One thing that could be done to help the Langbords would be to request coin-related associations (i.e., the ANA, PNG, etc.) to submit amicus (friend of the court) briefs in support of SCOTUS granting certiorari. In general, amicus briefs tend to increase the chance of certiorari being granted. Have coin-related trade associations been asked to submit amicus briefs?
In one of the comments, a member suggested writing letters to SCOTUS. That probably would not be of much value. Briefs filed with SCOTUS are required to be typeset and to be in a particular format. Most likely, a letter would be filed in the SCOTUS case file (and given to the parties) as a courtesy but it would not be considered in determining the case's outcome. Only persons with "standing" to appear before SCOTUS are permitted to make court filings and have their arguments considered.
This so called "Fenton" coin which "sold" for $7.5 million on July 30th, 2002. Who OWNS the coin today? Where IS the coin today? Anybody REALLY know? I doubt it. Steve
I know exactly where the Fenton coin currently resides--it is on the first floor of the museum of the New York Historical Soceity on West 77th Street in NYC, ironically the same street I live on.
As to amicus briefs, the coin associations are interested in filing if cert is granted, not before. While letters are not formally part of the record when applying for cert, the fact that numbers of letters have been received is noted and could help convince the Court the case is worth taking. Same applies to newspaper, magazine and tv coverage.
@rhl.... I can understand how to get newspaper and magazine coverage, not sure how the television medium can be activated. It would be great to see this issue on network news.....Cheers, RickO
A mainstream numismatic media feature story with Mr. Langbord talking about the coins,the trial,the verdict,the appeals,etc.? ricko,the television medium could be of some use but i'm thinking the print medium is better.The TV network news does not endure enough for them to get serious interest in stories like the 1933 double eagles.More widespread interest is needed for network level TV news people to get interested in stories.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@rhl said:
I know exactly where the Fenton coin currently resides--it is on the first floor of the museum of the New York Historical Soceity on West 77th Street in NYC, ironically the same street I live on.
Mr. Langbord, thank you for the update on the Fenton coin. Can I assume this coin is "on loan" to the New York Historical Soceity from Mr. Fenton? If so, does Mr. Fenton have any plans to sell the coin in the future that you are aware of? Thanks for any details you can provide. Steve
Welcome RHL, as someone who has watched this drag on for years and years, I hope the result is expeditious, but I suspect not. I have been retired from the US Mint since 2010 and knew the lead attorney there. Given how long I watched from the inside, I am incredulous that it is still being litigated. I am on your side and always have been. Good Luck!
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
@rhl said:
I know exactly where the Fenton coin currently resides--it is on the first floor of the museum of the New York Historical Soceity on West 77th Street in NYC, ironically the same street I live on.
Mr. Langbord, thank you for the update on the Fenton coin. Can I assume this coin is "on loan" to the New York Historical Soceity from Mr. Fenton? If so, does Mr. Fenton have any plans to sell the coin in the future that you are aware of? Thanks for any details you can provide. Steve
The coin is now Fenton's in name only. It was sold at auction in 2002 to an (officially) unidentified person....though, some on these boards seem to indicate the know who it is/was.
The coin is now Fenton's in name only. It was sold at auction in 2002 to an (officially) unidentified person....though, some on these boards seem to indicate the know who it is/was.
So Fenton and the Government "sold" the coin to this "Unidentified" person for $7.5 million dollars and this Unidentified person subsequently "loaned" the coin to the New York Historical Society. Is that correct, Mr. Langbord? Thanks. Steve
Yes, Stephen Fenton was the dealer who sold the coin at auction in partnership with the US govrrnment. The purchaser has never been identified. The coin is on loan to the New York Historical Society. I personally think the display is rather poor for such a historic coin. Finally, just wanted to say Stephen Fenton is a wonderful, smart fun man. His store in London is worth a visit if you are traveling.
Deep Coin-- Thanks for your support and good wishes. My family and our legal team always found your posts here insightful and informative. If you are ever passing through New York, feel free to get in touch.....
Mr1864--- As someone who has worked in the television industry for over thirty years I find your recent post about what would or would not interest the television media fascinating particularly since your views totally contradict everything I and other industry professionals I know think about tv. Could you perhaps explain the source of your insights?
Mr. Langbord,my comment about television not being the preferred medium for _news_about the 1933 double eagle story is the context of my remark.I think a special edition program,ie. movie for television 1-1/2 hr length would work wonderfully for getting the 1933 double eagle story out there. My feeling is that the fight to free "the Langbord 10" should continue past SCOTUS,if need be.
I have experience in the television business,mostly production and technical operations experience,over 30 years,for network affiliate stations and in my last days in television business,satellite broadcasting operations.
i started to produce a movie script about the 1933 double eagle story awhile back.i published part of it ATS,none of it here.One member over there did not appreciate my "Hollywood movie script" getting in the way of his being updated on the latest news of Langbord v. United States so i quit posting there about my vision for a movie. i was hoping to get some good ideas on the direction the movie might take.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
You explicitly do not have permission from me or my family to use our names, likenesses or story in any manner whatsoever particularly in a motion picture script. Hopefully, from the amount of time, effort and money we have expended on our litigation with the US government, you recognize that we are willing to take all necessary steps to protect our rights and privacy. As I suggested earlier perhaps a better use of your time would be to focus your energy and imagination on some other subject,
perhaps you are correct in that i should focus my imagination and energy on another subject,Mr. Langbord. That's what i shall do. i know there's at least one around here just itchin' to talk about 1894-S dimes. What are they? Proofs? Special Strikes? Business Strikes? The debate goes on......
Regards,
mr1874
P.S. Evidence is there,on the coins themselves, that 1894-S dimes are definitely not proofs.1894-S dimes are "Special Strikes."
Me and some notable experts who post in here from time-to-time agree on this.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
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.
@SanctionII said:
I just looked at the Supreme Court docket for the Petition and note that the Government's response to the Petition must be filed by 12-5-2016, which if I recall correctly is exactly 10 years from the day that the Langbords filed their complaint against the government in the federal district court in Philly.
Interesting coincidence.
It looks like THIS MONDAY, December 5th is the date by which the government's response to the Langbord's Petition must be filed. I'm hopeful that their response will be posted here ASAP so that we all can read the official response (even thou I'm sure most of us here already know what the government is going to say). Steve
One more step in the journey.... It has indeed been a long trek, however, I must say, if anything, my interest has only grown with each step along the way. I keep hoping for a win in the final chapter. Cheers, RickO
I have neglected these threads for a long time, seeing little of redeeming value. Invariably they would bog down in unsubstantiated accusations and vitriol. Your insights and involvement here are most interesting. Your comments are well written. Against long odds I hope that you eventually prevail.
While the legal system has maneuvered this situation to a narrow focus, the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" protects us all. Best of luck.
As of Sunday December 5th, the Government has not requested an extension of time to file a reply which means their responsive papers should be filed tomorrow. Typically they are filed at the end of the day.
Received a response back from one of my Senators last Friday and received a useful civics lesson:
"Thank you for contacting me. It is always good to hear from people back home. Your thoughts and views are important to me.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the case of Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury. However, this is a legal issue, which is beyond my sphere of influence as a United States Senator.
As your Senator, I can introduce or vote on legislation of a national concern, within the guidelines set forth by the Constitution. Similarly, a Senator can intervene, in certain well-defined instances, on behalf of constituents in their dealings with federal bureaus, agencies, departments, and the like.
The judiciary is a coequal branch of our government, and must be allowed under the Constitution to function in its own sphere without undue influence from the other branches. In accordance with Senate Ethics Committee rules, I am unable to become involved in a legal matter."
Mod crewman--Most important, thanks for your support, it is very much appreciated. As to the "civics" lesion, the Senate and the House regularly file lawsuits and submit amicus briefs in judicial matters. Also, since technically the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General and the Director of the Mint control the position of the government in this case, a legislator can clearly express his/her opinions and concerns to them. Feels like a form response,bbut again much appreciation for your support and efforts. Roy
@rhl said:
In a surprising action today, in a one line filing the Government waived its right to submit a reply to our cert petition.
What are the ramifications of such a waiver?
I have been wrong on this case many times before, but perhaps they wish to get it before the current split court before a wild-card ninth justice comes along. With a 4-4 split, they win.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
If I had to guess (which is what I'm doing) it is that:
1. they are so confident the court will decline to hear the case that they don't even need to plead their case, or
2. they may believe that the chances of the case being taken up are so slight that it's not worth the cost to prepare the filing now (the irony of the gov't caring about cost isn't lost on me), or
3. they believe there would be ample opportunity to make their case when and if the court hears the case.
Under Supreme Court procedure, in order for a case to be discussed in conference for grant of a cert petition, there has to be a reply brief. So if a clerk or a justice reads our papers and thinks the case should be discussed for possible review, the Court will request a reply brief from the government. If it doesn't it means the case is over. It is a no risk position from the government point of view. What is surprising but not atypical for this case is that the governments once again waited till the last moment to respond.
rhl, once again thank you for your shared insights. It occurs to me that if the coins are not destroyed by the government that there could be avenues to pursue outside of the legal system such as the enactment of a special act of Congress. Hopefully papers seeking an injunction or stay will be filed to prevent the coins from being melted if the judicial rulings do not go your way.
As noted in a prior posting, it continues to appear that the Government has a conflict of interest in this matter and that independent counsel should have been appointed. The millions of dollars that the Government received from the sale of the Fenton coin based upon the representation that it was the one and only legal '33 created prima facie evidence of a conflict with regard to your case.
rhl: I am most appreciative of your posting your observations here; thank you, and welcome!
For us to gain your firsthand insight makes this discussion even more compelling.
Hopefully, those here who merely have been speculating, pontificating, or writing out false information for this many years become more cautious. Unfortunately, there likely will still be some such as found above who, not unlike Ralph Cramden of "The Honeymooners", just can't help themselves and never really learn the value of keeping their big mouths shut.
As for myself, I sincerely and deeply hope that the SCOTUS hears your appeal, for your sake of course, but for ours as American citizens as well, as abuse of power undermines all our freedoms.
The government filed a waiver of its right to file a reply to the Langbord petition on November 30th. Assuming that the docket sheet is up-to-date, it has not been distributed for this Friday's conference (the last one scheduled in December). This means that we will not have a disposition until January at the earliest (and likely the January 6, 2017 or January 13, 2017 conference).
If the court reviews the petition and thinks that it may consider taking the case, then the court frequently (but not always) requests a response from the respondents even when a waiver has been filed. If that ever becomes an issue, then it would likely push the petition decision to February of 2017.
Bureaucracies.... excessive layers of operational inefficiency. I spent many years in executive level management of companies...and my prime directive was weeding out processes and people that caused a drag on systems. Even now, I am pulled out of retirement on a frequent basis to 'fix' companies....The purpose of my comment is that I believe the legal system is totally corrupted by such layers and needs to be purged. Cheers, RickO
@rhl said:
In a surprising action today, in a one line filing the Government waived its right to submit a reply to our cert petition.
What are the ramifications of such a waiver?
I have been wrong on this case many times before, but perhaps they wish to get it before the current split court before a wild-card ninth justice comes along. With a 4-4 split, they win.
I hope with a new administration and shift in power, our gov. will find a softer, gentler side. One that benefits the citizens who support it. And we coin people tend to be more supportive of them than most other groups. i.e., The mint is self supporting by what they do (making coins, not laws). Moving right along....
Thanks again for all of your positive thoughts. All that it takes for this case to be not summarily passed over is if one judge or one law clerk wants to hear a response from the government. Our fingers are crossed.
And, of course, anything that gets the Supreme Court's attention about this case and how the government behaved can only be helpful so feel free to write...
And finally, yes, we are hopeful that the new administration might be open to trying to fix this mess. Alternatively, I suppose someone here who knows the new President or his team could be appointed as the new director of the Mint (lol)
The court docket sheet was updated to reflect that the petition was distributed for the January 6, 2017 conference. We should know something then. If a response is request or if it is saved/continued to a different conference date, it is potentially a good sign. Either way, we will have either strong clues or a disposition very soon.
We can certainly hope the case will be heard.... and, if it is to be heard, by then there will be nine justices... and hopefully a more 'citizen oriented' court... Cheers, RickO
The government's waiver was a smart tactical move. It signals to SCOTUS that the government does not see certiorari as being likely to be granted. The worst thing that can happen to the government is that SCOTUS in its January 6, 2017 conference orders the government to file an opposition brief. Odds are that on January 6th, either (i) the government is ordered to file an opposition brief; or (ii) certiorari is denied and the case is over. SCOTUS will not grant certiorari without the government first submitting an opposition brief. If the government is ordered to file an opposition brief, which happens often when waivers are filed, such does not mean that SCOTUS is inclined one way or the other on the case.
Comments
Why would you expect to? Was probably just chump change in their grand scheme of things.
i would expect the numismatic press to cover the story.The Mint's proceeds from the sale was over $3M.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Covering the sale maybe. Pondering about what the mint did with the proceeds, MEH!
The mint is not required to publish what they do with the proceeds...it would be in their yearly financial report to congress though. Cheers, RickO
One thing that could be done to help the Langbords would be to request coin-related associations (i.e., the ANA, PNG, etc.) to submit amicus (friend of the court) briefs in support of SCOTUS granting certiorari. In general, amicus briefs tend to increase the chance of certiorari being granted. Have coin-related trade associations been asked to submit amicus briefs?
In one of the comments, a member suggested writing letters to SCOTUS. That probably would not be of much value. Briefs filed with SCOTUS are required to be typeset and to be in a particular format. Most likely, a letter would be filed in the SCOTUS case file (and given to the parties) as a courtesy but it would not be considered in determining the case's outcome. Only persons with "standing" to appear before SCOTUS are permitted to make court filings and have their arguments considered.
This so called "Fenton" coin which "sold" for $7.5 million on July 30th, 2002. Who OWNS the coin today? Where IS the coin today? Anybody REALLY know? I doubt it. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I know exactly where the Fenton coin currently resides--it is on the first floor of the museum of the New York Historical Soceity on West 77th Street in NYC, ironically the same street I live on.
As to amicus briefs, the coin associations are interested in filing if cert is granted, not before. While letters are not formally part of the record when applying for cert, the fact that numbers of letters have been received is noted and could help convince the Court the case is worth taking. Same applies to newspaper, magazine and tv coverage.
Somebody in government screwed up. This is why we have lawyers.
@rhl.... I can understand how to get newspaper and magazine coverage, not sure how the television medium can be activated. It would be great to see this issue on network news.....Cheers, RickO
A mainstream numismatic media feature story with Mr. Langbord talking about the coins,the trial,the verdict,the appeals,etc.? ricko,the television medium could be of some use but i'm thinking the print medium is better.The TV network news does not endure enough for them to get serious interest in stories like the 1933 double eagles.More widespread interest is needed for network level TV news people to get interested in stories.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Mr. Langbord, thank you for the update on the Fenton coin. Can I assume this coin is "on loan" to the New York Historical Soceity from Mr. Fenton? If so, does Mr. Fenton have any plans to sell the coin in the future that you are aware of? Thanks for any details you can provide. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Welcome RHL, as someone who has watched this drag on for years and years, I hope the result is expeditious, but I suspect not. I have been retired from the US Mint since 2010 and knew the lead attorney there. Given how long I watched from the inside, I am incredulous that it is still being litigated. I am on your side and always have been. Good Luck!
The coin is now Fenton's in name only. It was sold at auction in 2002 to an (officially) unidentified person....though, some on these boards seem to indicate the know who it is/was.
So Fenton and the Government "sold" the coin to this "Unidentified" person for $7.5 million dollars and this Unidentified person subsequently "loaned" the coin to the New York Historical Society. Is that correct, Mr. Langbord? Thanks. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Yes, Stephen Fenton was the dealer who sold the coin at auction in partnership with the US govrrnment. The purchaser has never been identified. The coin is on loan to the New York Historical Society. I personally think the display is rather poor for such a historic coin. Finally, just wanted to say Stephen Fenton is a wonderful, smart fun man. His store in London is worth a visit if you are traveling.
Deep Coin-- Thanks for your support and good wishes. My family and our legal team always found your posts here insightful and informative. If you are ever passing through New York, feel free to get in touch.....
Mr1864--- As someone who has worked in the television industry for over thirty years I find your recent post about what would or would not interest the television media fascinating particularly since your views totally contradict everything I and other industry professionals I know think about tv. Could you perhaps explain the source of your insights?
Mr. Langbord,my comment about television not being the preferred medium for _news_about the 1933 double eagle story is the context of my remark.I think a special edition program,ie. movie for television 1-1/2 hr length would work wonderfully for getting the 1933 double eagle story out there. My feeling is that the fight to free "the Langbord 10" should continue past SCOTUS,if need be.
I have experience in the television business,mostly production and technical operations experience,over 30 years,for network affiliate stations and in my last days in television business,satellite broadcasting operations.
i started to produce a movie script about the 1933 double eagle story awhile back.i published part of it ATS,none of it here.One member over there did not appreciate my "Hollywood movie script" getting in the way of his being updated on the latest news of Langbord v. United States so i quit posting there about my vision for a movie. i was hoping to get some good ideas on the direction the movie might take.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
You explicitly do not have permission from me or my family to use our names, likenesses or story in any manner whatsoever particularly in a motion picture script. Hopefully, from the amount of time, effort and money we have expended on our litigation with the US government, you recognize that we are willing to take all necessary steps to protect our rights and privacy. As I suggested earlier perhaps a better use of your time would be to focus your energy and imagination on some other subject,
1933 was not a good year. And Woodrow Wilson was a puppet in 1913.
Make a movie about that.
i fully understand,Mr. Langbord.Not seeking any rights.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
perhaps you are correct in that i should focus my imagination and energy on another subject,Mr. Langbord. That's what i shall do. i know there's at least one around here just itchin' to talk about 1894-S dimes. What are they? Proofs? Special Strikes? Business Strikes? The debate goes on......
Regards,
mr1874
P.S. Evidence is there,on the coins themselves, that 1894-S dimes are definitely not proofs.1894-S dimes are "Special Strikes."
Me and some notable experts who post in here from time-to-time agree on this.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
A fine subject for a NEW THREAD!
It looks like THIS MONDAY, December 5th is the date by which the government's response to the Langbord's Petition must be filed. I'm hopeful that their response will be posted here ASAP so that we all can read the official response (even thou I'm sure most of us here already know what the government is going to say). Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
One more step in the journey.... It has indeed been a long trek, however, I must say, if anything, my interest has only grown with each step along the way. I keep hoping for a win in the final chapter. Cheers, RickO
rhl,
I have neglected these threads for a long time, seeing little of redeeming value. Invariably they would bog down in unsubstantiated accusations and vitriol. Your insights and involvement here are most interesting. Your comments are well written. Against long odds I hope that you eventually prevail.
While the legal system has maneuvered this situation to a narrow focus, the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" protects us all. Best of luck.
As of Sunday December 5th, the Government has not requested an extension of time to file a reply which means their responsive papers should be filed tomorrow. Typically they are filed at the end of the day.
Received a response back from one of my Senators last Friday and received a useful civics lesson:
"Thank you for contacting me. It is always good to hear from people back home. Your thoughts and views are important to me.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the case of Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury. However, this is a legal issue, which is beyond my sphere of influence as a United States Senator.
As your Senator, I can introduce or vote on legislation of a national concern, within the guidelines set forth by the Constitution. Similarly, a Senator can intervene, in certain well-defined instances, on behalf of constituents in their dealings with federal bureaus, agencies, departments, and the like.
The judiciary is a coequal branch of our government, and must be allowed under the Constitution to function in its own sphere without undue influence from the other branches. In accordance with Senate Ethics Committee rules, I am unable to become involved in a legal matter."
In a surprising action today, in a one line filing the Government waived its right to submit a reply to our cert petition.
Mod crewman--Most important, thanks for your support, it is very much appreciated. As to the "civics" lesion, the Senate and the House regularly file lawsuits and submit amicus briefs in judicial matters. Also, since technically the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General and the Director of the Mint control the position of the government in this case, a legislator can clearly express his/her opinions and concerns to them. Feels like a form response,bbut again much appreciation for your support and efforts. Roy
What are the ramifications of such a waiver?
I have been wrong on this case many times before, but perhaps they wish to get it before the current split court before a wild-card ninth justice comes along. With a 4-4 split, they win.
If I had to guess (which is what I'm doing) it is that:
1. they are so confident the court will decline to hear the case that they don't even need to plead their case, or
2. they may believe that the chances of the case being taken up are so slight that it's not worth the cost to prepare the filing now (the irony of the gov't caring about cost isn't lost on me), or
3. they believe there would be ample opportunity to make their case when and if the court hears the case.
Under Supreme Court procedure, in order for a case to be discussed in conference for grant of a cert petition, there has to be a reply brief. So if a clerk or a justice reads our papers and thinks the case should be discussed for possible review, the Court will request a reply brief from the government. If it doesn't it means the case is over. It is a no risk position from the government point of view. What is surprising but not atypical for this case is that the governments once again waited till the last moment to respond.
They are banking on it not being considered
rhl, once again thank you for your shared insights. It occurs to me that if the coins are not destroyed by the government that there could be avenues to pursue outside of the legal system such as the enactment of a special act of Congress. Hopefully papers seeking an injunction or stay will be filed to prevent the coins from being melted if the judicial rulings do not go your way.
As noted in a prior posting, it continues to appear that the Government has a conflict of interest in this matter and that independent counsel should have been appointed. The millions of dollars that the Government received from the sale of the Fenton coin based upon the representation that it was the one and only legal '33 created prima facie evidence of a conflict with regard to your case.
That is a surprise move by the government..... almost indicates pre-knowledge of the court's coming action. Cheers, RickO
rhl: I am most appreciative of your posting your observations here; thank you, and welcome!
For us to gain your firsthand insight makes this discussion even more compelling.
Hopefully, those here who merely have been speculating, pontificating, or writing out false information for this many years become more cautious. Unfortunately, there likely will still be some such as found above who, not unlike Ralph Cramden of "The Honeymooners", just can't help themselves and never really learn the value of keeping their big mouths shut.
As for myself, I sincerely and deeply hope that the SCOTUS hears your appeal, for your sake of course, but for ours as American citizens as well, as abuse of power undermines all our freedoms.
an appeals court ruling upholding that the government missed the time to file (no do over) really needs to be found.
The government filed a waiver of its right to file a reply to the Langbord petition on November 30th. Assuming that the docket sheet is up-to-date, it has not been distributed for this Friday's conference (the last one scheduled in December). This means that we will not have a disposition until January at the earliest (and likely the January 6, 2017 or January 13, 2017 conference).
If the court reviews the petition and thinks that it may consider taking the case, then the court frequently (but not always) requests a response from the respondents even when a waiver has been filed. If that ever becomes an issue, then it would likely push the petition decision to February of 2017.
Justice delayed is justice denied....
Bureaucracies.... excessive layers of operational inefficiency. I spent many years in executive level management of companies...and my prime directive was weeding out processes and people that caused a drag on systems. Even now, I am pulled out of retirement on a frequent basis to 'fix' companies....The purpose of my comment is that I believe the legal system is totally corrupted by such layers and needs to be purged. Cheers, RickO
That's just SO wrong!
I hope with a new administration and shift in power, our gov. will find a softer, gentler side. One that benefits the citizens who support it. And we coin people tend to be more supportive of them than most other groups. i.e., The mint is self supporting by what they do (making coins, not laws). Moving right along....
Thanks again for all of your positive thoughts. All that it takes for this case to be not summarily passed over is if one judge or one law clerk wants to hear a response from the government. Our fingers are crossed.
And, of course, anything that gets the Supreme Court's attention about this case and how the government behaved can only be helpful so feel free to write...
And finally, yes, we are hopeful that the new administration might be open to trying to fix this mess. Alternatively, I suppose someone here who knows the new President or his team could be appointed as the new director of the Mint (lol)
The court docket sheet was updated to reflect that the petition was distributed for the January 6, 2017 conference. We should know something then. If a response is request or if it is saved/continued to a different conference date, it is potentially a good sign. Either way, we will have either strong clues or a disposition very soon.
We can certainly hope the case will be heard.... and, if it is to be heard, by then there will be nine justices... and hopefully a more 'citizen oriented' court... Cheers, RickO
The government's waiver was a smart tactical move. It signals to SCOTUS that the government does not see certiorari as being likely to be granted. The worst thing that can happen to the government is that SCOTUS in its January 6, 2017 conference orders the government to file an opposition brief. Odds are that on January 6th, either (i) the government is ordered to file an opposition brief; or (ii) certiorari is denied and the case is over. SCOTUS will not grant certiorari without the government first submitting an opposition brief. If the government is ordered to file an opposition brief, which happens often when waivers are filed, such does not mean that SCOTUS is inclined one way or the other on the case.