cameonut2011 wrote: The coins are obviously extremely valuable, and my guess is that the government has plans to sell them and keep the money. If not, I don't see any real reason for them to care above and beyond the gold melt value.
Government cares on principle. Government endeavors to protect our nation's money from thieves and swindlers. As I see it,that's the reason government cares.
If you believe US attorney Jane Levine,you wouldn't guess that the government has plans to do anything with "the Coins" other than to sock 'em away in the Smithsonian. I think having a national lottery for "the Coins," given a government win of course,is viable and would be a boon,a wonderful thing, for the hobby of coin collecting. Also,many Americans,not just coin collectors,could benefit from the government's proceeds from the lottery.
I suggest the government keep only one of the ten pieces for itself, the pocket piece. The pocket piece would go with the other two '33 doubles that Cashier George McCann sent to the Smithsonian in October,1934.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If CAFRA applies (A BIG IF, WHICH MAY END UP BEING DECIDED BY THE US SUPREME COURT) then what is the consequence of the government violating same?
Given all the confusion about whether CAFRA applies or not,the government should not be penalized,ie. not suffer any consequences.
The legal system is obviously flawed in fundamental ways otherwise we wouldn't be discussing whether CAFRA applies ten years after the civil action was initiated by the Langbords.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The coins are obviously extremely valuable, and my guess is that the government has plans to sell them and keep the money. If not, I don't see any real reason for them to care above and beyond the gold melt value.
Government cares on principle. Government endeavors to protect our nation's money from thieves and swindlers. As I see it,that's the reason government cares.
If you believe US attorney Jane Levine,you wouldn't guess that the government has plans to do anything with "the Coins" other than to sock 'em away in the Smithsonian. I think having a national lottery for "the Coins," given a government win of course,is viable and would be a boon,a wonderful thing, for the hobby of coin collecting. Also,many Americans,not just coin collectors,could benefit from the government's proceeds from the lottery.
I suggest the government keep only one of the ten pieces for itself, the pocket piece. The pocket piece would go with the other two '33 doubles that Cashier George McCann sent to the Smithsonian in October,1934.
The Government doesn't really care what you [or I] think.
Interesting post by Mr. 1874, particularly his comment that the government should not be penalized.
The government (Congress, the Legislative Branch) passed CAFRA after it went through the legislative process. The government (President Clinton as the head of the Executive Branch) signed CAFRA into law. The government (the federal courts, representing the Judicial Branch) is functioning in this case as it is designed to function (the legal system is not flawed since it is hearing and deciding the dispute in the Langbord case).
Multiple governmental agencies took the position that a forfeiture action should be commenced by the government after the Langbord family turned the 10 double eagles over to the government for the purpose of authenticating them. Only the mint disagreed. An intentional, conscious decision was made by the government to not initiate a forfeiture proceeding.
Notwithstanding the above, Mr. 1874 believes that even if it is finally determined by the courts (the En Banc panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal or possibly the US Supreme Court) that CAFRA applies, the government should suffer no consequences and should not be penalized.
His stated rationale for his position is that there is confusion over whether CAFRA applies and that the legal system is flawed.
Thus, he believes that notwithstanding the three branches of the federal government acting in the manner that they are empowered by the constitution to act (passing, enacting and judicially interpreting and applying CAFRA), the government should be given a pass and should not be subject to complying with the rules that it created.
I respect the decisions of the court and our system. We have to face one hurdle as court jesters. It's the Hobby of Kings. So who's Farouk 'ing to blame ? A coin dealer or the minter of the coins ?
SanctionII wrote: Notwithstanding the above, Mr. 1874 believes that even if it is finally determined by the courts (the En Banc panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal or possibly the US Supreme Court) that CAFRA applies, the government should suffer no consequences and should not be penalized.
His stated rationale for his position is that there is confusion over whether CAFRA applies and that the legal system is flawed.
Thus, he believes that notwithstanding the three branches of the federal government acting in the manner that they are empowered by the constitution to act (passing, enacting and judicially interpreting and applying CAFRA), the government should be given a pass and should not be subject to complying with the rules that it created.
My shorthand style of writing sometimes causes the reader to lose their way on reading my remarks. Who are you going to punish? The government is made up of individuals. "We the people" is the government to me.The lawmakers,a subset of We the People,are charged with making our nation's laws. When I say the legal system is flawed I am saying this:It is a flawed legal system that makes a law (CAFRA) that cannot be understood by most attorneys and judges. I read through the thing awhile back. CAFRA looks to me like a deliberate attempt to confuse even most careful reader. I expect that attorneys and judges are the most careful of readers. My opinion is that a law that is written to confuse even the most careful of readers,the attorneys and judges,is a bad law,as written, and should be repealed. Your idea that this case could get to the Supreme Court on the CAFRA issues is intriguing.IF it could only happen.The case goes big time. Supreme Court MUST put blame on the government for CAFRA. Punishment is you,the Treasury Department of the government,have to give "the Coins" to the Langbords even though we know they were stolen from us,We the People. I would be okay with this as a "consequence" for the government.Goverment loses,Langbords Win say the headlines.CAFRA gets a pass anything short of being heard by SCOTUS. Someone needs to raise hell in Congress about CAFRA and how inadequate a legal tool it is.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Saying CAFRA is confusing or difficult to understand is just an excuse. The IRS code is much more confusing and difficult to understand, and no one is saying let's not comply with it because it is confusing and difficult to understand.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Originally posted by: RichieURich Saying CAFRA is confusing or difficult to understand is just an excuse. The IRS code is much more confusing and difficult to understand, and no one is saying let's not comply with it because it is confusing and difficult to understand.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions.
The best argument for the Langbords is as follows:
Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations.
I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens. I am slightly encouraged by the fact that at least initially, 3 judges ruled this way. However, I do not know if those 3 judges were on the en banc panel.
Of course, there are many other arguments and sub-arguments and nuances. BTW, I read an article from a Jewelry group or blog covering this case, and the article indicated that a decision is expected within a month. No idea how or why anyone would know that and with en banc hearings, I think it is pure conjecture and I think it is anyone's guess, but it is in print somewhere.
(2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
With this revelation comes my asking this: Why then did Berke speak of 'the Coins as being so extremely valuable,worth millions of dollars,in his letters to the Mint? Didn't he kind of "cook his own (and the Langbord's) goose" at the Mint by comparing the ten 1933 doubles the Langbords discovered to the great numismatic rarities?
Wouldn't stating a more modest valuation for 'the Coins' have been more useful for the Langbords ,say bullion value +$50 for each piece?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
Well,the new information is that government,albeit in an indirect and tedius way,did the right thing by not filing the forfeiture action because it turns out that CAFRA doesn't apply.See TPRC's post about this.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Originally posted by: mr1874 (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
With this revelation comes my asking this: Why then did Berke speak of 'the Coins as being so extremely valuable,worth millions of dollars,in his letters to the Mint? Didn't he kind of "cook his own (and the Langbord's) goose" at the Mint by comparing the ten 1933 doubles the Langbords discovered to the great numismatic rarities?
Wouldn't stating a more modest valuation for 'the Coins' have been more useful for the Langbords ,say bullion value +$50 for each piece?
I don't think so, Mr1874, for reasons stated in his letter brief to the court during the week of the en banc argument. Plus, facts are facts. I think there is a risk that the government erred and waived an important argument as evidenced by the third circuit asking the parties to address the monetary instrument or other merchandise issue and to address whether the government waived an argument on appeal (by failing to raise it during the trial, I presume). I don't like to see cases decided on waiver issues like the one raised by the panel, and I confess I don't know the waiver argument that well, but again, the facts are the facts and I trust that the panel will do the right thing there.
TPRC wrote: The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding. I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions. The best argument for the Langbords is as follows: Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations. I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens.
I was recently reading about repleven. Is that a remedy available to the government? Also,what punishments can actually be meted out to "the government" if found guilty of violating the dictates of CAFRA,a law which we have recently learned does not apply in the Langbord case for reasons stated earlier?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
You said------I was recently reading about repleven. Is that a remedy available to the government? Also,what punishments can actually be meted out to "the government" if found guilty of violating the dictates of CAFRA,a law which we have recently learned does not apply in the Langbord case for reasons stated earlier? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replevin is a common law remedy which basically amounts to suing someone and saying "give me my personal property back." Whether replevin is available to the government in light of CAFRA and whether CAFRA does or does not apply is what we will learn when the decision comes out.
Originally posted by: mr1874 We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
Well,the new information is that government,albeit in an indirect and tedius way,did the right thing by not filing the forfeiture action because it turns out that CAFRA doesn't apply.See TPRC's post about this.
I don't know if CAFRA does or doesn't apply. Nor do you. Nor does TPRC or anyone else on these boards. It's in the hands of the courts and we will have to wait to see what the courts decide. It's like when a call in the NFL goes to replay, until we hear what they decide, we have no idea what will happen.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding. I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions. The best argument for the Langbords is as follows: Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations. I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens.
I was recently reading about repleven. Is that a remedy available to the government?
Also,what punishments can actually be meted out to "the government" if found guilty of violating the dictates of CAFRA,a law which we have recently learned does not apply in the Langbord case for reasons stated earlier?
The punishment would be that the Government loses the coins and all rights to them just like the previous panel found, no?
Saying CAFRA is confusing or difficult to understand is just an excuse. The IRS code is much more confusing and difficult to understand, and no one is saying let's not comply with it because it is confusing and difficult to understand.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions.
The best argument for the Langbords is as follows:
Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations.
I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens. I am slightly encouraged by the fact that at least initially, 3 judges ruled this way. However, I do not know if those 3 judges were on the en banc panel.
Of course, there are many other arguments and sub-arguments and nuances. BTW, I read an article from a Jewelry group or blog covering this case, and the article indicated that a decision is expected within a month. No idea how or why anyone would know that and with en banc hearings, I think it is pure conjecture and I think it is anyone's guess, but it is in print somewhere.
Wouldn't the 3 judges who heard the appeal sit en banc with the others unless the case gets moved to another district?
You would think so and I was actually looking at that a little bit. However, if the judges from the original panel were senior status judges, then I'm not sure they get to decide the en banc case. It would be easy enough to check to see who decided it originally and who sat en banc, but I haven't done it. But the original vote was 2-1 (my mistake above) so it might not matter that much.
You would think so and I was actually looking at that a little bit. However, if the judges from the original panel were senior status judges, then I'm not sure they get to decide the en banc case. It would be easy enough to check to see who decided it originally and who sat en banc, but I haven't done it. But the original vote was 2-1 (my mistake above) so it might not matter that much.
Do the judges get to discuss the case among themselves [ sort of like a jury does] or are they pretty much independent of each other?
I'm sure they discuss it, and even try to build consensus and to avoid dissenting opinions. But not being an appellate specialist, I really don't know how that is accomplished. At their level, one step below the Supreme Court in a well respected Circuit (Alito on the Supreme Court came from the 3rd Circuit, I believe) I suspect many of them of pretty opinionated.
Does anyone have a timeframe in terms of when we might learn about the outcome of the hearing? I guess or bracket of average time maybe. I am just trying to get a handle on how long this piece takes in the journey to the application to the Supreme Court.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Does anyone have a timeframe in terms of when we might learn about the outcome of the hearing? I guess or bracket of average time maybe. I am just trying to get a handle on how long this piece takes in the journey to the application to the Supreme Court.
Someone posted earlier that they expect a ruling in about 30 days. No idea if true or not.
(2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
TPRC,where did your information about CAFRA come from if I may ask?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Originally posted by: TPRC You would think so and I was actually looking at that a little bit. However, if the judges from the original panel were senior status judges, then I'm not sure they get to decide the en banc case. It would be easy enough to check to see who decided it originally and who sat en banc, but I haven't done it. But the original vote was 2-1 (my mistake above) so it might not matter that much.
Yes, the original three hear the case as part of the en banc panel. I recognized the voice of one of the judges, she was the older lady who asked a question, and was clearly on the governments side. She was the one dissenter in the original appeals court decision.
BTW- They definitely discuss it, and in this case argue about the case. If you read the opinion and dissent from the original there was clearly a heated argument. Perhaps that strong dissent was why the en banc panel wanted to weigh in.
Where oh where have my paragraphs gone? Apparently,the case has come down to the judges deciding whether "the Coins" are money or not.It could be that CAFRA rules are different for seized money,such as money seized in a drug raid than for seized "merchandise" items which is what the Langbord pieces really are.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
As we begin the THIRD week since the rehearing on October 14th, it may be expected that we will hear from the 3rd district appeals court in the next couple of weeks concerning their decision. The 13 judges may rule to:
1. Send the case back to the original court with instructions to retry the case with a new jury.
2. Rule in favor of the Government
3. Rule in favor of the Langbords'.
4 Make some other ruling.
I have already stated that since this court has vacated its panel's favorable decision to the Langbords', I believe the judges will rule that CAFRA does NOT apply and a majority of the judges will rule in favor of the Government in this case.
While we wait for the official rulings from the court, I'd like to hear what you all CURRENTLY believe their ruling will be. Thanks for the input. Steve
I vote "Send the case back to the original court with instructions to retry the case with a new jury."
Same judge (Judge Davis),different jury,to be fair to both sides. Judge Davis is most familiar with this case of all the 3rd circuit judges.
Ideally,the jury members would all have High School diplomas (or GED ) and have a strong "bent," if you will,toward the sciences,especially arithmetic/mathematics. I think the last jury was fine,no disrespect here intended by my remarks.
A new jury not hearing or seeing the Secret Service notes from their investigations of Switt in the 1940's will not make any difference in the new jury's verdict,also for the Government,in my opinion.
After this,there will be an attempt by the Langbords to have their case heard by Supreme Court.
Where is the paragraph button around here?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I asked a Wall Street Chartist, but he was busy with his chicken bones making predictions, so I will venture my own non legal opinion. The case goes back to court again..... my preference would be for the coins to go to the Langbords, mostly as they will then go to collectors as they should. If the illegally minted 1913 nickels can be bought and sold, so should these coins as well as all the type II and III 1804 silver dollars. Let's be consistent.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Made after April 5,1933 illegal to own.Made before April 5,1933 legal to own.
1933 eagles ($10) have always been legal to own.Why? All 1933 eagles were made in the early months of 1933.All 312,500 of these were made prior to April 5,1933.
1933 double eagles were made both before and after April 5,1933.
Change the law to eliminate the arbitrariness of April 5,1933 would have been the way to make 1933 double eagles legal to own.Now it's too late.
I've wondered why the rich collectors who had their 1933 double eagles seized in the 1940's didn't mount more of a unified challenge to the government.Poor L.G. Barnard left twisting in the wind by his coin collecting brothers is what I'm seeing.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
1933 double eagles were made both before and after April 5,1933.
Change the law to eliminate the arbitrariness of April 5,1933 would have been the way to make 1933 double eagles legal to own.Now it's too late.
I've wondered why the rich collectors who had their 1933 double eagles seized in the 1940's didn't mount more of a unified challenge to the government.Poor L.G. Barnard left twisting in the wind by his coin collecting brothers is what I'm seeing.
Steven, the rich collectors didn't have the internet back then to communicate with each other.
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
I've thought a bit more about the USS Constitution analogy used by the government at the en banc hearing.The analogy is a poor one for the simple fact that it is not possible to put the USS Constitution in one's pocket as it is with a US twenty-dollar gold piece.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
I've thought a bit more about the USS Constitution analogy used by the government at the en banc hearing.The analogy is a poor one for the simple fact that it is not possible to put the USS Constitution in one's pocket as it is with a US twenty-dollar gold piece.
If the Government has the coins it doesn't matter how many opportunities they've given the Langbords [if you want to put it THAT way] the Langbords won't get them back.
1933 double eagles were made both before and after April 5,1933.
Change the law to eliminate the arbitrariness of April 5,1933 would have been the way to make 1933 double eagles legal to own.Now it's too late.
I've wondered why the rich collectors who had their 1933 double eagles seized in the 1940's didn't mount more of a unified challenge to the government.Poor L.G. Barnard left twisting in the wind by his coin collecting brothers is what I'm seeing.
Steven, the rich collectors didn't have the internet back then to communicate with each other. Steve
The last sale of a 1933 double eagle was in the 1940's I believe for about $900. The coin wasn't worth millions of dollars when L. G. Barnard had his coin confiscated. How long and hard do you want to fight, and how many legal fees do you want to pay, when the amount at issue is $900?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Originally posted by: mr1874 The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
Suppose you are in a small store and the owner is tending the cash register. The customer ahead of you pays with cash, a part of which are four 90% silver quarters. The owner, recognizing they are silver puts them UNDER the change receptacle instead of in the normal little spot. The owner gets a phone call and a helper mans the cash register in his absence. You ask the helper if he will give you the 4 quarters under the change receptacle in exchange for a paper dollar. He agrees to the exchange and you leave the store. Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not?
Originally posted by: mr1874 The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
Suppose you are in a small store and the owner is tending the cash register. The customer ahead of you pays with cash, a part of which are four 90% silver quarters. The owner, recognizing they are silver puts them UNDER the change receptacle instead of in the normal little spot. The owner gets a phone call and a helper mans the cash register in his absence. You ask the helper if he will give you the 4 quarters under the change receptacle in exchange for a paper dollar. He agrees to the exchange and you leave the store. Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not?
Ah, but to make it a proper analogy the four silver quarters would need to be available for exchange for a few weeks
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
Suppose you are in a small store and the owner is tending the cash register. The customer ahead of you pays with cash, a part of which are four 90% silver quarters. The owner, recognizing they are silver puts them UNDER the change receptacle instead of in the normal little spot. The owner gets a phone call and a helper mans the cash register in his absence. You ask the helper if he will give you the 4 quarters under the change receptacle in exchange for a paper dollar. He agrees to the exchange and you leave the store. Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not?
Ah, but to make it a proper analogy the four silver quarters would need to be available for exchange for a few weeks
But the store owner made sure that those were NOT intended to be available for exchange. If [as the documents are purported to show] the 1933 DEs were NOT approved for exchange, then they were at minimum improperly removed from the Mint. If the mint claims/ed that they were stolen; that's a tougher thing to prove than improper removal.
This case involves a Hong Kong firm that sent mutilated coins to the Mint for redemption, that the Mint has a problem with. At least one mainland China firm has been caught sending mutilated counterfeit coins in for redemption. I have no idea if this particular firm is sending in genuine mutilated coins or fake mutilated coins. I only mention it because of the CAFRA angle.
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.
This case involves a Hong Kong firm that sent mutilated coins to the Mint for redemption, that the Mint has a problem with. At least one mainland China firm has been caught sending mutilated counterfeit coins in for redemption. I have no idea if this particular firm is sending in genuine mutilated coins or fake mutilated coins. I only mention it because of the CAFRA angle.
There are two options for linking. One is with http and the other for https [s is for secure].
Make sure the right url is in the right linky box.
About thirty years ago I was involved in a dispute with my bank about a charge they had made to my checking account for some new blank check forms that I had ordered through them. The bank fixed it for me but only after I proved with a receipt that the bank was in error. During the course of the in-person discussion/investigation the banker mentioned that one should always get a piece of paper,a receipt, when transacting with a bank. If the Mint evidence,the cashier records made by Hibberd Ott that tracked 1933 double eagle coins by date, shows that not a single 1933 double eagle went into private hands why would,why should,the Mint seriously entertain any argument about Mint tradition of exchanging old gold coin for new,no receipt necessary? It was not business as usual at the Mint in the early months of 1933 as America reached the depths of The Great Depression.
Another time,this time involving a different bank,i was shorted $20 at their drive-up ATM.I asked for $100 and received four twenty dollar bills instead of five. This bank acted as though I was trying to hustle them out of $20. Never did get my $20 from them.They essentially told me,a ten year customer of the bank, to pound sand since I could not prove with a receipt that I was shorted at the ATM. After all,the receipt that the shorting ATM produced for me said I received $100.
I empathize with the Langbords. It seems Izzy didn't like receipts and that is precisely the problem for the Langbord/Berke team.
Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not? The helper does not have the authority to dispense quarters not in the tray's quarter bin unless expressly given the authority to dispense the quarters under the tray by the owner. The helper "stole" the quarters and should be fired,in my opinion. Was there collusion of the helper with the customer to steal my silver quarters or is my helper just dumb? Either way the crooked,dumb or both helper would be canned if I was the owner.
Has anyone ever seen the original export license (a receipt from the Mint) that was granted for the Farouk '33 double in 1944? Fenton had no export paper,no receipt, when he brought the purported ex Farouk piece back to the United States?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
About thirty years ago I was involved in a dispute with my bank about a charge they had made to my checking account for some new blank check forms that I had ordered through them. The bank fixed it for me but only after I proved with a receipt that the bank was in error. During the course of the in-person discussion/investigation the banker mentioned that one should always get a piece of paper,a receipt, when transacting with a bank. If the Mint evidence,the cashier records made by Hibberd Ott that tracked 1933 double eagle coins by date, shows that not a single 1933 double eagle went into private hands why would,why should,the Mint seriously entertain any argument about Mint tradition of exchanging old gold coin for new,no receipt necessary? It was not business as usual at the Mint in the early months of 1933 as America reached the depths of The Great Depression.
Another time,this time involving a different bank,i was shorted $20 at their drive-up ATM.I asked for $100 and received four twenty dollar bills instead of five. This bank acted as though I was trying to hustle them out of $20. Never did get my $20 from them.They essentially told me,a ten year customer of the bank, to pound sand since I could not prove with a receipt that I was shorted at the ATM. After all,the receipt that the shorting ATM produced for me said I received $100.
I empathize with the Langbords. It seems Izzy didn't like receipts and that is precisely the problem for the Langbord/Berke team.
Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not? The helper does not have the authority to dispense quarters not in the tray's quarter bin unless expressly given the authority to dispense the quarters under the tray by the owner. The helper "stole" the quarters and should be fired,in my opinion. Was there collusion of the helper with the customer to steal my silver quarters or is my helper just dumb? Either way the crooked,dumb or both helper would be canned if I was the owner.
Has anyone ever seen the original export license (a receipt from the Mint) that was granted for the Farouk '33 double in 1944? Fenton had no export paper,no receipt, when he brought the purported ex Farouk piece back to the United States?
It's common for a store clerk to put large bills under the tray instead of the designated slots. It's implicit that they have authority to give them out if the next customer needs them. In the above example the customer caused them to be stolen so IMO he is the thief.
IMO unless there is a WRITTEN policy change at the mint that FROM NOW ON ALL EXCHANGES WILL BE RECORDED, prior history prevails.
Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not? The helper does not have the authority to dispense quarters not in the tray's quarter bin unless expressly given the authority to dispense the quarters under the tray by the owner. The helper "stole" the quarters and should be fired,in my opinion. Was there collusion of the helper with the customer to steal my silver quarters or is my helper just dumb? Either way the crooked,dumb or both helper would be canned if I was the owner.
It's common for a store clerk to put large bills under the tray instead of the designated slots. It's implicit that they have authority to give them out if the next customer needs them. In the above example the customer caused them to be stolen so IMO he is the thief.
IMO unless their is a WRITTEN policy change at the mint that FROM NOW ON ALL EXCHANGES WILL BE RECORDED, prior history prevails.
Interesting comments with difference of opinion. Thanks for expressing them Steven & Thomas. Steve
If the newly minted coins were not "authorized" for payout why were bags of them transferred to the cashier who routinely paid out gold coins?
If it was not "business as usual" in early 1933, and the Treasury did not want any double eagles paid out, then one would expect there to have been a directive from the Secretary of the Treasury to the director of the Mint to cease payout of gold coin. Is there any documentation of such a directive?
If the newly minted coins were not "authorized" for payout why were bags of them transferred to the cashier who routinely paid out gold coins?
If it was not "business as usual" in early 1933, and the Treasury did not want any double eagles paid out, then one would expect there to have been a directive from the Secretary of the Treasury to the director of the Mint to cease payout of gold coin. Is there any documentation of such a directive?
CG
I don't believe they were ever transferred to the cashier.
If the newly minted coins were not "authorized" for payout why were bags of them transferred to the cashier who routinely paid out gold coins?
The cashier is the "gatekeeper" at the Mint. Mint practice in 1933 and prior years was for gold coins to go from the coiner to the cashier after being bagged and sealed. After passing special assay,the cashier would normally have some new gold coin available at the Mint window for distribution to the public on an old coin for new coin exchange basis. In 1933 the first new double eagles would not have been available for legal distribution to the public until March 29.Theoretically at least,there was a short window of opportunity for a member of the public to legally acquire a new 1933 double eagle at the Mint window after March 29,a Wednesday, to next Wednesday,April 5 when President Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 came down.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Gatekeepers make mistakes like goalkeepers. ( The Guard at the U.S. Mint )
Godless Presidential Dollars come to mind, more recently. (Like Executive Orders , some turn out bad)
We do not right a wrong. We accept the flaw, moving right along in America. (We can't argue with city hall)
Who among us really believes these coins were "smuggled" or illegitimately removed ? Stolen ? Really ?
It's just not something I can fathom. My contention is that dealers (like Israel Switt) are opportunists. Collectors bury their "treasures"
The coins are "collectible". They were held in a lot of ten which remains within the law of the executive order of having no more than $200 in aggregate of any one coin. In reality, we all know millions of Americans buried their gold in them days. And I'm sure there were a lot of gold pieces held (hidden behind walls, etc., ) not as "collectibles", but as souvenirs or as a means of keeping wealth.
In light of that, these coins are coins. They're U.S. Coins. Who do they belong to ? The PEOPLE. Who are THE PEOPLE ?
They're not those who represent me , otherwise I wouldn't be defying such rule ! There's nothing FAIR about this whole sordid case.
Not one of us alive were there. Who keeps records on their coins ? A lot of guys. Dealers FLIP coins and after a while only a "FEW" remain with them.
Izzy got what most dealers never wanted (modern crap). A life of living a lie, in secret… years later when a few hit the market.
I wouldn't want to go to my grave that way, but is he really a thief ?
This is the last chapter for me. It's not that I care either way, though… the collector in me hopes, wishes and dreams. That these coins , like our land… doesn't end up in foreign nations' hands.
Comments
it quite clear. Cheers, RickO
The coins are obviously extremely valuable, and my guess is that the government has plans to sell them and keep the money. If not, I don't see any real reason for them to care above and beyond the gold melt value.
Government cares on principle. Government endeavors to protect our nation's money from thieves and swindlers. As I see it,that's the reason government cares.
If you believe US attorney Jane Levine,you wouldn't guess that the government has plans to do anything with "the Coins" other than to sock 'em away in the Smithsonian. I think having a national lottery for "the Coins," given a government win of course,is viable and would be a boon,a wonderful thing, for the hobby of coin collecting. Also,many Americans,not just coin collectors,could benefit from the government's proceeds from the lottery.
I suggest the government keep only one of the ten pieces for itself, the pocket piece. The pocket piece would go with the other two '33 doubles that Cashier George McCann sent to the Smithsonian in October,1934.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If CAFRA applies (A BIG IF, WHICH MAY END UP BEING DECIDED BY THE US SUPREME COURT) then what is the consequence of the government violating same?
Given all the confusion about whether CAFRA applies or not,the government should not be penalized,ie. not suffer any consequences.
The legal system is obviously flawed in fundamental ways otherwise we wouldn't be discussing whether CAFRA applies ten years after the civil action was initiated by the Langbords.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
cameonut2011 wrote:
The coins are obviously extremely valuable, and my guess is that the government has plans to sell them and keep the money. If not, I don't see any real reason for them to care above and beyond the gold melt value.
Government cares on principle. Government endeavors to protect our nation's money from thieves and swindlers. As I see it,that's the reason government cares.
If you believe US attorney Jane Levine,you wouldn't guess that the government has plans to do anything with "the Coins" other than to sock 'em away in the Smithsonian. I think having a national lottery for "the Coins," given a government win of course,is viable and would be a boon,a wonderful thing, for the hobby of coin collecting. Also,many Americans,not just coin collectors,could benefit from the government's proceeds from the lottery.
I suggest the government keep only one of the ten pieces for itself, the pocket piece. The pocket piece would go with the other two '33 doubles that Cashier George McCann sent to the Smithsonian in October,1934.
The Government doesn't really care what you [or I] think.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
The government (Congress, the Legislative Branch) passed CAFRA after it went through the legislative process. The government (President Clinton as the head of the Executive Branch) signed CAFRA into law. The government (the federal courts, representing the Judicial Branch) is functioning in this case as it is designed to function (the legal system is not flawed since it is hearing and deciding the dispute in the Langbord case).
Multiple governmental agencies took the position that a forfeiture action should be commenced by the government after the Langbord family turned the 10 double eagles over to the government for the purpose of authenticating them. Only the mint disagreed. An intentional, conscious decision was made by the government to not initiate a forfeiture proceeding.
Notwithstanding the above, Mr. 1874 believes that even if it is finally determined by the courts (the En Banc panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal or possibly the US Supreme Court) that CAFRA applies, the government should suffer no consequences and should not be penalized.
His stated rationale for his position is that there is confusion over whether CAFRA applies and that the legal system is flawed.
Thus, he believes that notwithstanding the three branches of the federal government acting in the manner that they are empowered by the constitution to act (passing, enacting and judicially interpreting and applying CAFRA), the government should be given a pass and should not be subject to complying with the rules that it created.
Notwithstanding the above, Mr. 1874 believes that even if it is finally determined by the courts (the En Banc panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal or possibly the US Supreme Court) that CAFRA applies, the government should suffer no consequences and should not be penalized.
His stated rationale for his position is that there is confusion over whether CAFRA applies and that the legal system is flawed.
Thus, he believes that notwithstanding the three branches of the federal government acting in the manner that they are empowered by the constitution to act (passing, enacting and judicially interpreting and applying CAFRA), the government should be given a pass and should not be subject to complying with the rules that it created.
My shorthand style of writing sometimes causes the reader to lose their way on reading my remarks. Who are you going to punish? The government is made up of individuals. "We the people" is the government to me.The lawmakers,a subset of We the People,are charged with making our nation's laws. When I say the legal system is flawed I am saying this:It is a flawed legal system that makes a law (CAFRA) that cannot be understood by most attorneys and judges. I read through the thing awhile back. CAFRA looks to me like a deliberate attempt to confuse even most careful reader. I expect that attorneys and judges are the most careful of readers. My opinion is that a law that is written to confuse even the most careful of readers,the attorneys and judges,is a bad law,as written, and should be repealed. Your idea that this case could get to the Supreme Court on the CAFRA issues is intriguing.IF it could only happen.The case goes big time. Supreme Court MUST put blame on the government for CAFRA.
Punishment is you,the Treasury Department of the government,have to give "the Coins" to the Langbords even though we know they were stolen from us,We the People. I would be okay with this as a "consequence" for the government.Goverment loses,Langbords Win say the headlines.CAFRA gets a pass anything short of being heard by SCOTUS. Someone needs to raise hell in Congress about CAFRA and how inadequate a legal tool it is.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Saying CAFRA is confusing or difficult to understand is just an excuse. The IRS code is much more confusing and difficult to understand, and no one is saying let's not comply with it because it is confusing and difficult to understand.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions.
The best argument for the Langbords is as follows:
Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations.
I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens. I am slightly encouraged by the fact that at least initially, 3 judges ruled this way. However, I do not know if those 3 judges were on the en banc panel.
Of course, there are many other arguments and sub-arguments and nuances. BTW, I read an article from a Jewelry group or blog covering this case, and the article indicated that a decision is expected within a month. No idea how or why anyone would know that and with en banc hearings, I think it is pure conjecture and I think it is anyone's guess, but it is in print somewhere.
Tom
With this revelation comes my asking this: Why then did Berke speak of 'the Coins as being so extremely valuable,worth millions of dollars,in his letters to the Mint? Didn't he kind of "cook his own (and the Langbord's) goose" at the Mint by comparing the ten 1933 doubles the Langbords discovered to the great numismatic rarities?
Wouldn't stating a more modest valuation for 'the Coins' have been more useful for the Langbords ,say bullion value +$50 for each piece?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Well,the new information is that government,albeit in an indirect and tedius way,did the right thing by not filing the forfeiture action because it turns out that CAFRA doesn't apply.See TPRC's post about this.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
(2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
With this revelation comes my asking this: Why then did Berke speak of 'the Coins as being so extremely valuable,worth millions of dollars,in his letters to the Mint? Didn't he kind of "cook his own (and the Langbord's) goose" at the Mint by comparing the ten 1933 doubles the Langbords discovered to the great numismatic rarities?
Wouldn't stating a more modest valuation for 'the Coins' have been more useful for the Langbords ,say bullion value +$50 for each piece?
I don't think so, Mr1874, for reasons stated in his letter brief to the court during the week of the en banc argument. Plus, facts are facts. I think there is a risk that the government erred and waived an important argument as evidenced by the third circuit asking the parties to address the monetary instrument or other merchandise issue and to address whether the government waived an argument on appeal (by failing to raise it during the trial, I presume). I don't like to see cases decided on waiver issues like the one raised by the panel, and I confess I don't know the waiver argument that well, but again, the facts are the facts and I trust that the panel will do the right thing there.
Tom
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding. I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions. The best argument for the Langbords is as follows: Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations. I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens.
I was recently reading about repleven. Is that a remedy available to the government?
Also,what punishments can actually be meted out to "the government" if found guilty of violating the dictates of CAFRA,a law which we have recently learned does not apply in the Langbord case for reasons stated earlier?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replevin is a common law remedy which basically amounts to suing someone and saying "give me my personal property back." Whether replevin is available to the government in light of CAFRA and whether CAFRA does or does not apply is what we will learn when the decision comes out.
Tom
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
Well,the new information is that government,albeit in an indirect and tedius way,did the right thing by not filing the forfeiture action because it turns out that CAFRA doesn't apply.See TPRC's post about this.
I don't know if CAFRA does or doesn't apply. Nor do you. Nor does TPRC or anyone else on these boards. It's in the hands of the courts and we will have to wait to see what the courts decide. It's like when a call in the NFL goes to replay, until we hear what they decide, we have no idea what will happen.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
TPRC wrote:
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding. I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions. The best argument for the Langbords is as follows: Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations. I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens.
I was recently reading about repleven. Is that a remedy available to the government?
Also,what punishments can actually be meted out to "the government" if found guilty of violating the dictates of CAFRA,a law which we have recently learned does not apply in the Langbord case for reasons stated earlier?
The punishment would be that the Government loses the coins and all rights to them just like the previous panel found, no?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Saying CAFRA is confusing or difficult to understand is just an excuse. The IRS code is much more confusing and difficult to understand, and no one is saying let's not comply with it because it is confusing and difficult to understand.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion, and the Langbords would be on much weaker legal ground, if the government had filed the CAFRA forfeiture action when they were supposed to. The trial court judge gave the government a "mulligan" on this one by allowing the government to file a CAFRA action, albeit over 4 years late. With all due respect, it seems that Mr1874 wants to do the same thing, that is allow the government a mulligan on CAFRA, if it indeed applies in this case. What is the legal rationale that supports giving the government a "mulligan"? And, as I have asked earlier, exactly why wouldn't CAFRA apply to this case?
The 2 best arguments, IMO, are (1) CAFRA is not the exclusive remedy because the coins are stolen government property and the government has independent rights as the owner of the coins, and (2) CAFRA doesn't apply because the coins were never monetized and they are therefore "merchandise valued at more than $500,000, which merchandise cannot be forfeited in a nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
I can envision an opinion against the Langbords following the logic of either of these two propositions.
The best argument for the Langbords is as follows:
Because the government failed to follow the clear dictates of CAFRA, it must face the consequences that Congress enacted to penalize the government in precisely the type of situation at issue in this case and to deter it from committing future violations.
I can envision an opinion in favor of the Langbords following this logic and I hope it happens. I am slightly encouraged by the fact that at least initially, 3 judges ruled this way. However, I do not know if those 3 judges were on the en banc panel.
Of course, there are many other arguments and sub-arguments and nuances. BTW, I read an article from a Jewelry group or blog covering this case, and the article indicated that a decision is expected within a month. No idea how or why anyone would know that and with en banc hearings, I think it is pure conjecture and I think it is anyone's guess, but it is in print somewhere.
Wouldn't the 3 judges who heard the appeal sit en banc with the others unless the case gets moved to another district?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Tom
You would think so and I was actually looking at that a little bit. However, if the judges from the original panel were senior status judges, then I'm not sure they get to decide the en banc case. It would be easy enough to check to see who decided it originally and who sat en banc, but I haven't done it. But the original vote was 2-1 (my mistake above) so it might not matter that much.
Do the judges get to discuss the case among themselves [ sort of like a jury does] or are they pretty much independent of each other?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Tom
Does anyone have a timeframe in terms of when we might learn about the outcome of the hearing? I guess or bracket of average time maybe. I am just trying to get a handle on how long this piece takes in the journey to the application to the Supreme Court.
Someone posted earlier that they expect a ruling in about 30 days. No idea if true or not.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
BHNC #203
TPRC,where did your information about CAFRA come from if I may ask?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
You would think so and I was actually looking at that a little bit. However, if the judges from the original panel were senior status judges, then I'm not sure they get to decide the en banc case. It would be easy enough to check to see who decided it originally and who sat en banc, but I haven't done it. But the original vote was 2-1 (my mistake above) so it might not matter that much.
Yes, the original three hear the case as part of the en banc panel. I recognized the voice of one of the judges, she was the older lady who asked a question, and was clearly on the governments side. She was the one dissenter in the original appeals court decision.
BTW- They definitely discuss it, and in this case argue about the case. If you read the opinion and dissent from the original there was clearly a heated argument. Perhaps that strong dissent was why the en banc panel wanted to weigh in.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
1. Send the case back to the original court with instructions to retry the case with a new jury.
2. Rule in favor of the Government
3. Rule in favor of the Langbords'.
4 Make some other ruling.
I have already stated that since this court has vacated its panel's favorable decision to the Langbords', I believe the judges will rule that CAFRA does NOT apply and a majority of the judges will rule in favor of the Government in this case.
While we wait for the official rulings from the court, I'd like to hear what you all CURRENTLY believe their ruling will be. Thanks for the input. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Same judge (Judge Davis),different jury,to be fair to both sides. Judge Davis is most familiar with this case of all the 3rd circuit judges.
Ideally,the jury members would all have High School diplomas (or GED ) and have a strong "bent," if you will,toward the sciences,especially arithmetic/mathematics. I think the last jury was fine,no disrespect here intended by my remarks.
A new jury not hearing or seeing the Secret Service notes from their investigations of Switt in the 1940's will not make any difference in the new jury's verdict,also for the Government,in my opinion.
After this,there will be an attempt by the Langbords to have their case heard by Supreme Court.
Where is the paragraph button around here?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
1933 eagles ($10) have always been legal to own.Why? All 1933 eagles were made in the early months of 1933.All 312,500 of these were made prior to April 5,1933.
1933 double eagles were made both before and after April 5,1933.
Change the law to eliminate the arbitrariness of April 5,1933 would have been the way to make 1933 double eagles legal to own.Now it's too late.
I've wondered why the rich collectors who had their 1933 double eagles seized in the 1940's didn't mount more of a unified challenge to the government.Poor L.G. Barnard left twisting in the wind by his coin collecting brothers is what I'm seeing.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
1933 double eagles were made both before and after April 5,1933.
Change the law to eliminate the arbitrariness of April 5,1933 would have been the way to make 1933 double eagles legal to own.Now it's too late.
I've wondered why the rich collectors who had their 1933 double eagles seized in the 1940's didn't mount more of a unified challenge to the government.Poor L.G. Barnard left twisting in the wind by his coin collecting brothers is what I'm seeing.
Steven, the rich collectors didn't have the internet back then to communicate with each other.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
I've thought a bit more about the USS Constitution analogy used by the government at the en banc hearing.The analogy is a poor one for the simple fact that it is not possible to put the USS Constitution in one's pocket as it is with a US twenty-dollar gold piece.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
I've thought a bit more about the USS Constitution analogy used by the government at the en banc hearing.The analogy is a poor one for the simple fact that it is not possible to put the USS Constitution in one's pocket as it is with a US twenty-dollar gold piece.
If the Government has the coins it doesn't matter how many opportunities they've given the Langbords [if you want to put it THAT way] the Langbords won't get them back.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
I strongly suspect Izzie got the coins legally in a swap...maybe with a touch of foreknowledge,
like the 'little birdie told him' that the recall was on it's way. Cheers, RickO
1933 double eagles were made both before and after April 5,1933.
Change the law to eliminate the arbitrariness of April 5,1933 would have been the way to make 1933 double eagles legal to own.Now it's too late.
I've wondered why the rich collectors who had their 1933 double eagles seized in the 1940's didn't mount more of a unified challenge to the government.Poor L.G. Barnard left twisting in the wind by his coin collecting brothers is what I'm seeing.
Steven, the rich collectors didn't have the internet back then to communicate with each other.
Steve
The last sale of a 1933 double eagle was in the 1940's I believe for about $900. The coin wasn't worth millions of dollars when L. G. Barnard had his coin confiscated. How long and hard do you want to fight, and how many legal fees do you want to pay, when the amount at issue is $900?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
Suppose you are in a small store and the owner is tending the cash register. The customer ahead of you pays with cash, a part of which are four 90% silver quarters. The owner, recognizing they are silver puts them UNDER the change receptacle instead of in the normal little spot. The owner gets a phone call and a helper mans the cash register in his absence. You ask the helper if he will give you the 4 quarters under the change receptacle in exchange for a paper dollar. He agrees to the exchange and you leave the store. Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
Suppose you are in a small store and the owner is tending the cash register. The customer ahead of you pays with cash, a part of which are four 90% silver quarters. The owner, recognizing they are silver puts them UNDER the change receptacle instead of in the normal little spot. The owner gets a phone call and a helper mans the cash register in his absence. You ask the helper if he will give you the 4 quarters under the change receptacle in exchange for a paper dollar. He agrees to the exchange and you leave the store. Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not?
Ah, but to make it a proper analogy the four silver quarters would need to be available for exchange for a few weeks
The fear of a draconian result coming from the Court has been mentioned. I'm seeing the government as having given and continuing to give the Langbord/Berke team every opportunity to be heard in order to circumvent accusations of being overly harsh.
Of course,some may consider Langbords losing as a draconian result, preponderance of evidence notwithstanding and notwithstanding the government practically bending over backwards for the other side.
In my opinion, the government keeping the coins IS a draconian result. There is still no proof of a theft, if there were, the government would have shown that proof long ago. No gold was missing when the double eagles were melted. The government's entire case is "Izzy was a bad guy, he stole the coins. The coins were stolen because we say so." Hopefully the courts rule that much more is necessary to seize someone's property.
Do you have a receipt for every TV in your house? How would you react if the government said this TV you have is stolen, and since you don't have a receipt for its purchase, we are confiscating it?
What is to prevent the government from saying that pattern coins were never officially released, and we are going to confiscate all of them?
I am not a fan of Israel Switt, but if there isn't enough evidence to prove that he stole the coins, then the law of the land says that coins should be returned to his family.
Suppose you are in a small store and the owner is tending the cash register. The customer ahead of you pays with cash, a part of which are four 90% silver quarters. The owner, recognizing they are silver puts them UNDER the change receptacle instead of in the normal little spot. The owner gets a phone call and a helper mans the cash register in his absence. You ask the helper if he will give you the 4 quarters under the change receptacle in exchange for a paper dollar. He agrees to the exchange and you leave the store. Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not?
Ah, but to make it a proper analogy the four silver quarters would need to be available for exchange for a few weeks
But the store owner made sure that those were NOT intended to be available for exchange. If [as the documents are purported to show] the 1933 DEs were NOT approved for exchange, then they were at minimum improperly removed from the Mint. If the mint claims/ed that they were stolen; that's a tougher thing to prove than improper removal.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
linky
and since my links never seem to work here is the link again:
http://www.coinworld.com/news/...d-mutilated-coins.html
This case involves a Hong Kong firm that sent mutilated coins to the Mint for redemption, that the Mint has a problem with. At least one mainland China firm has been caught sending mutilated counterfeit coins in for redemption. I have no idea if this particular firm is sending in genuine mutilated coins or fake mutilated coins. I only mention it because of the CAFRA angle.
There is a different case involving the Mint seizing coins and being sued for failure to follow CAFRA here at Coin World:
linky
and since my links never seem to work here is the link again:
http://www.coinworld.com/news/...d-mutilated-coins.html
This case involves a Hong Kong firm that sent mutilated coins to the Mint for redemption, that the Mint has a problem with. At least one mainland China firm has been caught sending mutilated counterfeit coins in for redemption. I have no idea if this particular firm is sending in genuine mutilated coins or fake mutilated coins. I only mention it because of the CAFRA angle.
There are two options for linking. One is with http and the other for https [s is for secure].
Make sure the right url is in the right linky box.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Another time,this time involving a different bank,i was shorted $20 at their drive-up ATM.I asked for $100 and received four twenty dollar bills instead of five. This bank acted as though I was trying to hustle them out of $20. Never did get my $20 from them.They essentially told me,a ten year customer of the bank, to pound sand since I could not prove with a receipt that I was shorted at the ATM. After all,the receipt that the shorting ATM produced for me said I received $100.
I empathize with the Langbords. It seems Izzy didn't like receipts and that is precisely the problem for the Langbord/Berke team.
Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not? The helper does not have the authority to dispense quarters not in the tray's quarter bin unless expressly given the authority to dispense the quarters under the tray by the owner. The helper "stole" the quarters and should be fired,in my opinion. Was there collusion of the helper with the customer to steal my silver quarters or is my helper just dumb? Either way the crooked,dumb or both helper would be canned if I was the owner.
Has anyone ever seen the original export license (a receipt from the Mint) that was granted for the Farouk '33 double in 1944? Fenton had no export paper,no receipt, when he brought the purported ex Farouk piece back to the United States?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
About thirty years ago I was involved in a dispute with my bank about a charge they had made to my checking account for some new blank check forms that I had ordered through them. The bank fixed it for me but only after I proved with a receipt that the bank was in error. During the course of the in-person discussion/investigation the banker mentioned that one should always get a piece of paper,a receipt, when transacting with a bank. If the Mint evidence,the cashier records made by Hibberd Ott that tracked 1933 double eagle coins by date, shows that not a single 1933 double eagle went into private hands why would,why should,the Mint seriously entertain any argument about Mint tradition of exchanging old gold coin for new,no receipt necessary? It was not business as usual at the Mint in the early months of 1933 as America reached the depths of The Great Depression.
Another time,this time involving a different bank,i was shorted $20 at their drive-up ATM.I asked for $100 and received four twenty dollar bills instead of five. This bank acted as though I was trying to hustle them out of $20. Never did get my $20 from them.They essentially told me,a ten year customer of the bank, to pound sand since I could not prove with a receipt that I was shorted at the ATM. After all,the receipt that the shorting ATM produced for me said I received $100.
I empathize with the Langbords. It seems Izzy didn't like receipts and that is precisely the problem for the Langbord/Berke team.
Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not? The helper does not have the authority to dispense quarters not in the tray's quarter bin unless expressly given the authority to dispense the quarters under the tray by the owner. The helper "stole" the quarters and should be fired,in my opinion. Was there collusion of the helper with the customer to steal my silver quarters or is my helper just dumb? Either way the crooked,dumb or both helper would be canned if I was the owner.
Has anyone ever seen the original export license (a receipt from the Mint) that was granted for the Farouk '33 double in 1944? Fenton had no export paper,no receipt, when he brought the purported ex Farouk piece back to the United States?
It's common for a store clerk to put large bills under the tray instead of the designated slots. It's implicit that they have authority to give them out if the next customer needs them. In the above example the customer caused them to be stolen so IMO he is the thief.
IMO unless there is a WRITTEN policy change at the mint that FROM NOW ON ALL EXCHANGES WILL BE RECORDED, prior history prevails.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Were the 4 silver quarters stolen or not? The helper does not have the authority to dispense quarters not in the tray's quarter bin unless expressly given the authority to dispense the quarters under the tray by the owner. The helper "stole" the quarters and should be fired,in my opinion. Was there collusion of the helper with the customer to steal my silver quarters or is my helper just dumb? Either way the crooked,dumb or both helper would be canned if I was the owner.
It's common for a store clerk to put large bills under the tray instead of the designated slots. It's implicit that they have authority to give them out if the next customer needs them. In the above example the customer caused them to be stolen so IMO he is the thief.
IMO unless their is a WRITTEN policy change at the mint that FROM NOW ON ALL EXCHANGES WILL BE RECORDED, prior history prevails.
Interesting comments with difference of opinion. Thanks for expressing them Steven & Thomas. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
If it was not "business as usual" in early 1933, and the Treasury did not want any double eagles paid out, then one would expect there to have been a directive from the Secretary of the Treasury to the director of the Mint to cease payout of gold coin. Is there any documentation of such a directive?
CG
If the newly minted coins were not "authorized" for payout why were bags of them transferred to the cashier who routinely paid out gold coins?
If it was not "business as usual" in early 1933, and the Treasury did not want any double eagles paid out, then one would expect there to have been a directive from the Secretary of the Treasury to the director of the Mint to cease payout of gold coin. Is there any documentation of such a directive?
CG
I don't believe they were ever transferred to the cashier.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
The cashier is the "gatekeeper" at the Mint. Mint practice in 1933 and prior years was for gold coins to go from the coiner to the cashier after being bagged and sealed. After passing special assay,the cashier would normally have some new gold coin available at the Mint window for distribution to the public on an old coin for new coin exchange basis. In 1933 the first new double eagles would not have been available for legal distribution to the public until March 29.Theoretically at least,there was a short window of opportunity for a member of the public to legally acquire a new 1933 double eagle at the Mint window after March 29,a Wednesday, to next Wednesday,April 5 when President Roosevelt's Executive Order 6102 came down.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Godless Presidential Dollars come to mind, more recently.
We do not right a wrong. We accept the flaw, moving right along in America. (We can't argue with city hall)
Who among us really believes these coins were "smuggled" or illegitimately removed ? Stolen ? Really ?
It's just not something I can fathom. My contention is that dealers (like Israel Switt) are opportunists. Collectors bury their "treasures"
The coins are "collectible". They were held in a lot of ten which remains within the law of the executive order of having no more than $200 in aggregate of any one coin. In reality, we all know millions of Americans buried their gold in them days. And I'm sure there were a lot of gold pieces held (hidden behind walls, etc., ) not as "collectibles", but as souvenirs or as a means of keeping wealth.
In light of that, these coins are coins. They're U.S. Coins. Who do they belong to ? The PEOPLE. Who are THE PEOPLE ?
They're not those who represent me , otherwise I wouldn't be defying such rule ! There's nothing FAIR about this whole sordid case.
Not one of us alive were there. Who keeps records on their coins ? A lot of guys. Dealers FLIP coins and after a while only a "FEW" remain with them.
Izzy got what most dealers never wanted (modern crap). A life of living a lie, in secret… years later when a few hit the market.
I wouldn't want to go to my grave that way, but is he really a thief ?
This is the last chapter for me. It's not that I care either way, though… the collector in me hopes, wishes and dreams. That these coins , like our land… doesn't end up in foreign nations' hands.