A month has passed, I hope we get the outcome before Thanksgiving, although whomever is on the losing side will probably extend this circus with another appeal.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
I know someone very familiar with the Federal Judiciary. I asked him for an estimate on how long the decision might take, he estimated 90 days. I have no doubt it will be at least that as the wheels of justice turn very slowly.
I know someone very familiar with the Federal Judiciary. I asked him for an estimate on how long the decision might take, he estimated 90 days. I have no doubt it will be at least that as the wheels of justice turn very slowly.
A 90 day time would indicate to me that the Appeals Court IS very divided in coming to a decision and would also indicate a better probability that the losing side WILL appeal to the Supreme Court. Steve
Another week passes since the October 14th rehearing. Will the court reach a decision in the next three days before Thanksgiving OR will the decision drag into December? It is looking more and more to me that the court is NOT in full agreement and that a split decision will occur. If that is the case, does any of our legal experts here know if the 3rd district court of appeals publically announces the judges votes or just announces their decision? Comments welcome. Steve
Everyone is reading too much into the elapsed time. En banc decisions are important. I talked to an appellate specialist on Friday. Her comment..."a decision is probable within a year." IMO, there is simply no way of telling.
I don't know but I don't think that all judges are identified in the decision, but separate and minority opinions are signed. As far as speedy trial is concerned, that is a defendant's right in a criminal case. In any event, there already was a trial and the Langbords lost. This is the appeal to make sure it's right, either by affirmation, or by overturning and deciding, or by overturning and sending back for another trial (or something else).
The wheels of justice grind slowly......let's hope they get it right!
BTW, for those interested, here is an interesting blog about how the 3rd circuit decided en banc decisions. From reading it, I would surmise that the judges votes are available.
Originally posted by: Tomthecoinguy I know someone very familiar with the Federal Judiciary. I asked him for an estimate on how long the decision might take, he estimated 90 days. I have no doubt it will be at least that as the wheels of justice turn very slowly.
A 90 day time would indicate to me that the Appeals Court IS very divided in coming to a decision and would also indicate a better probability that the losing side WILL appeal to the Supreme Court. Steve
They usually write opinions which takes time. I am sure they have already decided the case but are drafting opinions and dissents before publication.
Everyone is reading too much into the elapsed time. En banc decisions are important. I talked to an appellate specialist on Friday. Her comment..."a decision is probable within a year." IMO, there is simply no way of telling.
I don't know but I don't think that all judges are identified in the decision, but separate and minority opinions are signed. As far as speedy trial is concerned, that is a defendant's right in a criminal case. In any event, there already was a trial and the Langbords lost. This is the appeal to make sure it's right, either by affirmation, or by overturning and deciding, or by overturning and sending back for another trial (or something else).
The wheels of justice grind slowly......let's hope they get it right!
BTW, for those interested, here is an interesting blog about how the 3rd circuit decided en banc decisions. From reading it, I would surmise that the judges votes are available.
Thank you again for your comments AND the blog about the 3rd circuit judges and their supposed political leanings (ie) liberal or conservative. For those who might want to analyse the judges in relation to the Langbord case I will repeat that the three judge panel that overruled the lower court in April was made up of Chief Judge McKee and Judge Rendell and Judge Sloviter. The panel voted 2 to 1 to overturn the lower court with Chief Judge McKee and Judge Rendell voting in favor of overturn and Judge Sloviter opposing. Judge Rendell wrote the majority opinion and Judge Sloviter wrote the minority opinion. After reading the attached blog and graphs provided,(that Tom posted above) you can have fun trying to figure out how the whole court will vote. Personally, I don't think liberal/conservative politics play into this decision, but others may have different opinions.
Originally posted by: Coinosaurus If the case gets to SCOTUS it's good for numismatics regardless of the outcome - the media coverage will be significant.
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court hears about 70-80 cases a year, and only a handful are mentioned in the news. I am not sure that a case involving the statutory interpretation of CAFRA is going to draw media attention. If it received a mention, it would be because of the value of the coins, but even then I would suspect the attention to be limited.
I don't believe they were ever transferred to the cashier.
Then you don't believe head cashier George McCann sent two specimens of 1933 double eagle to the Smithsonian in 1934? The Mint's protocol was for the coiner to release the coins to the cashier after they had been bagged and sealed.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Another week goes by since the October 14th rehearing. Will the court reach a decision in the next three days before Thanksgiving OR will the decision drag into December? It is looking more and more to me that the court is NOT in full agreement and that a split decision will occur. If that is the case, does any of our legal experts here know if the 3rd District Court of Appeals publically announces the judges votes or just announces their decision? Comments welcome. Steve
Well, the court didn't announce a decision before Thanksgiving and unless they announce tomorrow, we WILL drag into December. So the question now is: Will the 3rd District Court of Appeals announce their decision in 2015? I think there may be some reason they may want to wait until at least January. If the losing party will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, this might allow that body an extra year until 2017 to decide whether or not to accept the case. Happy Holidays everyone.
I don't believe they were ever transferred to the cashier.
Then you don't believe head cashier George McCann sent two specimens of 1933 double eagle to the Smithsonian in 1934? The Mint's protocol was for the coiner to release the coins to the cashier after they had been bagged and sealed.
Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official as$ay results were received back from Washington? Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the a$say results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
Why would the coins be transferred to McCann before the official results from the as$ay office were received? The coins had not yet completed the monetization process, i.e. weren't transferred to the Fed. The order I was referring to was the one from FDR which would have made it's way down to the cashier, not a specific order to McCann. Are you saying that McCann had possession/custody of the coins BEFORE they were even approved by the as$ayer?
If it was requested that McCann send two coins to the Smithsonian in 1934, he could have gone to the vault and gotten two out.
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
I think we have to not make the mistake of applying current procedures to events that happened in 1933. The current era includes a lot of paperwork, dotting all i's and crossing all t's. Such was not the way things happened in 1933!
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt. "The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin, especially in the year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument." And we accept this, because we know for a fact that in 1933 everyone documented the heck out of everything and got receipts for everything and kept those receipts forever.
For me, I would be disappointed in the Court that would accept a thin argument as "the government says the coins are stolen, so they must be stolen", absent ANY proof that Mr. Switt stole the coins. And we haven't seen such proof, because no such proof exists.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
I think we have to not make the mistake of applying current procedures to events that happened in 1933. The current era includes a lot of paperwork, dotting all i's and crossing all t's. Such was not the way things happened in 1933!
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt. "The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin, especially in the year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument." And we accept this, because we know for a fact that in 1933 everyone documented the heck out of everything and got receipts for everything and kept those receipts forever.
For me, I would be disappointed in the Court that would accept a thin argument as "the government says the coins are stolen, so they must be stolen", absent ANY proof that Mr. Switt stole the coins. And we haven't seen such proof, because no such proof exists.
But mr1874 claims that someone else [a coupla book authors IIRC] claims that the Mint cashier's records from that point in time are sufficiently complete, detailed and accurate such that no 1933 DEs left the Mint via lawful exchange. If that's true, then any found outside of the Mint must have been taken from the Mint either by theft or unauthorized removal which depending upon your value system may be theft in its own right. Apparently a 250 coin bag of 1928 DEs was stolen and these may have been used to replace any 1933s which were spirited out of the Mint.
For me, I would be disappointed in the Court that would accept a thin argument as "the government says the coins are stolen, so they must be stolen", absent ANY proof that Mr. Switt stole the coins. And we haven't seen such proof, because no such proof exists.
This is a civil case.The preoponderance of evidence is on the government's side.Those 1933-34 cashier records alone are compelling evidence that no 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully.
I remember the time I was kidnapped and they sent a piece of my finger to my father. He said he wanted more proof.
Rodney Dangerfield
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Relative to these so-called superb government records from 1933: from a Coin World article 7/4/2011 by Steve Roach:
" Much of the questioning that followed was aimed at showing the Mint’s sloppy record keeping around 1933. A look at the Secret Service investigations of 1937 that found inconsistencies with cashier reports and daily gold records followed. . . .
The 1937 report called the Mint’s recordkeeping of the period “careless and slip shot” and added that the Mint seemed to have no systematic accounting system. The report added that the “unsatisfactory” method of keeping Mint and vault records was “a serious handicap” to the investigation, and that it may be expected that future evaluations of Philadelphia Mint records of the period would suffer because of the poor records."
So, the Secret Service issued a report in 1937 calling the Mint's recordkeeping "careless and slip shot" [sic], but SOMEHOW the Mint records for 1933 are perfect?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt.
According to my logic,the Mint tradition of exchanging old double eagle for new 1933 double eagle didn't happen lawfully at the Mint window in 1933.
So, the Secret Service issued a report in 1937 calling the Mint's recordkeeping "careless and slip shot" [sic], but SOMEHOW the Mint records for 1933 are perfect?
You are guilty of painting with too broad a brush here.Overgeneralization is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group. The vault records were sloppy. Mr. McKernan was the vault keeper and apparently didn't take much pride in his recordkeeping.The report you are referring to was made in the course of the investigation of the theft of an entire bag (250 pieces) of non-1933 double eagles from the vault. The cashier records tracking 1933 double eagles are meticulous. Tripp and others found no mistakes in the 1933 cashier records tracking double eagles by DATE even though there was no legal requirement to track gold coins by date in 1933. Something is telling me that Mint employees with some integrity like Mr. Powell,head cashier in 1933 and Mr. Ott,assistant cashier in 1933 did the date tracking of 1933 double eagles because they got the idea that theft of 1933 doubles was highly likely.They were simply covering their azzes by keeping the 1933 double eagle gold coin records in the manner that they did,by DATE.Am I the only one here that understands the significance of the 1933 cashier records to the Langbord's case and why they shouldn't get to keep "the Coins"? Mr. McCann did not become head cashier until 1934 to clear up any confusion about who was head cashier while 1933 double eagles were being made and stored in the Mint's basement vaults.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt.
According to my logic,the Mint tradition of exchanging old double eagle for new 1933 double eagle didn't happen lawfully at the Mint window in 1933.
So, the Secret Service issued a report in 1937 calling the Mint's recordkeeping "careless and slip shot" [sic], but SOMEHOW the Mint records for 1933 are perfect?
You are guilty of painting with too broad a brush here.Overgeneralization is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group. The vault records were sloppy. Mr. McKernan was the vault keeper and apparently didn't take much pride in his recordkeeping.The report you are referring to was made in the course of the investigation of the theft of an entire bag (250 pieces) of non-1933 double eagles from the vault. The cashier records tracking 1933 double eagles are meticulous. Tripp and others found no mistakes in the 1933 cashier records tracking double eagles by DATE even though there was no legal requirement to track gold coins by date in 1933. Something is telling me that Mint employees with some integrity like Mr. Powell,head cashier in 1933 and Mr. Ott,assistant cashier in 1933 did the date tracking of 1933 double eagles because they got the idea that theft of 1933 doubles was highly likely.They were simply covering their azzes by keeping the 1933 double eagle gold coin records in the manner that they did,by DATE.Am I the only one here that understands the significance of the 1933 cashier records to the Langbord's case and why they shouldn't get to keep "the Coins"? Mr. McCann did not become head cashier until 1934 to clear up any confusion about who was head cashier while 1933 double eagles were being made and stored in the Mint's basement vaults.
Thanks.How does one make paragraphs in here? I make the paragraphs when composing the post but all the words run together when post is made. I know it's annoying for readers.How can i fix it?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Um, well, if you go to our local bank branch and ask for change from your $20 bill, when they hand you four $5's do they also make a note of it in their teller register records, and do they hand you a receipt for that transaction?
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Can anyone tell me how to make posts with paragraphs?
IT is working on it. No idea why some can do it and some can't. May be the choice you were using between WYSIWYG and HTML when IT pulled the plug on it or some preferences in your computer/browser settings.
I tried with 3 different browsers IE, FireFox and Chrome and I can do paragraphitization with all 3.
Four 5's for a 20 at the bank? I expect that I would get a receipt if I asked for it.
I am astonished at Izzy's lack of vision by not getting a receipt if he did in fact make exchanges of old gold $20 for new 1933 gold $20 at the Mint window.The window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle would have been very narrow,just a few days from March 29 or 30th to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
From 1944 when the first of nine 1933 double eagles traced to him were seized until his death over 40 years later,Izzy had plenty of time to have a master forger make a bogus receipt, for "the Coins" and put it with them in the safe deposit box where they were discovered.
A document to produce,such as a 1933 Mint receipt,real or bogus,for the Langbords,would be the equivalent of what the 1944 export license was for the ex Farouk coin to Stephen Fenton.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Four 5's for a 20 at the bank? I expect that I would get a receipt if I asked for it.
I am astonished at Izzy's lack of vision by not getting a receipt if he did in fact make exchanges of old gold $20 for new 1933 gold $20 at the Mint window.The window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle would have been very narrow,just a few days from March 29 or 30th to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
From 1944 when the first of nine 1933 double eagles traced to him were seized until his death over 40 years later,Izzy had plenty of time to have a master forger make a bogus receipt, for "the Coins" and put it with them in the safe deposit box where they were discovered.
A document to produce,such as a 1933 Mint receipt,real or bogus,for the Langbords,would be the equivalent of what the 1944 export license was for the ex Farouk coin to Stephen Fenton.
I would guess that if Izzy and others knew that recordkeeping was sloppy or careless in the past and nobody cared, that he expected the same would apply to the 1933s. Seems like he was pretty much GTG until some snoop got a bee in his bonnet over them.
Four 5's for a 20 at the bank? I expect that I would get a receipt if I asked for it.
I am astonished at Izzy's lack of vision by not getting a receipt if he did in fact make exchanges of old gold $20 for new 1933 gold $20 at the Mint window.The window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle would have been very narrow,just a few days from March 29 or 30th to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
From 1944 when the first of nine 1933 double eagles traced to him were seized until his death over 40 years later,Izzy had plenty of time to have a master forger make a bogus receipt, for "the Coins" and put it with them in the safe deposit box where they were discovered.
A document to produce,such as a 1933 Mint receipt,real or bogus,for the Langbords,would be the equivalent of what the 1944 export license was for the ex Farouk coin to Stephen Fenton.
You are assuming that Izzy knew he would later be accused of a crime, and that he should have known that he should create a paper trail. That is a ridiculous notion.
It was perfectly legal to trade older dated $20's for brand new ones at the cashier's window at the time. Izzy had been doing it for years, and likely others did as well.
He was in the "modern coin business". I'm sure he had collectors who wold pay a small premium for brand new $20's of the current year, whether he did that in 1930, 1931, 1932, or 1933. He made a little money doing so -- good for him, as he was right near the mint.
He wasn't some master criminal trying to scheme the US government out of its hard earned tax money.
When you go to a shop and get a cup of coffee, do you take the receipt that they give you, file it away in a drawer and are you able to produce that receipt 10 years later?
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Um, well, if you go to our local bank branch and ask for change from your $20 bill, when they hand you four $5's do they also make a note of it in their teller register records, and do they hand you a receipt for that transaction?
I guess someone could request a receipt for that transaction, but I have never done so, and I have never heard of someone doing so. Nor have I ever seen a teller make a note of the transaction. Money is money, and a $20 means as much to the bank as 4 $5's. The same thing was true in 1933. Money was money, gold was part of the money system, and was paid out regularly at banks, and even after the Mint went to a "gold-for-gold" system, one double eagle was the same as another.
This emphasis on receipts is attempting to apply 2015 procedures to a situation that occurred in 1933.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Um, well, if you go to our local bank branch and ask for change from your $20 bill, when they hand you four $5's do they also make a note of it in their teller register records, and do they hand you a receipt for that transaction?
I guess someone could request a receipt for that transaction, but I have never done so, and I have never heard of someone doing so. Nor have I ever seen a teller make a note of the transaction. Money is money, and a $20 means as much to the bank as 4 $5's. The same thing was true in 1933. Money was money, gold was part of the money system, and was paid out regularly at banks, and even after the Mint went to a "gold-for-gold" system, one double eagle was the same as another.
This emphasis on receipts is attempting to apply 2015 procedures to a situation that occurred in 1933.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Tellers don't make note of each transaction, but they know at the start of the day how much of each denomination of coin and currency they have and also at the end of the day how many of each they have and that their drawer needs to balance. As long as the transactions balance they don't care how many 5s or 10s the end up with.
Time to TTT again. It looks more and more likely we will have to wait until 2016 for the court to render a decision. One week short of two MONTHS since the hearing and no word yet. Steve
Time to TTT again. It looks more and more likely we will have to wait until 2016 for the court to render a decision. One week short of two MONTHS since the hearing and no word yet. Steve
TTT again! Two months since the rehearing now. With the holidays upon us, I figure we MIGHT have a shot at a decision on Friday, January 15, 2016. How's that for a prediction! Steve
Have not looked at this thread in a long time and have not looked at the case docket to see what is going on in the case.
Apparently nothing is going on in the case.
I have no idea when the En Banc panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal will issued a decision. Probably sometime in 2016.
All I do know is that there is nothing that would cause the losing side in the forthcoming En Banc decision to not prepare and file the paperwork asking SCOTUS to review the case. After both sides have taken the case this far, I can not imagine either side not asking SCOTUS to take up the case.
Everyone with an interest in posting to this thread between now and the date the En Banc decision is made can continue to do so, but what else can be said that has not already been said (many times over!!!).
I do believe that this legal case was filed sometime in December, 2006. Imagine that, 10 years ago and still no end in sight.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let me provide an example. Jonathan Kern had I believe a 1975 proof set which was mistakenly issued in November 1974. Despite the fact that 1975 proof sets were not supposed to be issued until 1975, this set existed and was well-publicized as being issued in 1974. Was it legal? The Mint did not attempt to confiscate Mr. Kern's proof set. And I am certain that the Mint's records indicate that no 1975 proof sets were issued in 1974.
In short, the 1933 double eagles could have been distributed in the manner I described above, despite what the cashier records say. And, therefore, I believe Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let me provide an example. Jonathan Kern had I believe a 1975 proof set which was mistakenly issued in November 1974. Despite the fact that 1975 proof sets were not supposed to be issued until 1975, this set existed and was well-publicized as being issued in 1974. Was it legal? The Mint did not attempt to confiscate Mr. Kern's proof set. And I am certain that the Mint's records indicate that no 1975 proof sets were issued in 1974.
In short, the 1933 double eagles could have been distributed in the manner I described above, despite what the cashier records say. And, therefore, I believe Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
But the difference is that the 1975 coins passed muster for whatever was needed to 'monetize" them. So was there similar "muster" for the 1933 DEs? In 1932, DEs were struck, samples sent to Washington for assay, results received and title to the coins was transferred to the Fed thus completing the "monetization" process as I understand it. So where is similar documentation for the 1933s?
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let me provide an example. Jonathan Kern had I believe a 1975 proof set which was mistakenly issued in November 1974. Despite the fact that 1975 proof sets were not supposed to be issued until 1975, this set existed and was well-publicized as being issued in 1974. Was it legal? The Mint did not attempt to confiscate Mr. Kern's proof set. And I am certain that the Mint's records indicate that no 1975 proof sets were issued in 1974.
In short, the 1933 double eagles could have been distributed in the manner I described above, despite what the cashier records say. And, therefore, I believe Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
But the difference is that the 1975 coins passed muster for whatever was needed to 'monetize" them. So was there similar "muster" for the 1933 DEs? In 1932, DEs were struck, samples sent to Washington for assay, results received and title to the coins was transferred to the Fed thus completing the "monetization" process as I understand it. So where is similar documentation for the 1933s?
"Monetization" is a term invented in the 1990's by a government lawyer in order to justify the seizure of the Fenton coin. There was no such thing as monetization in 1933. If there was, then I would like to see use of the word during the 1930's, and I don't think you will find it.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Comments
Maybe we will hear from the Court of Appeals this week? Hope so. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I know someone very familiar with the Federal Judiciary. I asked him for an estimate on how long the decision might take, he estimated 90 days. I have no doubt it will be at least that as the wheels of justice turn very slowly.
A 90 day time would indicate to me that the Appeals Court IS very divided in coming to a decision and would also indicate a better probability that the losing side WILL appeal to the Supreme Court. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
bob
I don't know but I don't think that all judges are identified in the decision, but separate and minority opinions are signed. As far as speedy trial is concerned, that is a defendant's right in a criminal case. In any event, there already was a trial and the Langbords lost. This is the appeal to make sure it's right, either by affirmation, or by overturning and deciding, or by overturning and sending back for another trial (or something else).
The wheels of justice grind slowly......let's hope they get it right!
BTW, for those interested, here is an interesting blog about how the 3rd circuit decided en banc decisions. From reading it, I would surmise that the judges votes are available.
Third Circuit Blog
Tom
I know someone very familiar with the Federal Judiciary. I asked him for an estimate on how long the decision might take, he estimated 90 days. I have no doubt it will be at least that as the wheels of justice turn very slowly.
A 90 day time would indicate to me that the Appeals Court IS very divided in coming to a decision and would also indicate a better probability that the losing side WILL appeal to the Supreme Court. Steve
They usually write opinions which takes time. I am sure they have already decided the case but are drafting opinions and dissents before publication.
Everyone is reading too much into the elapsed time. En banc decisions are important. I talked to an appellate specialist on Friday. Her comment..."a decision is probable within a year." IMO, there is simply no way of telling.
I don't know but I don't think that all judges are identified in the decision, but separate and minority opinions are signed. As far as speedy trial is concerned, that is a defendant's right in a criminal case. In any event, there already was a trial and the Langbords lost. This is the appeal to make sure it's right, either by affirmation, or by overturning and deciding, or by overturning and sending back for another trial (or something else).
The wheels of justice grind slowly......let's hope they get it right!
BTW, for those interested, here is an interesting blog about how the 3rd circuit decided en banc decisions. From reading it, I would surmise that the judges votes are available.
Thrid Circuit Blog
Tom,
Thank you again for your comments AND the blog about the 3rd circuit judges and their supposed political leanings (ie) liberal or conservative. For those who might want to analyse the judges in relation to the Langbord case I will repeat that the three judge panel that overruled the lower court in April was made up of Chief Judge McKee and Judge Rendell and Judge Sloviter. The panel voted 2 to 1 to overturn the lower court with Chief Judge McKee and Judge Rendell voting in favor of overturn and Judge Sloviter opposing. Judge Rendell wrote the majority opinion and Judge Sloviter wrote the minority opinion. After reading the attached blog and graphs provided,(that Tom posted above) you can have fun trying to figure out how the whole court will vote. Personally, I don't think liberal/conservative politics play into this decision, but others may have different opinions.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
If the case gets to SCOTUS it's good for numismatics regardless of the outcome - the media coverage will be significant.
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court hears about 70-80 cases a year, and only a handful are mentioned in the news. I am not sure that a case involving the statutory interpretation of CAFRA is going to draw media attention. If it received a mention, it would be because of the value of the coins, but even then I would suspect the attention to be limited.
Then you don't believe head cashier George McCann sent two specimens of 1933 double eagle to the Smithsonian in 1934? The Mint's protocol was for the coiner to release the coins to the cashier after they had been bagged and sealed.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Another week goes by since the October 14th rehearing. Will the court reach a decision in the next three days before Thanksgiving OR will the decision drag into December? It is looking more and more to me that the court is NOT in full agreement and that a split decision will occur. If that is the case, does any of our legal experts here know if the 3rd District Court of Appeals publically announces the judges votes or just announces their decision? Comments welcome. Steve
Well, the court didn't announce a decision before Thanksgiving and unless they announce tomorrow, we WILL drag into December. So the question now is: Will the 3rd District Court of Appeals announce their decision in 2015? I think there may be some reason they may want to wait until at least January. If the losing party will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, this might allow that body an extra year until 2017 to decide whether or not to accept the case. Happy Holidays everyone.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I don't believe they were ever transferred to the cashier.
Then you don't believe head cashier George McCann sent two specimens of 1933 double eagle to the Smithsonian in 1934? The Mint's protocol was for the coiner to release the coins to the cashier after they had been bagged and sealed.
Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official as$ay results were received back from Washington? Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the a$say results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
Why would the coins be transferred to McCann before the official results from the as$ay office were received? The coins had not yet completed the monetization process, i.e. weren't transferred to the Fed. The order I was referring to was the one from FDR which would have made it's way down to the cashier, not a specific order to McCann. Are you saying that McCann had possession/custody of the coins BEFORE they were even approved by the as$ayer?
If it was requested that McCann send two coins to the Smithsonian in 1934, he could have gone to the vault and gotten two out.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
I think we have to not make the mistake of applying current procedures to events that happened in 1933. The current era includes a lot of paperwork, dotting all i's and crossing all t's. Such was not the way things happened in 1933!
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt. "The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin, especially in the year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument." And we accept this, because we know for a fact that in 1933 everyone documented the heck out of everything and got receipts for everything and kept those receipts forever.
For me, I would be disappointed in the Court that would accept a thin argument as "the government says the coins are stolen, so they must be stolen", absent ANY proof that Mr. Switt stole the coins. And we haven't seen such proof, because no such proof exists.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
BAJJERFAN:Would they have been transferred to the cashier BEFORE the official *****ay results were received back from Washington? Yes. Coins for special *****ay were sent by the cashier at the time,Mr. Powell, to the *****ayer in Washington D.C.,Mr. Quirk. No 1933 double eagle coin would not and should not have been released to the public until word was received by the Mint from the *****ayer in Washington D.C. that 1933 doubles p*****ed *****ay.1933 double eagles p*****ed first special *****ay and the coins would have been available for public distribution after March 29,1933.
Supposedly the order not to exchange the 33s came BEFORE the *****ay results were received back. If so, then what was to stop McCann from issuing them out if he had them at his window? So you're saying that he had some in his possession as cashier all along? Or when asked did he simply go to the vault and get 2? Just because he was asked to send them didn't mean he had them available.
You lost me here.What order not to exchange 33's are you talking about? I know of no such order.If Izzy had managed to get to the Mint window sometime after March 29 to April 5,1933 and IF (a big if) coins were available during the so-called window of opportunity,he failed to get a receipt for the exchanges. A receipt presented to the court in evidence by the Langbords would have been powerful evidence that Izzy acquired his '33's lawfully. The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin,especially in year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument.
I think we have to not make the mistake of applying current procedures to events that happened in 1933. The current era includes a lot of paperwork, dotting all i's and crossing all t's. Such was not the way things happened in 1933!
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt. "The argument that it's a Mint tradition to exchange old gold coin for new gold coin is thin, especially in the year 1933. We should be disappointed in the Court that would accept such a thin argument." And we accept this, because we know for a fact that in 1933 everyone documented the heck out of everything and got receipts for everything and kept those receipts forever.
For me, I would be disappointed in the Court that would accept a thin argument as "the government says the coins are stolen, so they must be stolen", absent ANY proof that Mr. Switt stole the coins. And we haven't seen such proof, because no such proof exists.
But mr1874 claims that someone else [a coupla book authors IIRC] claims that the Mint cashier's records from that point in time are sufficiently complete, detailed and accurate such that no 1933 DEs left the Mint via lawful exchange. If that's true, then any found outside of the Mint must have been taken from the Mint either by theft or unauthorized removal which depending upon your value system may be theft in its own right. Apparently a 250 coin bag of 1928 DEs was stolen and these may have been used to replace any 1933s which were spirited out of the Mint.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
This is a civil case.The preoponderance of evidence is on the government's side.Those 1933-34 cashier records alone are compelling evidence that no 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully.
I remember the time I was kidnapped and they sent a piece of my finger to my father. He said he wanted more proof.
Rodney Dangerfield
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
" Much of the questioning that followed was aimed at showing the Mint’s sloppy record keeping around 1933. A look at the Secret Service investigations of 1937 that found inconsistencies with cashier reports and daily gold records followed. . . .
The 1937 report called the Mint’s recordkeeping of the period “careless and slip shot” and added that the Mint seemed to have no systematic accounting system. The report added that the “unsatisfactory” method of keeping Mint and vault records was “a serious handicap” to the investigation, and that it may be expected that future evaluations of Philadelphia Mint records of the period would suffer because of the poor records."
So, the Secret Service issued a report in 1937 calling the Mint's recordkeeping "careless and slip shot" [sic], but SOMEHOW the Mint records for 1933 are perfect?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
According to my logic,the Mint tradition of exchanging old double eagle for new 1933 double eagle didn't happen lawfully at the Mint window in 1933.
So, the Secret Service issued a report in 1937 calling the Mint's recordkeeping "careless and slip shot" [sic], but SOMEHOW the Mint records for 1933 are perfect?
You are guilty of painting with too broad a brush here.Overgeneralization is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group. The vault records were sloppy. Mr. McKernan was the vault keeper and apparently didn't take much pride in his recordkeeping.The report you are referring to was made in the course of the investigation of the theft of an entire bag (250 pieces) of non-1933 double eagles from the vault. The cashier records tracking 1933 double eagles are meticulous. Tripp and others found no mistakes in the 1933 cashier records tracking double eagles by DATE even though there was no legal requirement to track gold coins by date in 1933. Something is telling me that Mint employees with some integrity like Mr. Powell,head cashier in 1933 and Mr. Ott,assistant cashier in 1933 did the date tracking of 1933 double eagles because they got the idea that theft of 1933 doubles was highly likely.They were simply covering their azzes by keeping the 1933 double eagle gold coin records in the manner that they did,by DATE.Am I the only one here that understands the significance of the 1933 cashier records to the Langbord's case and why they shouldn't get to keep "the Coins"? Mr. McCann did not become head cashier until 1934 to clear up any confusion about who was head cashier while 1933 double eagles were being made and stored in the Mint's basement vaults.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Then we get to the matter of Mr. Switt not obtaining a receipt when he obtained the coins. Do you have a receipt for every single thing in your house? I doubt it. For any one of those items for which you do not have a receipt, do you own the item? According to your logic, you don't own anything for which you don't have a receipt.
According to my logic,the Mint tradition of exchanging old double eagle for new 1933 double eagle didn't happen lawfully at the Mint window in 1933.
So, the Secret Service issued a report in 1937 calling the Mint's recordkeeping "careless and slip shot" [sic], but SOMEHOW the Mint records for 1933 are perfect?
You are guilty of painting with too broad a brush here.Overgeneralization is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group. The vault records were sloppy. Mr. McKernan was the vault keeper and apparently didn't take much pride in his recordkeeping.The report you are referring to was made in the course of the investigation of the theft of an entire bag (250 pieces) of non-1933 double eagles from the vault. The cashier records tracking 1933 double eagles are meticulous. Tripp and others found no mistakes in the 1933 cashier records tracking double eagles by DATE even though there was no legal requirement to track gold coins by date in 1933. Something is telling me that Mint employees with some integrity like Mr. Powell,head cashier in 1933 and Mr. Ott,assistant cashier in 1933 did the date tracking of 1933 double eagles because they got the idea that theft of 1933 doubles was highly likely.They were simply covering their azzes by keeping the 1933 double eagle gold coin records in the manner that they did,by DATE.Am I the only one here that understands the significance of the 1933 cashier records to the Langbord's case and why they shouldn't get to keep "the Coins"? Mr. McCann did not become head cashier until 1934 to clear up any confusion about who was head cashier while 1933 double eagles were being made and stored in the Mint's basement vaults.
Just for paragraphitization.
Yer welcome
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Thanks.How does one make paragraphs in here? I make the paragraphs when composing the post but all the words run together when post is made. I know it's annoying for readers.How can i fix it?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Can anyone tell me how to make posts with paragraphs?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I expect that we got the asset problem solved.
Can anyone tell me how to make posts with paragraphs?
IT is working on it. No idea why some can do it and some can't. May be the choice you were using between WYSIWYG and HTML when IT pulled the plug on it or some preferences in your computer/browser settings.
I tried with 3 different browsers IE, FireFox and Chrome and I can do paragraphitization with all 3.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
I am astonished at Izzy's lack of vision by not getting a receipt if he did in fact make exchanges of old gold $20 for new 1933 gold $20 at the Mint window.The window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle would have been very narrow,just a few days from March 29 or 30th to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
From 1944 when the first of nine 1933 double eagles traced to him were seized until his death over 40 years later,Izzy had plenty of time to have a master forger make a bogus receipt, for "the Coins" and put it with them in the safe deposit box where they were discovered.
A document to produce,such as a 1933 Mint receipt,real or bogus,for the Langbords,would be the equivalent of what the 1944 export license was for the ex Farouk coin to Stephen Fenton.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Four 5's for a 20 at the bank? I expect that I would get a receipt if I asked for it.
I am astonished at Izzy's lack of vision by not getting a receipt if he did in fact make exchanges of old gold $20 for new 1933 gold $20 at the Mint window.The window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle would have been very narrow,just a few days from March 29 or 30th to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
From 1944 when the first of nine 1933 double eagles traced to him were seized until his death over 40 years later,Izzy had plenty of time to have a master forger make a bogus receipt, for "the Coins" and put it with them in the safe deposit box where they were discovered.
A document to produce,such as a 1933 Mint receipt,real or bogus,for the Langbords,would be the equivalent of what the 1944 export license was for the ex Farouk coin to Stephen Fenton.
I would guess that if Izzy and others knew that recordkeeping was sloppy or careless in the past and nobody cared, that he expected the same would apply to the 1933s. Seems like he was pretty much GTG until some snoop got a bee in his bonnet over them.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Four 5's for a 20 at the bank? I expect that I would get a receipt if I asked for it.
I am astonished at Izzy's lack of vision by not getting a receipt if he did in fact make exchanges of old gold $20 for new 1933 gold $20 at the Mint window.The window of opportunity to acquire a 1933 double eagle would have been very narrow,just a few days from March 29 or 30th to April 5,1933 when EO 6102 came down.
From 1944 when the first of nine 1933 double eagles traced to him were seized until his death over 40 years later,Izzy had plenty of time to have a master forger make a bogus receipt, for "the Coins" and put it with them in the safe deposit box where they were discovered.
A document to produce,such as a 1933 Mint receipt,real or bogus,for the Langbords,would be the equivalent of what the 1944 export license was for the ex Farouk coin to Stephen Fenton.
You are assuming that Izzy knew he would later be accused of a crime, and that he should have known that he should create a paper trail. That is a ridiculous notion.
It was perfectly legal to trade older dated $20's for brand new ones at the cashier's window at the time. Izzy had been doing it for years, and likely others did as well.
He was in the "modern coin business". I'm sure he had collectors who wold pay a small premium for brand new $20's of the current year, whether he did that in 1930, 1931, 1932, or 1933. He made a little money doing so -- good for him, as he was right near the mint.
He wasn't some master criminal trying to scheme the US government out of its hard earned tax money.
When you go to a shop and get a cup of coffee, do you take the receipt that they give you, file it away in a drawer and are you able to produce that receipt 10 years later?
How do we know if the mint even gave receipts back then?
BHNC #203
Um, well, if you go to our local bank branch and ask for change from your $20 bill, when they hand you four $5's do they also make a note of it in their teller register records, and do they hand you a receipt for that transaction?
I guess someone could request a receipt for that transaction, but I have never done so, and I have never heard of someone doing so. Nor have I ever seen a teller make a note of the transaction. Money is money, and a $20 means as much to the bank as 4 $5's. The same thing was true in 1933. Money was money, gold was part of the money system, and was paid out regularly at banks, and even after the Mint went to a "gold-for-gold" system, one double eagle was the same as another.
This emphasis on receipts is attempting to apply 2015 procedures to a situation that occurred in 1933.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Um, well, if you go to our local bank branch and ask for change from your $20 bill, when they hand you four $5's do they also make a note of it in their teller register records, and do they hand you a receipt for that transaction?
I guess someone could request a receipt for that transaction, but I have never done so, and I have never heard of someone doing so. Nor have I ever seen a teller make a note of the transaction. Money is money, and a $20 means as much to the bank as 4 $5's. The same thing was true in 1933. Money was money, gold was part of the money system, and was paid out regularly at banks, and even after the Mint went to a "gold-for-gold" system, one double eagle was the same as another.
This emphasis on receipts is attempting to apply 2015 procedures to a situation that occurred in 1933.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Tellers don't make note of each transaction, but they know at the start of the day how much of each denomination of coin and currency they have and also at the end of the day how many of each they have and that their drawer needs to balance. As long as the transactions balance they don't care how many 5s or 10s the end up with.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Time to TTT again. It looks more and more likely we will have to wait until 2016 for the court to render a decision. One week short of two MONTHS since the hearing and no word yet. Steve
TTT again! Two months since the rehearing now. With the holidays upon us, I figure we MIGHT have a shot at a decision on Friday, January 15, 2016. How's that for a prediction! Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Apparently nothing is going on in the case.
I have no idea when the En Banc panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal will issued a decision. Probably sometime in 2016.
All I do know is that there is nothing that would cause the losing side in the forthcoming En Banc decision to not prepare and file the paperwork asking SCOTUS to review the case. After both sides have taken the case this far, I can not imagine either side not asking SCOTUS to take up the case.
Everyone with an interest in posting to this thread between now and the date the En Banc decision is made can continue to do so, but what else can be said that has not already been said (many times over!!!).
I do believe that this legal case was filed sometime in December, 2006. Imagine that, 10 years ago and still no end in sight.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"Criswell Predicts" from "Plan Nine from Outer Space"
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let me provide an example. Jonathan Kern had I believe a 1975 proof set which was mistakenly issued in November 1974. Despite the fact that 1975 proof sets were not supposed to be issued until 1975, this set existed and was well-publicized as being issued in 1974. Was it legal? The Mint did not attempt to confiscate Mr. Kern's proof set. And I am certain that the Mint's records indicate that no 1975 proof sets were issued in 1974.
In short, the 1933 double eagles could have been distributed in the manner I described above, despite what the cashier records say. And, therefore, I believe Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let me provide an example. Jonathan Kern had I believe a 1975 proof set which was mistakenly issued in November 1974. Despite the fact that 1975 proof sets were not supposed to be issued until 1975, this set existed and was well-publicized as being issued in 1974. Was it legal? The Mint did not attempt to confiscate Mr. Kern's proof set. And I am certain that the Mint's records indicate that no 1975 proof sets were issued in 1974.
In short, the 1933 double eagles could have been distributed in the manner I described above, despite what the cashier records say. And, therefore, I believe Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
But the difference is that the 1975 coins passed muster for whatever was needed to 'monetize" them. So was there similar "muster" for the 1933 DEs? In 1932, DEs were struck, samples sent to Washington for assay, results received and title to the coins was transferred to the Fed thus completing the "monetization" process as I understand it. So where is similar documentation for the 1933s?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Let's say that Mr. Switt went to the Mint and asked if 1933 double eagles were available. They said yes, and he said, great, I have some 1928 double eagles to trade for them. So he makes the trade. Now later on we find a document that says the Mint was not supposed to release 1933 double eagles. I would contend and I think most people would agree with me that if this situation occurred, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal. The government can't jump in later and say we didn't mean to release the 1933 double eagles. Now, and here is the big point: How can you prove that this isn't exactly what happened? And, the answer is, you can't prove that it didn't happen that way. Therefore, Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal, absent any proof to the contrary.
Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles would be perfectly legal in the scenario you describe.The problem is those cashier records from 1933 indicate that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded for at the Mint window prior to or after April 5,1933.The written record prevails in this case as it should.
But that's not proof that it didn't happen. There could have been an exchange/s that wasn't/weren't recorded. The relevant document/s would be the one/s that say that the coins were or were not approved for distribution. Where are they?
Let me provide an example. Jonathan Kern had I believe a 1975 proof set which was mistakenly issued in November 1974. Despite the fact that 1975 proof sets were not supposed to be issued until 1975, this set existed and was well-publicized as being issued in 1974. Was it legal? The Mint did not attempt to confiscate Mr. Kern's proof set. And I am certain that the Mint's records indicate that no 1975 proof sets were issued in 1974.
In short, the 1933 double eagles could have been distributed in the manner I described above, despite what the cashier records say. And, therefore, I believe Mr. Switt's 1933 double eagles are legal.
But the difference is that the 1975 coins passed muster for whatever was needed to 'monetize" them. So was there similar "muster" for the 1933 DEs? In 1932, DEs were struck, samples sent to Washington for assay, results received and title to the coins was transferred to the Fed thus completing the "monetization" process as I understand it. So where is similar documentation for the 1933s?
"Monetization" is a term invented in the 1990's by a government lawyer in order to justify the seizure of the Fenton coin. There was no such thing as monetization in 1933. If there was, then I would like to see use of the word during the 1930's, and I don't think you will find it.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.