On behalf of many of us American citizens (coin geeks, in particular ), and one who has watched from the sidelines all these years, I'd like to offer an apology and I will say it bothered me when people referred to Izzy as a cheat or thief.
My guess is a few of them will hold fast to their stubbornness. To me, that is the ultimate injustice: being wrongly accused.
It seems to me that there is a huge incentive for the Supreme Court to take this case. What could be more important to the citizens of a free country than the self created ability of their Government to sidestep laws written to control it?
Unfortunately, libel laws in the US do not apply to the deceased. It was very hard to read some of the things said about my family here particularly my grandfather. He was a lot of things, but he was never a criminal. Anyone in the jewelers' community in Philadelphia knew he was a character and even a bit grumpy, but he was the first person you could count on if you needed a helping hand. Among other things he served on the board of diectors of the home for the aged in Philadelphia well into his 80s and he was a patron of Pennsylvania Hospital, the oldest hospital in the US founded by Ben Franklin, donating an outpatient surgical suite and an entire intensive care unit.
@rhl said:
Of course my family considered our options on what to do after we found our 1933 Double Eagles. Understand though at the beginning none of us really knew much about the history and the legal controversy surrounding our find. It took some time to even have an opportunity to speak with Barry Berke.
As to why we informed the Mint of our discovery, there were two principal underlying reasons. First, my father, a decorated World War II veteran who grew up under FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower, truly believed that the US Government, when confronted by honest citizens acting openly, would ultimately do the right thing and treat us fairly. Second, my family and my lawyers believed that by talking directly with the Mint, the worst that would happen would be that we would have to go to Court to defend our rights and property. None of us expected the tactics we were confronted with including threats, bullying, delays, misrepresentations and a general "do anything we can to win" attitude on the part of the US Government.
One other thing I wanted to make clear. For the many here who said "why didn't we just
sell the coins on the black market?", I ask a simple question--as someone who does not deal in the buying and selling of questionable goods, how do you even find the black market? Should we have stood on a street corner and asked shady looking people"Hey pal, you wanna buy a million dollar coin?" Gone on Craig's list? Set up a table at a swap meet? As a very wise friend said to me, people who are not criminals tend to be very unsuccessful when they attempt to engage in criminal activities.
Hindsight is pretty much always 20/20, but I expect that from prior treatment of earlier examples of these coins that it wouldn't be unexpected that the Government would confiscate them.
Let me clear up another myth that is popular here. My family never offered to turn over our property to the mint. Through counsel we informed the mint of our discovery. We then enaged in extensive and what appeared to be substantive discussions with the mint on how we might resolve any disputes or claims they might make on our coins. At some point the mint intimated that it was likely we could come to an agreement, but that it would be a waste of time if the coins were not real. They asked then if we were open to having the coins authenticated. We were reasonably certain the coins were real and that by co- operating our chances of settlement would be greater. We also assumed that worst case if we could not reach agreement both sides would take the matter to court. Most important, as part of the process we also provided to the mint in advance a letter stating that the coins would be turned over for the limited purpose of authentication in furtherance of settlement and we reserved all rights in the property. What we never contemplated was that the Mint would take what every court has said was an illegal action that violated our constitutional rights and seize our coins without any legal process whatsoever.
CameoNut: SCOTUS review is limited to the questions presented and those fairly implicit therein. All of the questions seemed to address the CAFRA aspect only.
The limited nature of the appeals is puzzling. When I discussed the trial with David Ganz after it concluded in 2011, he and I were thinking that multiple aspects of the trial would be appealed.
Is it possible that the jury was inflamed by the one-sided and negative remarks made by government lawyers regarding Israel Switt, his daughter and his grandson? I do not understand how the personalities, non-coin business practices, or behavior in terms of safe-deposit box finds of the Switt-Langbords, are relevant to the case. Could a viable appeal have argued that all such points should have been inadmissible?
Anyone could have gone to the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 and traded old coins for new coins. It is certain that some 1933 eagles ($10 coins) were released in this manner.
As money was scarce in 1933, there were few coin dealers who were interested in wholesaling or speculating in 1931, 1932 or 1933 double eagles. Now, there are few paper money dealers who wish to inventory $10,000 bills, as the same capital could be better used, from a business standpoint, to inventory popular collectible notes of smaller denominations. It just so happens that Israel Switt was a successful businessmen who had the resources to inventory 1931, 1932 and 1933 double eagles, and he was knowledgeable enough to perceive demand by coin collectors.
As these were coins that collectors demanded, they were excluded by FDR from FDR's gold recall order. To numismatists, it was apparent then and is apparent now that collectors demanded 1931, 1932 and 1933 double eagles. My guess is that many visitors to this forum have never even seen a 1931 or a 1932 double eagle. I feel fortunate to have examined a large portion of the survivors, which are rare.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
Unfortunately appeals to the Supreme Court are limited to just a few questions of law. As a rule of thumb, It feels like the higher you go in the federal court system, the less issues you can raise on appeal. From the start of the trial the judge's evidentiary rulings made it almost impossible for us to win. And the en banc appeal while acknowledging those flaws decided to discount them in order to reach their desired result. Again, unfortunately for my family, review of evidentiary rulings is not something that the Supreme Court undertakes.
@rhl said:
It is also surprising (but not unexpected) that the government's highly paid expert witness never passed on whatever information he had about this coin to the people who were his principal source of income for a number of years--i.e. the Treasury/Mint.
First of all -- Welcome to these boards, rhl!
Secondly -- could we find out what this expert witness has been paid by the government for his testimony in these trials? Perhaps with a Freedom of Information Act request?
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
You could certainly try. I do know that he said it was his principal source of income for a number of years. I would speculate it was north of $100,000 in some years, but I don't know. As opposed to many expert witnesses he also considered himself a part of the "government team". Another thing that has also always fascinated me that although this expert witness had no credentialed historical, accounting, law enforcement, or manufacturing background he was allowed to testify on all those subjects at trial. Of course, on the other hand I believe that during most of the period of this dispute he regularly drew a monthly cartoon for "Cat Fancy" magazine....
@rhl said:
Up until now it was thought that any discussion of the case might have a negative impact with first our trial and then the appeals judges. However, now since we are asking the Supreme Court to possibly hear our case, any public attention and interest that might encourage the Court to grant cert is welcome. And on a personal note, it has been very hard to read some of the things posted here and not respond.
So what can an individual do to show public interest? I seldom post but have read the threads, the articles, and the court documents over the years. I would like to see the SCOTUS hear this case. What kind of a campaign can be launched to show public interest?
@tradedollarnut said:
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
Despite their ability to weigh hundreds of ounces, the scales of that era were also able to discern that those hundreds of ounces included some fractions of an ounce. It's not as if, at the level of hundreds of ounces, they couldn't determine if the measurement was off by an ounce or so. They'd know if it was off by much less than an ounce.
@rhl said:
Up until now it was thought that any discussion of the case might have a negative impact with first our trial and then the appeals judges. However, now since we are asking the Supreme Court to possibly hear our case, any public attention and interest that might encourage the Court to grant cert is welcome. And on a personal note, it has been very hard to read some of the things posted here and not respond.
So what can an individual do to show public interest? I seldom post but have read the threads, the articles, and the court documents over the years. I would like to see the SCOTUS hear this case. What kind of a campaign can be launched to show public interest?
Does the SCOTUS consider letters if the letters remain within their scope?
@jamesfsm said:
I tend to agree with an earlier post. SCOTUS grants about 2-3 percents of petitions for certiorari. My firm was opposing one at the end of September 2016 (it was denied) and of 72 cases on the same SCOTUS conference (the internal meetings where SCOTUS decides petitions for certiorari), only one was granted. The main ground for granting certiorari is a split among the circuits on an important legal issue (which is not present here). SCOTUS tends to deny certiorari where (i) the issues involved are mostly factual; or (ii) the issues involved are of a limited value in terms of national precedent (meaning changing the the outcome would only affect a very limited number of people). I too agree that the Langbords got a raw deal and wish them luck but the odds appear to be long here.
The big legal issue here is an en banc ruling that cripples CAFRA.
If this ruling is let go as is, the implication is the government can have do overs whenever and despite CAFRAs time limits.
In short, does the gub'mint abide by it's own rule of law or not?
@RichieURich said:
Welcome, RHL, to the Forums and good luck with your Petition.
I have read the Petition and to my admittedly untrained legal eye, it looks good to me.
For those who don't want to read the 35 page Petition, my summary of it is as follows:
Congress passed the CAFRA law to set the rules for government action to acquire property it claims belongs to it.
The CAFRA law was intended by Congress to apply to all such forfeiture actions.
In this case, the government contends that the CAFRA law doesn't apply, because the government says so.
In this case, the government contends the coins were stolen and remain government property, because the government says so.
The government and the court state that this is not a forfeiture action despite the fact that the government stated they intended to keep the coins and not return them to the Langbords. This, the government contends, is not a forfeiture because the government says so.
The government did not comply with the CAFRA law, and the Langbords therefore claim that the coins should be returned to them.
If the CAFRA law can be nullified by the government merely stating "the CAFRA law doesn't apply in this case", then the CAFRA law has been basically eliminated, not by Congress which wrote the law, but by the court.
Furthermore, there is the conflict where the court did not find CAFRA was Unconstitutional, conflicted with pre-existing laws or legal theory but chose to simply choose the CAFRA doesn't apply route while not addressing the larger implications to CAFRA as well as the rule of law
RHL - can you speak to whether there were ever any settlement discussions with Treasury? Or did they effectively say, we have them now and we aren't giving them back.
Another thing has bothered me about this case - I have trouble believing it's about some faceless government department, I'm more convinced that it came down to one person (or a small group) who put their foot down and dictated policy. Any idea who those people were, and what were their real motivations?
In the beginning there were serious and open discussions with the Mint's legal department. After the coins were turned over for authentication discussions were put on hold to allow the coins to be evaluated. This waiting period exceeded nine months during which the Mint gave us various excuses for the delay. At the end of that time, the Mint told our lawyers the coins were authentic and they were not going to be returned.
As a general matter during litigation the Mint invoked executive privilege to claim that records of their internal deliberations should be confidential which, no surprise, the trial Judge upheld. There is a single record we obtained that suggests that the hard line positions originated from the Mint.
For those who asked, I believe anything submitted to the Supreme Court can't hurt our cause. Also letters to legislators and even local newspaper stories can possibly make a difference. To the extent the Court thinks this dispute matters to large numbers of people and the country as a whole, the more likely they are to take the case. Also for any organization that wants to submit supporting amicus briefs, I think the initial deadline is the end of this month.
Wasn't in the various court proceedings that every other gub'mint group involved thought proceedings for forfeiture should start, but the Mint held out for "just keeping them?"
Yes, every agency thought that the government had to commence a forfeiture procedure, except the Mint which took the position it wasn't necessary. What we believe was the likely underlying reason for that choice was the fact that the Mint believed it would probably lose a forfeiture proceeding since CAFRA changed the burden of proof in a forfeiture case and put it on the government. The Mint knew it had no evidence of theft other than hearsay (and likely not admissible) Secret Service reports from the 1940s and records that showed no coins were missing with no back up documents. Amazingly enough they ended up with the one Federal Judge in the U.S. who allowed improper hearsay evidence to be admitted and who I believe had effectively pre-decided the trial before it had commenced.
RHL, a movie could be made from this roller coaster ride you have been on, if it ever comes to an end. Maybe the rights to the story would be enough to raise some cash...geez, just sickening that the US Government wastes so much time and money.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
rhl:I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none of the prolific "experts" on our case that post here have answered the simple question as to when the Mint's "perfect" 1933 DE records were created. At the start of each day? The end of the day? Weekly? Monthly? Or perhaps, years later?
i would assume,without information to the contrary,that the 1933 Mint's cashier records were made in accordance with law by head cashier at the time,Robert Powell and his assistant,Hibberd Ott.
I made at least one post where I speculated that Powell and Ott, two honest men working in the corrupt 1930's Philadelphia Mint,had their ears to the ground and could hear the Horsemen coming,among whom,of course,was known-to-be-sticky-fingered,George McCann,the Horseman who eventually became the Mint's head cashier early in 1934.
i mostly agree with what expert David Tripp has to say in his book, mainly a history book writing that many,if not most,around here were unfamiliar with, and yet had strong opinions about 1933 double eagles and the legality of owning/possessing them. i consider that i did the numismatic community a favor by posting,yes,prolifically as i did about 1933 Double Eagles and their history here. i do disagree with Tripp on a few items in his book and made some posts in this forum expressing myself about same.
It is my belief based on my reading of Tripp, and using some deductive reasoning,that Israel Switt did not come into possession of any 1933 Double Eagles until 1936-early 1937. This would be after Mr. Switt's trip to New York to sell some 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles to Max Berenstein. Anyone here,disagree with me if you will but that is my belief.
Israel Switt,a thief? i have been content to leave that to the trial lawyers,the judges and the trial jury to try to figure out.
i am well-read on 1933 double eagles and their history,but have never have considered myself "expert" on the case,Langbord v. United States.
There's too many lawyers around here for me to declare myself,even for a nanosecond,an "expert" on Langbord v.
United States.
The cut-and-paste posts,done prolifically by non-lawyers around here supporting CAFRA, and typically accompanied with an "expert" opinion about applicability of CAFRA in Langbord v. United States, i view as mostly useless. My posts,on the other hand,i view as mostly useful for i am sharing parts of a recognized expert's well-written,well-researched book on the fascinating saga of the 1933 Double Eagle.
Mr. Langbord,you have my wishes for best of luck to you and family,should your case be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I suggest one find the historical DOCUMENTS instead of the books written by people who were not there and whose writings may simply be speculation or opinion.
Unfortunately the historical documents which might prove how and when the coins left the Mint appear to be non-existent. Absent the evidence of a crime, how can a crime be proven?
What is documented, and can be proven, is that the U.S. Mint violated the CAFRA Act because it wanted to. This should be the point of current litigation.
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.
Mr.1874--Well at least you had the courage to show your face here. A few points. First, as a starting point, in any of your "research" have you checked on Mr. Tripp's actual qualifications? Is he a trained historian? An accountant? A law enforcement professional? An expert on manufacturing plants and processes? Have you read his expert reports, his trial testimony or his depositions? Do you know for how long and how much he was charging the government for his services? If not, how much should you rely on his story? Second, you have "speculated" that Powell and Ott were two "honest" men. Based on what? And please don't quote David Tripp as an answer. Third, you "assume" that their 1933 records were created in "accordance with law". Please specify what "law" you have found that pinpoints when records were to have been written and particularly when the records used at trial were created? Further, given that in your answer you "assume" certain facts, I "assume" you don't actually "know" the answer, do you?. Fourth, have you examined records from other years and how do you reconcile that all other Mint records contain errors and these have none? Fifth, you claim that based on "reading Tripp and some deductive reasoning" that my grandfather didn't come into posssession of 1933 Double Eagles until 1936-37. Are you aware that my grandfather was at the Mint in Philadelphia in 1932-33 at least once a day every day? Are you aware that it was common practice that when my six year old mother went with her father, Mint employees regularly gave her nickels, dimes and other "shiny" coins against the law? Did you know that into the 1960's my grandfather was treated as a VIP at the Mint and had direct access to purchase proof sets and other Mint products? Do such actual facts affect your "deductive reasoning"? Sixth, did you read first hand (and particularly the conclusion) of the actual Secret Service investigation in the 1940s where they said it was impossible to know when, how and under what circumstances any 1933 DE's left the Mint? Seventh, are you aware that an earlier Secret Service investigation at the Mint concluded that their record keeping was so disorganized and problematic that it could not be considered reliable? Shall I go on? If you want people to read David Tripp's book, post a link to Amazon, and let them read it. After that, please, do my family a great service and direct your efforts and speculations at some other topic.
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.
Thanks you, Mr. Langbord. It drives me crazy that some folks quote Mr. Tripp's book as if it were the bible on this subject.
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
I got the impression long ago that the effort was to pontificate in the same manner as Tripp. unfortunately, when pontificating with "authority" as another person one stops reasoning and becomes untenable and unreasonable in coversations.
@rhl said:
For those who asked, I believe anything submitted to the Supreme Court can't hurt our cause. Also letters to legislators and even local newspaper stories can possibly make a difference. To the extent the Court thinks this dispute matters to large numbers of people and the country as a whole, the more likely they are to take the case. Also for any organization that wants to submit supporting amicus briefs, I think the initial deadline is the end of this month.
I feel like I have followed this story for so long I might just insert myself into the process of trying to drum up some interest. That said, I was wondering if someone, one of the better writers (and there are several) who would be willing to write a sample letter or even a couple paragraphs summarizing the situation for those of us who would like to write to our legislators? I found a website that lists the contact information for federal, state and local elected officials [https://usa.gov/elected-officials]. Most of the URLs links to a form where you can put in your personal info and then a free area for the comments.
As for a supporting amicus briefs, I'm not sure how to proceed. Any interested attorneys have thoughts?
mr. Langbord i respect that you have fond memories of your grandfather and your mother when she was a child. You spoke eloquently of them.That speaks well of you,sir.
i think that the difficulty we are having is rooted in,perhaps, misunderstanding one another. I got interested in your case against the government a few years ago,after the trial and after the first appeal? Not real sure about exactly when i got interested but interest turned into fascination with your case.For awhile i became obsessed with it.Some of my posts are pretty damn long.They are not cut-and-paste but typing in character by character what i'm seeing in David Tripp's book Ilegal Tender verbatim and always,always giving proper credit as it is copyrighted material.i guess most of the time i was posting in the 1933 Double Eagle threads i just feel some sense of accomplishment in me when i can successfully engage persons in a forum such as this in intelligent conversation.We've got some really bright people around here.
What you've got with me is a person who likes to mix it up a bit. i kind of pride myself on mixing it up a bit with some of the lawyers around here. i can sense the reserve but can sometimes get the "what the hell you talkin' about?" to which i can respond with "here's what i'm talkin' about.This." "This" could be something like how did the government regard the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle export,for example.Our government granted the export license for Farouk's '33.Was it a mistake or not?
Not such a simple thing to answer.Here i am engaging a lawyer.For free.Thank you SanctionII for your insight.Another lawyer i get for free is my youngest brother who is a patent/copyright attorney.Brad has worked hard to get where he's at and i'm very proud of him.i sent him a copy of Allison Frankel's book,Double Eagle and we would visit,when i was able to get ahold of him that is, about 1933 Double Eagles. So there's another book recommendation.i especially like the way Allison writes about King Farouk. She has the ability to take one to another level it seems.i highly recommend it to members here.
Speaking of your grandfather,mr. Langbord,i was in a discussion here awhile back with 2sides about your grandfather.
2sides was saying that your grandfather did the numismatic community a great service by preserving his '33 Double Eagles as he did.2sides made a great case for people should try to understand Israel Switt,the coin collector. i have to admit i hadn't really thought to that point about the collector in your grandfather,mr. Langbord. i had been thinking,almost exclusively,of your grandfather as gold and bullion dealer.Tripp doesn't discuss your grandfather in any way as Israel Switt,coin collector. i posted to 2sides that i can appreciate that Israel Switt did indeed do a good deed by preserving those 10 captivating Double Eagle gold pieces for coin collectors.
Tripp acknowledges that there was a window of opportunity where 1933 Double Eagles could be obtained by a person from the public.This post getting lengthy so i'll get to the point. You're right. Your grandfather was at the Mint practically every day and could have obtained them at the Mint window in a legal transaction. There is no direct evidence that exists that he stole the coins.i was actually in shock at some of the "unnecessary" language directed at your grandfather used in one of the judgements.i thought is this really necessary? Your attorney Barry Burke was right.Lots of pounding the table going on around here.
Mr. Langbord,in closing,i would like to say that at no time was i interested in denigrating the fond memories you and the rest of your family have of your grandfather,Israel Switt. And you know,i actually put myself in your shoes for awhile.What does it feel like to be unable to respond in a forum like this because of court order? That's something i should have given a little more thought to i guess.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Nice post @mr1874, it provides a good reminder to all of us when we start to "mix it up" on topics involving others who may not be at liberty to rebut.
Mr.1874--There are people on the web and in print who have done actual original research on the facts underlying the story of the 1933 Double Eagles. I have nothing but respect for these individuals regardless of their point of view. For example, while I certainly disagree with many of the conclusions and research methods of David Tripp, I acknowledge that he at least looked at original materials. The issues my family and I have with you are not because you have hurt our feelings or undermined "fond memories" , they are because you regularly post nonsense or wrong information. (Quick example just in your current post-- our lawyer's name is Barry Berke not "Burke", my mother Joan is very much alive, and my grandfather was principally a jeweler, not a bullion, metal or coin dealer.) Retyping pages from David Tripp's book might be time consuming, but it does not qualify you as an expert or even particularly knowledgable .
Finally, since you raise it, the story of the Farouk export license, is actually straight forward and very supportive of my family's rights. And fascinating. First, understand that an export license applies to a class of goods as well as to an individual item. (For example, Apple needs to receive an export license to sell MacBooks to China. The grant of an export license applies to all of that model of computer, not just to a single item.) In 1944 the Egyptian government on behalf of King Farouk turned over a1933 Double Eagle to the Mint as part of the process to receive an export license to take the coin to Egypt. Let m repeat that--the coin was in the possession of the US Government. The issue the government addressed was if the 1933 Double Eagle was of sufficient historical and collector interest to allow private ownership under the gold acts. If it was, the coin was legal to own and export. The answer, which came from the head of the National Numimsmatic Collection at the Smithsonian and the Director of the Mint, was "yes". There was no discussion or assertion that 1933 Double Eagles were stolen government property illegal to own. What did happen? The coin was deemed legal to own, given back to the Egyptian government along with an export license, and shipped to Egypt.
@ModCrewman said:
Nice post @mr1874, it provides a good reminder to all of us when we start to "talk real big" on topics involving others while we may be wanting to spin yarns like real, published people... that perhaps the effort is a negative one for all.
Over the past 10 years during which the litigation over the 10 1933 Double Eagles has been pending, the hobby community has followed the case with great interest. The first threads on the Forums about the case started sometime in 2007. Many people have posted threads and have posted replies to threads expressing their opinions on the case. The opinions have been varied and have ranged from the extremes of:
the 10 double eagles have always belonged to the government and the Langbord family should be put in prison for what they have done
to
the Langbord family should be declared the owners of the coins, should be given possession of the coins and should be awarded damages against the government.
Many people have opinions that are somewhat narrow in scope, specifically what should happen to the 10 1933 double eagles that are the subject of the lawsuit only.
As the case has progressed through the court system and has moved from the trial court, to the initial panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal, to the En Banc Panel of the same court and now to the gates of the US Supreme Court the multiple issues present in the case that have been submitted to the appellate courts for review and decision.
The current petition filed by the Langbord family with the Supreme Court presents to that court the opportunity to take up and decide a case which, at its core, deals with the nature and extent of the power of government to take property from the governed.
Asset forfeiture laws are present and on the books throughout the USA at the federal, state, county and city level of government. Through Asset forfeiture laws government can and does take property, including private property from the governed.
Congress enacted CAFRA to change federal Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. The goal in enacting CAFRA was to provide additional protections to the governed. These additional protections of course limit/restrict the power of government to take and forfeit property from the governed. CAFRA was passed by the Legislative branch of government (House and Senate). CAFRA was enacted into law by President Clinton. Two of the three branches of the Federal Government participated in its creation and implementation.
As has been pointed out in threads on this case, CAFRA applies to situations where the property sought to be forfeited is alleged to be stolen government property.
In the case over the 10 1933 Double Eagles multiple departments in the government were of the opinion that the government should/must file a CAFRA forfeiture action. Only the US Mint believed that it was not necessary to file a CAFRA action to forfeit the 10 Double Eagles. The position of the US Mint prevailed and no CAFRA action was filed. The Langbords sued. The trial court agreed that the government should have filed a CAFRA action but chose to give the government a mulligan or do over. There is no disputing this.
People will have differing opinions on CAFRA and whether or not in a specific case property should or should not be forfeited to the government.
However each person should ask whether or not CAFRA should be followed; or whether the government should be allowed to unilaterally (and without consequence) decide that CAFRA should not apply in a given case.
So I ask you, the governed, the following questions?
Do you really want to see the En Banc Panel decision (or a Supreme Court decision upholding the En Banc Panel decision) become the law in the USA on the applicability of CAFRA?
Do you really want the government to have the power and authority to unilaterally decide that CAFRA does not apply when the government takes property from the governed (including one day your own property)?
If you answer yes to the above questions, please explain why you answer yes.
If you answer no to the above questions, please explain why you answer no.
For me, I answer both questions no because of the value of private property rights to our society (along other important rights such as the right to free speech, the right to travel, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to substantive and procedural due process, etc. etc.). The rights of the governed by necessity limit the power of the government. I would prefer limited government power and thus more freedom for the governed than to the other way around.
@SanctionII Thank you for the outstanding summary.
I also vote no for the reasons you state.
I know it's a cop out but I couldn't say it any better.
I will add that whenever the government gives itself more power, that becomes the new baseline and only increases from there.
There may be cases where it's pared back but I'm not aware of any.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
@SanctionII said:
So I ask you, the governed, the following questions?
Do you really want to see the En Banc Panel decision (or a Supreme Court decision upholding the En Banc Panel decision) become the law in the USA on the applicability of CAFRA?
Do you really want the government to have the power and authority to unilaterally decide that CAFRA does not apply when the government takes property from the governed (including one day your own property)?
If you answer yes to the above questions, please explain why you answer yes.
If you answer no to the above questions, please explain why you answer no.
For me, I answer both questions no because of the value of private property rights to our society (along other important rights such as the right to free speech, the right to travel, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to substantive and procedural due process, etc. etc.). The rights of the governed by necessity limit the power of the government. I would prefer limited government power and thus more freedom for the governed than to the other way around.
What say you?
Sanction II, you have done a wonderful service to numismatics as you have followed this case, and this summary you just wrote is one of the highlights of the case. Those of us who follow this case appreciate what you have done.
My answer to both questions is NO. The reasons include the rights of the people for due process, and a fair hearing when the government decides to seize property. Also, I very strongly believe that the government should comply with the law, just as the people are required to comply with the law. (On a separate issue, I also believe that all laws applying to the people should also apply to the government; that is, the government shouldn't be able to exempt itself from the laws set forth for everyone else.) I also believe that rejecting the En Banc Panel decision would put the government on notice that it has to follow the CAFRA law. After all, that is exactly why Congress passed the CAFRA law, that is, to set forth the rules of how the government has to act when it seizes something.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
@ModCrewman said:
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.
Someone has previously asked someone to write a text that could be sent to legislators regarding the Langbord case. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, but am a taxpayer, so I took the liberty of putting together the submission below to my own senator.
RE: Langbord vs. United States Supreme Court Petition
Sen. Grassley,
Congratulations on your re-election, I was pleased to have you continue representing the State of Iowa in DC.
I am uncertain whether your position on the Senate Judiciary committee affords you any influence on which cases are heard by the Supreme Court. If you do have any ability to register your support for review of a case, I respectfully request your support for the referenced case for review by the Supreme Court.
The petition was filed by the Langbord's attorney Barry H. Berke on November 4, 2016.
My interest in the case initially arose out of my personal hobby of numismatics (coin collecting), but I believe the question currently before the court has far reaching implications extending far beyond the hobby. My understanding of the primary question after reviewing the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed with the court is the application of Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA) in a case where the government has seized a citizen's property. Although the trial court agreed that the government should have filed a CAFRA action it still chose to give the government a mulligan or “do over”. This “do over” has allowed the government to prevail in lower court decisions under the premise that the although the rules of CAFRA should apply in this case it was somehow okay for the government to disregard that law based solely upon the government's assertion that the property being seized was property previously stolen from the government and that the property was government property. On that basis the government has asserted that they didn't need to follow CAFRA.
It is undisputed that the property in question had been in possession of the Langbord family since the 1930's. Even if the government is correct in their assertion, their intent to bypass the rules of CAFRA, that appear to have been written specifically to avoid a situation such as this, is surely an abuse of their power and violation of the CAFRA law.
I believe it is essential for the court to answer the question whether or not CAFRA should be followed; or whether the government should be allowed to unilaterally (and without consequence) decide that CAFRA should not apply in a given case.
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.
Accordingly, I believe the case should be reviewed by the Court to address this essential question regarding the personal property rights of citizens and I would appreciate any advocacy on this issue you would be able to provide to the court.
@SanctionII said:
So I ask you, the governed, the following questions?
Do you really want to see the En Banc Panel decision (or a Supreme Court decision upholding the En Banc Panel decision) become the law in the USA on the applicability of CAFRA?
Do you really want the government to have the power and authority to unilaterally decide that CAFRA does not apply when the government takes property from the governed (including one day your own property)?
If you answer yes to the above questions, please explain why you answer yes.
If you answer no to the above questions, please explain why you answer no.
For me, I answer both questions no because of the value of private property rights to our society (along other important rights such as the right to free speech, the right to travel, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to substantive and procedural due process, etc. etc.). The rights of the governed by necessity limit the power of the government. I would prefer limited government power and thus more freedom for the governed than to the other way around.
What say you?
In my opinion, this en banc ruling does not make a law. It negates the law -- all without declaring the law "not enforceable" or "unconstitutional" or against basic legal underpinnings.
Sorry... that's not yours... do over... CAFRA does not apply.
Sorry.... that's mine... do over... CAFRA does not apply.
Sorry... that's illegal and you can't keep that... do over... CAFRA does not apply.
The punishment to the gub'mint for the gub'mint's foot dragging with forfeiture is clear... the gub'mint loses claim to the property in question.
And the utterly shocking thing about this is that the en banc panel had CAFRA and the initial "implementation" by to gub'mint before them and merely discarded it.
And I note that CAFRA was modification the US Code. By ignoring CAFRA, the relevant parts of the US Code are weakened to the point of simply having the gub'mint only needing to convince the court why it does not apply.
Forget the name CAFRA. The mere name is unimportant because:
Here is the law... the law, law: 18 U.S. Code § 983 - General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings (a)Notice; Claim; Complaint.— (1) (A) (i)Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is required to send written notice to interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to achieve proper notice as soon as practicable, and in no case more than 60 days after the date of the seizure. (ii)No notice is required if, before the 60-day period expires, the Government files a civil judicial forfeiture action against the property and provides notice of that action as required by law. (iii)If, before the 60-day period expires, the Government does not file a civil judicial forfeiture action, but does obtain a criminal indictment containing an allegation that the property is subject to forfeiture, the Government shall either— (I)send notice within the 60 days and continue the nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under this section; or (II)terminate the nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding, and take the steps necessary to preserve its right to maintain custody of the property as provided in the applicable criminal forfeiture statute. (iv)In a case in which the property is seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and turned over to a Federal law enforcement agency for the purpose of forfeiture under Federal law, notice shall be sent not more than 90 days after the date of seizure by the State or local law enforcement agency. (v)If the identity or interest of a party is not determined until after the seizure or turnover but is determined before a declaration of forfeiture is entered, notice shall be sent to such interested party not later than 60 days after the determination by the Government of the identity of the party or the party’s interest. (B)A supervisory official in the headquarters office of the seizing agency may extend the period for sending notice under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 30 days (which period may not be further extended except by a court), if the official determines that the conditions in subparagraph (D) are present. (C)Upon motion by the Government, a court may extend the period for sending notice under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 60 days, which period may be further extended by the court for 60-day periods, as necessary, if the court determines, based on a written certification of a supervisory official in the headquarters office of the seizing agency, that the conditions in subparagraph (D) are present. (D)The period for sending notice under this paragraph may be extended only if there is reason to believe that notice may have an adverse result, including— (i)endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (ii)flight from prosecution; (iii)destruction of or tampering with evidence; (iv)intimidation of potential witnesses; or (v)otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. (E)Each of the Federal seizing agencies conducting nonjudicial forfeitures under this section shall report periodically to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate the number of occasions when an extension of time is granted under subparagraph (B). (F)If the Government does not send notice of a seizure of property in accordance with subparagraph (A) to the person from whom the property was seized, and no extension of time is granted, the Government shall return the property to that person without prejudice to the right of the Government to commence a forfeiture proceeding at a later time. The Government shall not be required to return contraband or other property that the person from whom the property was seized may not legally possess.
did the Mint elect to get the judiciary involved in the asset forfeiture?
were any of the Langbords ever criminally charged?
How and where does the "this does not apply" come into play?
Invent a reason compelling enough for a court to look the other way... then the law goes out the window. Hmmmm.... no need to have "CAFRA" for that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and there is no excuse for ignoring the law.
Since the Mint seized it, did not plan on giving it back, and had no intention of filing a civil OR criminal proceeding (cough Unconstitutional cough)... perhaps they can claim no part of the law applies
In an earlier reply posted to this thread is a copy of the Petition. The title of the case is located on the Petition, as may also be the Case #. The Case # assigned by the Supreme Court to the Petition I think is also mentioned somewhere in this thread (if not, someone please post the Case #). The Case # can be used on any correspondence that is sent to either elected representatives of Congress, to our current President, to the President Elect and to the US Supreme Court itself. I do not know if any correspondence will increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case, but correspondence would not reduce the chances.
So if one is interested, write a letter and send it off expressing your opinion as to whether the Petition should be granted or denied.
@SanctionII said:
..... >
For me, I answer both questions no because of the value of private property rights to our society (along other important rights such as the right to free speech, the right to travel, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to substantive and procedural due process, etc. etc.). The rights of the governed by necessity limit the power of the government. I would prefer limited government power and thus more freedom for the governed than to the other way around.
What say you?
Sanction, I would like to start an online petition (maybe change.org) and would like to use parts of this post as the description. Would that meet with your approval?
@ModCrewman said:
Someone has previously asked someone to write a text that could be sent to legislators regarding the Langbord case. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, but am a taxpayer, so I took the liberty of putting together the submission below to my own senator.
This is great and just what I need to start my email campaign. Thank you - what talented writers we have on this board!
Comments
On behalf of many of us American citizens (coin geeks, in particular ), and one who has watched from the sidelines all these years, I'd like to offer an apology and I will say it bothered me when people referred to Izzy as a cheat or thief.
My guess is a few of them will hold fast to their stubbornness. To me, that is the ultimate injustice: being wrongly accused.
It seems to me that there is a huge incentive for the Supreme Court to take this case. What could be more important to the citizens of a free country than the self created ability of their Government to sidestep laws written to control it?
Unfortunately, libel laws in the US do not apply to the deceased. It was very hard to read some of the things said about my family here particularly my grandfather. He was a lot of things, but he was never a criminal. Anyone in the jewelers' community in Philadelphia knew he was a character and even a bit grumpy, but he was the first person you could count on if you needed a helping hand. Among other things he served on the board of diectors of the home for the aged in Philadelphia well into his 80s and he was a patron of Pennsylvania Hospital, the oldest hospital in the US founded by Ben Franklin, donating an outpatient surgical suite and an entire intensive care unit.
Hindsight is pretty much always 20/20, but I expect that from prior treatment of earlier examples of these coins that it wouldn't be unexpected that the Government would confiscate them.
Let me clear up another myth that is popular here. My family never offered to turn over our property to the mint. Through counsel we informed the mint of our discovery. We then enaged in extensive and what appeared to be substantive discussions with the mint on how we might resolve any disputes or claims they might make on our coins. At some point the mint intimated that it was likely we could come to an agreement, but that it would be a waste of time if the coins were not real. They asked then if we were open to having the coins authenticated. We were reasonably certain the coins were real and that by co- operating our chances of settlement would be greater. We also assumed that worst case if we could not reach agreement both sides would take the matter to court. Most important, as part of the process we also provided to the mint in advance a letter stating that the coins would be turned over for the limited purpose of authentication in furtherance of settlement and we reserved all rights in the property. What we never contemplated was that the Mint would take what every court has said was an illegal action that violated our constitutional rights and seize our coins without any legal process whatsoever.
I wonder if dbldie55 will post a reply to this threadm now that Mr. Langbord is participating in the discusssion?
CameoNut:
The limited nature of the appeals is puzzling. When I discussed the trial with David Ganz after it concluded in 2011, he and I were thinking that multiple aspects of the trial would be appealed.
Is it possible that the jury was inflamed by the one-sided and negative remarks made by government lawyers regarding Israel Switt, his daughter and his grandson? I do not understand how the personalities, non-coin business practices, or behavior in terms of safe-deposit box finds of the Switt-Langbords, are relevant to the case. Could a viable appeal have argued that all such points should have been inadmissible?
Anyone could have gone to the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 and traded old coins for new coins. It is certain that some 1933 eagles ($10 coins) were released in this manner.
As money was scarce in 1933, there were few coin dealers who were interested in wholesaling or speculating in 1931, 1932 or 1933 double eagles. Now, there are few paper money dealers who wish to inventory $10,000 bills, as the same capital could be better used, from a business standpoint, to inventory popular collectible notes of smaller denominations. It just so happens that Israel Switt was a successful businessmen who had the resources to inventory 1931, 1932 and 1933 double eagles, and he was knowledgeable enough to perceive demand by coin collectors.
As these were coins that collectors demanded, they were excluded by FDR from FDR's gold recall order. To numismatists, it was apparent then and is apparent now that collectors demanded 1931, 1932 and 1933 double eagles. My guess is that many visitors to this forum have never even seen a 1931 or a 1932 double eagle. I feel fortunate to have examined a large portion of the survivors, which are rare.
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
Unfortunately appeals to the Supreme Court are limited to just a few questions of law. As a rule of thumb, It feels like the higher you go in the federal court system, the less issues you can raise on appeal. From the start of the trial the judge's evidentiary rulings made it almost impossible for us to win. And the en banc appeal while acknowledging those flaws decided to discount them in order to reach their desired result. Again, unfortunately for my family, review of evidentiary rulings is not something that the Supreme Court undertakes.
First of all -- Welcome to these boards, rhl!
Secondly -- could we find out what this expert witness has been paid by the government for his testimony in these trials? Perhaps with a Freedom of Information Act request?
You could certainly try. I do know that he said it was his principal source of income for a number of years. I would speculate it was north of $100,000 in some years, but I don't know. As opposed to many expert witnesses he also considered himself a part of the "government team". Another thing that has also always fascinated me that although this expert witness had no credentialed historical, accounting, law enforcement, or manufacturing background he was allowed to testify on all those subjects at trial. Of course, on the other hand I believe that during most of the period of this dispute he regularly drew a monthly cartoon for "Cat Fancy" magazine....
So what can an individual do to show public interest? I seldom post but have read the threads, the articles, and the court documents over the years. I would like to see the SCOTUS hear this case. What kind of a campaign can be launched to show public interest?
@Gold12 I think that's a great question and hope you get some answers.
My first thought was maybe to contact your local federal legislators.
But then again I think the SCOTUS is a pretty insulated group by design.
"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
Despite their ability to weigh hundreds of ounces, the scales of that era were also able to discern that those hundreds of ounces included some fractions of an ounce. It's not as if, at the level of hundreds of ounces, they couldn't determine if the measurement was off by an ounce or so. They'd know if it was off by much less than an ounce.
Does the SCOTUS consider letters if the letters remain within their scope?
The big legal issue here is an en banc ruling that cripples CAFRA.
If this ruling is let go as is, the implication is the government can have do overs whenever and despite CAFRAs time limits.
In short, does the gub'mint abide by it's own rule of law or not?
Furthermore, there is the conflict where the court did not find CAFRA was Unconstitutional, conflicted with pre-existing laws or legal theory but chose to simply choose the CAFRA doesn't apply route while not addressing the larger implications to CAFRA as well as the rule of law
116 comments
3K views
Hmmmmmmm
RHL - can you speak to whether there were ever any settlement discussions with Treasury? Or did they effectively say, we have them now and we aren't giving them back.
Another thing has bothered me about this case - I have trouble believing it's about some faceless government department, I'm more convinced that it came down to one person (or a small group) who put their foot down and dictated policy. Any idea who those people were, and what were their real motivations?
In the beginning there were serious and open discussions with the Mint's legal department. After the coins were turned over for authentication discussions were put on hold to allow the coins to be evaluated. This waiting period exceeded nine months during which the Mint gave us various excuses for the delay. At the end of that time, the Mint told our lawyers the coins were authentic and they were not going to be returned.
As a general matter during litigation the Mint invoked executive privilege to claim that records of their internal deliberations should be confidential which, no surprise, the trial Judge upheld. There is a single record we obtained that suggests that the hard line positions originated from the Mint.
For those who asked, I believe anything submitted to the Supreme Court can't hurt our cause. Also letters to legislators and even local newspaper stories can possibly make a difference. To the extent the Court thinks this dispute matters to large numbers of people and the country as a whole, the more likely they are to take the case. Also for any organization that wants to submit supporting amicus briefs, I think the initial deadline is the end of this month.
Wasn't in the various court proceedings that every other gub'mint group involved thought proceedings for forfeiture should start, but the Mint held out for "just keeping them?"
Yes, every agency thought that the government had to commence a forfeiture procedure, except the Mint which took the position it wasn't necessary. What we believe was the likely underlying reason for that choice was the fact that the Mint believed it would probably lose a forfeiture proceeding since CAFRA changed the burden of proof in a forfeiture case and put it on the government. The Mint knew it had no evidence of theft other than hearsay (and likely not admissible) Secret Service reports from the 1940s and records that showed no coins were missing with no back up documents. Amazingly enough they ended up with the one Federal Judge in the U.S. who allowed improper hearsay evidence to be admitted and who I believe had effectively pre-decided the trial before it had commenced.
RHL, a movie could be made from this roller coaster ride you have been on, if it ever comes to an end. Maybe the rights to the story would be enough to raise some cash...geez, just sickening that the US Government wastes so much time and money.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
rhl:I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none of the prolific "experts" on our case that post here have answered the simple question as to when the Mint's "perfect" 1933 DE records were created. At the start of each day? The end of the day? Weekly? Monthly? Or perhaps, years later?
i would assume,without information to the contrary,that the 1933 Mint's cashier records were made in accordance with law by head cashier at the time,Robert Powell and his assistant,Hibberd Ott.
I made at least one post where I speculated that Powell and Ott, two honest men working in the corrupt 1930's Philadelphia Mint,had their ears to the ground and could hear the Horsemen coming,among whom,of course,was known-to-be-sticky-fingered,George McCann,the Horseman who eventually became the Mint's head cashier early in 1934.
i mostly agree with what expert David Tripp has to say in his book, mainly a history book writing that many,if not most,around here were unfamiliar with, and yet had strong opinions about 1933 double eagles and the legality of owning/possessing them. i consider that i did the numismatic community a favor by posting,yes,prolifically as i did about 1933 Double Eagles and their history here. i do disagree with Tripp on a few items in his book and made some posts in this forum expressing myself about same.
It is my belief based on my reading of Tripp, and using some deductive reasoning,that Israel Switt did not come into possession of any 1933 Double Eagles until 1936-early 1937. This would be after Mr. Switt's trip to New York to sell some 1931 and 1932 Double Eagles to Max Berenstein. Anyone here,disagree with me if you will but that is my belief.
Israel Switt,a thief? i have been content to leave that to the trial lawyers,the judges and the trial jury to try to figure out.
i am well-read on 1933 double eagles and their history,but have never have considered myself "expert" on the case,Langbord v. United States.
There's too many lawyers around here for me to declare myself,even for a nanosecond,an "expert" on Langbord v.
United States.
The cut-and-paste posts,done prolifically by non-lawyers around here supporting CAFRA, and typically accompanied with an "expert" opinion about applicability of CAFRA in Langbord v. United States, i view as mostly useless. My posts,on the other hand,i view as mostly useful for i am sharing parts of a recognized expert's well-written,well-researched book on the fascinating saga of the 1933 Double Eagle.
Mr. Langbord,you have my wishes for best of luck to you and family,should your case be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I suggest one find the historical DOCUMENTS instead of the books written by people who were not there and whose writings may simply be speculation or opinion.
Unfortunately the historical documents which might prove how and when the coins left the Mint appear to be non-existent. Absent the evidence of a crime, how can a crime be proven?
What is documented, and can be proven, is that the U.S. Mint violated the CAFRA Act because it wanted to. This should be the point of current litigation.
Mr.1874--Well at least you had the courage to show your face here. A few points. First, as a starting point, in any of your "research" have you checked on Mr. Tripp's actual qualifications? Is he a trained historian? An accountant? A law enforcement professional? An expert on manufacturing plants and processes? Have you read his expert reports, his trial testimony or his depositions? Do you know for how long and how much he was charging the government for his services? If not, how much should you rely on his story? Second, you have "speculated" that Powell and Ott were two "honest" men. Based on what? And please don't quote David Tripp as an answer. Third, you "assume" that their 1933 records were created in "accordance with law". Please specify what "law" you have found that pinpoints when records were to have been written and particularly when the records used at trial were created? Further, given that in your answer you "assume" certain facts, I "assume" you don't actually "know" the answer, do you?. Fourth, have you examined records from other years and how do you reconcile that all other Mint records contain errors and these have none? Fifth, you claim that based on "reading Tripp and some deductive reasoning" that my grandfather didn't come into posssession of 1933 Double Eagles until 1936-37. Are you aware that my grandfather was at the Mint in Philadelphia in 1932-33 at least once a day every day? Are you aware that it was common practice that when my six year old mother went with her father, Mint employees regularly gave her nickels, dimes and other "shiny" coins against the law? Did you know that into the 1960's my grandfather was treated as a VIP at the Mint and had direct access to purchase proof sets and other Mint products? Do such actual facts affect your "deductive reasoning"? Sixth, did you read first hand (and particularly the conclusion) of the actual Secret Service investigation in the 1940s where they said it was impossible to know when, how and under what circumstances any 1933 DE's left the Mint? Seventh, are you aware that an earlier Secret Service investigation at the Mint concluded that their record keeping was so disorganized and problematic that it could not be considered reliable? Shall I go on? If you want people to read David Tripp's book, post a link to Amazon, and let them read it. After that, please, do my family a great service and direct your efforts and speculations at some other topic.
Well said!
What a great read. Thank you @rhl for sharing these insights!
Excellent post Mr. Langbord. Cheers, RickO
Thanks you, Mr. Langbord. It drives me crazy that some folks quote Mr. Tripp's book as if it were the bible on this subject.
Excellent post, Mr. Langbord. Thank you.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
I got the impression long ago that the effort was to pontificate in the same manner as Tripp. unfortunately, when pontificating with "authority" as another person one stops reasoning and becomes untenable and unreasonable in coversations.
I feel like I have followed this story for so long I might just insert myself into the process of trying to drum up some interest. That said, I was wondering if someone, one of the better writers (and there are several) who would be willing to write a sample letter or even a couple paragraphs summarizing the situation for those of us who would like to write to our legislators? I found a website that lists the contact information for federal, state and local elected officials [https://usa.gov/elected-officials]. Most of the URLs links to a form where you can put in your personal info and then a free area for the comments.
As for a supporting amicus briefs, I'm not sure how to proceed. Any interested attorneys have thoughts?
mr. Langbord i respect that you have fond memories of your grandfather and your mother when she was a child. You spoke eloquently of them.That speaks well of you,sir.
i think that the difficulty we are having is rooted in,perhaps, misunderstanding one another. I got interested in your case against the government a few years ago,after the trial and after the first appeal? Not real sure about exactly when i got interested but interest turned into fascination with your case.For awhile i became obsessed with it.Some of my posts are pretty damn long.They are not cut-and-paste but typing in character by character what i'm seeing in David Tripp's book Ilegal Tender verbatim and always,always giving proper credit as it is copyrighted material.i guess most of the time i was posting in the 1933 Double Eagle threads i just feel some sense of accomplishment in me when i can successfully engage persons in a forum such as this in intelligent conversation.We've got some really bright people around here.
What you've got with me is a person who likes to mix it up a bit. i kind of pride myself on mixing it up a bit with some of the lawyers around here. i can sense the reserve but can sometimes get the "what the hell you talkin' about?" to which i can respond with "here's what i'm talkin' about.This." "This" could be something like how did the government regard the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle export,for example.Our government granted the export license for Farouk's '33.Was it a mistake or not?
Not such a simple thing to answer.Here i am engaging a lawyer.For free.Thank you SanctionII for your insight.Another lawyer i get for free is my youngest brother who is a patent/copyright attorney.Brad has worked hard to get where he's at and i'm very proud of him.i sent him a copy of Allison Frankel's book,Double Eagle and we would visit,when i was able to get ahold of him that is, about 1933 Double Eagles. So there's another book recommendation.i especially like the way Allison writes about King Farouk. She has the ability to take one to another level it seems.i highly recommend it to members here.
Speaking of your grandfather,mr. Langbord,i was in a discussion here awhile back with 2sides about your grandfather.
2sides was saying that your grandfather did the numismatic community a great service by preserving his '33 Double Eagles as he did.2sides made a great case for people should try to understand Israel Switt,the coin collector. i have to admit i hadn't really thought to that point about the collector in your grandfather,mr. Langbord. i had been thinking,almost exclusively,of your grandfather as gold and bullion dealer.Tripp doesn't discuss your grandfather in any way as Israel Switt,coin collector. i posted to 2sides that i can appreciate that Israel Switt did indeed do a good deed by preserving those 10 captivating Double Eagle gold pieces for coin collectors.
Tripp acknowledges that there was a window of opportunity where 1933 Double Eagles could be obtained by a person from the public.This post getting lengthy so i'll get to the point. You're right. Your grandfather was at the Mint practically every day and could have obtained them at the Mint window in a legal transaction. There is no direct evidence that exists that he stole the coins.i was actually in shock at some of the "unnecessary" language directed at your grandfather used in one of the judgements.i thought is this really necessary? Your attorney Barry Burke was right.Lots of pounding the table going on around here.
Mr. Langbord,in closing,i would like to say that at no time was i interested in denigrating the fond memories you and the rest of your family have of your grandfather,Israel Switt. And you know,i actually put myself in your shoes for awhile.What does it feel like to be unable to respond in a forum like this because of court order? That's something i should have given a little more thought to i guess.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Nice post @mr1874, it provides a good reminder to all of us when we start to "mix it up" on topics involving others who may not be at liberty to rebut.
Mr.1874--There are people on the web and in print who have done actual original research on the facts underlying the story of the 1933 Double Eagles. I have nothing but respect for these individuals regardless of their point of view. For example, while I certainly disagree with many of the conclusions and research methods of David Tripp, I acknowledge that he at least looked at original materials. The issues my family and I have with you are not because you have hurt our feelings or undermined "fond memories" , they are because you regularly post nonsense or wrong information. (Quick example just in your current post-- our lawyer's name is Barry Berke not "Burke", my mother Joan is very much alive, and my grandfather was principally a jeweler, not a bullion, metal or coin dealer.) Retyping pages from David Tripp's book might be time consuming, but it does not qualify you as an expert or even particularly knowledgable .
Finally, since you raise it, the story of the Farouk export license, is actually straight forward and very supportive of my family's rights. And fascinating. First, understand that an export license applies to a class of goods as well as to an individual item. (For example, Apple needs to receive an export license to sell MacBooks to China. The grant of an export license applies to all of that model of computer, not just to a single item.) In 1944 the Egyptian government on behalf of King Farouk turned over a1933 Double Eagle to the Mint as part of the process to receive an export license to take the coin to Egypt. Let m repeat that--the coin was in the possession of the US Government. The issue the government addressed was if the 1933 Double Eagle was of sufficient historical and collector interest to allow private ownership under the gold acts. If it was, the coin was legal to own and export. The answer, which came from the head of the National Numimsmatic Collection at the Smithsonian and the Director of the Mint, was "yes". There was no discussion or assertion that 1933 Double Eagles were stolen government property illegal to own. What did happen? The coin was deemed legal to own, given back to the Egyptian government along with an export license, and shipped to Egypt.
fixed it for you.
Over the past 10 years during which the litigation over the 10 1933 Double Eagles has been pending, the hobby community has followed the case with great interest. The first threads on the Forums about the case started sometime in 2007. Many people have posted threads and have posted replies to threads expressing their opinions on the case. The opinions have been varied and have ranged from the extremes of:
to
Many people have opinions that are somewhat narrow in scope, specifically what should happen to the 10 1933 double eagles that are the subject of the lawsuit only.
As the case has progressed through the court system and has moved from the trial court, to the initial panel of the 3rd District Court Of Appeal, to the En Banc Panel of the same court and now to the gates of the US Supreme Court the multiple issues present in the case that have been submitted to the appellate courts for review and decision.
The current petition filed by the Langbord family with the Supreme Court presents to that court the opportunity to take up and decide a case which, at its core, deals with the nature and extent of the power of government to take property from the governed.
Asset forfeiture laws are present and on the books throughout the USA at the federal, state, county and city level of government. Through Asset forfeiture laws government can and does take property, including private property from the governed.
Congress enacted CAFRA to change federal Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. The goal in enacting CAFRA was to provide additional protections to the governed. These additional protections of course limit/restrict the power of government to take and forfeit property from the governed. CAFRA was passed by the Legislative branch of government (House and Senate). CAFRA was enacted into law by President Clinton. Two of the three branches of the Federal Government participated in its creation and implementation.
As has been pointed out in threads on this case, CAFRA applies to situations where the property sought to be forfeited is alleged to be stolen government property.
In the case over the 10 1933 Double Eagles multiple departments in the government were of the opinion that the government should/must file a CAFRA forfeiture action. Only the US Mint believed that it was not necessary to file a CAFRA action to forfeit the 10 Double Eagles. The position of the US Mint prevailed and no CAFRA action was filed. The Langbords sued. The trial court agreed that the government should have filed a CAFRA action but chose to give the government a mulligan or do over. There is no disputing this.
People will have differing opinions on CAFRA and whether or not in a specific case property should or should not be forfeited to the government.
However each person should ask whether or not CAFRA should be followed; or whether the government should be allowed to unilaterally (and without consequence) decide that CAFRA should not apply in a given case.
So I ask you, the governed, the following questions?
Do you really want to see the En Banc Panel decision (or a Supreme Court decision upholding the En Banc Panel decision) become the law in the USA on the applicability of CAFRA?
Do you really want the government to have the power and authority to unilaterally decide that CAFRA does not apply when the government takes property from the governed (including one day your own property)?
If you answer yes to the above questions, please explain why you answer yes.
If you answer no to the above questions, please explain why you answer no.
For me, I answer both questions no because of the value of private property rights to our society (along other important rights such as the right to free speech, the right to travel, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to substantive and procedural due process, etc. etc.). The rights of the governed by necessity limit the power of the government. I would prefer limited government power and thus more freedom for the governed than to the other way around.
What say you?
@SanctionII Thank you for the outstanding summary.
I also vote no for the reasons you state.
I know it's a cop out but I couldn't say it any better.
I will add that whenever the government gives itself more power, that becomes the new baseline and only increases from there.
There may be cases where it's pared back but I'm not aware of any.
"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
Sanction II, you have done a wonderful service to numismatics as you have followed this case, and this summary you just wrote is one of the highlights of the case. Those of us who follow this case appreciate what you have done.
My answer to both questions is NO. The reasons include the rights of the people for due process, and a fair hearing when the government decides to seize property. Also, I very strongly believe that the government should comply with the law, just as the people are required to comply with the law. (On a separate issue, I also believe that all laws applying to the people should also apply to the government; that is, the government shouldn't be able to exempt itself from the laws set forth for everyone else.) I also believe that rejecting the En Banc Panel decision would put the government on notice that it has to follow the CAFRA law. After all, that is exactly why Congress passed the CAFRA law, that is, to set forth the rules of how the government has to act when it seizes something.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
No and No.
Someone has previously asked someone to write a text that could be sent to legislators regarding the Langbord case. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, but am a taxpayer, so I took the liberty of putting together the submission below to my own senator.
RE: Langbord vs. United States Supreme Court Petition
Sen. Grassley,
Congratulations on your re-election, I was pleased to have you continue representing the State of Iowa in DC.
I am uncertain whether your position on the Senate Judiciary committee affords you any influence on which cases are heard by the Supreme Court. If you do have any ability to register your support for review of a case, I respectfully request your support for the referenced case for review by the Supreme Court.
The petition was filed by the Langbord's attorney Barry H. Berke on November 4, 2016.
My interest in the case initially arose out of my personal hobby of numismatics (coin collecting), but I believe the question currently before the court has far reaching implications extending far beyond the hobby. My understanding of the primary question after reviewing the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed with the court is the application of Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA) in a case where the government has seized a citizen's property. Although the trial court agreed that the government should have filed a CAFRA action it still chose to give the government a mulligan or “do over”. This “do over” has allowed the government to prevail in lower court decisions under the premise that the although the rules of CAFRA should apply in this case it was somehow okay for the government to disregard that law based solely upon the government's assertion that the property being seized was property previously stolen from the government and that the property was government property. On that basis the government has asserted that they didn't need to follow CAFRA.
It is undisputed that the property in question had been in possession of the Langbord family since the 1930's. Even if the government is correct in their assertion, their intent to bypass the rules of CAFRA, that appear to have been written specifically to avoid a situation such as this, is surely an abuse of their power and violation of the CAFRA law.
I believe it is essential for the court to answer the question whether or not CAFRA should be followed; or whether the government should be allowed to unilaterally (and without consequence) decide that CAFRA should not apply in a given case.
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.
Accordingly, I believe the case should be reviewed by the Court to address this essential question regarding the personal property rights of citizens and I would appreciate any advocacy on this issue you would be able to provide to the court.
Respectfully,
Taxpayer
In my opinion, this en banc ruling does not make a law. It negates the law -- all without declaring the law "not enforceable" or "unconstitutional" or against basic legal underpinnings.
Sorry... that's not yours... do over... CAFRA does not apply.
Sorry.... that's mine... do over... CAFRA does not apply.
Sorry... that's illegal and you can't keep that... do over... CAFRA does not apply.
The punishment to the gub'mint for the gub'mint's foot dragging with forfeiture is clear... the gub'mint loses claim to the property in question.
And the utterly shocking thing about this is that the en banc panel had CAFRA and the initial "implementation" by to gub'mint before them and merely discarded it.
There is an Asset Forfeiture and Policy Manual for 2016 out by our friends at Justice.Gov
And I note that CAFRA was modification the US Code. By ignoring CAFRA, the relevant parts of the US Code are weakened to the point of simply having the gub'mint only needing to convince the court why it does not apply.
Forget the name CAFRA. The mere name is unimportant because:
Here is the law... the law, law:
18 U.S. Code § 983 - General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
(a)Notice; Claim; Complaint.— (1) (A) (i)Except as provided in clauses (ii) through (v), in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute, with respect to which the Government is required to send written notice to interested parties, such notice shall be sent in a manner to achieve proper notice as soon as practicable, and in no case more than 60 days after the date of the seizure. (ii)No notice is required if, before the 60-day period expires, the Government files a civil judicial forfeiture action against the property and provides notice of that action as required by law. (iii)If, before the 60-day period expires, the Government does not file a civil judicial forfeiture action, but does obtain a criminal indictment containing an allegation that the property is subject to forfeiture, the Government shall either— (I)send notice within the 60 days and continue the nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under this section; or (II)terminate the nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding, and take the steps necessary to preserve its right to maintain custody of the property as provided in the applicable criminal forfeiture statute. (iv)In a case in which the property is seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and turned over to a Federal law enforcement agency for the purpose of forfeiture under Federal law, notice shall be sent not more than 90 days after the date of seizure by the State or local law enforcement agency. (v)If the identity or interest of a party is not determined until after the seizure or turnover but is determined before a declaration of forfeiture is entered, notice shall be sent to such interested party not later than 60 days after the determination by the Government of the identity of the party or the party’s interest. (B)A supervisory official in the headquarters office of the seizing agency may extend the period for sending notice under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 30 days (which period may not be further extended except by a court), if the official determines that the conditions in subparagraph (D) are present. (C)Upon motion by the Government, a court may extend the period for sending notice under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 60 days, which period may be further extended by the court for 60-day periods, as necessary, if the court determines, based on a written certification of a supervisory official in the headquarters office of the seizing agency, that the conditions in subparagraph (D) are present. (D)The period for sending notice under this paragraph may be extended only if there is reason to believe that notice may have an adverse result, including— (i)endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (ii)flight from prosecution; (iii)destruction of or tampering with evidence; (iv)intimidation of potential witnesses; or (v)otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. (E)Each of the Federal seizing agencies conducting nonjudicial forfeitures under this section shall report periodically to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate the number of occasions when an extension of time is granted under subparagraph (B). (F)If the Government does not send notice of a seizure of property in accordance with subparagraph (A) to the person from whom the property was seized, and no extension of time is granted, the Government shall return the property to that person without prejudice to the right of the Government to commence a forfeiture proceeding at a later time. The Government shall not be required to return contraband or other property that the person from whom the property was seized may not legally possess.did the Mint elect to get the judiciary involved in the asset forfeiture?
were any of the Langbords ever criminally charged?
How and where does the "this does not apply" come into play?
Invent a reason compelling enough for a court to look the other way... then the law goes out the window. Hmmmm.... no need to have "CAFRA" for that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and there is no excuse for ignoring the law.
Since the Mint seized it, did not plan on giving it back, and had no intention of filing a civil OR criminal proceeding (cough Unconstitutional cough)... perhaps they can claim no part of the law applies
is there any filing number to reference for our letters?
date of filing?
what are the parties as given on the filing?
What's the filing's ""short title(?)"" or some very brief description to reference?
In an earlier reply posted to this thread is a copy of the Petition. The title of the case is located on the Petition, as may also be the Case #. The Case # assigned by the Supreme Court to the Petition I think is also mentioned somewhere in this thread (if not, someone please post the Case #). The Case # can be used on any correspondence that is sent to either elected representatives of Congress, to our current President, to the President Elect and to the US Supreme Court itself. I do not know if any correspondence will increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case, but correspondence would not reduce the chances.
So if one is interested, write a letter and send it off expressing your opinion as to whether the Petition should be granted or denied.
Sanction, I would like to start an online petition (maybe change.org) and would like to use parts of this post as the description. Would that meet with your approval?
Gold12.
Feel free to do so.
Are there any other cases where the Government opted to ignore CAFRA and prevailed? Or opted to ignore CAFRA and lost?