rhl: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.
Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint, apparently was okay with ownership of 1933 Double Eagles well before 1944 when the export license for the Farouk coin was granted. i don't recall where i read it but there is at least one document in existence that supports my statement about Mrs. Ross being okay with 1933 Double Eagle ownership prior to 1944. American Numismatic Association,of which i am no longer a member so i can't use their library,can help establish this i believe.
i had been looking at the timeline of events in 1944 that involved 1933 Double Eagles.Ross grants the export license for Farouk's '33. Ross,herself,had invented the export license form used for the Farouk coin in 1937.
Soon after the export license for Farouk's '33 was granted, Director Ross was replaced by F. Leland Howard who Q. David Bowers,in his book _A Guidebook of Double Eagle Gold Coins _calls a "curmudgeon and possibly a grafter." Then the roundup of 1933 Double Eagles known to be in private hands began.
The numismatic community has F. Leland Howard to thank for "stigmatizing" ownership of 1933 Double Eagles.Prior to Ross being replaced as Mint Director,did the Mint have any problem with a few '33 Doubles getting out for collectors? i don't think so....but some at the Mint in 1944 were still smarting over the embarrassing theft of a whole bag from the Mint's vaults of non-1933 Double Eagles ($5000 face value) years earlier. That crime was never solved. McCann was the main suspect but was not convicted of this particular crime although he did do prison time in 1940 after being convicted of pilferage of Mint coins.Who did take that bag of non-1933 Double Eagles? It's not likely that we will never know for sure but it really is troubling to me as a former investigator of employee theft for a major retailer that the culprit,or culprits,could not be positively identified and brought to justice.
The vault custodian,McKiernan? (not sure of spelling of name here since i have put the bulk of my collection of writings about 1933 Double Eagle story into not-immediately-accessible-to-me storage) had the bag theft hanging over his head to the tune of thousands of dollars for eight long years,until finally,at the behest of Ross, was forgiven for it by act of Congress in 1944. The Mint got it right for a change (no pun intended) in my view by letting McKiernan off the hook as he didn't take the bag.
One reader here stated uncategorically that the theft of the $5000 bag had nothing to do with the seizure events of 1933 Double Eagles that occurred starting 1944. Reader was totally unaware of this theft,discovered in 1937 during the so-called Great Melt of that year,until i put the information out there,as i read it in Tripp's book.An opinion based on no information? How useful is that,i ask?
I have no legally coherent opinion of CAFRA since i'm not a lawyer but i ask how useful is a law when judges and lawyers,
never mind the lay person,can't make heads or tails (no pun intended) of it?
My opinion now,mr. Langbord,is that your case NEEDS to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Furthermore, it is my hope your family prevails and you get all ten of the 1933 Double Eagle coins you found in the SDB returned to you.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Nellie T. Ross was Director of the Mint until April of 1953. Please do not publish misinformation as fact.
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.
well,Henway,Nellie Tayloe Ross was replaced as Mint Director, temporarily at least,in 1944 soon after granting the export license to the Egyptian Legation for the Farouk '33 .It's not clear to me why Mrs. Ross was replaced by Howard and also not clear when Howard stood aside for Ross to return to work as Mint Director. Maybe you know something i don't and would care to share it.Howard became full Director of the Mint after Ross retired in 1953.
It was ACTING Mint Director F. Leland Howard,not Nellie Tayloe Ross,who gave the go-ahead for the Secret Service to seize 1933 Double Eagles from their owners in the '40's.
I'll hang out long enough here for any questions you may have about the veracity of the historical fact i just published.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My opinion at this time is that David Tripp,writing about Israel Switt in his book as he did,may have seriously underestimated
the business acumen of Israel Switt.
Tripp wrote that Max Barenstein gloated in front of all who would listen to him,about ripping Switt off on those '31's and '32's he sold to Barenstein in 1936.The sorry result for the gloating Barenstein was to cut himself off from Switt wanting to sell him any more Double Eagles after insulting him as he did. What kind of business acumen is that?
One can see on p.163 of Illegal Tender an image of Barenstein's February,1936 ad to buy Double Eagles,including "1933 Phila." The caption below the image says,"Solicitation advertisement by Max Barenstein,February 1936. It yielded cheap 1931 and 1932 double eagles a few months later from Israel Switt-and an expensive 1933 double eagle,in a years time."
Barenstein's expensive '33 came from Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister in 1937.Macallister had purchased five '33 double eagles from Switt and one was bought from him by Barenstein.
Switt,in 1936,may well have had possession of '33 Double Eagles,all traded for legally at the Mint window in 1933 during the "window of opportunity." i once speculated (ATS) that if Switt had possession of '33's when he went to NYC he wouldn't have been able to resist showing Barenstein the prize date but now i'm thinking i could easily be wrong about this."Unable to resist showing" is the coin collector in me talking but we should keep in mind that Switt was acting as a dealer,not a collector,when he went to Bern's Antique shop in NYC in 1936.
Switt was sitting on his '33's to get maximum money out of them,probably didn't care much for Barenstein anyway having dealt with him on previous occasions,so in essence was set-up by Switt who offered him only '31's and '32's? I did read somewhere that Israel Switt,if he liked you,would give you the shirt off his back,words to that effect, if he thought you needed it. If Switt didn't like you? Well,look what happened with Barenstein on his '33 Double Eagle purchase. Barenstein,by being such a jackarse with Switt,paid way more for his '33 than he would have had to regardless of when Switt came into possession of 1933 Double Eagles.Chapter 12 in_ Illegal Tender _tells the story,according to Tripp.
A few corrections: The Mint head cashier before McCann first name is Harry not Robert. So,Harry Powell is his name not Robert Powell as a wrote a few posts ago here.Also,the writer of Double Eagle is Alison Frankel not Allison Frankel as i wrote earlier.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@Analyst said: 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.
For 99+% of federal cases, the circuit court of appeals level is effectively the court of last resort. SCOTUS cares about precedent and deep/well developed conflicts among lower appeals courts. SCOTUS wouldn't have cared about the other issues, and it would have cluttered up the petition which is not helpful.
The court receives a few thousand petitions and all are reviewed by law clerks (new lawyers usually with one year of experience as clerks from the lower courts of appeal) who read through and write memos with recommendations. As busy as the court and cert pool are, including superfluous issues and being overly wordy/caught up in unique facts of the case are usually kisses of death.
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
I have no idea under what circumstances Howard would step in as Acting Director. Perhaps he did so when she went out of town on vacation. However, I do not think that this means that he had supplanted her authority, but merely that he was running the shop for her under her authority. If you can cite a reference to the contrary, please do.
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.
Howard no doubt served as Acting Director in the interregnum.
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.
@cameonut2011 said:
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
@CaptHenway said:
1945 list of Treasury officials giving Nellie Tayloe Ross as Director of the Mint and Leland Howard as Assistant Director of the Mint.
I have no idea under what circumstances Howard would step in as Acting Director. Perhaps he did so when she went out of town on vacation. However, I do not think that this means that he had supplanted her authority, but merely that he was running the shop for her under her authority. If you can cite a reference to the contrary, please do.
Your view is correct. It was common practice for a chosen subordinate, in this
case Leland Howard, to be acting director when the director was unavailable
for some reason.
Henway,thanks for responding to my post about NTR.
My view of NTR is that she was as honest as the day is long. She served our country well during her tenure as Mint Director. I think she got pushed aside for a time,a victim of Mint politics.Vacation time? Maybe,but it's hard for me to imagine her being the force behind ordering seizures of 1933 double eagles here in the states,especially after approving the export of Farouk's '33 to Egypt.
NTR sought the opinion of T. Beloit of the Smithsonian before granting the export license.T. Beloit said to NTR,in essence,"no problem letting the coin go to Egypt for Farouk." Tripp claims Beloit was wrong. I now think Tripp is the one wrong about the export being a mistake.
Enter F. Leland Howard.Q. David Bowers actually had dealings with Dr. Howard. One can read about Howard in Bowers' book,A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins."Exposing F. Leland Howard" Readers might consider looking up the definitions of "curmudgeon" and (possible) "grafter" to get a better idea of what QDB's impression (mostly unfavorable) of Dr. Howard is.
okay,i've said enough and will say no more about the topic of 1933 double eagles and the players who make the 1933 double eagle story come alive. My distracting self is stepping aside here and getting out of the picture as a courtesy to allow the CAFRA talk to resume. i will always challenge allegations that i deliberately publish misinformation,however.
regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
SanctionII - is the government's position that the subject 10 coins never became property subject to being privately owned and thus do not fit within the parameters of CAFRA? Does CAFRA define what "privately owned property" is and is not?
_Henway:I have no idea under what circumstances Howard would step in as Acting Director. Perhaps he did so when she went out of town on vacation. However, I do not think that this means that he had supplanted her authority, but merely that he was running the shop for her under her authority. If you can cite a reference to the contrary, please do.
denga;Your view is correct. It was common practice for a chosen subordinate, in this case Leland Howard, to be acting director when the director was unavailable for some reason._
Reference to the contrary.This is the best i can do:
Q. David Bowers on F. Leland Howard (emphasis by bolding is my work here):
"Back to 1944: At the behest of self-appointed czar F. Leland Howard,Secret Service agents swooped down on collectors and dealers,seized all the 1933 double eagles they could find,including the one scheduled to be auctioned by Stack's,and interviewed dealers and others,and filed lengthy reports and correspondence amounting to hundreds of pages."
_A Guide Book of DOUBLE EAGLE GOLD COINS written by Q. David Bowers,p.283.
My read of Bowers here is that it doesn't sound to me like F. Leland Howard was a subordinate to Nellie Tayloe Ross.
Ross may have been asked by her boss to order the seizures but may have just said "no,i'm not going to do it." Some government employees actually do have integrity and NTR was one of them. NTR was okay with the Farouk '33 export. How could she not be especially after consulting with T. Beloit at the Smithsonian? Consulting with Beloit,a CYA move on her part? Was she legally obliged to consult with Beloit about the export of Farouk's '33?
The powers that be in Treasury let NTR go back to work after Howard did his thing. As i posted earlier,the Mint/Treasury was still smarting over the bag of 250 non-1933 Double Eagles being **stolen from a Mint basement vault **years earlier and someone had to pay,in this case, legal owners of 1933 double eagles. 1933 double eagles,what a great scapegoat for the Mint to save some face.
My opinion:**Tripp is wrong **about that the granting of the export license for the Farouk coin was a Mint mistake.Tripp's reasoning to help support his position that mistake was made is weak,flawed,and troublesome to me.A careful reading of Tripp,in_ Illegal Tender_, on this issue, will bear this out.
Who,living and working in Pennsylvania,goes willingly on vacation in March? NTR was pushed aside,made ineffectual for a time,by the powers that be in the 1944 Philadelphia Mint. I sure would like to see that Mint document RB found.
Sorry.i can't help it.This story fascinates me as a former investigator of employee theft for a major retailer.i learned rather quickly as an investigator to be a student of human moves.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The government's precise position will be set forth in its response to the Petition filed by the Langbords. In general it is my understanding that the government contends that the 10 1933 double eagles have always been government property and that it proved this at the jury trial that took place in the federal district court. However, apparently CAFRA (the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act) itself states that it applies to property which is claimed to be stolen government property.
Perhaps someone who has recently read CAFRA itself and the Petition filed by the Langbords can provide additional information.
There is a general misunderstanding of the events surrounding the role
played by Leland Howard in the 1933 matter. The following points apply:
1) The Tripp book is not a neutral report. It is, in my opinion, little better
than a government brief. The same is true for the Frankel book.
2) Director Ross was not shunted aside. It is simply more likely that she
was out of town and Leland Howard was acting director when the 1933
matter arose. He then made the decision on the 1933s. Once the decision
was made, however, there was no going back.
3) I know of no instance where a mint director was shunted aside in favor
of a subordinate making a decision. It just did not happen.
Thanks all for your support. Any letters or emails sent to the Supreme Court or your Senator or Congressperson on our behalf are very much appreciated. The more public attention paid to this dispute, the more likely the Supreme Court will hear the case.
After approving the export of Farouk's '33, NTR leaves her post as Mint Director for a time, reason or reasons unknown. Maybe she's out sick.Maybe she takes a March vacation. Maybe there's another reason. We don't know. You might be right,denga. NTR was not "shunted aside" by higher authority,as you say. In her absence, assistant Howard assumes NTR's duties as Mint Director.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was Secretary of the Treasury in 1944. Morgenthau,of course,as Treasury Secretary, was NTRs' and Howards' boss. In the early months of 1944, Morgenthau was heavily involved with helping to rescue Jews in Europe from the Nazis. What was happening at the Mint with exports of a few gold coins is not likely to have been the most important thing on his mind. Really,coins and coin collectors are not likely to have been on his mind at all in early 1944.
In NTR's absence, Dr. Howard exploits the situation and appoints himself Mint czar.He orders the Secret Service to begin seizing 1933 double eagles from their owners. On NTR's return to the Mint, i can imagine NTR being aghast at what her curmudgeonly assistant has done in her absence....but, you're right,denga. It was too late for the Mint to turn back.
Why did Howard order SS seizures of 1933 Double Eagles in his immediate boss' absence,presumably acting without her permission? Was he trying to make a name for himself as a Mint "law and order" man? Whatever Howard's reasons for acting as he did resulted in the stigmatization of a collector owning a 1933 double eagle from those days forward.1933 Double Eagles,once legal to own,at least as the "official Mint of NTR" is concerned, have now been deemed illegal to own by one self-appointed,self-serving individual, Dr. F. Leland Howard.
Q. David Bowers says this about Dr. Howard:
"...by the time i became acquainted with him in the 1960's,he was director of the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver Operations. He played the simultaneous roles of poobah,stuffed shirt,high muckety-muck,and dictator to anyone who wanted to import gold coins."
A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins,p. 283
correction: I misspelled the name of Mr. Belote. Curator of the Smithsonian in 1944 was T. Belote,not Beloit.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1874 said:
After approving the export of Farouk's '33, NTR leaves her post as Mint Director for a time, reason or reasons unknown. Maybe she's out sick.Maybe she takes a March vacation. Maybe there's another reason. We don't know. You might be right,denga. NTR was not "shunted aside" by higher authority,as you say. In her absence, assistant Howard assumes NTR's duties as Mint Director.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was Secretary of the Treasury in 1944. Morgenthau,of course,as Treasury Secretary, was NTRs' and Howards' boss. In the early months of 1944, Morgenthau was heavily involved with helping to rescue Jews in Europe from the Nazis. What was happening at the Mint with exports of a few gold coins is not likely to have been the most important thing on his mind. Really,coins and coin collectors are not likely to have been on his mind at all in early 1944.
In NTR's absence, Dr. Howard exploits the situation and appoints himself Mint czar.He orders the Secret Service to begin seizing 1933 double eagles from their owners. On NTR's return to the Mint, i can imagine NTR being aghast at what her curmudgeonly assistant has done in her absence....but, you're right,denga. It was too late for the Mint to turn back.
Why did Howard order SS seizures of 1933 Double Eagles in his immediate boss' absence,presumably acting without her permission? Was he trying to make a name for himself as a Mint "law and order" man? Whatever Howard's reasons for acting as he did resulted in the stigmatization of a collector owning a 1933 double eagle from those days forward.1933 Double Eagles,once legal to own,at least as the "official Mint of NTR" is concerned, have now been deemed illegal to own by one self-appointed,self-serving individual, Dr. F. Leland Howard.
Q. David Bowers says this about Dr. Howard:
"...by the time i became acquainted with him in the 1960's,he was director of the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver Operations. He played the simultaneous roles of poobah,stuffed shirt,high muckety-muck,and dictator to anyone who wanted to import gold coins."
A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins,p. 283
correction: I misspelled the name of Mr. Belote. Curator of the Smithsonian in 1944 was T. Belote,not Beloit.
Some points need to be made:
1) Leland Howard Howard was acting mint director because Mrs.
Ross was unavailable. Period.
2) Acting mint directors were officially appointed for this purpose
as early as the 1860s and there are many letters in the mint archives
signed by acting directors from that time.
3) When the director learned about the 1933 matter she appointed
Howard to handle the matter as he saw fit. He did NOT appoint himself.
It was NOT done without her permission.
4) Morgenthau had nothing to do with any of this. I doubt that the
1933 matter was even brought to his attention.
5) I had dealings with Howard in the 1960s. It was a waste of time as
he was not open to reasonable discussions on the importation of gold
coins from the UK.
denga:_3) When the director learned about the 1933 matter she appointed.Howard to handle the matter as he saw fit. He did NOT appoint himself. It was NOT done without her permission.
_
i'm going with Q. David Bowers on this one denga. QDB says Howard appointed himself to order the SS seizures of 1933 double eagles from their owners. "Self-appointed " means what to you,denga?
You seem to be pretty sure (with your NOT's) that Howard had Ross' permission to order the Secret Service seizures that commenced soon after NTR approved the Farouk '33 export.
Question for you denga: Why would Ross approve export of a '33 for **King Farouk in Egypt **and then order SS seizures, using Howard,of '33 double eagles from their **American citizen owners **a short time later?
My understanding is that Nellie Tayloe Ross was a friend of the coin collector unlike her assistant Howard,as described by Q. David Bowers.As i wrote before,there is evidence in existence (a good place for the researcher to start checking is with the American Numismatic Association publication The Numismatist) that indications are NTR had no problem with American citizens owning '33 double eagles.
???
"B" button doesn't always work in here. text is for emphasis above.
testKing FaroukAmerican citizens
Got it Don't use the button for bolded text.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1874 said:
denga:_3) When the director learned about the 1933 matter she appointed.Howard to handle the matter as he saw fit. He did NOT appoint himself. It was NOT done without her permission.
_
i'm going with Q. David Bowers on this one denga. QDB says Howard appointed himself to order the SS seizures of 1933 double eagles from their owners. "Self-appointed " means what to you,denga?
You seem to be pretty sure (with your NOT's) that Howard had Ross' permission to order the Secret Service seizures that commenced soon after NTR approved the Farouk '33 export.
Question for you denga: Why would Ross approve export of a '33 for **King Farouk in Egypt **and then order SS seizures, using Howard,of '33 double eagles from their **American citizen owners **a short time later?
My understanding is that Nellie Tayloe Ross was a friend of the coin collector unlike her assistant Howard,as described by Q. David Bowers.As i wrote before,there is evidence in existence (a good place for the researcher to start checking is with the American Numismatic Association publication The Numismatist) that indications are NTR had no problem with American citizens owning '33 double eagles.
???
Some additional points:
1) QDB has not read the internal Mint documents. I have, and my
earlier statements are correct. Howard did NOT appoint himself
anything. It had to have been done with the director’s permission.
That was the way it worked in the 1940s and is still true today.
2) The director approved the Farouk export license before Howard
investigated the matter and came up with his views about the 1933s.
She simply changed her mind at that point and directed Howard to
handle the matter as he thought best.
3) Mrs. Ross may be considered a friend of the collector but her allowing
Howard free rein is another matter entirely.
4) You are correct in stating that Howard was unfriendly to collectors;
I had the “pleasure” of witnessing that at first hand in 1963.
All of this defending one person, and demonizing another seems more like mental gymnastics than historical reporting.
I think it's naïve to think that one person, or one government agency, had complete power to do anything they pleased. Pressure from the Treasury, Justice, FBI, who knows, could easily have led the mint to do what they normally would not have.
Case in point: There is an obvious conflict between "Round up all of the 1933 DE's", and "Grant an export license for that ONE 1933 DE". Seems quite obvious that the desire to foster better relations with a foreign government led someone (State Dept?) to pressure the export license, even while someone else was pushing for seizure of the others.
Was Nellie Tayloe Ross in the dark, and not involved? Seems unlikely. Did Howard act on his own? Seems unlikely. Makes for a better story...but I'm betting the facts are different, no matter who wrote the "numismatically blessed storyline", or when they wrote it.
The things that go on behind bureaucratic doors rarely make it into the history books....
In view of the message posted by TommyType I will amend slightly what I have
said earlier. Bowers is correct when he says that Howard appointed himself as
arbiter of the 1933 DE matter but it still required specific authority from the mint
director before he could do anything, including calling on the Secret Service.
If the director had refused permission to procede, then Howard could have done
nothing.
Secret Service investigation of the bag ($5000 face) stolen years earlier failed to result in a conviction.Really,how tough was it for SS to identify the culprit or culprits and get a conviction for this crime? Bungled investigation at the least. Corrupt SS agents at the worst. Black mark on SS. Embarrassing to the agency as those basement vaults were supposed to be secure with very,very few persons having access. That theft was discovered during the audit taken prior to the so-called Great Gold melt of 1937 when the bulk of the 1933 double eagles in mint storage were melted.
There were dealer ads to buy 1933 double eagles as early as February,1936.There were ads to sell 1933 double eagles as early as 1937.Was the Mint in a bubble,totally ignorant of the fact that 1933 double eagles were being traded in the market place early as 1937!? I believe that there are ads to be found in issues of The Numismatist,publication of the ANA to support my statement about open trading of 1933 double eagles in the '30's and '40's. i'm not an ANA member anymore (haven't been for over 10 years) but if i was a member i would use the ANA library in an attempt to locate the sell/buy ads in The Numismatist issues starting 1937. It was not a secret in the numismatic community that '33 double eagles were available to persons with enough money to buy them.
1933 double eagles were legal to own until an ambitious,self-serving character known as F. Leland Howard decided,possibly at the behest of the Secret Service,to take the law into his own hands.1933 double eagle seizure time for SS to save some face after bungling what should have been a fairly straightforward investigation that would result in a conviction for the 250 piece bag theft? How much of an investigation was done by the Mint to establish their legal authority to make the '33 double seizures? The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, would be out of the loop to establish legality of the seizures? Hard for me to believe.
No "1933" gold was found to be missing.The books balanced.That fact has been published in these 1933 threads by many readers/posters here over the last few years.That a few '33 doubles got out during the "window of opportunity" shouldn't have alarmed anyone. Why was the Mint even making '33 double eagles after April,1933? Israel Switt was at the Mint everyday looking for '33 double eagles to trade for.That he scored a few in a legal transaction at the Mint window in 1933 is entirely possible. Israel Switt interviewed by SS agents in 1944 was uncooperative with agents.Tripp writes about the interviews casting Switt as a villain. Hell,i wouldn't have cooperated with them either. Call me villain too.
Too many questions,not enough answers.
My opinion is that the Langbord family will have suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice if all ten of those 1933 double eagles that Roy Langbord found in one of the family SDB's are not returned to them by our government.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@mr1874 said:
There were dealer ads to buy 1933 double eagles as early as February,1936.There were ads to sell 1933 double eagles as early as 1937.Was the Mint in a bubble,totally ignorant of the fact that 1933 double eagles were being traded in the market place early as 1937!? I believe that there are ads to be found in issues of The Numismatist,publication of the ANA to support my statement about open trading of 1933 double eagles in the '30's and '40's. i'm not an ANA member anymore (haven't been for over 10 years) but if i was a member i would use the ANA library in an attempt to locate the sell/buy ads in The Numismatist issues starting 1937. It was not a secret in the numismatic community that '33 double eagles were available to persons with enough money to buy them.
Regards,
mr1874
Yes. For example, in March 1941 The Numismatist carried an ad to
buy and sell 1933 double eagles. And it is certain that Mrs. Ross read
the magazine.
Mr Langbord throwing you huge positive vibes and best wishes. I want you desperately to get your families coins back.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
When Mrs. Ross and/or her office approved the export license, with a certain amount of due diligence, no controversy over their existence existed, or at least was commonly known. Later, after Howard manufactured a vast controversy for whatever reason, things changed, and the Director and her office recognized the new reality.
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.
It remains a mystery to me as to why Howard took the actions that he did. The statute of limitations for theft had run, the country was at war, the Secret Service was stretched thin, and 1933 DEs had been traded openly for years. Sometimes I wonder if it was some personal vendetta against coin dealers or mint employees, however unlike others here, I don't indulge in speculation
I guess there is the approach that the en banc appellate court nullified sections of US Code without declaring them nullified. Does that count for anything?
Then there is any conflict with any other appeals court decisions on the 30day for the gub'mint to file timeframe,
Yes, the en banc court went further than even the Justice Department thought possible, effectively turning CAFRA from a statute designed to protect individuals from abusive government tactics to one that gives the government virtual carte blanche to take a citizen's property without due process so long as the government doesn't call it a seizure
RHL's description of the En Banc panel's decision illustrates the aspect of this case which may cause the Supreme Court to grant the petition and hear the case. Does anyone know the procedure of the court on reviewing petitions and deciding to either grant or deny same? If so, please explain what the procedure is.
@SanctionII said:
RHL's description of the En Banc panel's decision illustrates the aspect of this case which may cause the Supreme Court to grant the petition and hear the case. Does anyone know the procedure of the court on reviewing petitions and deciding to either grant or deny same? If so, please explain what the procedure is.
I think it was described near the top of the page.
"The court receives a few thousand petitions and all are reviewed by law clerks (new lawyers usually with one year of experience as clerks from the lower courts of appeal) who read through and write memos with recommendations. "
At some point after that, the Judges must decide to grant or deny the case to be heard.
1) The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law: The U.S. judicial system consists of 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts. When a number of these courts reach different conclusions about an issue of federal or constitutional law, the Supreme Court may step in and decide the law so that all areas of the country can then operate under the same law.
2) The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000), or a case with an important social issue, such as abortion in Roe v. Wade.
3) The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices' Interests: Sometimes Justices give preference to cases that decide an issue in their favorite area of law.
4) The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions: If a lower court blatantly disregards a past Supreme Court decision, the court may hear the case to correct the lower court, or alternatively, simply overrule the case without comment.
It is my understanding that after our request for a hearing was made the government has thirty days to respond or ask for an extension. After the government files it's papers, we will have two weeks to file a response. After all papers are in, the Court's law clerks review and summarize the case and present it to the justices in conference. If four justices vote to hear the case, it goes forward for arguement in the early spring. If four justices do not agree to hear the case it is over. Depending on when the government submits its papers the decision to go forward or not should come in January or February. Again, any materials submitted to the court supporting further review could only be considered helpful.
@SanctionII said:
RHL's description of the En Banc panel's decision illustrates the aspect of this case which may cause the Supreme Court to grant the petition and hear the case. Does anyone know the procedure of the court on reviewing petitions and deciding to either grant or deny same? If so, please explain what the procedure is.
I think it was described near the top of the page.
"The court receives a few thousand petitions and all are reviewed by law clerks (new lawyers usually with one year of experience as clerks from the lower courts of appeal) who read through and write memos with recommendations. "
At some point after that, the Judges must decide to grant or deny the case to be heard.
@rhl said:
It is my understanding that after our request for a hearing was made the government has thirty days to respond or ask for an extension. After the government files it's papers, we will have two weeks to file a response. After all papers are in, the Court's law clerks review and summarize the case and present it to the justices in conference. If four justices vote to hear the case, it goes forward for arguement in the early spring. If four justices do not agree to hear the case it is over. Depending on when the government submits its papers the decision to go forward or not should come in January or February. Again, any materials submitted to the court supporting further review could only be considered helpful.
If the Supreme Court takes the case and there are only eight justices, if they split four to four, the lower court's decision stands. On the other hand In order to get a hearing you need to only get four Justices to agree; if four disagree, the Court still hears the case
Sometimes I wonder if it was some personal vendetta against coin dealers or mint employees, however unlike others here, I don't indulge in speculation.
The speculation comes from the fact that is a compelling issue. Why this coin and not the 1913 nickels or all the other 19th century patterns? A single person, or a small group, consciously decided this one coin would not stand. Who decided that and exactly why are the most interesting (and unanswered) questions about this whole thing. There is also the kicker that Treasury has been dug in on this position for 70 years - that's a lot of different administrations with a remarkably consistent position. That can't be an accident.
@SanctionII said:
RHL's description of the En Banc panel's decision illustrates the aspect of this case which may cause the Supreme Court to grant the petition and hear the case. Does anyone know the procedure of the court on reviewing petitions and deciding to either grant or deny same? If so, please explain what the procedure is.
I think it was described near the top of the page.
"The court receives a few thousand petitions and all are reviewed by law clerks (new lawyers usually with one year of experience as clerks from the lower courts of appeal) who read through and write memos with recommendations. "
At some point after that, the Judges must decide to grant or deny the case to be heard.
We're wondering the the SCOTUS hears the type of case where certain parts of the USC are nullified without the en banc panel declaring them nullified.
SanctionII was wondering about the procedure that a writ [after submission] goes through in order for the SC to decide whether to hear the case or not. The procedure is outlined in the cert pool reference. I guess we'll find out in due course. Of the 7500 or so writs petitioned for annually, it's hard to believe that most of them would even have a puncher's chance of getting heard.
US one-half involved $$$ in ex Farouk '33. i don't think any US messing with that business is going to happen.Potential for disastrous PR for the Mint too great.i haven't seen a single story on what the Mint did with its profits from the Fenton sale.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
King Farouk's coin collection became the property of the Egyptian government after he was deposed. Now an interesting question is whether or not the Fenton coin is in fact Farouk's? Like everything else in this case, the answer is no one actually knows.
It was not even T. Belote's decision to make regarding granting the export license to the Egyptians for Farouk's '33 double eagle. Tripp claims Belote was "wrong." The fact is whether to grant license or not was not Belote's call.NTR signed off on the export license.Maybe i shouldn't be so quick to assume NTR's sig on export license for Farouk coin as i have never actually seen the export license (Form TGL-11) that NTR would have signed to let a '33 double fly to Cairo. What a great document for the owner of the ex-Farouk piece to have!
Seems there could be TGL-11 documents in existence to inspect for other Mint approvals for export of gold coin? Could F. Leland Howard,as Mrs. Ross' assistant,have signed off on some gold coin exports in her absence?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Comments
Now this is getting really interesting.... Cheers, RickO
rhl: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.
Nellie Tayloe Ross,Director of the Mint, apparently was okay with ownership of 1933 Double Eagles well before 1944 when the export license for the Farouk coin was granted. i don't recall where i read it but there is at least one document in existence that supports my statement about Mrs. Ross being okay with 1933 Double Eagle ownership prior to 1944. American Numismatic Association,of which i am no longer a member so i can't use their library,can help establish this i believe.
i had been looking at the timeline of events in 1944 that involved 1933 Double Eagles.Ross grants the export license for Farouk's '33. Ross,herself,had invented the export license form used for the Farouk coin in 1937.
Soon after the export license for Farouk's '33 was granted, Director Ross was replaced by F. Leland Howard who Q. David Bowers,in his book _A Guidebook of Double Eagle Gold Coins _calls a "curmudgeon and possibly a grafter." Then the roundup of 1933 Double Eagles known to be in private hands began.
The numismatic community has F. Leland Howard to thank for "stigmatizing" ownership of 1933 Double Eagles.Prior to Ross being replaced as Mint Director,did the Mint have any problem with a few '33 Doubles getting out for collectors? i don't think so....but some at the Mint in 1944 were still smarting over the embarrassing theft of a whole bag from the Mint's vaults of non-1933 Double Eagles ($5000 face value) years earlier. That crime was never solved. McCann was the main suspect but was not convicted of this particular crime although he did do prison time in 1940 after being convicted of pilferage of Mint coins.Who did take that bag of non-1933 Double Eagles? It's not likely that we will never know for sure but it really is troubling to me as a former investigator of employee theft for a major retailer that the culprit,or culprits,could not be positively identified and brought to justice.
The vault custodian,McKiernan? (not sure of spelling of name here since i have put the bulk of my collection of writings about 1933 Double Eagle story into not-immediately-accessible-to-me storage) had the bag theft hanging over his head to the tune of thousands of dollars for eight long years,until finally,at the behest of Ross, was forgiven for it by act of Congress in 1944. The Mint got it right for a change (no pun intended) in my view by letting McKiernan off the hook as he didn't take the bag.
One reader here stated uncategorically that the theft of the $5000 bag had nothing to do with the seizure events of 1933 Double Eagles that occurred starting 1944. Reader was totally unaware of this theft,discovered in 1937 during the so-called Great Melt of that year,until i put the information out there,as i read it in Tripp's book.An opinion based on no information? How useful is that,i ask?
I have no legally coherent opinion of CAFRA since i'm not a lawyer but i ask how useful is a law when judges and lawyers,
never mind the lay person,can't make heads or tails (no pun intended) of it?
My opinion now,mr. Langbord,is that your case NEEDS to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Furthermore, it is my hope your family prevails and you get all ten of the 1933 Double Eagle coins you found in the SDB returned to you.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Nellie T. Ross was Director of the Mint until April of 1953. Please do not publish misinformation as fact.
well,Henway,Nellie Tayloe Ross was replaced as Mint Director, temporarily at least,in 1944 soon after granting the export license to the Egyptian Legation for the Farouk '33 .It's not clear to me why Mrs. Ross was replaced by Howard and also not clear when Howard stood aside for Ross to return to work as Mint Director. Maybe you know something i don't and would care to share it.Howard became full Director of the Mint after Ross retired in 1953.
It was ACTING Mint Director F. Leland Howard,not Nellie Tayloe Ross,who gave the go-ahead for the Secret Service to seize 1933 Double Eagles from their owners in the '40's.
I'll hang out long enough here for any questions you may have about the veracity of the historical fact i just published.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Henway,didn't you post in one these 1933 Double Eagle threads that you thought Israel Switt acquired his '33's in 1936?
My memory isn't quite as good as it used to be so if i'm wrong about this,please correct me.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
My opinion at this time is that David Tripp,writing about Israel Switt in his book as he did,may have seriously underestimated
the business acumen of Israel Switt.
Tripp wrote that Max Barenstein gloated in front of all who would listen to him,about ripping Switt off on those '31's and '32's he sold to Barenstein in 1936.The sorry result for the gloating Barenstein was to cut himself off from Switt wanting to sell him any more Double Eagles after insulting him as he did. What kind of business acumen is that?
One can see on p.163 of Illegal Tender an image of Barenstein's February,1936 ad to buy Double Eagles,including "1933 Phila." The caption below the image says,"Solicitation advertisement by Max Barenstein,February 1936. It yielded cheap 1931 and 1932 double eagles a few months later from Israel Switt-and an expensive 1933 double eagle,in a years time."
Barenstein's expensive '33 came from Philadelphia coin dealer James Macallister in 1937.Macallister had purchased five '33 double eagles from Switt and one was bought from him by Barenstein.
Switt,in 1936,may well have had possession of '33 Double Eagles,all traded for legally at the Mint window in 1933 during the "window of opportunity." i once speculated (ATS) that if Switt had possession of '33's when he went to NYC he wouldn't have been able to resist showing Barenstein the prize date but now i'm thinking i could easily be wrong about this."Unable to resist showing" is the coin collector in me talking but we should keep in mind that Switt was acting as a dealer,not a collector,when he went to Bern's Antique shop in NYC in 1936.
Switt was sitting on his '33's to get maximum money out of them,probably didn't care much for Barenstein anyway having dealt with him on previous occasions,so in essence was set-up by Switt who offered him only '31's and '32's? I did read somewhere that Israel Switt,if he liked you,would give you the shirt off his back,words to that effect, if he thought you needed it. If Switt didn't like you? Well,look what happened with Barenstein on his '33 Double Eagle purchase. Barenstein,by being such a jackarse with Switt,paid way more for his '33 than he would have had to regardless of when Switt came into possession of 1933 Double Eagles.Chapter 12 in_ Illegal Tender _tells the story,according to Tripp.
A few corrections: The Mint head cashier before McCann first name is Harry not Robert. So,Harry Powell is his name not Robert Powell as a wrote a few posts ago here.Also,the writer of Double Eagle is Alison Frankel not Allison Frankel as i wrote earlier.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
For 99+% of federal cases, the circuit court of appeals level is effectively the court of last resort. SCOTUS cares about precedent and deep/well developed conflicts among lower appeals courts. SCOTUS wouldn't have cared about the other issues, and it would have cluttered up the petition which is not helpful.
The court receives a few thousand petitions and all are reviewed by law clerks (new lawyers usually with one year of experience as clerks from the lower courts of appeal) who read through and write memos with recommendations. As busy as the court and cert pool are, including superfluous issues and being overly wordy/caught up in unique facts of the case are usually kisses of death.
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
1945 list of Treasury officials giving Nellie Tayloe Ross as Director of the Mint and Leland Howard as Assistant Director of the Mint.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ATO/USGM/Treasury.html
I have no idea under what circumstances Howard would step in as Acting Director. Perhaps he did so when she went out of town on vacation. However, I do not think that this means that he had supplanted her authority, but merely that he was running the shop for her under her authority. If you can cite a reference to the contrary, please do.
Nellie Tayloe Ross was replaced as Mint Director by William Brett in 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_United_States_Mint
Howard no doubt served as Acting Director in the interregnum.
hmmmm
where does ignoring the law fit in here?
Your view is correct. It was common practice for a chosen subordinate, in this
case Leland Howard, to be acting director when the director was unavailable
for some reason.
Henway,thanks for responding to my post about NTR.
My view of NTR is that she was as honest as the day is long. She served our country well during her tenure as Mint Director. I think she got pushed aside for a time,a victim of Mint politics.Vacation time? Maybe,but it's hard for me to imagine her being the force behind ordering seizures of 1933 double eagles here in the states,especially after approving the export of Farouk's '33 to Egypt.
NTR sought the opinion of T. Beloit of the Smithsonian before granting the export license.T. Beloit said to NTR,in essence,"no problem letting the coin go to Egypt for Farouk." Tripp claims Beloit was wrong. I now think Tripp is the one wrong about the export being a mistake.
Enter F. Leland Howard.Q. David Bowers actually had dealings with Dr. Howard. One can read about Howard in Bowers' book,A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins."Exposing F. Leland Howard" Readers might consider looking up the definitions of "curmudgeon" and (possible) "grafter" to get a better idea of what QDB's impression (mostly unfavorable) of Dr. Howard is.
okay,i've said enough and will say no more about the topic of 1933 double eagles and the players who make the 1933 double eagle story come alive. My distracting self is stepping aside here and getting out of the picture as a courtesy to allow the CAFRA talk to resume. i will always challenge allegations that i deliberately publish misinformation,however.
regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The last sentence.
I don't like it either, but SCOTUS doesn't see its primary role as error correction without there being something more.
SanctionII - is the government's position that the subject 10 coins never became property subject to being privately owned and thus do not fit within the parameters of CAFRA? Does CAFRA define what "privately owned property" is and is not?
_Henway:I have no idea under what circumstances Howard would step in as Acting Director. Perhaps he did so when she went out of town on vacation. However, I do not think that this means that he had supplanted her authority, but merely that he was running the shop for her under her authority. If you can cite a reference to the contrary, please do.
denga;Your view is correct. It was common practice for a chosen subordinate, in this case Leland Howard, to be acting director when the director was unavailable for some reason._
Reference to the contrary.This is the best i can do:
Q. David Bowers on F. Leland Howard (emphasis by bolding is my work here):
"Back to 1944: At the behest of self-appointed czar F. Leland Howard,Secret Service agents swooped down on collectors and dealers,seized all the 1933 double eagles they could find,including the one scheduled to be auctioned by Stack's,and interviewed dealers and others,and filed lengthy reports and correspondence amounting to hundreds of pages."
_A Guide Book of DOUBLE EAGLE GOLD COINS written by Q. David Bowers,p.283.
My read of Bowers here is that it doesn't sound to me like F. Leland Howard was a subordinate to Nellie Tayloe Ross.
Ross may have been asked by her boss to order the seizures but may have just said "no,i'm not going to do it." Some government employees actually do have integrity and NTR was one of them. NTR was okay with the Farouk '33 export. How could she not be especially after consulting with T. Beloit at the Smithsonian? Consulting with Beloit,a CYA move on her part? Was she legally obliged to consult with Beloit about the export of Farouk's '33?
The powers that be in Treasury let NTR go back to work after Howard did his thing. As i posted earlier,the Mint/Treasury was still smarting over the bag of 250 non-1933 Double Eagles being **stolen from a Mint basement vault **years earlier and someone had to pay,in this case, legal owners of 1933 double eagles. 1933 double eagles,what a great scapegoat for the Mint to save some face.
My opinion:**Tripp is wrong **about that the granting of the export license for the Farouk coin was a Mint mistake.Tripp's reasoning to help support his position that mistake was made is weak,flawed,and troublesome to me.A careful reading of Tripp,in_ Illegal Tender_, on this issue, will bear this out.
Who,living and working in Pennsylvania,goes willingly on vacation in March? NTR was pushed aside,made ineffectual for a time,by the powers that be in the 1944 Philadelphia Mint. I sure would like to see that Mint document RB found.
Sorry.i can't help it.This story fascinates me as a former investigator of employee theft for a major retailer.i learned rather quickly as an investigator to be a student of human moves.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
northcoin.
The government's precise position will be set forth in its response to the Petition filed by the Langbords. In general it is my understanding that the government contends that the 10 1933 double eagles have always been government property and that it proved this at the jury trial that took place in the federal district court. However, apparently CAFRA (the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act) itself states that it applies to property which is claimed to be stolen government property.
Perhaps someone who has recently read CAFRA itself and the Petition filed by the Langbords can provide additional information.
The problem with eminent domain is ....
There is a general misunderstanding of the events surrounding the role
played by Leland Howard in the 1933 matter. The following points apply:
1) The Tripp book is not a neutral report. It is, in my opinion, little better
than a government brief. The same is true for the Frankel book.
2) Director Ross was not shunted aside. It is simply more likely that she
was out of town and Leland Howard was acting director when the 1933
matter arose. He then made the decision on the 1933s. Once the decision
was made, however, there was no going back.
3) I know of no instance where a mint director was shunted aside in favor
of a subordinate making a decision. It just did not happen.
Thanks all for your support. Any letters or emails sent to the Supreme Court or your Senator or Congressperson on our behalf are very much appreciated. The more public attention paid to this dispute, the more likely the Supreme Court will hear the case.
After approving the export of Farouk's '33, NTR leaves her post as Mint Director for a time, reason or reasons unknown. Maybe she's out sick.Maybe she takes a March vacation. Maybe there's another reason. We don't know. You might be right,denga. NTR was not "shunted aside" by higher authority,as you say. In her absence, assistant Howard assumes NTR's duties as Mint Director.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was Secretary of the Treasury in 1944. Morgenthau,of course,as Treasury Secretary, was NTRs' and Howards' boss. In the early months of 1944, Morgenthau was heavily involved with helping to rescue Jews in Europe from the Nazis. What was happening at the Mint with exports of a few gold coins is not likely to have been the most important thing on his mind. Really,coins and coin collectors are not likely to have been on his mind at all in early 1944.
In NTR's absence, Dr. Howard exploits the situation and appoints himself Mint czar.He orders the Secret Service to begin seizing 1933 double eagles from their owners. On NTR's return to the Mint, i can imagine NTR being aghast at what her curmudgeonly assistant has done in her absence....but, you're right,denga. It was too late for the Mint to turn back.
Why did Howard order SS seizures of 1933 Double Eagles in his immediate boss' absence,presumably acting without her permission? Was he trying to make a name for himself as a Mint "law and order" man? Whatever Howard's reasons for acting as he did resulted in the stigmatization of a collector owning a 1933 double eagle from those days forward.1933 Double Eagles,once legal to own,at least as the "official Mint of NTR" is concerned, have now been deemed illegal to own by one self-appointed,self-serving individual, Dr. F. Leland Howard.
Q. David Bowers says this about Dr. Howard:
"...by the time i became acquainted with him in the 1960's,he was director of the Office of Domestic Gold and Silver Operations. He played the simultaneous roles of poobah,stuffed shirt,high muckety-muck,and dictator to anyone who wanted to import gold coins."
A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins,p. 283
correction: I misspelled the name of Mr. Belote. Curator of the Smithsonian in 1944 was T. Belote,not Beloit.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If there was an Executive Order saying it was OK to own a 33 how many more would come out of the woodworks
Lafayette Grading Set
Some points need to be made:
1) Leland Howard Howard was acting mint director because Mrs.
Ross was unavailable. Period.
2) Acting mint directors were officially appointed for this purpose
as early as the 1860s and there are many letters in the mint archives
signed by acting directors from that time.
3) When the director learned about the 1933 matter she appointed
Howard to handle the matter as he saw fit. He did NOT appoint himself.
It was NOT done without her permission.
4) Morgenthau had nothing to do with any of this. I doubt that the
1933 matter was even brought to his attention.
5) I had dealings with Howard in the 1960s. It was a waste of time as
he was not open to reasonable discussions on the importation of gold
coins from the UK.
do we have documentation, outside even the esteemed QDB, that Howard made this decision and was "in charge of this"?
denga:_3) When the director learned about the 1933 matter she appointed.Howard to handle the matter as he saw fit. He did NOT appoint himself. It was NOT done without her permission.
_
i'm going with Q. David Bowers on this one denga. QDB says Howard appointed himself to order the SS seizures of 1933 double eagles from their owners. "Self-appointed " means what to you,denga?
You seem to be pretty sure (with your NOT's) that Howard had Ross' permission to order the Secret Service seizures that commenced soon after NTR approved the Farouk '33 export.
Question for you denga: Why would Ross approve export of a '33 for **King Farouk in Egypt **and then order SS seizures, using Howard,of '33 double eagles from their **American citizen owners **a short time later?
My understanding is that Nellie Tayloe Ross was a friend of the coin collector unlike her assistant Howard,as described by Q. David Bowers.As i wrote before,there is evidence in existence (a good place for the researcher to start checking is with the American Numismatic Association publication The Numismatist) that indications are NTR had no problem with American citizens owning '33 double eagles.
???
"B" button doesn't always work in here. text is for emphasis above.
test King Farouk American citizens
Got it Don't use the button for bolded text.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Some additional points:
1) QDB has not read the internal Mint documents. I have, and my
earlier statements are correct. Howard did NOT appoint himself
anything. It had to have been done with the director’s permission.
That was the way it worked in the 1940s and is still true today.
2) The director approved the Farouk export license before Howard
investigated the matter and came up with his views about the 1933s.
She simply changed her mind at that point and directed Howard to
handle the matter as he thought best.
3) Mrs. Ross may be considered a friend of the collector but her allowing
Howard free rein is another matter entirely.
4) You are correct in stating that Howard was unfriendly to collectors;
I had the “pleasure” of witnessing that at first hand in 1963.
All of this defending one person, and demonizing another seems more like mental gymnastics than historical reporting.
I think it's naïve to think that one person, or one government agency, had complete power to do anything they pleased. Pressure from the Treasury, Justice, FBI, who knows, could easily have led the mint to do what they normally would not have.
Case in point: There is an obvious conflict between "Round up all of the 1933 DE's", and "Grant an export license for that ONE 1933 DE". Seems quite obvious that the desire to foster better relations with a foreign government led someone (State Dept?) to pressure the export license, even while someone else was pushing for seizure of the others.
Was Nellie Tayloe Ross in the dark, and not involved? Seems unlikely. Did Howard act on his own? Seems unlikely. Makes for a better story...but I'm betting the facts are different, no matter who wrote the "numismatically blessed storyline", or when they wrote it.
The things that go on behind bureaucratic doors rarely make it into the history books....
In view of the message posted by TommyType I will amend slightly what I have
said earlier. Bowers is correct when he says that Howard appointed himself as
arbiter of the 1933 DE matter but it still required specific authority from the mint
director before he could do anything, including calling on the Secret Service.
If the director had refused permission to procede, then Howard could have done
nothing.
Secret Service investigation of the bag ($5000 face) stolen years earlier failed to result in a conviction.Really,how tough was it for SS to identify the culprit or culprits and get a conviction for this crime? Bungled investigation at the least. Corrupt SS agents at the worst. Black mark on SS. Embarrassing to the agency as those basement vaults were supposed to be secure with very,very few persons having access. That theft was discovered during the audit taken prior to the so-called Great Gold melt of 1937 when the bulk of the 1933 double eagles in mint storage were melted.
There were dealer ads to buy 1933 double eagles as early as February,1936.There were ads to sell 1933 double eagles as early as 1937.Was the Mint in a bubble,totally ignorant of the fact that 1933 double eagles were being traded in the market place early as 1937!? I believe that there are ads to be found in issues of The Numismatist,publication of the ANA to support my statement about open trading of 1933 double eagles in the '30's and '40's. i'm not an ANA member anymore (haven't been for over 10 years) but if i was a member i would use the ANA library in an attempt to locate the sell/buy ads in The Numismatist issues starting 1937. It was not a secret in the numismatic community that '33 double eagles were available to persons with enough money to buy them.
1933 double eagles were legal to own until an ambitious,self-serving character known as F. Leland Howard decided,possibly at the behest of the Secret Service,to take the law into his own hands.1933 double eagle seizure time for SS to save some face after bungling what should have been a fairly straightforward investigation that would result in a conviction for the 250 piece bag theft? How much of an investigation was done by the Mint to establish their legal authority to make the '33 double seizures? The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, would be out of the loop to establish legality of the seizures? Hard for me to believe.
No "1933" gold was found to be missing.The books balanced.That fact has been published in these 1933 threads by many readers/posters here over the last few years.That a few '33 doubles got out during the "window of opportunity" shouldn't have alarmed anyone. Why was the Mint even making '33 double eagles after April,1933? Israel Switt was at the Mint everyday looking for '33 double eagles to trade for.That he scored a few in a legal transaction at the Mint window in 1933 is entirely possible. Israel Switt interviewed by SS agents in 1944 was uncooperative with agents.Tripp writes about the interviews casting Switt as a villain. Hell,i wouldn't have cooperated with them either. Call me villain too.
Too many questions,not enough answers.
My opinion is that the Langbord family will have suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice if all ten of those 1933 double eagles that Roy Langbord found in one of the family SDB's are not returned to them by our government.
Regards,
mr1874
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Yes. For example, in March 1941 The Numismatist carried an ad to
buy and sell 1933 double eagles. And it is certain that Mrs. Ross read
the magazine.
This is literally the best thread evah.
Mr Langbord throwing you huge positive vibes and best wishes. I want you desperately to get your families coins back.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
When Mrs. Ross and/or her office approved the export license, with a certain amount of due diligence, no controversy over their existence existed, or at least was commonly known. Later, after Howard manufactured a vast controversy for whatever reason, things changed, and the Director and her office recognized the new reality.
It remains a mystery to me as to why Howard took the actions that he did. The statute of limitations for theft had run, the country was at war, the Secret Service was stretched thin, and 1933 DEs had been traded openly for years. Sometimes I wonder if it was some personal vendetta against coin dealers or mint employees, however unlike others here, I don't indulge in speculation
I guess there is the approach that the en banc appellate court nullified sections of US Code without declaring them nullified. Does that count for anything?
Then there is any conflict with any other appeals court decisions on the 30day for the gub'mint to file timeframe,
Yes, the en banc court went further than even the Justice Department thought possible, effectively turning CAFRA from a statute designed to protect individuals from abusive government tactics to one that gives the government virtual carte blanche to take a citizen's property without due process so long as the government doesn't call it a seizure
RHL's description of the En Banc panel's decision illustrates the aspect of this case which may cause the Supreme Court to grant the petition and hear the case. Does anyone know the procedure of the court on reviewing petitions and deciding to either grant or deny same? If so, please explain what the procedure is.
I think it was described near the top of the page.
"The court receives a few thousand petitions and all are reviewed by law clerks (new lawyers usually with one year of experience as clerks from the lower courts of appeal) who read through and write memos with recommendations. "
At some point after that, the Judges must decide to grant or deny the case to be heard.
Probably in here somewhere!
https://supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf
Or even better a "cert pool" not to be confused with a box of PCGS slabbed coins with cert numbers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cert_pool
I found this at "How Does the U.S. Supreme Court Decide Whether to Hear a Case? "
http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html
Factors the Court Considers When Choosing Cases
1) The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law: The U.S. judicial system consists of 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts. When a number of these courts reach different conclusions about an issue of federal or constitutional law, the Supreme Court may step in and decide the law so that all areas of the country can then operate under the same law.
2) The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000), or a case with an important social issue, such as abortion in Roe v. Wade.
3) The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices' Interests: Sometimes Justices give preference to cases that decide an issue in their favorite area of law.
4) The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions: If a lower court blatantly disregards a past Supreme Court decision, the court may hear the case to correct the lower court, or alternatively, simply overrule the case without comment.
It is my understanding that after our request for a hearing was made the government has thirty days to respond or ask for an extension. After the government files it's papers, we will have two weeks to file a response. After all papers are in, the Court's law clerks review and summarize the case and present it to the justices in conference. If four justices vote to hear the case, it goes forward for arguement in the early spring. If four justices do not agree to hear the case it is over. Depending on when the government submits its papers the decision to go forward or not should come in January or February. Again, any materials submitted to the court supporting further review could only be considered helpful.
@rhl: Don't know if it will do any good, but I sent SCOTUS a note in support of your writ. Good luck, and I hope you get the hearing you deserve.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
We're wondering the the SCOTUS hears the type of case where certain parts of the USC are nullified without the en banc panel declaring them nullified.
hmmm... only 8, so it could be split 4-4
If the Supreme Court takes the case and there are only eight justices, if they split four to four, the lower court's decision stands. On the other hand In order to get a hearing you need to only get four Justices to agree; if four disagree, the Court still hears the case
Sometimes I wonder if it was some personal vendetta against coin dealers or mint employees, however unlike others here, I don't indulge in speculation.
The speculation comes from the fact that is a compelling issue. Why this coin and not the 1913 nickels or all the other 19th century patterns? A single person, or a small group, consciously decided this one coin would not stand. Who decided that and exactly why are the most interesting (and unanswered) questions about this whole thing. There is also the kicker that Treasury has been dug in on this position for 70 years - that's a lot of different administrations with a remarkably consistent position. That can't be an accident.
SanctionII was wondering about the procedure that a writ [after submission] goes through in order for the SC to decide whether to hear the case or not. The procedure is outlined in the cert pool reference. I guess we'll find out in due course. Of the 7500 or so writs petitioned for annually, it's hard to believe that most of them would even have a puncher's chance of getting heard.
King Farouk got "his" coin in 1944 because he was a king.
A US Supreme Court decision in favor of Switt-Langbord would be immediately followed by a demand from King Farouk's descendants for "his" coin.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
@WillieBoyd2...I believe that coin is the one that has been declared legal... and sold....so how would they demand the return? Cheers, RickO
US one-half involved $$$ in ex Farouk '33. i don't think any US messing with that business is going to happen.Potential for disastrous PR for the Mint too great.i haven't seen a single story on what the Mint did with its profits from the Fenton sale.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
King Farouk's coin collection became the property of the Egyptian government after he was deposed. Now an interesting question is whether or not the Fenton coin is in fact Farouk's? Like everything else in this case, the answer is no one actually knows.
It was not even T. Belote's decision to make regarding granting the export license to the Egyptians for Farouk's '33 double eagle. Tripp claims Belote was "wrong." The fact is whether to grant license or not was not Belote's call.NTR signed off on the export license.Maybe i shouldn't be so quick to assume NTR's sig on export license for Farouk coin as i have never actually seen the export license (Form TGL-11) that NTR would have signed to let a '33 double fly to Cairo. What a great document for the owner of the ex-Farouk piece to have!
Seems there could be TGL-11 documents in existence to inspect for other Mint approvals for export of gold coin? Could F. Leland Howard,as Mrs. Ross' assistant,have signed off on some gold coin exports in her absence?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein