Options
Langbord-Switt 1933 Double Eagle case
WillieBoyd2
Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭✭✭
Today, the US Court of Appeals Third Circuit decided in favor of the US Government in the long-running Langbord-Switt 1933 Double Eagle case.
https://www.brianrxm.com
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
0
Comments
Over my 60 years on this earth I have learned to despise the Feds.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/124574p2.pdf
From the decision:
The evidence at trial demonstrated overwhelmingly that no 1933 Double Eagle ever left the Mint through authorized channels and any that did were either stolen or embezzled.
Once the jury had spoken, the District Court declared that the 1933 Double Eagles had always been property of the United States. Although the benefit of hindsight has convinced us that certain errors were committed in the conduct of the trial, they did not affect the outcome. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Egypt Silver Hexagonal Two Piastres 1944 - King Farouk
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Finally, the correct decision is made. Let's hope this is the end of it.
Agree
merse
Finally, the correct decision is made. Let's hope this is the end of it.
Agree
Need a Third? I'm in.
It always amazes me when special interests, (in this case, coin collecting), fogs the vision of some. As much as you would like to believe otherwise, this was proven to be a case of government property being mis-appropriated.
(If you read the legal arguments, unlike 1913 nickels, or various pattern coins, there really were laws and circumstances that make it pretty clear....and a jury decision on top of that!)
Now, I hope the government has the good sense to NOT destroy these. Not sure what they should do with them....make them available for study....put them in various numismatic museum?.....Heck, maybe they should SELL them at auction? That might make the most people happy....
Our country just became less free
If that's possible, I guess it's true.......
From what I understood, there was a small window in which it would have been possible to obtain this date. This isn't the first time I would disagree with a courts decision......
Our country just became less free
Link on Amazon.com:
https://www.amazon.com/Illegal...-Double/dp/0743274350/
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
Tom
Our country just became less free
It makes me sad. Real sad.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
King Farouk is laughing today because he got away with it.
Egypt Silver Hexagonal Two Piastres 1944 - King Farouk
Now days you have to expect a travesty of justice. Justice is blindfolded, gagged, and dragged screaming into the night.
How ironic that King Farouk destroyed critical evidence in building a mansion at the base of the Great Pyramid.
In this type of case (extensively litigated at the trial court level and thereafter at the Court Of Appeals level [with the 3 justice panel decision and the en banc panel decision] with both sides 180 degrees apart in how they view the case) there is absolutely no reason why the losing side would not seek appellate review. The Langbords lost at the trial court level and appealed. They won the first round of appeals and the government sought rehearing en banc.
Nothing would be lost (except more attorney time, attorney fees and litigation costs) by the losing side seeking US Supreme Court review of the decision of en banc panel. If the Langbords had prevailed today the government would seek US Supreme Court review. The Langbords will seek US Supreme Court review.
Whether the US Supreme Court would take this case is unknown. The percentages are very low on the Supreme Court accepting petitions for review. However, the same thing could be said about the 3rd Circuit granting a request for rehearing before the en banc panel.
There is something about this case (maybe it is that it deals with 10 gold double eagles and the "treasure" aspect of things) that generates interest. Maybe it is the history that this case consists of (over 80 years now). Maybe it is because this case, at its core, deals with the nature of "property rights" [both private and public], the relationships between the government and the governed, and the nature and extent of the power of the government to take possession and/or title of property from the governed.
If the US Supreme Court does grant a petition for review and agrees to hear this case, the legal community and the general public (though expanded media coverage) will pay attention to this case in the same manner that the hobby has been doing so.
Do any federal practicioners know what the time deadline is for the Langbords to file their petition for review? If the petition is granted, how long does the process usually take and a decision by the Supremes issued?
Supreme Court Rule 13 would apply, giving them 90 days to seek review (Certiorari) by the Supreme Court.
A fascinating case, and I agree that the weakness of the decision (and potential grounds for review) is in part the "harmless error" ruling(s). But, without actually reviewing the transcripts, it is difficult for anyone to second guess this.
But, perhaps, key is that there seemed to be more than ample evidence that the coins never legally left the Cashier's office. Thus, they were stolen. And, it is fundamental that one cannot obtain legal title to stolen property.
How does this make us "less free?" If you can cogently explain that nexus, well, I'd be impressed.
Our country just became less free
Free to steal from the Government?
Israel Swift seems to have been a bit of a weasel and him being involved in back door deals is probably well within his standard procedure.
He knew he had them, but his daughter didn't "discover" them until almost 70 years later.
Even though manual records from 1933 are spotty, there is no record of any 1933 $20 libs leaving the Mint.
Did he obtain them legally during the 3 week period between them being first struck and when FDR finally shut it down?
Maybe - but there are no records of that and apparently no one else did.
So the Government got its stolen property back. I just hope they will make them available for public display in museums and not destroy them.
Beside the Farouk coin (the only legal 1933 $20) there is one in the National Numismatic Museum and ten others confiscated earlier in Fort Knox.
How many of the known 1933 $10 Indians can be positively proven to have left the US mint legally? How about 1873-cc NA quarters and dimes? 1870-s half dime? 1804 dollars? 1885 Trade dollars? Mint gold coin "records" from 1933 are not "spotty," they are non-existant.
Estate tax at 77% over $10,000,000 ( a figure being kicked around for how much they are worth)
70 years of retroactive interest, compounded.
Probably somewhere north of $300,000,000 right now.
US GOV: Pay us the $300,000,000 and you can have your coins back.
Our country just became less free
Free to steal from the Government?
Israel Swift seems to have been a bit of a weasel and him being involved in back door deals is probably well within his standard procedure.
He knew he had them, but his daughter didn't "discover" them until almost 70 years later.
Even though manual records from 1933 are spotty, there is no record of any 1933 $20 libs leaving the Mint.
Did he obtain them legally during the 3 week period between them being first struck and when FDR finally shut it down?
Maybe - but there are no records of that and apparently no one else did.
So the Government got its stolen property back. I just hope they will make them available for public display in museums and not destroy them.
Beside the Farouk coin (the only legal 1933 $20) there is one in the National Numismatic Museum and ten others confiscated earlier in Fort Knox.
The Government can just claim it owns something and ignore the laws specified for forfeiture. When citizens have fewer protection from an overreaching Government then they are less free.
Our country just became less free
Agreed.
It's probably too much to ask everyone to read the decision in the OP, but at least read pages 46 to 48.
As far as the court is concerned, there is no doubt that the coins did NOT, and could not, have left the mint legally.
Feel free to make up your own facts....but the legal system seems to have determined that much.
Added:
Actually, decision is in 3rd post. Linking here for easy access.
Link
I believe the discussion on pages 70 - 76, which is the Dissenting Opinion, especially the first full paragraph on page 74, is quite relevant here.
The majority opinion basically states that CAFRA doesn't apply to any case within which the government doesn't want it to apply. Now that we know that, I think we need to know what other laws don't apply whenever the government doesn't want them to apply?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I believe the discussion on pages 70 - 76, which is the Dissenting Opinion, especially the first full paragraph on page 74, is quite relevant here.
The majority opinion basically states that CAFRA doesn't apply to any case within which the government doesn't want it to apply. Now that we know that, I think we need to know what other laws don't apply whenever the government doesn't want them to apply?
While I'm far from a lawyer, I do find the line of reasoning in the dissenting opinion fairly compelling. Since ownership was not automatically known at the time, asserting that "the rules" didn't apply because "we already own them" is pretty lame.
The larger question about the status of the 1933 Double Eagles being government property, I still accept. Having to give them back to the family because the government was being hard headed and not following "the rules"....well, shame on Uncle Sam. (Though, I hate seeing right and wrong determined by a artificial statutory timeline....for either the Government, or a private citizen.)
Federal and State Law enforcement have found it to be a great cash cow for their bottom lines and people who have never been convicted of a crime, are having cash, cars - even their homes seized by the government. And it is way too expensive to try and get them back.
The Langbord's do fall into this category, but it is much more widespread then people realize.
I think this is a much larger issue than 10 coins that are of questionable ownership.
I believe the discussion on pages 70 - 76, which is the Dissenting Opinion, especially the first full paragraph on page 74, is quite relevant here.
The majority opinion basically states that CAFRA doesn't apply to any case within which the government doesn't want it to apply. Now that we know that, I think we need to know what other laws don't apply whenever the government doesn't want them to apply?
The court did not ignore the statute or allow the government to reinterpret the statute. CAFRA applies to forfeitures per the plain meaning of the statute. Had Congress intended to enlarge the scope of the statute beyond forfeiture and to cover all seizures, it could have done so. Congress is presumed to know the law, and the law is clear: You cannot forfeit what you never acquired and legal title does not convey when items are stolen (as the jury found). Whether we agree with the jury's decision or not, the factual arguments ended there with the jury. It is the dissent that is trying to rewrite the law by changing what it means to "forfeit" something as that term has a definition that is legally well rooted in case law and the common law.
This case also shows why I hate jury trials - you are relying on a group of lay people who may or may not be competent enough to make a correct finding of fact. Once that finding of fact has been made, it is difficult to have overturned later.
There is something about this case (maybe it is that it deals with 10 gold double eagles and the "treasure" aspect of things) that generates interest. Maybe it is the history that this case consists of (over 80 years now). Maybe it is because this case, at its core, deals with the nature of "property rights" [both private and public], the relationships between the government and the governed, and the nature and extent of the power of the government to take possession and/or title of property from the governed.
None of these are sufficient reasons for a grant of a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is discretionary and is not granted in all cases when the circuit court is wrong. It is typically awarded where there is a deep circuit conflict or where issues are of such national importance that review is warranted before other courts have had the opportunity to address the issue. This does not qualify under the latter IMHO. To be frank, the CAFRA ruling was correct as a matter of law although I do not like the result any more than most collectors do.
Do any federal practicioners know what the time deadline is for the Langbords to file their petition for review? If the petition is granted, how long does the process usually take and a decision by the Supremes issued?
The Langboards have 90 days to file a petition for writ of certiorari, but can seek an extension if needed. The time truly depends on factors that are variable. 90 days out would put us in November. It takes time for the petition to circulate among the law clerks to prepare mini-briefs for the justices and go to conference which likely would not be decided until late December 2016 or January 2017. If review were granted, it would be docketed in the Spring of 2017 and a ruling issued by the end of June 2017. I expect that the petition would be denied.
The Obama wants to steal me gold
Really? That is what you gather from this?
I think there is some wishful thinking going on.
It's probably too much to ask everyone to read the decision in the OP, but at least read pages 46 to 48.
As far as the court is concerned, there is no doubt that the coins did NOT, and could not, have left the mint legally.
Feel free to make up your own facts....but the legal system seems to have determined that much.
Added:
Actually, decision is in 3rd post. Linking here for easy access.
Link
Thanks for that link. I read pages 46-48 and I don't see anything in the govt's interpretation that convinces me it wasn't possible to legally exchange for 1933 Saints at the cashier's window. The govt suggests the mint records and cashier's window ledger are infallible, and that they account for EVERY single coin in the vault, by date/mint. Preposterous actually. Since the govt's stance is that every 1933 had to be stolen or embezzled (sorry King Farouk), then FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, numismatist William Woodin, obtained his personal specimens will full knowledge that it was illegal. Now that's a stretch. Since the mint records are infallible, show me the entry where Secretary Woodin obtained his specimen(s) from the US mint/cashier's window. It has to be there because of the infallibility of mint record keeping. And why would the mint/treasury specifically place 500 specimens available to the cashier if their intention was to ensure not a single specimen was to ever be handed out?
Note also that FDR's proclamation contained an exception (likely via Woodin and his assistant) that allowed collectors to retain "coins of rare or unusual interest." The govt now suggests that 1933 Saints at that time wouldn't have qualified as rare or unusual as there were over 445,000 of them in existence. From my readings of that era and the decades that followed, even a 1928 $20 Saint with millions minted, qualified as rare or unusual. Mintage had nothing to do with it. And collectors of the 1930's could have kept up to 5 specimens of any pre-1933 gold coin legally, and many did just that (Eliasberg, Pittman, Bareford, Stack, etc.). I don't see why a 1933 Saint was any different. Read David Ganz's article on this era of gold coin seizure.
Ganz on gold
Finally, FDR's gold executive order wasn't even legal as he did not have the power to authorize a gold coin seizure/turn-in. By law, only the Secretary of the Treasury could authorize this. It wasn't until the US Govt was taken to court in Sept 1933 on another seizure case that they realized this "mistake" occurred. Oops. It was corrected by reissuing the order with the SOT's signature. So what about March-Sept 1933? This recent 9-3 ruling in favor of the USGovt clearly shows that 25% of the judges sided with the Langbords. Does a govt ruling ensure that all important facts were found/presented and complete justice was carried out? Like the grade of a coin, it's just an opinion. And opinions change. And opinions can be influenced.
Roadrunners line of reasoning is excellent...I believe there is sufficient cause for appeal to SCOTUS.... Cheers, RickO
I believe the discussion on pages 70 - 76, which is the Dissenting Opinion, especially the first full paragraph on page 74, is quite relevant here.
The majority opinion basically states that CAFRA doesn't apply to any case within which the government doesn't want it to apply. Now that we know that, I think we need to know what other laws don't apply whenever the government doesn't want them to apply?
The court did not ignore the statute or allow the government to reinterpret the statute. CAFRA applies to forfeitures per the plain meaning of the statute. Had Congress intended to enlarge the scope of the statute beyond forfeiture and to cover all seizures, it could have done so. Congress is presumed to know the law, and the law is clear: You cannot forfeit what you never acquired and legal title does not convey when items are stolen (as the jury found). Whether we agree with the jury's decision or not, the factual arguments ended there with the jury. It is the dissent that is trying to rewrite the law by changing what it means to "forfeit" something as that term has a definition that is legally well rooted in case law and the common law.
This case also shows why I hate jury trials - you are relying on a group of lay people who may or may not be competent enough to make a correct finding of fact. Once that finding of fact has been made, it is difficult to have overturned later.
There is a famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Saying it isn't a forfeiture but calling it something else doesn't mean that it isn't a forfeiture.
But I called this verdict long ago. With a high-stakes treasure, and the government on one side, it was obvious to me many years ago that a court run by the government would come up with some sort of parsed legal rationale that justified a decision in favor of the government.
I agree with your comments regarding the competency of lay people on a jury. Especially in this case where the trial court judge clearly favored the government through his rulings on evidence, jury instructions, etc.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The Mint and the Treasury was not harmed by the switching of one date for another in 1933. Only after the value for the date increased did the Government take notice.
Agree!
My YouTube Channel
The Obama wants to steal me gold
Really? That is what you gather from this?
My YouTube Channel
For those concerned about the cost to the government, all the lawyers are on staff and thus are a sunk cost. No one was hired specifically for this case in terms of lawyers. Yes, there were a few experts, but that is spare change compared to the hours of legal work.
Roadrunners line of reasoning is excellent...I believe there is sufficient cause for appeal to SCOTUS.... Cheers, RickO
I don't see anything in this case that would make me think the supremes would take it up. Just because any case may have 'sufficient cause for appeal' doesn't mean it will get a review. What is the broad issue they would want to address? 70+ year old overreach in the general gold seizure? What point would that serve the country at large? They have bigger fish to fry and limited cases they can take.
Of course they have surprised me on occasion...
merse
Free Trial
For those concerned about the cost to the government, all the lawyers are on staff and thus are a sunk cost. No one was hired specifically for this case in terms of lawyers. Yes, there were a few experts, but that is spare change compared to the hours of legal work.
Yep. They get paid the same whether they are on this case or something else equally wasteful.
With the 10 Langbord coins, and the 2 Smithsonian coins, the govt can now display the coins at all 12 Federal Reserve Banks.
I look forward to the calendar
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
‘A high-stakes dispute over ten pieces of gold’: Court reclaims priceless Double Eagle coins for U.S. government
https://www.washingtonpost.com...oins-for-us-government
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Obviously,they didn't talk to anybody in "the know" about market valuation of 1933 double eagles.
$20 million for all ten is more like it so the folks at the newspaper have inflated the value by 500%.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.