James, you have it right based on what my lawyers tell me. Again, as an illustration as to how hard it is to fight the Government, the way this process works is that the government can decide to not initially write a response to a request for cert acting like the request is so weak it doesn't require a response. However the Court won't decide to grant cert without hearing a response from the Government, so they always get a chance to file papers even when they tactically decide in the beginning not to. Truly amazing!
It's actually truly disgusting that our Government would go to such great lengths to deny someone their Grandfather's collectible coins from so long ago. I could see if it was trying to prosecute someone from years past on heinous war crimes, etc...
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I suppose if the Supreme Court hears another case revolving around the 30 day limit and upholds the limit, that this case can't be affected later, right?
It was quite amazing to find them and take them out of their brown paper envelopes. Another myth is the suggestion that one of these coins was a pocket piece carried by my grandfather. That came from whoever at the grading service looked at the coins. Another improper act by the government was to even allow the coins during litigation to be graded at all.
I remember seeing the coins in Denver. Coin #4 does appear to have been carried or circulated, which seems highly unlikely. It does show wear and does not have the same lustre that the other coins have.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
I too saw the coins and thought that one of them had a "pocket piece" appearance.
TD
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.
I did not see the coins... wish I had. I know there are more out there... and of course, a few know where... Of course no one is telling - especially now. The entire exercise is so foolish... all because of a date on a piece of gold. What a waste of time and money. Cheers, RickO
Think about this-- in the middle of our legal fight, with no decision yet one way or another, the Mint took our coins, put them in a display case and then toured the country using them as a shill to sell their current products. To add insult to injury, they included a "history" of the coins asserting they were stolen and then recovered by the Mint! And so far they are getting away with this!
@MsMorrisine said:
I suppose if the Supreme Court hears another case revolving around the 30 day limit and upholds the limit, that this case can't be affected later, right?
The decision in this case will be final and binding on the parties regardless of the results of any future case.
@rhl said:
Thanks for the support. Hopefully the Supreme Court will at least ask the government to submit a reply, if not our legal fight is over.
If they had not been "submitted" for authentication, what is the likelihood that the existence of the 10 coins would have eventually been outed? Not tying to put anyone on the spot.
It looks like the Supreme Court has begun to officially release its orders on Monday after the conference instead of the same day as the conference; thus, we won't likely know until Monday, January 9, 2017. The timing seems to differ from what it was a few years ago IIRC. When the court issues regularly scheduled orders, the orders/order lists are (or were in the past) usually released at or shortly after 10 a.m. EST. I wish you and your petition the best. The disposition of the petition may not always show immediately using the docket link from before, but the court will post a PDF summarily disposing of several petitions at a time. The order list will be released here when it is available:
Just received word from our lawyers-- the Supreme Court has ordered the government to file a response to our cert petition. We are still very much alive......
Great news. Congratulations and thank you for giving us an update.
While thinking about this case and whether or not it would interest SCOTUS I keep coming back to the following:
The case itself has an interesting subject matter that everyone can understand (ownership dispute over valuable gold coins);
The case has "sizzle" because it covers multiple topics that are of interest to a wide audience including appellate court justices (gold coinage, Teddy Roosevelt, St. Gaudins, the gold standard, economics, the depression, FDR, FDR's executive order, bank closings, going off the gold standard, Woodin and his involvement in the executive order and the collectible coins exception, WWII, the Export License awarded to allow one 1933 Saint to be sent to Egypt, the Fenton coin and litigation, the Fenton settlement and the sale of the Fenton coin, Mr. Switt and his involvement in the case, US History, etc.). This "sizzle" makes this case factually interesting (and thus one that trial court and appellate court judges would, as human beings, have an interest and curiosity in);
The legal issues in the case are numerous, but the primary issue raised in this case involves (as i have said before) the nature of the relationship between the governed and the government regarding ownership or property, including what type of system should be in place to cover the topic of Civil Asset Forfeiture [is it really desirable to have a system in place that allows the government to unilaterally choose when it will and when it will not follow CAFRA by saying "the subject property is ours and thus we need not do anything except take the property, keep it and do what we want to with it]. This primary issue is one that will have vast impact throughout the USA and all who reside here on a daily basis. The trial judge determined that the government violated the rights of the Langbord family by not filing a CAFRA action, yet he refused to apply the CAFRA penalties to the government (instead he allowed the government to file a CAFRA action years late). The 3rd Circuit 3 Justice panel disagreed and issued a decision awarding the coins to the Langbords. The 3rd Circuit En Banc panel found the case interesting enough to take the unusual step of granting a petition for rehearing and issued a decision that awarded the coins to the government. With the above background I would think that the case would be of interest to SCOTUS.
It may be that four or more (or even all) of the the 8 sitting Supreme Court Justices may decide (for various reasons) that this is a case that they want to hear.
Continued success to the Langbord family as it (to me) seems appropriate that this case end up being heard by the highest court in the land.
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......
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.
@tradedollarnut said:
One day, if the Government comes for my property, I want a strong CAFRA in place for my protection
Dang right!
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.
This whole saga frustrates me to no end. I can't imagine how rhl feels. He is handling it better then I would. Still hoping for common sense and sense of fairness to win out. Such a thug move that needs to be rectified.
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......
Congratulations! While requesting a response does not guarantee a grant, especially given the lack of a circuit conflict, it does look promising. It looks like SCOTUS has pushed this into February at the earliest. The court gave the government until February 6.
This case could also have interesting implications for other coins like 1974 aluminum cents and any 1964-D Peace Dollars that might be in hiding. I would love to see, either through case law development or the enactment of a statute, for the government to clarify the legal status of many of its pieces and when it may and may not seize a rare coin. Given the way the 1933 Saints/1974 aluminum cents/1964-D Peace Dollars have been declared illegal, I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty Head Nickels did not suffer a similar fate.
Other coins wouldn't be affected because the nature of this dispute revolves around the gub'mint deciding the valid law is meaningless to them.
The status of these coins are different than others. For the 64 Peace there isn't any doubt those were recalled. The Aluminum cents have doubts, but different ones. The 1933 DE were coined as money 100%, while the aluminum cents were made as a test, passed out, and it is unclear if some people were allowed to keep them or not. Also, the aluminum cents fall into the "pattern" category which has people asking why these don't have the same status as others patterns in private hands, while the 33 DE were coined and are coins and have people pointing to them as contemporary money.
I was thinking about the new reality with this en banc ruling. I previously said it would become invent-a-excuse from the government as why the law need not be followed. That is too nebulous. The reality is the ruling can simply be used to invoke "we didn't need to do it because they have dirty hands and the government need not involve themselves with proceedings with those having dirty hands."
(And the Switt's nor the Langbords were ever even charged much less convicted except in the public opinion of some court and in a civil trial based upon a book with unknown amounts of artistic license -- and the lower court didn't even make an effort to separate fact from fiction ("Roots" now contains no artistic license))
RHL, I have a question about the King Farouk example on display at the NY Historical Society in NY City. The display notes the following: "In 2004, ten additional 1933 Double Eagles were brought to the attention of the United States government by attorneys representing the daughter of Israel Swift, the Philadelphia dealer who sold all the known stolen 1933 Double Eagle beginning 1937".
Did your grandfather originally sell the King Farouk example or any other examples?
The "history" of the 1933 DE on display at the NY Historical Society is essentially the story that the US Mint has been telling about our coins since this dispute began over a decade ago. My grandfather certainly sold other 1933 DEs back in the day when no one claimed they were illegal to own or sell. Whether or not he sold the coin on exhibition at the Historical Society or if he was the only seller of 1933 DEs really can't be answered. Certainly, today after what my family has been put through, no one is coming forward to talk about their coins or when, where and how they obtained them. As to the accuracy of the US Mint history, when the Fenton coin was sold, the Mint claimed it was not aware of any other 1933s in existence even though David Tripp, their expert, had a picture of at least one additional coin in this book. It should be taken with a grain of salt. BTW, funny thing I live down the block from the NY Historical Society....
@rhl said:
The "history" of the 1933 DE on display at the NY Historical Society is essentially the story that the US Mint has been telling about our coins since this dispute began over a decade ago. My grandfather certainly sold other 1933 DEs back in the day when no one claimed they were illegal to own or sell. Whether or not he sold the coin on exhibition at the Historical Society or if he was the only seller of 1933 DEs really can't be answered. Certainly, today after what my family has been put through, no one is coming forward to talk about their coins or when, where and how they obtained them. As to the accuracy of the US Mint history, when the Fenton coin was sold, the Mint claimed it was not aware of any other 1933s in existence even though David Tripp, their expert, had a picture of at least one additional coin in this book. It should be taken with a grain of salt. BTW, funny thing I live down the block from the NY Historical Society....
@slider23 said:
The display notes the following: "In 2004, ten additional 1933 Double Eagles were brought to the attention of the United States government by attorneys representing the daughter of Israel Swift, the Philadelphia dealer who sold all the known stolen 1933 Double Eagle beginning 1937".
RHL, I'd be interested in your reaction to a public display stating as fact that Israel Switt sold stolen coins. If I lived near them, as you do, I'd be asking for some rewording on that placard.
Funny you should bring that idea up just now. A friend knows one of the board members of the museum and is setting up a meeting in the next few weeks so I can voice my objections. The text in the museum is the Government's position from the litigation, not ours. And yes, it very much upsets me to see it there.....
@rhl said:
Funny you should bring that idea up just now. A friend knows one of the board members of the museum and is setting up a meeting in the next few weeks so I can voice my objections. The text in the museum is the Government's position from the litigation, not ours. And yes, it very much upsets me to see it there.....
It reinforces, but does not prove, my belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin in the sale and now controls it.
TD
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.
Seems incredible that this case, come this Friday, will have been in active litigation in the US Federal Court system for 3 presidential administrations.
@tradedollarnut said:
Not according to the information that I have
Is there some reason you cannot share the information that you have or is it that you feel you do not have adequate confirmation as to its validity? Regardless of whether CaptHenway's belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin or if it was purchased by a private party or other institution, there does seem to be a conflict of interest on the part of the U.S. Government in the current litigation given that it profited from the sale of a coin that it asserted was the only legal one.
Comments
Ditto on the above.
It's gross that you can do the ethical thing and turn over your coins to the U.S. Mint only to have them confiscated.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
James, you have it right based on what my lawyers tell me. Again, as an illustration as to how hard it is to fight the Government, the way this process works is that the government can decide to not initially write a response to a request for cert acting like the request is so weak it doesn't require a response. However the Court won't decide to grant cert without hearing a response from the Government, so they always get a chance to file papers even when they tactically decide in the beginning not to. Truly amazing!
rhl,
It's actually truly disgusting that our Government would go to such great lengths to deny someone their Grandfather's collectible coins from so long ago. I could see if it was trying to prosecute someone from years past on heinous war crimes, etc...
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I suppose if the Supreme Court hears another case revolving around the 30 day limit and upholds the limit, that this case can't be affected later, right?
Here is another picture I found.
Nice picture....it may be the lighting, but number five seems to have a superior appearance.... Cheers, RickO
It was quite amazing to find them and take them out of their brown paper envelopes. Another myth is the suggestion that one of these coins was a pocket piece carried by my grandfather. That came from whoever at the grading service looked at the coins. Another improper act by the government was to even allow the coins during litigation to be graded at all.
I remember seeing the coins in Denver. Coin #4 does appear to have been carried or circulated, which seems highly unlikely. It does show wear and does not have the same lustre that the other coins have.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
I too saw the coins and thought that one of them had a "pocket piece" appearance.
TD
I did not see the coins... wish I had. I know there are more out there... and of course, a few know where... Of course no one is telling - especially now. The entire exercise is so foolish... all because of a date on a piece of gold. What a waste of time and money. Cheers, RickO
Think about this-- in the middle of our legal fight, with no decision yet one way or another, the Mint took our coins, put them in a display case and then toured the country using them as a shill to sell their current products. To add insult to injury, they included a "history" of the coins asserting they were stolen and then recovered by the Mint! And so far they are getting away with this!
The decision in this case will be final and binding on the parties regardless of the results of any future case.
This Friday, January 6th conference is just a day away now. Good luck with the appeal if it is to be decided this week. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Thanks for the support. Hopefully the Supreme Court will at least ask the government to submit a reply, if not our legal fight is over.
Best of luck rhl.... Sure hope SCOTUS takes the case. Cheers, RickO
RHL, so far the legal system has failed you. I wish you all the best on getting the Supreme Court to hear your case.
Good luck. Hope SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.
If they had not been "submitted" for authentication, what is the likelihood that the existence of the 10 coins would have eventually been outed? Not tying to put anyone on the spot.
It looks like the Supreme Court has begun to officially release its orders on Monday after the conference instead of the same day as the conference; thus, we won't likely know until Monday, January 9, 2017. The timing seems to differ from what it was a few years ago IIRC. When the court issues regularly scheduled orders, the orders/order lists are (or were in the past) usually released at or shortly after 10 a.m. EST. I wish you and your petition the best. The disposition of the petition may not always show immediately using the docket link from before, but the court will post a PDF summarily disposing of several petitions at a time. The order list will be released here when it is available:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/16
Looks like we will be waiting till Monday.
Just received word from our lawyers-- the Supreme Court has ordered the government to file a response to our cert petition. We are still very much alive......
Excellent.
Yayyyyyyyyy
most excellent
a day maker
Great news. Congratulations and thank you for giving us an update.
While thinking about this case and whether or not it would interest SCOTUS I keep coming back to the following:
The case itself has an interesting subject matter that everyone can understand (ownership dispute over valuable gold coins);
The case has "sizzle" because it covers multiple topics that are of interest to a wide audience including appellate court justices (gold coinage, Teddy Roosevelt, St. Gaudins, the gold standard, economics, the depression, FDR, FDR's executive order, bank closings, going off the gold standard, Woodin and his involvement in the executive order and the collectible coins exception, WWII, the Export License awarded to allow one 1933 Saint to be sent to Egypt, the Fenton coin and litigation, the Fenton settlement and the sale of the Fenton coin, Mr. Switt and his involvement in the case, US History, etc.). This "sizzle" makes this case factually interesting (and thus one that trial court and appellate court judges would, as human beings, have an interest and curiosity in);
The legal issues in the case are numerous, but the primary issue raised in this case involves (as i have said before) the nature of the relationship between the governed and the government regarding ownership or property, including what type of system should be in place to cover the topic of Civil Asset Forfeiture [is it really desirable to have a system in place that allows the government to unilaterally choose when it will and when it will not follow CAFRA by saying "the subject property is ours and thus we need not do anything except take the property, keep it and do what we want to with it]. This primary issue is one that will have vast impact throughout the USA and all who reside here on a daily basis. The trial judge determined that the government violated the rights of the Langbord family by not filing a CAFRA action, yet he refused to apply the CAFRA penalties to the government (instead he allowed the government to file a CAFRA action years late). The 3rd Circuit 3 Justice panel disagreed and issued a decision awarding the coins to the Langbords. The 3rd Circuit En Banc panel found the case interesting enough to take the unusual step of granting a petition for rehearing and issued a decision that awarded the coins to the government. With the above background I would think that the case would be of interest to SCOTUS.
It may be that four or more (or even all) of the the 8 sitting Supreme Court Justices may decide (for various reasons) that this is a case that they want to hear.
Continued success to the Langbord family as it (to me) seems appropriate that this case end up being heard by the highest court in the land.
One day, if the Government comes for my property, I want a strong CAFRA in place for my protection
Awesome. In the game again
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......
Hang in there!
Dang right!
historic gold coins.
vs
vacating a law without determining the law is invalid nor even recognition of the precedential nature of it.
also in much agreement.
the law is in place for a reason. it was to keep the gub'mint from doing exactly what it did do in this case.
This whole saga frustrates me to no end. I can't imagine how rhl feels. He is handling it better then I would. Still hoping for common sense and sense of fairness to win out. Such a thug move that needs to be rectified.
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......
Congratulations! While requesting a response does not guarantee a grant, especially given the lack of a circuit conflict, it does look promising. It looks like SCOTUS has pushed this into February at the earliest. The court gave the government until February 6.
This case could also have interesting implications for other coins like 1974 aluminum cents and any 1964-D Peace Dollars that might be in hiding. I would love to see, either through case law development or the enactment of a statute, for the government to clarify the legal status of many of its pieces and when it may and may not seize a rare coin. Given the way the 1933 Saints/1974 aluminum cents/1964-D Peace Dollars have been declared illegal, I have always wondered why the 1913 Liberty Head Nickels did not suffer a similar fate.
Other coins wouldn't be affected because the nature of this dispute revolves around the gub'mint deciding the valid law is meaningless to them.
The status of these coins are different than others. For the 64 Peace there isn't any doubt those were recalled. The Aluminum cents have doubts, but different ones. The 1933 DE were coined as money 100%, while the aluminum cents were made as a test, passed out, and it is unclear if some people were allowed to keep them or not. Also, the aluminum cents fall into the "pattern" category which has people asking why these don't have the same status as others patterns in private hands, while the 33 DE were coined and are coins and have people pointing to them as contemporary money.
I was thinking about the new reality with this en banc ruling. I previously said it would become invent-a-excuse from the government as why the law need not be followed. That is too nebulous. The reality is the ruling can simply be used to invoke "we didn't need to do it because they have dirty hands and the government need not involve themselves with proceedings with those having dirty hands."
(And the Switt's nor the Langbords were ever even charged much less convicted except in the public opinion of some court and in a civil trial based upon a book with unknown amounts of artistic license -- and the lower court didn't even make an effort to separate fact from fiction ("Roots" now contains no artistic license))
RHL, I have a question about the King Farouk example on display at the NY Historical Society in NY City. The display notes the following: "In 2004, ten additional 1933 Double Eagles were brought to the attention of the United States government by attorneys representing the daughter of Israel Swift, the Philadelphia dealer who sold all the known stolen 1933 Double Eagle beginning 1937".
Did your grandfather originally sell the King Farouk example or any other examples?
The "history" of the 1933 DE on display at the NY Historical Society is essentially the story that the US Mint has been telling about our coins since this dispute began over a decade ago. My grandfather certainly sold other 1933 DEs back in the day when no one claimed they were illegal to own or sell. Whether or not he sold the coin on exhibition at the Historical Society or if he was the only seller of 1933 DEs really can't be answered. Certainly, today after what my family has been put through, no one is coming forward to talk about their coins or when, where and how they obtained them. As to the accuracy of the US Mint history, when the Fenton coin was sold, the Mint claimed it was not aware of any other 1933s in existence even though David Tripp, their expert, had a picture of at least one additional coin in this book. It should be taken with a grain of salt. BTW, funny thing I live down the block from the NY Historical Society....
Might be interesting for SCOTUS to take this up after they are at full strength of 9 justices again.
comment edited out
Great news.... at least there is a glimmer of hope.... Cheers, RickO
Fantastic!
Due process violated?
RHL, I'd be interested in your reaction to a public display stating as fact that Israel Switt sold stolen coins. If I lived near them, as you do, I'd be asking for some rewording on that placard.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
I agree with howards.... Theft has not been proved... Cheers, RickO
Funny you should bring that idea up just now. A friend knows one of the board members of the museum and is setting up a meeting in the next few weeks so I can voice my objections. The text in the museum is the Government's position from the litigation, not ours. And yes, it very much upsets me to see it there.....
It reinforces, but does not prove, my belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin in the sale and now controls it.
TD
Not according to the information that I have
Seems incredible that this case, come this Friday, will have been in active litigation in the US Federal Court system for 3 presidential administrations.
Is there some reason you cannot share the information that you have or is it that you feel you do not have adequate confirmation as to its validity? Regardless of whether CaptHenway's belief that the U.S. Treasury bought the coin or if it was purchased by a private party or other institution, there does seem to be a conflict of interest on the part of the U.S. Government in the current litigation given that it profited from the sale of a coin that it asserted was the only legal one.