We're going to have a woman on a ten dollar bill. We should put Joan Langbord on it.
The law does not allow for the likeness of a living person to appear on US coins or currency.1933 double eagles will be made legal to own and the Ft. Knox 10 will be handed over to the Langbords before this happens.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
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
Well, I blew that date! You'd think the 3rd circuit court is back from their "holiday vacation" by now. You'd also think they formed their opinion. So let's hear it this coming week. OK? Thanks.
Steve
TTT again after nine more days. We just can't let this thread get lost with almost 300 replies, can we? Someday, someone will check the court database and let us all know what the decision is. Sooner rather than later I hope. Steve
Another TTT as we await a decision from the 3rd circuit appeals court after FOUR months of deliberations following the October 14th rehearing before the full court. We all anxiously await the court's ruling. Steve
With the recent passing of Justice Scalia and the partisan bickering about his replacement that is just starting,the chance of the loser in the Langbord case getting heard by SCOTUS has got to be even closer to zero than it was before.
The snowball will have melted long before the justices say not just no but hell no to the case.
My prediction is that the decision from the en banc panel of judges by end of March will absolutely be the last hurrah for both sides given the political turmoil about Justice Scalia's replacement that is just beginning to ensue.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The Langboard shirt can only go up in value as the years go by.Anyone know if there is a household limit on how many of these handsome shirts that one can buy?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
MR1874...I am inclined to agree with you. Whatever the en banc panel says, this case will never make SCOTUS.
That does not mean that the Treasury would not try if it loses in en banc, however.
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.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
If the En Banc Panel issues a decision that sends the case back to the trial court for a new trial; and if the SOCTUS refuses to grant a petition or petitions (filed by either or both sides) to take up the case then the En Banc decision will not be the "last hurrah".
If the case is sent back to the trial court for a new trial, the case will spend substantial time in the trial court again, with another trial to take place [with the trial being held and conducted in compliance with whatever the En Banc decision requires (i.e. certain evidence introduced in the first trial is excluded in the second trial)]; after which a completely new round of appellate review would likely take place. Neither side appears willing to settle and if that dynamic continues this case could end up taking many more years to finally resolve itself.
Just for the record, I am in agreement with Steven that my "guess" is that the En Banc Panel will decide for the Government, hopefully soon. Of course, I would prefer a ruling in the Langbord's favor, but I could even bare another few years if SanctionII's thought of a retrial happens. WE SHALL SEE! Steve
A jury has already determined that the ten 1933 double eagles the Langbord's found in their safety deposit box are the property of the government. In my opinion,certain hearsay evidence that the jury heard in the first trial is not really important to the government's case should there be a second trial as those meticulous hand-written cashier records that track 1933 double eagles by date and account for each and every coin are virtually impossible to argue against.
A good compromise for a second trial would be for government not to introduce their hearsay evidence in exchange for Langbord/Berke not being permitted to introduce their anecdotal evidence.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I believe we have the rule of law for a reason and you cannot "horse trade" positions. Evidence either is or is not admissible according to the recognized standards applied. I am not a lawyer, but I have always believed that hearsay typically is not allowed, except in special circumstances (far too complex to be enumerated here by a layman).
My only irritation is the SEVERE delay in a ruling by the court. Another example of what is wrong with the court system among other things with government.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
It occurs to me that anectdotal evidence is essentially hearsay.No hearsay allowed from either side would be a good thing in a second trial.
Allowing speak in the courtroom of Mint tradition of exchanging old double eagle for new would be allowing hearsay since anectdotes are based on hearsay rather than hard facts.
The cashier records,the hard records,from 1933-34 tracking 1933 double eagles by date do,in fact,exist to this day and were at the core of the government's case in the first trial since government was able to successfully show to the jury that not a single 1933 double eagle could have lawfully fallen into private hands.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Originally posted by: mr1874 A jury has already determined that the ten 1933 double eagles the Langbord's found in their safety deposit box are the property of the government. In my opinion,certain hearsay evidence that the jury heard in the first trial is not really important to the government's case should there be a second trial as those meticulous hand-written cashier records that track 1933 double eagles by date and account for each and every coin are virtually impossible to argue against...
It is certainly possible that the courts should not have allowed the hearsay evidence in the trial, but allowing of the evidence was harmless to the Langbord's. However, I would disagree with that decision.
I am also not buying that there were Meticulous hand-written notes. I think it would be easy to tear apart the credibility of those notes. A fun way to challenge the credibility would be to get two 1933 $10 gold pieces on loan, and present them to the jury. Ask them why they have two of these in their hand when the meticulous hand-written notes say that only one was issued. Sure the government could say it must have been stolen, but isn't it more likely that the clerk just forgot to write that other one down when it was issued?
Tomthecoinguy:It is certainly possible that the courts should not have allowed the hearsay evidence in the trial, but allowing of the evidence was harmless to the Langbord's. However, I would disagree with that decision.
I am also not buying that there were Meticulous hand-written notes. I think it would be easy to tear apart the credibility of those notes. A fun way to challenge the credibility would be to get two 1933 $10 gold pieces on loan, and present them to the jury. Ask them why they have two of these in their hand when the meticulous hand-written notes say that only one was issued. Sure the government could say it must have been stolen, but isn't it more likely that the clerk just forgot to write that other one down when it was issued?
The "notes" that the government used in the trial are official Mint records,cashier records, from 1933-34.
It's at the top of my numismatic bucket list to visit the National Archive where the Mint's 1933-34 Cashier records are located.I would obtain copies of each page of the Mint cashier records for double eagle coins starting March 2,1933,when production of 1933 double eagles started and ending October,1934,when the only two 1933 double eagles that are supposed to exist were sent to the Smithsonian.Eventually,I would have my copies bound into a single volume and the volume would reside in my numismatic library to the end of my days.
Another thing on my numismatic bucket list is to nominate Robert Powell,the Mint's head cashier in 1933,and his assistant,Hibberd Ott for meritorious government service.
The posthumously awarded medals should look something like this,with the eagle seen below replaced by the eagle depicted on the St. Gaudens twenty-dollar gold piece:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If the records are so meticulous, how did an entire bag of DEs walk out the door subsequent to the 1933 DEs? There was a long history at the Mint of things going out the back door. Consider the 1804 Dollars, type II and III, the 1913 Liberty Nickels, etc. Those are just the famous ones besides the 1933 DEs. I have very little faith in the records.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
I'm not sure how anyone can say that allowing this much double and triple hearsay was harmless error. Even the panel of judges chided the government about it at the oral argument (though admittedly, some were not trial lawyers and didn't seem to understand the issue). Of course, the en banc court could say it, and case-law is a bit mixed, but there was such a blatant abuse of the hearsay doctrine here, even if under the guise of the ancient documents rule, that I think it is harmful and reversible error. Which means, on the hearsay issue, a new trial on the merits is warranted. I'll be surprised if that doesn't happen. FWIW, I think they are struggling over the more difficult and more impactful issue - CAFRA and theft.
The vault records,unlike the cashier records, are careless and sloppy.An entire bag of 250 double eagles,not dated 1933 and with a total face value of $5000,was taken from the Mint's basement vault,most likely in 1933.The case was never solved and the coins were never recovered.Here's my theory about how 1933 double eagles got out of the Mint:
All of the '33 de's most probably were "spirited" out of the Mint via pants pocket just prior to the Great Gold Coin melt of 1937.The melt was supervised by head Cashier at the time,George McCann. In my way of thinking,it's no coincidence that 1937 was the first year that 1933 double eagles started to appear in the channels of numismatic commerce.
Overcoats and high-waisted baggy trousers with big deep pockets was the men's style in the '30's. Here's a pic of men standing in a NYC unemployment line in 1933:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I'm not sure how anyone can say that allowing this much double and triple hearsay is harmless error. Even the panel of judges, some of whom were not trial lawyers, chided the government about it at the oral argument. Of course, the en banc court could say it, and case-law is a bit mixed, but there was such a blatant abuse of the hearsay doctrine here, even if under the guise of having an expert testify on it, that I think it is harmful and reversible error. Which means, on the hearsay issue, a new trial on the merits is warranted. I'll be surprised if that doesn't happen. FWIW, I think they are struggling over the more impactful issue - CAFRA and theft.
I agree with TPRC. One of the prime facets of the government's case is the argument "Mr. Switt was a bad guy, therefore he must have stolen the 1933 double eagles." I believe that kind of "evidence" is worthless and shouldn't be admissible.
The testimony of David Tripp re "the orphan document" - - basically Mr. Tripp admitted the reason he called it an "orphan document" is that it didn't support his conclusion.
The trial judge giving the government a "mulligan" on the CAFRA filing - - Oh, well, it's over 4 years late, well, file it anyway."
I wouldn't want to go through the lengthy process again, but if you are the Langbords, what is the alternative?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
RichieURich:The testimony of David Tripp re "the orphan document" - - basically Mr. Tripp admitted the reason he called it an "orphan document" is that it didn't support his conclusion.
What does the "orphan document" say?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I did a little research on the "orphan document" and found this blurb in a Coinweek article.Parenthesis,for clarification purposes,are mine:
Frankel (author of Double Eagle)writes, “An Assistant Treasury Secretary telegraphed to the Mint on March 7 (1933) that it was, in fact, ‘authorized to exchange gold coins or bars in exchange for bullion received.’” Earlier in the trial, David Tripp, a paid witness for the U.S. Treasury Department, stated that this telegram is an “orphan.” Later, under cross-examination, Tripp admitted that Tripp himself assigned the term “orphan” to this document. It does make clear that gold coins could be legally exchanged, and thus released from the U.S. Mint, after March 7th and before as well. David Tripp's orphan document
"before as well" is not useful information.
Problem for the plaintiffs:The earliest date that 1933 double eagles would have been legally available for distribution was end of March-early April,1933.The Mint cashier was not legally authorized to distribute the new 1933 doubles until receiving word from assayer Timothy Quirk in Washington,D.C. that samples from the first batch of coins passed special assay. After March 7, 1933,and up to April 5,1933,Izzy would have been able to legally exchange his gold bullion or old gold coins for 1932 Double Eagles,if available at the Mint window, or 1933 Eagles,all of which were minted earlier in the year.An exchange for 1933 Double Eagles on March 7 up to March 29 would have been an unlawful removal of 1933 Double Eagles from the Mint regardless of whether the exchange was old gold coins for new or gold bullion for new 1933 Double Eagles.
Is not an "unlawful removal" tantamount to "theft?"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Is not an "unlawful removal" tantamount to "theft?"
I wouldn't think so. Theft requires "mens rea," or intent. I can imagine an unlawful negligent or unintentional, act, or even an unlawful, non-negligent act, such as in strict liability. However, how that plays out here, well, I don't know.
It seems that if the Mint cashier's intent was to distribute 1933 double eagles prior to receiving word that special assay was passed that would constitute a theft on his part.
Can one reasonably assume that the Mint cashier and his assistants should know better than to distribute the Mint's new gold coin before assay was passed?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Thanks Mr1874. It's a beautiful example you posted, actually. Made me laugh during a rather mundane moment in my day, as lane changes go. As to the coin, it belonged to the grandfather of a gal who brought it to the shop via a relative. I did buy it and paid to get it graded. In essence, it belongs to the United States of America and is currently on loan , looking for an interested party that doesn't mind a little reward for his/ their risk , as it were.
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
Well, I blew that date! You'd think the 3rd circuit court is back from their "holiday vacation" by now. You'd also think they formed their opinion. So let's hear it this coming week. OK? Thanks.
Steve
TTT again after nine more days. We just can't let this thread get lost with almost 300 replies, can we? Someday, someone will check the court database and let us all know what the decision is. Sooner rather than later I hope. Steve
Another TTT as we await a decision from the 3rd circuit appeals court after FOUR months of deliberations following the October 14th rehearing before the full court. We all anxiously await the court's ruling. Steve
Another NINE days have past since the last post on this thread and MANY MORE days have past since I last posted on this thread, so it is time to go "TTT" once again while we wait for the third circuit judges to make their decision. I almost feel like I am performing a public service to alert coin forum participants that we're still interested in what the court has to say.
Of course, YOUR comments are always welcome. Steve
This is an election year. Come back this time in 2017. We can re-visit the thread then. My guess is gold will be $1477, and even if it's less …. who cares.
The wheels grind exceedingly slow! What will we have first, a new Supreme Court justice or a decision on the pending Langford case? I think it is 50/50
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
My guess is that the court will rule in 19 to 33 days from now,somewhere between 23Jan and 6Feb.
Maybe start a thread with a poll : "Guess the date
The law does not allow for the likeness of a living person to appear on US coins or currency.1933 double eagles will be made legal to own and the Ft. Knox 10 will be handed over to the Langbords before this happens.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My prediction of "19 to 33 days" is within a few days of being wrong.My new prediction is the court will rule sometime in February or March.
Of 2017?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
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
Well, I blew that date! You'd think the 3rd circuit court is back from their "holiday vacation" by now. You'd also think they formed their opinion. So let's hear it this coming week. OK? Thanks.
Steve
TTT again after nine more days. We just can't let this thread get lost with almost 300 replies, can we? Someday, someone will check the court database and let us all know what the decision is. Sooner rather than later I hope. Steve
Another TTT as we await a decision from the 3rd circuit appeals court after FOUR months of deliberations following the October 14th rehearing before the full court. We all anxiously await the court's ruling. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Coin and bullion t-shirts, posters, mousepads, etc.
--Severian the Lame
From "Gold Diggers of 1933"
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
The snowball will have melted long before the justices say not just no but hell no to the case.
My prediction is that the decision from the en banc panel of judges by end of March will absolutely be the last hurrah for both sides given the political turmoil about Justice Scalia's replacement that is just beginning to ensue.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
… to justice and prognosticating.
Tom
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
That does not mean that the Treasury would not try if it loses in en banc, however.
Coin and bullion t-shirts, posters, mousepads, etc.
Was the misspelling deliberate?
Coin and bullion t-shirts, posters, mousepads, etc.
Was the misspelling deliberate?
More than likely. I'd prefer it read : FR33 I22Y sWiTt
If the case is sent back to the trial court for a new trial, the case will spend substantial time in the trial court again, with another trial to take place [with the trial being held and conducted in compliance with whatever the En Banc decision requires (i.e. certain evidence introduced in the first trial is excluded in the second trial)]; after which a completely new round of appellate review would likely take place. Neither side appears willing to settle and if that dynamic continues this case could end up taking many more years to finally resolve itself.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
A good compromise for a second trial would be for government not to introduce their hearsay evidence in exchange for Langbord/Berke not being permitted to introduce their anecdotal evidence.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My only irritation is the SEVERE delay in a ruling by the court. Another example of what is wrong with the court system among other things with government.
Allowing speak in the courtroom of Mint tradition of exchanging old double eagle for new would be allowing hearsay since anectdotes are based on hearsay rather than hard facts.
The cashier records,the hard records,from 1933-34 tracking 1933 double eagles by date do,in fact,exist to this day and were at the core of the government's case in the first trial since government was able to successfully show to the jury that not a single 1933 double eagle could have lawfully fallen into private hands.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
It appears that Lady Justice is ready for any baring that might occur:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
enough to see this resolved. Cheers, RickO
A jury has already determined that the ten 1933 double eagles the Langbord's found in their safety deposit box are the property of the government. In my opinion,certain hearsay evidence that the jury heard in the first trial is not really important to the government's case should there be a second trial as those meticulous hand-written cashier records that track 1933 double eagles by date and account for each and every coin are virtually impossible to argue against...
It is certainly possible that the courts should not have allowed the hearsay evidence in the trial, but allowing of the evidence was harmless to the Langbord's. However, I would disagree with that decision.
I am also not buying that there were Meticulous hand-written notes. I think it would be easy to tear apart the credibility of those notes. A fun way to challenge the credibility would be to get two 1933 $10 gold pieces on loan, and present them to the jury. Ask them why they have two of these in their hand when the meticulous hand-written notes say that only one was issued. Sure the government could say it must have been stolen, but isn't it more likely that the clerk just forgot to write that other one down when it was issued?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I am also not buying that there were Meticulous hand-written notes. I think it would be easy to tear apart the credibility of those notes. A fun way to challenge the credibility would be to get two 1933 $10 gold pieces on loan, and present them to the jury. Ask them why they have two of these in their hand when the meticulous hand-written notes say that only one was issued. Sure the government could say it must have been stolen, but isn't it more likely that the clerk just forgot to write that other one down when it was issued?
The "notes" that the government used in the trial are official Mint records,cashier records, from 1933-34.
It's at the top of my numismatic bucket list to visit the National Archive where the Mint's 1933-34 Cashier records are located.I would obtain copies of each page of the Mint cashier records for double eagle coins starting March 2,1933,when production of 1933 double eagles started and ending October,1934,when the only two 1933 double eagles that are supposed to exist were sent to the Smithsonian.Eventually,I would have my copies bound into a single volume and the volume would reside in my numismatic library to the end of my days.
Another thing on my numismatic bucket list is to nominate Robert Powell,the Mint's head cashier in 1933,and his assistant,Hibberd Ott for meritorious government service.
The posthumously awarded medals should look something like this,with the eagle seen below replaced by the eagle depicted on the St. Gaudens twenty-dollar gold piece:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
"Often wrong, never uncertain!"
Tom
All of the '33 de's most probably were "spirited" out of the Mint via pants pocket just prior to the Great Gold Coin melt of 1937.The melt was supervised by head Cashier at the time,George McCann. In my way of thinking,it's no coincidence that 1937 was the first year that 1933 double eagles started to appear in the channels of numismatic commerce.
Overcoats and high-waisted baggy trousers with big deep pockets was the men's style in the '30's.
Here's a pic of men standing in a NYC unemployment line in 1933:
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I'm not sure how anyone can say that allowing this much double and triple hearsay is harmless error. Even the panel of judges, some of whom were not trial lawyers, chided the government about it at the oral argument. Of course, the en banc court could say it, and case-law is a bit mixed, but there was such a blatant abuse of the hearsay doctrine here, even if under the guise of having an expert testify on it, that I think it is harmful and reversible error. Which means, on the hearsay issue, a new trial on the merits is warranted. I'll be surprised if that doesn't happen. FWIW, I think they are struggling over the more impactful issue - CAFRA and theft.
I agree with TPRC. One of the prime facets of the government's case is the argument "Mr. Switt was a bad guy, therefore he must have stolen the 1933 double eagles." I believe that kind of "evidence" is worthless and shouldn't be admissible.
The testimony of David Tripp re "the orphan document" - - basically Mr. Tripp admitted the reason he called it an "orphan document" is that it didn't support his conclusion.
The trial judge giving the government a "mulligan" on the CAFRA filing - - Oh, well, it's over 4 years late, well, file it anyway."
I wouldn't want to go through the lengthy process again, but if you are the Langbords, what is the alternative?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
What does the "orphan document" say?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
if it would please the courts, we have a line of spectators here.
Frankel (author of Double Eagle)writes, “An Assistant Treasury Secretary telegraphed to the Mint on March 7 (1933) that it was, in fact, ‘authorized to exchange gold coins or bars in exchange for bullion received.’” Earlier in the trial, David Tripp, a paid witness for the U.S. Treasury Department, stated that this telegram is an “orphan.” Later, under cross-examination, Tripp admitted that Tripp himself assigned the term “orphan” to this document. It does make clear that gold coins could be legally exchanged, and thus released from the U.S. Mint, after March 7th and before as well.
David Tripp's orphan document
"before as well" is not useful information.
Problem for the plaintiffs:The earliest date that 1933 double eagles would have been legally available for distribution was end of March-early April,1933.The Mint cashier was not legally authorized to distribute the new 1933 doubles until receiving word from assayer Timothy Quirk in Washington,D.C. that samples from the first batch of coins passed special assay. After March 7, 1933,and up to April 5,1933,Izzy would have been able to legally exchange his gold bullion or old gold coins for 1932 Double Eagles,if available at the Mint window, or 1933 Eagles,all of which were minted earlier in the year.An exchange for 1933 Double Eagles on March 7 up to March 29 would have been an unlawful removal of 1933 Double Eagles from the Mint regardless of whether the exchange was old gold coins for new or gold bullion for new 1933 Double Eagles.
Is not an "unlawful removal" tantamount to "theft?"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Is not an "unlawful removal" tantamount to "theft?"
I wouldn't think so. Theft requires "mens rea," or intent. I can imagine an unlawful negligent or unintentional, act, or even an unlawful, non-negligent act, such as in strict liability. However, how that plays out here, well, I don't know.
Tom
Can one reasonably assume that the Mint cashier and his assistants should know better than to distribute the Mint's new gold coin before assay was passed?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
" Close enough for government work " ?
Would work like this be close enough for ya?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
ttt
" Close enough for government work " ?
Would work like this be close enough for ya?
Sure… why not ? If it's close enough for you, it's close enough for me.
One wonders why that dateless error nickel circulated as long as it did.Are you the owner of the piece?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
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
Well, I blew that date! You'd think the 3rd circuit court is back from their "holiday vacation" by now. You'd also think they formed their opinion. So let's hear it this coming week. OK? Thanks.
Steve
TTT again after nine more days. We just can't let this thread get lost with almost 300 replies, can we? Someday, someone will check the court database and let us all know what the decision is. Sooner rather than later I hope. Steve
Another TTT as we await a decision from the 3rd circuit appeals court after FOUR months of deliberations following the October 14th rehearing before the full court. We all anxiously await the court's ruling. Steve
Another NINE days have past since the last post on this thread and MANY MORE days have past since I last posted on this thread, so it is time to go "TTT" once again while we wait for the third circuit judges to make their decision. I almost feel like I am performing a public service to alert coin forum participants that we're still interested in what the court has to say.
Of course, YOUR comments are always welcome. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Those Saints are tainted forever.
Tom
So there was a hearing in October with an expectation of a ruling in 30 days? Geez. Not a very "speedy" trial.
It does appear to be a violation of the rights of her people. But it's not a criminal court proceeding.