that due process includes that the government has to follow the CAFRA law.
Just my opinion.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Try not filing your taxes until 4 years and 9 months after they are due. Then blame a "misguided accounting strategy". Wonder whether the judge will give you a "mulligan" or "do over"?
The reason the government lost in the Appeals Court is that they didn't follow the law regarding what they had to do in order to reacquire the property they allege was stolen. If you want to call this a technicality, then so be it.
As has been said many times in this thread, no one alive knows how or when the 1933 double eagles left the Mint. However, there was a "window of opportunity" during which they could have left the Mint legally. Furthermore, we know that in 1933, one double eagle was considered equal to another. And we know that when the 1933 double eagles were melted, the gold obtained was exactly the amount that was expected.
I am a taxpayer also, and I don't relish the Government giving up the double eagles, as they could be considered a national treasure. Should the government win in the end, I hope they auction them and use the proceeds for something numismatically useful, like upgrading the Smithsonian Collection and displaying it. I hope they don't do something stupid like melting them.
On the other hand, I don't like the government's view that something is stolen just because they say so. And regardless of one's personal opinion of the Langbords, in my opinion, no one in this country should have his or her property confiscated by the government without due process of law. And that due process includes that the government has to follow the CAFRA law.
Just my opinion. >>
And a fine opinion it is! Nobody, including the government, is above the law.
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.
Comments
Not a give away.Thinking of "the solution" as reparations might prove helpful to you.
There were some fights over the coins,some quite vigorous:
"In June 1947,Barnard's fight against government confiscation finally came to a head.The two sides agreed only that apart from the two '33 double eagles in the Smithsonian,the rest had been melted,and that the weights had balanced,before and after melting."
"The government's case was backed by reams of official documents and bolstered by an all-star cast of employees who had worked at the Mint in 1933. It contended that the double eagles had been "removed illegally from the vaults," probably replaced with other coins,and that in any event they were not currency,but property of the government."
"Barnard's attorneys countered with a laundry list of arguments that tried to have it all ways:their client had purchased the rare and unusual coin in good faith;it had been minted as currency,"issued as such" and was therefore negotiable and transferable;even if stolen,it was cash,and therefore their client's claim was protected as he had acquired it legitimately;and since the government's weights all balanced,it couldn't have been stolen in the first place."
"On July 22,1947,in Memphis,Tennessee,two weeks after the end of the trial,Judge Marion S. Boyd's decision on United States of America vs. L.G.Barnard was filed.In the jurist's opinion,the facts tilted inexorably toward the State.He found that the 1933 double eagle,never left the mint legally.At no time,opined Judge Boyd,was it "money or currency" but "chattel,or an article of virtu." Thus good title had never passed. The 1933 double eagle,in the view of the court,was now legally illegal:the property of the United States of America,not L.G. Barnard."
"It was a crushing defeat.Barnard considered his options.He might be right but not in the eyes of the law,and perhaps it wasn't worth the mounting costs. He chose not to appeal,but the loss continued to rankle,and Abe Kosoff reported that he later went broke,possibly even insane.On August 13,1947,the Secret Service retrieved the Barnard coin from the District Court Clerk,who had held the coin for the past two years,and forwarded it to Washington,D.C. For Harry J. Stein (Fifth Avenue New York lawyer) it was a similarly devastating defeat-doubly so,as T. James Clarke's coin was also forfeited. His case was dismissed with prejudice on August 26,1947."
from Illegal Tender by David Tripp,p.205.
Doesn't trial precedent mean anything anymore in the court system? Can a lawyer here explain why the Langbord coins should be exempt from confiscation as suffered by Barnard's coin,T. James Clarke's coin,James F. Bell's coin,F.C.C. Boyd's coin,Charles M. Williams' coin,James Stack's coin,Max Barenstein's coin,Colonel James Flanagan's coin,and Louis Eliasberg's coin?
The only 1933 D.E. that escaped seizure in those days was Farouk's coin purchased from Fort Worth,Texas dealer B. Max Mehl.That coin was allowed export to Egypt from the United States because of a mistake by Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the mint.It's February,1944.Didn't she get the memo that ALL the 1933 double eagles,save the two examples in the Smithsonian,were supposed to have been melted almost seven years earlier in 1937? In other words,Ms. Ross,at the least,should have denied the export,but she didn't.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Can a lawyer here explain why the Langbord coins should be exempt from confiscation >>
Haven't you read the thread and the court decision that is linked? The coins were NOT exempt from confiscation. In fact the government did confiscate them, but did so without complying with the procedures required by CAFRA and as a result the government forfeited its right to claim the coins.
CG
<< <i>
<< <i>Can a lawyer here explain why the Langbord coins should be exempt from confiscation >>
Haven't you read the thread and the court decision that is linked? The coins were NOT exempt from confiscation. In fact the government did confiscate them, but did so without complying with the procedures required by CAFRA and as a result the government forfeited its right to claim the coins.
CG >>
Exactly. There's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it and the Mint did it the wrong way. They got a do-over by the lower court in 2009, but the Appeals Court through out the do-over as unlawful.
It may be that the government,meaning the Treasury Department,is suspicious of CAFRA for reason that if the government did comply with provisions of CAFRA they are essentially acknowledging that the 1933 coins are indeed Langbord assets.That CAFRA thing could easily bite the government in the you know what,in other words,and they know it.
The government has been consistent ever since the first confiscations of 1933 D.E.'s occurred,insisting,supported by court decisions,that anyone in possession of 1933 double eagle is in possession of stolen government property,contraband,and therefore has no right to claim the property as theirs.See United States of America vs L.G. Barnard (1947).
This case,LANGBORD ET AL V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ET AL,is important enough to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States and it looks to me like that's where it's going.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Each year thousands of cases from across the country are submitted to the US Supreme Court asking for it to agree to accept the case for review. Each you the US Supreme Court accepts, hears and decides 100 cases or less.
Same situation with Petitions For Rehearing in Court's Of Appeal.
Thus even if the government or the Langbords sought further appellate review of the court of appeal decision, the chance of convincing a reviewing court to accept the case is very small.
I am sure the statistics on cases accepted and denied are published somewhere. If I can find same I will post a further reply.
<< <i>Mr. 1874: <<from Illegal Tender by David Tripp>>
Other than Tripp, are there any coin experts or recognized numismatic researchers who argue that any 1933 Double Eagles were stolen? Before 2000, was Tripp really a well known writer or researcher regarding coins?
Tripp was paid by the Treasury Department for research and testimony regarding 1933 Double Eagles. Were such payments a significant percentage of his income during some years?
If the Fenton case had gone to trial, then Fenton's attorney would have called Q. David Bowers and other experts to argue that it is likely that 1933 Double Eagles were legally obtained. Who would the Treasury Department have called as a witness in 2002 or thereabouts?
Mr. 1874 :<<There were some fights over the coins, some quite vigorous ... >>
This is a very misleading remark by Mr. 1874.
1) The owners of such coins felt they had no choice other than to believe that they were stolen after government officials asserted that they were so.
2) According to www.FOIA.gov, <<Enacted on July 4, 1966, and taking effect one year later, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. >>
So, in the 1940s and the 1950s, the owners of the 1933 Double Eagles could not access many of the records of the Philadelphia Mint. Also, according to R. W. Julian, many such records were destroyed in the 1970s, which may have contained details of perfectly legal distributions of 1933 Double Eagles.
3) More is known to collectors now about the history of the U.S. Mint than was known to collectors in the 1940s and early 1950s. Research by QDB, Breen, R. W. Julian Taxay, RWB, and others shows that collectors obtained coins at face by trading common coins for rarer coins at the Philadelphia Mint. From early March (or even late Feb.) until the middle of April 1933, anyone could have traded a 1928 DE for a 1933 DE. It is likely that such a coin-for-coin exchange would have been considered legal, ethical and routine, by all those involved.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case >>
Is it likely that the Government couldn't have met the burden of proof required to prevail under CAFRA?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Somehow I don't see an offer to monetize the Langbord pieces ever happening if the Langbords are awarded the full enchilada,all ten pieces with the government receiving nothing,except taxes of course,when the pieces are sold.
Big,shiny,expensive gold token residing with the rest of my legitimately issued D.E.'s wouldn't work for me.This collector would want the full blessing of the United States of America for my '33 dated D.E. like the ex Farouk piece enjoys or I wouldn't want it at all.
Alison Frankel's book will soon become a part of my numismatic library.It will be interesting for me to see how much Frankel draws on David Tripp's work since Tripp's book was published before hers.
Thank you,Sanction for the updates on the Langbord case.I'm looking forward to seeing some statistics on Supreme Court acceptance of cases.
My last post in this thread.Have a good day everyone.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>For the Langbord pieces to be considered actual coins or money for exchange they must be declared such by the government.My understanding is that's what "monetization" was about after the ex Farouk piece was auctioned earlier this century.
Somehow I don't see an offer to monetize the Langbord pieces ever happening if the Langbords are awarded the full enchilada,all ten pieces with the government receiving nothing,except taxes of course,when the pieces are sold.
Big,shiny,expensive gold token residing with the rest of my legitimately issued D.E.'s wouldn't work for me.This collector would want the full blessing of the United States of America for my '33 dated D.E. like the ex Farouk piece enjoys or I wouldn't want it at all.
Alison Frankel's book will soon become a part of my numismatic library.It will be interesting for me to see how much Frankel draws on David Tripp's work since Tripp's book was published before hers.
Thank you,Sanction for the updates on the Langbord case.I'm looking forward to seeing some statistics on Supreme Court acceptance of cases.
My last post in this thread.Have a good day everyone. >>
They're already monetized. When the Government gives them back they'll be legal to own. They already confirmed them as authentic.
What does the Government consider the 2 coins in the Smithsonian to be?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Win-win for ALL parties is what "the solution" would do. . . . . .
Since neither the government nor the Langbords is able to PROVE that the coins were stolen,"the solution," in my opinion,would do a pretty good job of fixing it for ALL owners past and present. >>
Mr1874, with all due respect, you have stated that neither the government can prove the coins were stolen, and the Langbords cannot prove they were not stolen.
In our legal system, if the Government cannot prove that the coins were stolen, then the coins were not stolen. There is no middle ground.
If the government claimed that your TV was stolen, but can't prove it, but you can't produce a receipt or canceled check to prove that you own it, then what? You still own it, because the government hasn't proven it was stolen. Same situation here.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
If the government claimed that your TV was stolen, but can't prove it, but you can't produce a receipt or canceled check to prove that you own it, then what? You still own it, because the government hasn't proven it was stolen. Same situation here. >>
A 1933 TV set would be worth a pretty penny!
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Bob
<< <i>I have not read this whole thread. I think that the government makes out more by losing this case then winning it. If they (the government) win the case, then all they have is bullion as they will have to melt the coins. If they lose the case they make more money by collecting taxes when the sale occurs and they also win favor in the court of public opinion because they will be looked on more favorably as being fair, rather then being regimentaly rigid as a totalitarian entity. The coins belong in the numismatic community. However,
Bob >>
I don't think that Treasury cares about the money. This is a holy cause for them, and they must prove that they are RIGHT!
<< <i>I don't think that Treasury cares about the money. This is a holy cause for them, and they must prove that they are RIGHT! >>
Anyone remember the California McMartin case? Sheesh!!!
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>There was no monetization before 1965 because the coins were effectively bullion, the cost and transfer value to the Federal Reserve being fundamentally the same with small variations. >>
I would argue there was no monetization because the law never defined it. Where in the Mint-related legislation is "monetization" defined? They can codify all sorts of acts for commemorative coins and such, but not one word about "monetization" which is arguably a much more important concept than the issuance of some proof or commemorative one-off. "Monetization" is a concept invented by administrative fiat which sounds like a law, but isn't.
As for the issue of bullion, there was seignorage on copper starting in 1793, and Congress never felt the need to define monetization w/respect to copper.
up to 1933 were de-monetized. What is the difference?
These 10 coins were made by the mint and were just as monetized as a common $10 Eagle.
It has already been demonstrated that there was a window where they might have been acquired
by exchanging Double Eagles with other dates. Why would the Mint bother recording such
a transaction? If I go to the bank and exchange a $20 bill for 4 $5 dollar bills does the bank
record the transaction?
Bravo Langbords.
<< <i>Monetization means nothing for the 10 Langbord Double Eagles. All US gold coins minted
up to 1933 were de-monetized. What is the difference?
>>
I'm not sure that they were de-monetized. The only coin that was de-monetized was the trade dollar. Gold coins were called in but never de-monetized as far as I know. They always had a face value.
It should have no applicability to the 1933 double eagles because the term "monetization" and the concept underlying it were invented 62 years after the 1933 double eagles were minted.
Additionally, I remember seeing an ad in an old publication, either The Numismatist or another one, offering a 1933 double eagle for about $900. Has anyone seen this ad? The fact that 1933 double eagles weren't worth millions of dollars probably entered into the owners' decisions not to appeal their losses in court.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
FYI, I was the Accounting Project Manger when the Mint changed over from PeopleSoft to Oracle a few years back. This is not something I thought up or someone told me.
FYI, I was the Accounting Project Manger when the Mint changed over from PeopleSoft to Oracle a few years back. This is not something I thought up or someone told me.
Do you have a number,a guesstimate will do, for how much it cost Uncle SAm to make a $20 gold piece in 1933?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
On Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4," 1933.
See The Ten Leading Topics of 2010
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site:
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Doubles
The advertisement for a 33DE was in a run of Numismatists dated 1938-45. Sadly I lost that entire box to water damage.
Monetization non-withstanding, The question is: " Are they legal to own?".
Anyways - Here is a very good article written in 2011 about the 1933 double eagles.
Bob
The first 1933 D.E.'s were struck March 2,1933.Two days later the Mint Cashier has forty-three of them? Does Burdette explain how this might have happened? Is there a written entry in the daily ledger that supports Burdette's claim? Did a mint employee go to the production room,where the coins are being made,and obtain forty-three of them,literally "hot off the press?" How would this get pulled off by an ordinary mint worker?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Monetization has to do with circulating coinage. It is when the coin changes from Mint inventory held at cost to make, i.e. twelve cents for a quarter to full face value when sold to the Federal Reserve. The Mint has a cage where the coins move from one place to another and then they are "monetized". Otherwise, how do you account for the difference between production cost and sale to the FED?
FYI, I was the Accounting Project Manger when the Mint changed over from PeopleSoft to Oracle a few years back. This is not something I thought up or someone told me. >>
Sounds like something that's been in effect a long time, but never actually mentioned or singled out as such.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Also, on Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette "discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4," 1933.
The first 1933 D.E.'s were struck March 2,1933.Two days later the Mint Cashier has forty-three of them? Does Burdette explain how this might have happened? Is there a written entry in the daily ledger that supports Burdette's claim? Did a mint employee go to the production room,where the coins are being made,and obtain forty-three of them,literally "hot off the press?"
How would this get pulled off by an ordinary mint worker? >>
According to the article linked above Roger Burdette did indeed find written records; he didn't just make that up. Were these the same coins supposedly ordered removed from the vault by the Mint director?
Roger Burdette testified on July 18th. As I discussed in my Dec. 28th column, The Ten Leading Topics of 2010, Burdette discovered documents that show that the “first 1933 Double Eagles were struck March 2nd, during the Hoover administration.” Additionally, documents discovered by Burdette indicate that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4. According to Burdette, these “balanced” the accounting of the production of 1932 Double Eagles as some of the already counted 1932 Double Eagles were determined to be defective and thus replaced with 1933 Double Eagles.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
The daily ledger should show that this happened,if it happened? "Written records?" Where are they? What do they look like?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>According to the article linked above Roger Burdette did indeed find written records; he didn't just make that up. Were these the same coins supposedly ordered removed from the vault by the Mint director?
The daily ledger should show that this happened,if it happened? "Written records?" Where are they? What do they look like? >>
Ask Roger, he posts ATS IIRC.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Without much doubt, I say the gummint appeals. I wouldn't be too surprised if a settlement results now that both sides have seen how they lose it all.
The concept of monetization was an internal one that was not publicized. It stems from the decision of when a coin becomes a coin and not inventory or WIP. The key point is release to the FRB who pays full face value. Before that, it is WIP or finished goods, but held on the books at cost. When coins are moved into the FRB cage, they become monetized and the Mint records them at face value instead of cost. The difference is seniorage. There was no seniorage when coins were comprised of mostly precious metal.
MR1874,
When the 1933 DEs were most likely traded for common DEs, there was a trade of like for like. Back then, the Mint was an appropriated agency and depended upon Congress to vote the funds to operate. FDR paid 20.67 per ounce for gold turned in after May 1, 1933. They contain .9675 ounces of gold. There was no profit to the government from making coins at that time. Thus the concept of monetization and seniorage did not occur until 1965 when the Mint began making clad coins. By then, they were out of the gold coin business, at least temporarily.
<< <i>Bajjerfan,
The concept of monetization was an internal one that was not publicized. It stems from the decision of when a coin becomes a coin and not inventory or WIP. The key point is release to the FRB who pays full face value. Before that, it is WIP or finished goods, but held on the books at cost. When coins are moved into the FRB cage, they become monetized and the Mint records them at face value instead of cost. The difference is seniorage. There was no seniorage when coins were comprised of mostly precious metal.
MR1874,
When the 1933 DEs were most likely traded for common DEs, there was a trade of like for like. Back then, the Mint was an appropriated agency and depended upon Congress to vote the funds to operate. FDR paid 20.67 per ounce for gold turned in after May 1, 1933. They contain .9675 ounces of gold. There was no profit to the government from making coins at that time. Thus the concept of monetization and seniorage did not occur until 1965 when the Mint began making clad coins. By then, they were out of the gold coin business, at least temporarily. >>
Isn't that sorta what I said? It sounds like it was used internally, but little if ever talked about outside the Mint accounting department.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
After doing extensive reading on this case,I would be surprised if there is a settlement forthcoming.The Government has insisted since the '40's that all '33 D.E.'s were stolen and wants to recover all of them currently in existence,the only exception being the ex Farouk piece,of course.
Whether the Government gets to keep the ten disputed 1933 D.E.'s that the Langbord's found in their possession or not,I'm sensing this is an "all or nothing" deal.
If this case gets heard by the United States Supreme Court,the final score will definitely be 10-0.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I don't know what "ATS IIRC" is.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Ask Roger, he posts ATS IIRC.
I don't know what "ATS IIRC" is. >>
He lost his posting privileges here. ATS means Across The Street as in the NGC boards. IIRC is internet shorthand for If I Remember Correctly.
yw
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
If either court chooses to take the case and review the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal then the time period would be extended and the ultimate outcome would remain uncertain.
yw
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>With regard to the timing of possible future events in the case, it appears that if petitions for rehearing en banc to the 3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals and for US Supreme Court review are brought and summarily denied [both court's simply declining to take the case with the result that the 4-17-2015 court of appeal decision becomes final and binding] the case would be finished later this year. Maybe sometime in this summer.
If either court chooses to take the case and review the 4-17-2015 decision of the court of appeal then the time period would be extended and the ultimate outcome would remain uncertain. >>
SanctionII: Does this mean that if the Government fails to file by Monday, June 1st (45 days after the announced decision) that the Government MUST then turn the coins back to the Langbords? Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
If an appeal is denied, and the coins end up back in the hands of the Langbords, the CAFRA protects the Langbords only from future action or all/all future owners? Would the government be able to file suit against a buyer of these coins claiming they are "stolen property" again?
<< <i>Would the government be able to file suit against a buyer of these coins claiming they are "stolen property" again? >>
CAFRA bars the government from bringing another civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same underlying offense.
CG
As a tax-paying citizen of the United States,I'm partial owner of the "our property" as are all Americans.Each and every Americans has an interest in the ten 1933 D.E.'s that were discovered by the Langbords to be in their possession.Am I and other Americans being faithfully and dutifully served when Government entities get away with sitting on their thumbs when they should be dealing with matters efficiently as they can?
The majority opinion of the Third District Court of Appeals holds that Government needs to,in fact,is "ordered" to, give up the 10 1933 D.E.'s to the Langbords.There's something wrong here.We have a dinky trial by three appeals court judges, trumping the big trial,the 10-day trial by jury,LANGBORD et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al.
Three-judge panel is too small for one thing.Five-judge panel would be much,much better.Then it would take three,not two,judges to uphold a verdict.
Vacate the decision of the trial court over a "technicality?" It's a slap in the face,an insult, to the jurists who heard the case in the first place,in my opinion.
These are vexing questions to me.Maybe if individuals in the Government were made responsible to the point of having strong penalties imposed upon them for not doing their job properly,we would see some progress as measured by speedier trials,less money wasted,and more satisfactory outcomes in general for both Defendants and Plaintiffs.
Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess.Felix Frankfurter
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Whatever the government decision making process was, the government chose not to file. The Langbords sued and in 2009 prevailed in motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that the government violated the Langbords' rights (including certain constitutional rights). The trial court remedy for the violation of the Langbords' rights was an order that required the government to file a CAFRA forfeiture action. The trial court declined to apply the CAFRA death penalty to the government, reasoning that a "mulligan" or a "do over" was appropriate due to the government's "misguided legal strategy".
During the time I have practiced law I have never seen a court give a party a mulligan or do over based upon a "misguided legal strategy".
The court of appeal disagreed with the decision of the trial court to give the government a mulligan or do over. The court of appeal decided that the CAFRA death penalty applies, requiring that the 10 double eagles be returned to the Langbords and that the government be barred from claiming same. The court of appeal decided that the trial that took place in the trial court should never have taken place.
If the government does not seek further appellate review then after the court of appeal decision becomes final, the case would return to the trial court. Once back in the trial court the trial judge would issue an new judgment that complies with the decision of the court of appeal.
I do not know what administrative regulations exist that would apply to this case to set a deadline for the government to return the 10 coins to the Langbords.
The government could voluntarily return the 10 double eagles to the Langbords, or it could delay further and refuse to do so.
In that case the trial court judge could issue follow up orders to compel the return of the coins, including the issuance of a Writ Of Possession directed at the appropriate US Marshal's office to go to where the coins are located [Fort Knox?] to take possession of the coins and deliver them to the Langbords.
No one alive today has personal, first hand, knowledge of how the 10 double eagles left the mint and ended up in the possession of the Langbords. There is speculation about how the 10 coins left the mint, but the facts of how they actually left is a mystery that will never be known.
So the decade long legal fight over these 10 coins has involved legal tactics and strategies, decisions by both sides on how to proceed, legal actions filed, prosecuted, defended and appealed. The parties conducted a jury trial at which documents and testimony were introduced into evidence [over strenuous objections] and a decision in favor of the government was made by the jury. The trial court also found in favor of the government on a separate claim that was not tried before the jury. The court of appeal decision commented on the introduction of documentary evidence at trial in violation of hearsay rules [and indicated this was a problem, but that the it did not have to reach and decide same given its decision to apply the CAFRA death penalty].
Did the government prove its case with legally admissible evidence? Maybe, or maybe not. At this point in time the decision of the court of appeal makes that question moot. If the case eventually makes it further into the appellate court system and ends up back in the trial court for a new trial [with instruction from an appellate court on the claim that the trial court improperly admitted evidence at trial which should have been excluded] would the government be able to prove its case with admissible evidence? Maybe, or maybe not.
This has been one of the most active threads on the Langbords lawsuit. Interesting to see the comments and opinions expressed herein.
Future events will play out and no doubt more comments and opinions will be made. Had this all happened 20 years ago the exchange of information on this case presented on the Forums would not be.
Thanks PCGS For hosting the US Coin Forum. It is an updated version of the office watercooler.
The reason the government lost in the Appeals Court is that they didn't follow the law regarding what they had to do in order to reacquire the property they allege was stolen. If you want to call this a technicality, then so be it.
As has been said many times in this thread, no one alive knows how or when the 1933 double eagles left the Mint. However, there was a "window of opportunity" during which they could have left the Mint legally. Furthermore, we know that in 1933, one double eagle was considered equal to another. And we know that when the 1933 double eagles were melted, the gold obtained was exactly the amount that was expected.
I am a taxpayer also, and I don't relish the Government giving up the double eagles, as they could be considered a national treasure. Should the government win in the end, I hope they auction them and use the proceeds for something numismatically useful, like upgrading the Smithsonian Collection and displaying it. I hope they don't do something stupid like melting them.
On the other hand, I don't like the government's view that something is stolen just because they say so. And regardless of one's personal opinion of the Langbords, in my opinion, no one in this country should have his or her property confiscated by the government without due process of law. And that due process includes that the government has to follow the CAFRA law.
Just my opinion.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Try not filing your taxes until 4 years and 9 months after they are due. Then blame a "misguided accounting strategy". Wonder whether the judge will give you a "mulligan" or "do over"?
The reason the government lost in the Appeals Court is that they didn't follow the law regarding what they had to do in order to reacquire the property they allege was stolen. If you want to call this a technicality, then so be it.
As has been said many times in this thread, no one alive knows how or when the 1933 double eagles left the Mint. However, there was a "window of opportunity" during which they could have left the Mint legally. Furthermore, we know that in 1933, one double eagle was considered equal to another. And we know that when the 1933 double eagles were melted, the gold obtained was exactly the amount that was expected.
I am a taxpayer also, and I don't relish the Government giving up the double eagles, as they could be considered a national treasure. Should the government win in the end, I hope they auction them and use the proceeds for something numismatically useful, like upgrading the Smithsonian Collection and displaying it. I hope they don't do something stupid like melting them.
On the other hand, I don't like the government's view that something is stolen just because they say so. And regardless of one's personal opinion of the Langbords, in my opinion, no one in this country should have his or her property confiscated by the government without due process of law. And that due process includes that the government has to follow the CAFRA law.
Just my opinion. >>
And a fine opinion it is! Nobody, including the government, is above the law.