DID THE LANGBORDS FILE AN APPEAL ABOUT THE 1933 DOUBLE EAGLES?
Steve
Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
I believe the Langbord family had 3 months to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court about the 3rd district US Appeals Court decision in favor of the US Government regarding ownership of the 10 1933 Double Eagle coins. The 3 month period to file that appeal is just about here. Can someone with knowledge of these events please comment here with any information that is available. Thank you.
Steve
1
Comments
Good question...have not seen anything recently.... @SanctionII Any recent developments? Cheers, RickO
I doubt they will. You can't appeal just because you don't like the decision (well you can but it won't be accepted) - you need a substantial issue.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
CAFRA was a substantial issue, but the court chose to ignore the law.
they filed
Please provide us with the link or links supporting your statement. Thank you.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
They might of just finally given up. I'd hate to know what their legal bills have added up to thus far. At a certain point (if not already) it is going to be more than the amount they would hypothetically get if they had the coins.
I just looked on PACER and see that the ruling of the En Banc Panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal was filed in that court on 8-1-2016. My understanding is that any party seeking US Supreme Court review of the ruling of the En Banc Panel has to be filed within 90 days after 8-1-2016. 90 days from 8-1-2016 was 10-30-2016.
I looked at the docket of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal on PACER and at the docket of the US District Court in Philly and did not see any new entries. I do not know where a Petition For Certiori seeking US Supreme Court review would be filed. It may be that it must be filed in the US Supreme Court clerk's office.
I do not know what the status is. However I understand that both the government and the Langbords had decided that if they lost before the En Banc Panel they would petition the US Supreme Court to review the case.
If any of you federal practicioners know the skinny on where the Petition For Certiori would be filed and whether the Langbords have in fact filed such a Petition please let us know.
Yes, the petition would be filed with SCOTUS. However (and I don't remember the ruling), if the Circuit court ordered the District Court to do something, the appeal flow would be back to the Circuit court and then to SCOTUS.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Each petition would be assigned a docket number, and activity would show on the SCOTUS website using the internal search function. The website does not provide a record that I can find; however, it is not unusual for it to take a few days for a potential petition to be docketed and listed in the clerk's offices computer system or at least it was that way a couple of years ago based on my personal experience.
The deadline and processing of a cert petition has nothing to do with the issuance of the circuit court's mandate (which is what I think you are thinking of) . Recalling or staying the issuance of the mandate is a separate issue. The latter could be done either by the Third Circuit or SCOTUS itself.
Has anyone tried emailing lead counsel for the Langbord's?
I am 100% certain that we filed...rhl
"we?"
Welcome to the forums rhl.
You're talking to Mr Langbord
Would you happen to have an electronic copy of the petition for writ of certiorari (that you would be willing to share) for those of us too eager to wait for it to be available in the public domain?
Is there an easy way to post a file?
You can through Dropbox. Alternatively, you can email it to me, and I can upload it and link it in a reply here.
Welcome aboard rhl.... Cheers, RickO
Well, this just got interesting.
Welcome aboard.
I'd believe you could just use the little document pull down window to upload a file to be attached to your post. Or if it is online, you could provide the web address using the chain link icon on the posting window.
They may as well give up. In the current political climate with "Saint Franklin Roosevelt" having been cannonized, his edict on the ownership of gold in 1933 will stand. The Federal Courts will never put with anything else.
Don't ask.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Hard to talk with anybody when you don't know who they are.
Howdy, Mr. Langbord! Welcome aboard. Pull up a chair and grab a beer.
Just remember that the slimy bastards on the other side spy on these boards. I'm the "2009 Numismatist of the Year" whose name, or at least title, they took both in vain and out of context from a joker board to use in one of the trials. I would have gladly testified against that usage had I had a chance to. I'm on your side.
TD
Thanks. Our side has been watching here also since the beginning. It's been hard not to respond to some of the untrue and misguided things that have been posted ( sometimes repeatedly) over the years.
RHL--Welcome to the Boards!
Tom
Thanks. BTW, one thing I've wanted to say for a while now--my grandfather's name always was "Israel", not "Isadore". The person making that claim from his "research" found "Isadore Switt" my grandfather's cousin. Unfortunately all too typical....
Here is the Langbord Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Thank you to Mr. Langbord for sharing!
https://dropbox.com/s/41uwwspfixf1kui/Langbord%20Cert%20Petition.pdf?dl=0
Well written. No doubt in my mind they will prevail
I do wish they mentioned the fact that no gold was missing therefore how could the coins be stolen
Wonderful to have rhl with us! Welcome! I hope we hear from you often.
Lance.
Cameonut2011.
Thanks for the dropbox link and copy of the Petition. Looking forward to reading it.
Though I'm "just a CPA" not an attorney, I feel very strongly about the applicability of the CAFRA "death penalty" in this case. I believe the case was well stated in the filing that the far-reaching ability of the government to "harass" the citizenry and deprive them of their property, by simply asserting that it was stolen, reaches far beyond the rights of the courts. Specifically when the death penalty provision was explicitly included in the Act by both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal government to prevent that very nature of action.
Were the coins taken from the mint by nefarious means? That is probable. However, in no way should that enable the government to ignore applicable law and due process in depriving citizens of their property. The government screwed up big time in choosing their errant strategy...and they should pay the price by being required to return the property to the Langbords.
I have skimmed the Petition.
As i have mentioned before, this case presents issues regarding the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed as it applies to "property rights".
Where does "private property" begin and end?
Where does "public property" begin and end?
To what extent can and should the government be able to exercise dominion and control over "property", including taking property from the possession of one of the governed via forfeiture?
CAFRA was enacted and signed into law in 2000 with a specific goal and purpose in mind (to establish rules which clarify how and when the government can forfeit property and the consequences for failing to abide by the rules). The En Banc opinion issued by the 3rd District Court Of Appeal stands for the proposition that the government can avoid CAFRA simply by unilaterally stating that the property in question is "government property".
Though the percentage of these Supreme Court Petitions that are granted is very low, I would be pleased to see the court grant the Petition and take the case.
Welcome, rhl. Best wishes with this case. We're looking forward to your updates when possible.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
SCOTUS doesn't usually grant certiorari to merely to correct factual errors in the record. Unfortunately, while I agree with you on the facts that we know as a numismatic community, the only "facts" that matter are the findings of the jury and federal district court. That is problematic. The lack of a significant circuit conflict or conflict with SCOTUS precedent also concerns me. I hope I am wrong. I wish the Langbords the very best.
A precedent has to start somewhere.
This seems like a great place.
Good Luck rlh. Been with you the whole way.
As the originator of this thread, and a constant follower of the trial and follow-up thru the years, I also welcome Mr. Langbord to this forum. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Welcome, RHL. I have been with you from day one, having owned and sold a 1933 DE once and almost sold it a second time. I will continue to hope that true justice prevails.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Thank you all. If I can answer any questions you might have, fire away. One thing I can certainly clear up-- my family's jewelry store is still open, still in the same location on 8th Street in Philadelphia and there never has been a melting pot in the basement as another poster here repeatedly claimed.
rhl. I'm sorry we the people have taken this to the extream. Your coins should be returned to you along with an apology
Martin
rhl, as others have said, thanks for contributing. Also thanks for clearing up some of the misunderstandings and misconceptions.
Julian:
Please explain, which 1933 DE?
Martin:
TDN:
The people who did the counting were interested in the totals. 1933 Double Eagles could have been listed as 1932 Double Eagles by accident or because the people involved just did not care as to the dates on the coins.
In Feb. and in March 1933, and also later, thousands of 1933 Double Eagles were legally struck, certainly just as legal as 1931 or 1932 Double Eagles. In accordance with the traditions and practices of the Philadelphia Mint, anyone could have gone to the Mint and traded old Double Eagles for new 1933 Double Eagles in exchanges that everyone involved would likely have regarded as legal, legitimate and ethical. There were such trades for 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles, and the legality of these has never been subject to question, as far as I know.
Even the government's lone coin community witness acknowledges that 1933 single Eagles ($10 coins), in the hands of collectors now, were distributed by trades of old coins for new 1933 Eagles ($10 coins). He provided an example of one such trade.
Also, FDR explicitly said that gold coins that were of interest to coin collectors were excluded from the gold recall order. 1931, 1932 and 1933 Double Eagles were all of interest to collectors seeking to complete sets of Saints. Although 1933 DEs receive more publicity, 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles are rare coins of interest to collectors, then and now.
RHL:
I hope that people on your "side" and on all other sides read the articles that I wrote in 2011.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
Insightful10@gmail.com
Count me among those on your side. Welcome here......
This line, from page 15 of your petition, has always told me all that I need to know in this case.
"However, at the trial in this case in federal district court in Philadelphia in 2010, the government conceded that for several weeks after President Roosevelt took office the Mint was authorized to release gold coins in exchange for gold deposits."
Paul
Analyst--Yes, we were very much aware of your articles and in fact you were on the short list of further experts we wanted to contact in the event there was a new trial.
Thebeav- thanks. The trial was a surreal experience. One of the most amazing concepts put forth by the government's expert witness was "the orphan document". Basically, this was any document that didn't fit his theory.
Good luck! I sure hope you win.
I have a question about that (Private Message sent).
If you are not familiar with how the PM function works here on this site, you can access your inbox by clicking the letter (envelope) icon which is third from the right in the dark blue banner at the very top of this page. Thanks.
The 1933 DE (ex. a very prominent collection) that I handled was sold to a Dallas collector in about 1976. After he passed away the coin went to a minority partner in the collection and was subsequently sold into a prominent collection of DE. I had tried to get the coin into a western collection in the early 1980's, who wanted to trade a fancy yellow diamond. Unfortunately, the diamond turned out to be irradiated and not worth nearly as much as what was needed. That client then decided against trying to add it to his collection.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Is that the rogue piece illustrated in one of the 1933 double eagle books, or one of the rumored others?
A number of people seem to know the whereabouts of the mystery 1933 DE pictured in one of the double eagle books. I even mentioned the alleged owner's name in my pre-trial deposition. Know what the government has done about it? To the best of my knowledge nothing. Another funny thing, my mother told me that a leading expert on this case (who shall remain unnamed but is quoted here often by a very prolific and I think vastly misinformed poster) told her early on that he wasn't certain that the 1933 DE sold at auction was in fact the King Farouk coin. Go figure.....
It is a very cool place .....
Welcome, rhl and thanks for providing us a look at the petition.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
I hope I live long enough to see the saga of the 1933 Double Eagles resolved.... and yes, I would like to know how many others are out there....Thanks Julian for your input....Cheers, RickO