Nice summation TPRC. I would support a new trial. Let's leave out the hearsay and have a new trial. We can even leave out facts like Izzy being caught in violation of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934.Story of Izzy at train station struggling with heavy suitcase....Authorities notice this (Izzy must have been under surveillance) and catch Izzy with $2000 face value in gold coin.Leave the story out at trial since it doesn't really matter who the thief or thieves are. Smart jury will figure this out.
This is what Uncle Sam is going to be hanging his hat on in a second trial:
Using Mint records from 1933-34,which still exist today,it is possible to show that not a single 1933 double eagle was lawfully traded for by a member of the public at the Mint window.
Olive branch extended here to Langbords would possibly save Langbords another loss at trial. $1M reward offered by government and accepted by Langbords to settle the case?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Just waiting for these coins to be properly graded by the authorities on grading. Four grandkids later.
Other than the pocket piece which NGC did not give a straight grade (looks au,not cleaned,to me),grading of the pieces seems fine to me.The NGC MS66 (gem unc.),the nicest piece,is correctly graded,in my opinion.No way should this piece get bumped up or down in grade number from any other TPG,in my opinion.
Looking at the other eight pieces,the NGC number grades of these other pieces should line up very closely with what PCGS would assign.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Just waiting for these coins to be properly graded by the authorities on grading. Four grandkids later.
Other than the pocket piece which NGC did not give a straight grade (looks au,not cleaned,to me),grading of the pieces seems fine to me.The NGC MS66 (gem unc.),the nicest piece,is correctly graded,in my opinion.No way should this piece get bumped up or down in grade number from any other TPG,in my opinion.
Looking at the other eight pieces,the NGC number grades of these other pieces should line up very closely with what PCGS would assign. >>
Unfortunately you're not the authority on grading or the law, obviously. But I digress.
<< Just waiting for these coins to be properly graded by the authorities on grading. Four grandkids later.
Other than the pocket piece which NGC did not give a straight grade (looks au,not cleaned,to me),grading of the pieces seems fine to me.The NGC MS66 (gem unc.),the nicest piece,is correctly graded,in my opinion.No way should this piece get bumped up or down in grade number from any other TPG,in my opinion.
Looking at the other eight pieces,the NGC number grades of these other pieces should line up very closely with what PCGS would assign. >>
TwoSides: Unfortunately you're not the authority on grading or the law, obviously. But I digress.
How about digressing to your opinion about the grades of "the Coins" instead of your opinion about me not being an authority on grading or the law? What is your considered opinion of the grades of "the Coins?" Does the NGC MS 66 deserve its assigned grade,in your opinion? What is your opinion about the grade of the pocketpiece? My opinion is that it should have straight graded by NGC. Its AU 55 or so,in my opinion.
Do you have an opinion about a reward for the Langbords?
My opinion is that Izzy would have been smart to establish "ownership" of "the Coins" by forging a receipt and leaving the bogus receipt with "the Coins" found in the safe deposit box. Use paper made in the '30's for the receipt. Hastily hand-written receipt with no signature of any Mint official,dated April 3,1933 (Monday) would have worked better for the Langbords to win "the Coins" than the export license worked for Fenton for the ex Farouk piece. Government would never be able to prove that a well-executed forged receipt found with "the Coins" is,in fact,a forgery.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
TwoSides: My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
In re Garza, 984 S.W.2d 344, 347 (Tex. App. 1998), Texas court has held that “Despite the old saying that "possession is 9/10ths of the law," mere possession and whatever right to the property that comes with mere possession does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 12-13 (1962); R. BOYER, SURVEY OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 679-80 (1981). In other words, there is a hierarchy of ownership, as reflected both in the common law and § 1.07(35)(a) of the Penal Code. One in possession of chattel has a greater right to it than one who lacks both possession and title. Yet, one who has title maintains a greater right over the chattel than 1) one who simply has possession and 2) one who has neither possession nor claim of ownership. Id. Indeed, it can be said that the title owner has the greatest rights to the property. With that greatest right comes the power to negate the authority of those with lesser right. Similarly, those who stand in the lesser position lack the power to override or negate the rights of the title owner.”
<< <i>TwoSides: My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
Are you suggesting that the Langbords are being treated unfairly by our government? >>
No. I am suggesting that the holders of the coins ( Grubmint ..or "the corporation of such" ) confiscated their property, albeit underhandedly , then had an entity (TPG; another corporation) grade them, even though they're not legitimate (the coins) , by their ( Treasury's ) own admission. So why would such a corporation have them "encapsulated and graded" ? Loopholes are one thing. Ignorance is another. I would suggest one is punching holes and one is ignorant. No need to point fingers, though. If the shoe fits.
<< TwoSides: My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
Are you suggesting that the Langbords are being treated unfairly by our government? >>
No. I am suggesting that the holders of the coins ( Grubmint ..or "the corporation of such" ) confiscated their property, albeit underhandedly , then had an entity (TPG; another corporation) grade them, even though they're not legitimate (the coins) , by their ( Treasury's ) own admission. So why would such a corporation have them "encapsulated and graded" ? Loopholes are one thing. Ignorance is another. I would suggest one is punching holes and one is ignorant. No need to point fingers, though. If the shoe fits.
My understanding is that grading was very much a secondary reason for having the pieces encapsulated by NGC in their museum quality,recloseable holder.The ten pieces of chattel aka the Langbord 10,the Ft. Knox 10,the "Coins" (first used by Barry Berke in a letter to the Mint,September 21,2004) are evidence as far as the government is concerned. By encapsulating you get quick and easy identification of the ten pieces of chattel.
AGE's are graded and encapsulated. AGE's aren't coins either?
I really don't see that any harm was done to the Langbords by the government having it's evidence ("the Coins") encapsulated and given unique numbers
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>My understanding is that grading was very much a secondary reason for having the pieces encapsulated by NGC in their museum quality,recloseable holder. >>
Sanction,how about a name for this thread like "Langbords win pt.2?" This way it will show up with your epic "Langbords win" thread when searched by scholars.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>My understanding is that grading was very much a secondary reason for having the pieces encapsulated by NGC in their museum quality,recloseable holder. >>
The NGC slab is recloseable? >>
I've opened a few, but they certainly were in no shape to re-close.
"AGE's are graded and encapsulated. AGE's aren't coins either?"
I thought that these would be considered coins, albeit NCLT (non-circulating legal tender).
Is anyone here planning on attending the hearing in Philadelphia next Wednesday? If you are planning on attending the hearing, would you be willing to provide us some detail of what takes place? I know a number of members here would appreciate it. Please comment. Thanks. Steve
I'm for the winners…. and may the good Lord bless the descendants of Israel Switt, just the same as the day draws nigh. If he was a thief, he was a good thief. From bad comes a few good books, and the old law books , as well as our thoughts or views kept many of us occupied with numismatics, the hobby, economics, law, government, science, math, and most of all, the doors of communication still swinging on hinges in the coin world. That's good, isn't it ?
TODAY IS THE DAY FOR THE REHEARING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS!!!
If the OP or anyone interested in the Langbord case has access to the information, PLEASE post it to this thread or link the information here. Thank you, Steve >>
Hi again, Am I the only one here who is wondering why we haven't heard ANYTHING about the rehearing in the LANGBORD case? It was scheduled for today, right? If it was postponed or cancelled, can someone please let us know. Thanks. Steve
Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
<< <i>Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet. >>
Under which statute? I don't remember seeing it in the CAFRA stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. This also does not look good for the Langboards if the government preserved the argument below or else I doubt the waiver language would be there.
<< <i>Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet. >>
Under which statute? I don't remember seeing it in the CAFRA stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. This also does not look good for the Langboards if the government preserved the argument below or else I doubt the waiver language would be there.
I have not read the most resent filings, so I am not sure where these questions are coming from. However, based on what the court is asking, I think it is good news for the Langbords. Based on the questions the court is asking, my interpretation on what is going on is that the government is mow making an argument that there is a distinction between Merchandise and a Monetary Instruments under CAFRA, (although after reading CAFRA I don't see the relevance that distinction would have on this case) and now the government is saying the double eagles should be considered Monetary instruments. The court is also asking, for arguments asking if the government waited to long before making that argument.
If the government is in fact now making the argument that the coins are "monetary instruments" that would truly be amazing, since they had previously made that stupid argument about them not being Monetized.
I am anxiously watching for the audio of yesterday's oral arguments to be posted in this case. I am just speculating based on the questions above, but after we hear the audio of the arguments, it should be clear what the court was getting at with these questions.
<< <i>Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet. >>
Under which statute? I don't remember seeing it in the CAFRA stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. This also does not look good for the Langboards if the government preserved the argument below or else I doubt the waiver language would be there.
I have not read the most resent filings, so I am not sure where these questions are coming from. However, based on what the court is asking, I think it is good news for the Langbords. Based on the questions the court is asking, my interpretation on what is going on is that the government is mow making an argument that there is a distinction between Merchandise and a Monetary Instruments under CAFRA, (although after reading CAFRA I don't see the relevance that distinction would have on this case) and now the government is saying the double eagles should be considered Monetary instruments. The court is also asking, for arguments asking if the government waited to long before making that argument.
If the government is in fact now making the argument that the coins are "monetary instruments" that would truly be amazing, since they had previously made that stupid argument about them not being Monetized.
I am anxiously watching for the audio of yesterday's oral arguments to be posted in this case. I am just speculating based on the questions above, but after we hear the audio of the arguments, it should be clear what the court was getting at with these questions. >>
From my initial read, you are correct, Tom. However, I don't think the government is arguing that the coins are monetary instruments. Instead, they argue that they are merchandise valued at more than $500,000.
Here is how the government couched the inquiry:
The government responds to the Court’s letter dated October 9, 2015, advising the parties to address (1) whether the 1933 Double Eagle coins should be considered “merchandise” under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(1) or “monetary instruments” under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(4), and the relevance of that determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 and 18 U.S.C. § 981(d); and (2) whether the government waived this argument on appeal. The government here explains that that the gold pieces were neither merchandise valued at or under $500,000, nor monetary instruments, and therefore the government could not forfeit them in a nonjudicial (administrative) forfeiture proceeding. Moreover, the argument has not been waived.
And here is how the Langbord's described the inquiry:
Issue #1. The Court first asks “whether the 1933 Double Eagle coins in this case should be considered ‘monetary instruments’ under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(4) or other ‘merchandise’ under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607(a)(1) and 1401(c), and the implications of that determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 and 18 U.S.C. § 981(d).”
Issue #2. The Court further asks whether the government waived the argument identified in Issue #1, citing John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. V. CIGNA Int’l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1076 n.6 (3d Cir. 1997).
I do worry that the third circuit has seen a way around the entire CAFRA issue, but is concerned that it was not properly addressed.
Comments
This is what Uncle Sam is going to be hanging his hat on in a second trial:
Using Mint records from 1933-34,which still exist today,it is possible to show that not a single 1933 double eagle was lawfully traded for by a member of the public at the Mint window.
Olive branch extended here to Langbords would possibly save Langbords another loss at trial. $1M reward offered by government and accepted by Langbords to settle the case?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Why hasn't the Treasury Department offered a reward to the Langbords for finding its stolen property? Is there a legal reason why they haven't?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I would like to hear an opinion from a lawyer on this question:
Why hasn't the Treasury Department offered a reward to the Langbords for finding its stolen property? Is there a legal reason why they haven't? >>
Offering a reward for returning stolen/lost property is optional on the part of the receiving party.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Other than the pocket piece which NGC did not give a straight grade (looks au,not cleaned,to me),grading of the pieces seems fine to me.The NGC MS66 (gem unc.),the nicest piece,is correctly graded,in my opinion.No way should this piece get bumped up or down in grade number from any other TPG,in my opinion.
Looking at the other eight pieces,the NGC number grades of these other pieces should line up very closely with what PCGS would assign.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Just waiting for these coins to be properly graded by the authorities on grading. Four grandkids later.
Other than the pocket piece which NGC did not give a straight grade (looks au,not cleaned,to me),grading of the pieces seems fine to me.The NGC MS66 (gem unc.),the nicest piece,is correctly graded,in my opinion.No way should this piece get bumped up or down in grade number from any other TPG,in my opinion.
Looking at the other eight pieces,the NGC number grades of these other pieces should line up very closely with what PCGS would assign. >>
Unfortunately you're not the authority on grading or the law, obviously. But I digress.
Other than the pocket piece which NGC did not give a straight grade (looks au,not cleaned,to me),grading of the pieces seems fine to me.The NGC MS66 (gem unc.),the nicest piece,is correctly graded,in my opinion.No way should this piece get bumped up or down in grade number from any other TPG,in my opinion.
Looking at the other eight pieces,the NGC number grades of these other pieces should line up very closely with what PCGS would assign. >>
TwoSides:
Unfortunately you're not the authority on grading or the law, obviously. But I digress.
How about digressing to your opinion about the grades of "the Coins" instead of your opinion about me not being an authority on grading or the law? What is your considered opinion of the grades of "the Coins?" Does the NGC MS 66 deserve its assigned grade,in your opinion? What is your opinion about the grade of the pocketpiece? My opinion is that it should have straight graded by NGC. Its AU 55 or so,in my opinion.
Do you have an opinion about a reward for the Langbords?
My opinion is that Izzy would have been smart to establish "ownership" of "the Coins" by forging a receipt and leaving the bogus receipt with "the Coins" found in the safe deposit box. Use paper made in the '30's for the receipt. Hastily hand-written receipt with no signature of any Mint official,dated April 3,1933 (Monday) would have worked better for the Langbords to win "the Coins" than the export license worked for Fenton for the ex Farouk piece. Government would never be able to prove that a well-executed forged receipt found with "the Coins" is,in fact,a forgery.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
In re Garza, 984 S.W.2d 344, 347 (Tex. App. 1998), Texas court has held that “Despite the old saying that "possession is 9/10ths of the law," mere possession and whatever right to the property that comes with mere possession does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 12-13 (1962); R. BOYER, SURVEY OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 679-80 (1981). In other words, there is a hierarchy of ownership, as reflected both in the common law and § 1.07(35)(a) of the Penal Code. One in possession of chattel has a greater right to it than one who lacks both possession and title. Yet, one who has title maintains a greater right over the chattel than 1) one who simply has possession and 2) one who has neither possession nor claim of ownership. Id. Indeed, it can be said that the title owner has the greatest rights to the property. With that greatest right comes the power to negate the authority of those with lesser right. Similarly, those who stand in the lesser position lack the power to override or negate the rights of the title owner.”
definitions.uslegal.com
Are you suggesting that the Langbords are being treated unfairly by our government?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>TwoSides:
My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
Are you suggesting that the Langbords are being treated unfairly by our government? >>
No. I am suggesting that the holders of the coins ( Grubmint ..or "the corporation of such" ) confiscated their property, albeit underhandedly , then had an entity (TPG; another corporation) grade them, even though they're not legitimate (the coins) , by their ( Treasury's ) own admission. So why would such a corporation have them "encapsulated and graded" ? Loopholes are one thing. Ignorance is another. I would suggest one is punching holes and one is ignorant. No need to point fingers, though. If the shoe fits.
My opinion is " possession is 9/10 ths of the law. And since an entity which grades legitimate coins got it wrong since they're not legitimate, yet, then they're not gradeable. Mr 1874.
Are you suggesting that the Langbords are being treated unfairly by our government? >>
No. I am suggesting that the holders of the coins ( Grubmint ..or "the corporation of such" ) confiscated their property, albeit underhandedly , then had an entity (TPG; another corporation) grade them, even though they're not legitimate (the coins) , by their ( Treasury's ) own admission. So why would such a corporation have them "encapsulated and graded" ? Loopholes are one thing. Ignorance is another. I would suggest one is punching holes and one is ignorant. No need to point fingers, though. If the shoe fits.
My understanding is that grading was very much a secondary reason for having the pieces encapsulated by NGC in their museum quality,recloseable holder.The ten pieces of chattel aka the Langbord 10,the Ft. Knox 10,the "Coins" (first used by Barry Berke in a letter to the Mint,September 21,2004) are evidence as far as the government is concerned. By encapsulating you get quick and easy identification of the ten pieces of chattel.
AGE's are graded and encapsulated. AGE's aren't coins either?
I really don't see that any harm was done to the Langbords by the government having it's evidence ("the Coins") encapsulated and given unique numbers
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
And I would happily work a 40 hour week for $5 per hour and get paid 4 $50 Gold American Eagles. That's $200 face value (aggregate) in "money".
<< <i>My understanding is that grading was very much a secondary reason for having the pieces encapsulated by NGC in their museum quality,recloseable holder. >>
The NGC slab is recloseable?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Sanction,how about a name for this thread like "Langbords win pt.2?" This way it will show up with your epic "Langbords win" thread when searched by scholars.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>My understanding is that grading was very much a secondary reason for having the pieces encapsulated by NGC in their museum quality,recloseable holder. >>
The NGC slab is recloseable?
I've opened a few, but they certainly were in no shape to re-close.
"AGE's are graded and encapsulated. AGE's aren't coins either?"
I thought that these would be considered coins, albeit NCLT (non-circulating legal tender).
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
There are now 23 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now 22 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
There are now 21 days!
<< <i>
<< <i>
Thanks Richard.
There are now 20 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
>>
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>I wonder how many months will pass after the hearing before a decision is made...... Cheers, RickO >>
I wonder how many threads will be created before resolution since the original Langbord's Win thread......Cheers, TopoO
<< <i>
There are now 16 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now 13 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
A little early, but what the heck!
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now 12 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now 9 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>
There are now just 7 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now just 6 days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now just 5 (FIVE) days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now just 4 (FOUR) days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Thanks PCGS for the updated coin forum. Let's all support this upgrade and help work thru the transition.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Good luck to them, (Not the government!)
BHNC #203
<< <i>
There are now just 3 (THREE) days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There are now just 2 (TWO) days until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>
There is now just 1 (ONE) day until the rehearing by the court of appeals.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Tom
What time is the hearing scheduled for?
Anyone know when the audio will be posted?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
TODAY IS THE DAY FOR THE REHEARING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS!!!
If the OP or anyone interested in the Langbord case has access to the information, PLEASE post it to this thread or link the information here.
Thank you, Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Am I the only one here who is wondering why we haven't heard ANYTHING about the rehearing in the LANGBORD case? It was scheduled for today, right? If it was postponed or cancelled, can someone please let us know. Thanks.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet.
Tom
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet. >>
Under which statute? I don't remember seeing it in the CAFRA stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. This also does not look good for the Langboards if the government preserved the argument below or else I doubt the waiver language would be there.
When the audio is ready, the court will post it here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings .
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet. >>
Under which statute? I don't remember seeing it in the CAFRA stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. This also does not look good for the Langboards if the government preserved the argument below or else I doubt the waiver language would be there.
When the audio is ready, the court will post it here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings . >>
I have not read the most resent filings, so I am not sure where these questions are coming from. However, based on what the court is asking, I think it is good news for the Langbords. Based on the questions the court is asking, my interpretation on what is going on is that the government is mow making an argument that there is a distinction between Merchandise and a Monetary Instruments under CAFRA, (although after reading CAFRA I don't see the relevance that distinction would have on this case) and now the government is saying the double eagles should be considered Monetary instruments. The court is also asking, for arguments asking if the government waited to long before making that argument.
If the government is in fact now making the argument that the coins are "monetary instruments" that would truly be amazing, since they had previously made that stupid argument about them not being Monetized.
I am anxiously watching for the audio of yesterday's oral arguments to be posted in this case. I am just speculating based on the questions above, but after we hear the audio of the arguments, it should be clear what the court was getting at with these questions.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, the argument took place, as there is a minute entry on Pacer reflecting it.
"ARGUED on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Panel: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, SLOVITER and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. Barry H. Berke arguing for Appellants David Langbord and Joan Langbord; Robert A. Zauzmer arguing for Appellee United States of America. (TLG)"
There were also supplemental letter briefs submitted by the parties at the request of the third circuit, which asked the parties to respond to two questions: (1) Whether the double eagles should be considered "merchandise" or "monetary instruments" under the statute and the relevance of that determination; and (2) Whether the government waived that argument. Interesting, but I'm not sure I can glean much from that (though the concept of "waiver" by failing to make a necessary argument is always scary to lawyers.)
Cannot find an audio yet. >>
Under which statute? I don't remember seeing it in the CAFRA stuff, but I haven't read it in a long time. This also does not look good for the Langboards if the government preserved the argument below or else I doubt the waiver language would be there.
When the audio is ready, the court will post it here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings . >>
I have not read the most resent filings, so I am not sure where these questions are coming from. However, based on what the court is asking, I think it is good news for the Langbords. Based on the questions the court is asking, my interpretation on what is going on is that the government is mow making an argument that there is a distinction between Merchandise and a Monetary Instruments under CAFRA, (although after reading CAFRA I don't see the relevance that distinction would have on this case) and now the government is saying the double eagles should be considered Monetary instruments. The court is also asking, for arguments asking if the government waited to long before making that argument.
If the government is in fact now making the argument that the coins are "monetary instruments" that would truly be amazing, since they had previously made that stupid argument about them not being Monetized.
I am anxiously watching for the audio of yesterday's oral arguments to be posted in this case. I am just speculating based on the questions above, but after we hear the audio of the arguments, it should be clear what the court was getting at with these questions. >>
From my initial read, you are correct, Tom. However, I don't think the government is arguing that the coins are monetary instruments. Instead, they argue that they are merchandise valued at more than $500,000.
Here is how the government couched the inquiry:
The government responds to the Court’s letter dated October 9, 2015,
advising the parties to address (1) whether the 1933 Double Eagle coins should be
considered “merchandise” under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(1) or “monetary
instruments” under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(4), and the relevance of that
determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 and 18 U.S.C. § 981(d); and (2) whether the
government waived this argument on appeal. The government here explains that
that the gold pieces were neither merchandise valued at or under $500,000, nor
monetary instruments, and therefore the government could not forfeit them in a
nonjudicial (administrative) forfeiture proceeding. Moreover, the argument has
not been waived.
And here is how the Langbord's described the inquiry:
Issue #1. The Court first asks “whether the 1933 Double Eagle coins in this
case should be considered ‘monetary instruments’ under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(4) or
other ‘merchandise’ under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607(a)(1) and 1401(c), and the implications
of that determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 and 18 U.S.C. § 981(d).”
Issue #2. The Court further asks whether the government waived the
argument identified in Issue #1, citing John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. V. CIGNA Int’l Corp.,
119 F.3d 1070, 1076 n.6 (3d Cir. 1997).
I do worry that the third circuit has seen a way around the entire CAFRA issue, but is concerned that it was not properly addressed.
Tom
When do we hear the decision?
BHNC #203