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.
@ricko said:
So we will hear something on the 8th of March.. good, at least it will not be the 15th (Beware the Ides of March)... Cheers, RickO
No. The government must file a response by the 8th. The court will then need time to review the brief before circulating the petition for conference again. There is no time table at this point.
The government filed its papers yesterday. I'm probably not the best one to summarize their argument, but basically they say ignore our illegal and unconstitutional actions, and focus on the fact that because we say these coins belong to us and were stolen, we can take them and are not subject to any forfeiture laws. Oh, and so long as we didn't say we "seized" someone's property, we haven't. Unreal...
I know I sound like a broken record when I restate the same thing over and over again.
But so what.
I will say it again.
This lawsuit over the 10 1933 double eagles presents (now to SCOTUS) for decision an issue that at its core concerns what the relationship should be between the government and the governed with respect to property rights.
Is it desirable to have a system in place where the government can take, and keep property from a individual (or corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.) and avoid the application of asset forfeiture laws (which were passed by legislative bodies on the national, state and local levels and signed into law by the president, governors and mayors) by simply saying that the subject property belongs to it?
I have no idea if SCOTUS will decide to hear and decide this case. If it does decide to hear and decide this case it will be very interesting to see how the individual justices views on the case and it will be interesting to see to what extent and how the legal media, political media and general media will cover the case.
@howards said:
Question for the legal theorists: Would the Langbords benefit if their case is not heard before a new SCOTUS member is appointed? Right now, they would need 5 of 8 votes to win, later they would need 5 of 9. Better odds?
Actually, there is only upside to the Langbords if the case is heard by 9 Justices, with two small caveats. Remember the Langbords lost the last round, and if their is a 4-4 tie the lower court is affirmed. If the existing Justices split anything other than 4-4 his vote makes no difference in the case. So lets say the existing justices are split 4-4, if Gorsuch sides with the government, it would be 4-5 with the lower court being affirmed. So this result would be the same to the Langbords, as it would had he not yet been confirmed, although the 4-5 vote could make the decision precedent setting, but that wouldn't matter to the Langbords personally. Of course if it is 4-4 and Gorsuch goes with the Langbords, they win, a huge upside for them.
Caveat 1 - I am assuming that all 8 justices hear the case, it an odd number of Justices recuse themselves, it could through off the math. However, this seems really remote as I doubt any of the 8 have a reason to recuse.
Caveat 2 - I am not considering the possible changes in dynamics if Gorsuch is appointed and strong favors the Government position (seems unlikely) he could potentially persuade other Justices. Although it seems unlikely he would strongly favor the Gov. and even if he did he probably have limited influence on the other Justices, since he is the new kid that just arrived.
In summary, the case is heard by the SCOTUS I think it will be a huge advantage to the Langbords, if they have all 9 justices.
In general, I agree with Tomthecoinguy's view that 9 justices would help the Langbords. I also don't know whether the Court will agree to hear the case. I hope so. I googled the case and printed of the Petition for Cert brief. I haven't found the responsive brief (it doesn't appear to be on Pacer), but it will show up shortly. This is in my backyard, so if they hear it, I will attend, if I can get in.
Any comments on the post I made about Justice Thomas and civil asset forfeitures?
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 think having a ninth member would be most beneficial at the petition stage. It would provide an extra justice to potentially put the case on the "discuss list" for the conference and may provide an extra vote for certiorari. I doubt that Gorsuch would be confirmed in time to participate in the case at the petition stage. As for a 4-4 or 5-4 split, I don't see this case as splitting among ideological lines.
IF the coins were "missed" in a safety deposit box, how many "heirs" have they had, and how many people certified probate on on the disposition of estates that was incorrect because these were missed (how you can miss a something in a safety deposit box baffles me, but I digress) ?
Would there be retroactive estate taxes, with punishing interest that could be more than the value of the coins? If the estate tax, set at 70% from 1935 to 1981 were applied, times how ever many estates they went through, with retroactive penalties and interest, the tax, interest and penalties would far exceed the value of the coins.
I unfortunately went through something like that, in that a large brokerage firm, while consolidating various accounts for my father, incorrectly assigned a post tax account as a 401K account. My father did not notice this, as it was buried away in a lot of transactions. The money was moved to a different brokerage firm later. While sorting out my father's estate, I found the error, but the original company is no more. The penalties for having post tax money in a pre tax account accumulate year by year, and turned out to be cheaper just to have my mom "repay" the tax, as her net tax rate is rather low. and not ruffle the feathers of the IRS.
IF the coins were "missed" in a safety deposit box, how many "heirs" have they had, and how many people certified probate on on the disposition of estates that was incorrect because these were missed (how you can miss a something in a safety deposit box baffles me, but I digress) ?
Would there be retroactive estate taxes, with punishing interest that could be more than the value of the coins? If the estate tax, set at 70% from 1935 to 1981 were applied, times how ever many estates they went through, with retroactive penalties and interest, the tax, interest and penalties would far exceed the value of the coins.
I unfortunately went through something like that, in that a large brokerage firm, while consolidating various accounts for my father, incorrectly assigned a post tax account as a 401K account. My father did not notice this, as it was buried away in a lot of transactions. The money was moved to a different brokerage firm later. While sorting out my father's estate, I found the error, but the original company is no more. The penalties for having post tax money in a pre tax account accumulate year by year, and turned out to be cheaper just to have my mom "repay" the tax, as her net tax rate is rather low. and not ruffle the feathers of the IRS.
There is a general 3-year statute of limitation on all federal tax returns, including those for estate tax returns. If items are missing and it is 25% or more of the gross value, then a 6-year statute of limitations would apply absent fraud or willful tax evasion (in which case the statute of limitations is no bar to a government action). Whether the government would try to concoct some sort of equitable tolling principle in the absence of fraud or evasion, I don't know.
I know I sound like a broken record when I restate the same thing over and over again.
But so what.
I will say it again.
This lawsuit over the 10 1933 double eagles presents (now to SCOTUS) for decision an issue that at its core concerns what the relationship should be between the government and the governed with respect to property rights.
Is it desirable to have a system in place where the government can take, and keep property from a individual (or corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.) and avoid the application of asset forfeiture laws (which were passed by legislative bodies on the national, state and local levels and signed into law by the president, governors and mayors) by simply saying that the subject property belongs to it?
I have no idea if SCOTUS will decide to hear and decide this case. If it does decide to hear and decide this case it will be very interesting to see how the individual justices views on the case and it will be interesting to see to what extent and how the legal media, political media and general media will cover the case.
Does CAFRA apply to events that were in play BEFORE it was enacted or is it a from now on situation?
@CaptHenway said:
Any comments on the post I made about Justice Thomas and civil asset forfeitures?
The biggest hurdle is the other 7. He had that opinion and the case was not heard with a one line reason.
After that, he may not view the Langbords as patently innocent.
I think, in a tie for 2nd, is the property taken isn't simple cash or a car. This is a tractor everyone knows the government had first and the family had next. There is a question if ownership passed. In the cases questioned typically the seized property isn't sought because it is presented as stolen government property in the hands of the descendants who it is said to stole it.
Plus, this tractor is actually 10 smithsonian level gold coins. they could be viewed as historically important national treasures.
I think he is poking the populace to challenge a seized bank account or car or non-government owned tractor based on Constitutional grounds.
Should it be heard, he may be an ally should he question the theft claim and if he feels it is one of those civil vs. criminal issues mentioned in the article.
I think this shows that civil forfeiture is an area of concern for Justice Thomas, while the Langbord case is a different angle on the issue, I can see Thomas encouraging them to hear the case.
Also, did anyone notice that the Langbord petition was listed as the "Petition of the day" over at the SCOTUSblog on February 7th?
This means that they are going to be following the progress of that petition. While they follow many more petitions than actually get heard, it seems a good sign that they saw this case as one with an above average chance of being taken up by the court.
I think this shows that civil forfeiture is an area of concern for Justice Thomas, while the Langbord case is a different angle on the issue, I can see Thomas encouraging them to hear the case.
Also, did anyone notice that the Langbord petition was listed as the "Petition of the day" over at the SCOTUSblog on February 7th?
This means that they are going to be following the progress of that petition. While they follow many more petitions than actually get heard, it seems a good sign that they saw this case as one with an above average chance of being taken up by the court.
-Tom
Very interesting!
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.
laughably sad: 4. Before the Mint could distribute the 1933 Double Eagles, however, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt forbade U.S. banks from paying out gold. Id. at 4-5.1 The Mint sent two of the unissued 1933 Double Eagles to the Smithsonian Institution. Id. at 5. Government records demonstrate that the Mint did not issue, release, or otherwise transfer any other 1933 Double Eagles. Id. at 91-105. Instead, the Mint carried out President Roosevelt’s mandate by melting the Double Eagles that remained in its possession. Id. at 5. 5. Some 1933 Double Eagles were stolen from the Mint before they could be melted, however, and the United States has attempted to recover each one once the government has located it. : The government had mistakenly granted an export license for that Double Eagle in the 1940s, before it discovered that the gold piece was stolen.
again
they don't know how many their government records demonstrate were stolen.
I think this shows that civil forfeiture is an area of concern for Justice Thomas, while the Langbord case is a different angle on the issue, I can see Thomas encouraging them to hear the case.
Also, did anyone notice that the Langbord petition was listed as the "Petition of the day" over at the SCOTUSblog on February 7th?
This means that they are going to be following the progress of that petition. While they follow many more petitions than actually get heard, it seems a good sign that they saw this case as one with an above average chance of being taken up by the court.
-Tom
I hope you are right that Thomas is pushing this. It is also interesting that SCOTUS Blog only covered the case after it was first distributed for conference and a response was requested. It looks like SCOTUS Blog interprets the request for a response as significant.
As to the question about how can you miss something in a safe deposit box, the answer is this wasn't a traditional safe deposit box. It is one of I believe only four in the bank. It is about a foot in width and height and over two feet deep, really closer to a small vault. The box contained among other things a number of my grandmother's possessions, including her jewelry and various family papers. And, to make things worse, virtually everything in the box was in a cardboard box or a paper or plastic bag. Unless you took everything out and opened everything up you would have no idea whatsoever what was in the box.
2. ... and will not be able to establish based on any reliable or admissible evidence how they currently possess, or ever possessed, title to this United States Government property.
let me write a book and wait 20 years
that's wholly reliable.
3. a. ... The court observed that it was “undisputed” that the government had not sent petitioners a notice of nonjudicial forfeiture but had instead expressly disclaimed any intent to pursue forfeiture.
isn't what they did effectively a nonjudicial forfeiture?
... The court therefore held that CAFRA’s notice and timing requirements did not apply. Ibid. The court also noted that even if CAFRA’s timing provisions for nonjudicial forfeiture applied, the court could extend the period for filing a judicial forfeiture complaint “for good cause shown” to permit the government to pursue a judicial forfeiture action.
good cause. ha! "won't don't think it applies, everyone else in the government does, and the district court allowed us a do over because we just thought it didn't apply."
I guess that """"good cause"""" could be used repeatedly for every seizure action.
After a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict for the government on the judicial forfeiture claim. Pet. App. 117. The district court rejected petitioners’ challenges to the verdict, finding that “the jury heard more than sufficient evidence * * * that the disputed [19]33 Double Eagles were taken from the Mint and squirreled away by Switt and [petitioners] with the requisite criminal intent to satisfy” the applicable statute.
squirreled
sufficient evidence.
this is right up Justice Thomas' alley
@MsMorrisine said: 3. a. ... The court observed that it was “undisputed” that the government had not sent petitioners a notice of nonjudicial forfeiture but had instead expressly disclaimed any intent to pursue forfeiture.
isn't what they did effectively a nonjudicial forfeiture?
Arguably no. It hinges on the definition of what it means to forfeit something. You cannot legally or logically forfeit something for which you never had a possessory interest in or title to; title does not pass if the coins were stolen. We can argue all day about whether the coins were stolen or not. In the legal system, the only "facts" that matter are the "facts" found by the jury and the federal district court. This judicial fact-finding is only overturned in very rare cases if it is clearly erroneous. I wish this case had ended differently, but in my mind, the kiss of death was the erroneous jury verdict which federal judges are hesitant to throw out.
P.S. I hope SCOTUS disagrees with my interpretation of the law and grants cert, reversing by summary judgment.
Question: if the Government can parse words and get around forfeiture by utilizing that argument, then why did Congress include the term stolen property under the types of items applying to Cafra? It seems to me that the clear intent of the law trumphs any word weaseling.
@tradedollarnut said:
Question: if the Government can parse words and get around forfeiture by utilizing that argument, then why did Congress include the term stolen property under the types of items applying to Cafra? It seems to me that the clear intent of the law trumphs any word weaseling.
If the Government can parse words and get around forfeiture by utilizing that argument, then the CAFRA law applies only when the Government wants it to apply, which makes the CAFRA law basically worthless in terms of protecting citizens against Government seizures. Which is basically what Justice Rendell said in her dissent to the last ruling by the Court.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
@tradedollarnut said:
Question: if the Government can parse words and get around forfeiture by utilizing that argument, then why did Congress include the term stolen property under the types of items applying to Cafra? It seems to me that the clear intent of the law trumphs any word weaseling.
I will need to look back at the statutory language and will try to do so later tonight, but what portion of the act are you looking at specifically? Forfeiture law is very broad and is meant to cover several different scenarios.
If you do a close read of the government's Supreme Court papers, they totally avoid the undisputed facts at the heart of this case--they acted unconstitutionally. And what was the consequence of that action? Effectively, nothing. No penalty, of any kind. They basically get to start over as if they did nothing wrong. In fact, at trial the Judge ruled that the Jury could not even hear about the government's misconduct.
"In fact, at trial the Judge ruled that the Jury could not even hear about the government's misconduct."
That is intriguing... was there any written logic behind that ruling? Taken as written, it seems very arbitrary... as well as biased. I would think that also could be a point in the plaintiffs favor... obviously, I am not a lawyer, and what appears to be common sense often is not in the legal world. Cheers, RickO
@ricko said:
"In fact, at trial the Judge ruled that the Jury could not even hear about the government's misconduct."
That is intriguing... was there any written logic behind that ruling? Taken as written, it seems very arbitrary... as well as biased. I would think that also could be a point in the plaintiffs favor... obviously, I am not a lawyer, and what appears to be common sense often is not in the legal world. Cheers, RickO
It does seem unfair since they did allow prejudicial stuff about Izzy allegedly violating Roosevelt's gold order into evidence if I recall correctly.
There are lots of blanks out there. There are those of us that say once it is minted or struck it is fair game. Are blanks minted?
And the gub'mint says that they must monetize their issues. Then the blanks would generally be monetized now that they have been issued, right? A dime blank is valid and monetized 10 cents to them?
There are lots of blanks out there. There are those of us that say once it is minted or struck it is fair game. Are blanks minted?
And the gub'mint says that they must monetize their issues. Then the blanks would generally be monetized now that they have been issued, right? A dime blank is valid and monetized 10 cents to them?
Monetization is a process and not a specific step. Once the coiner delivers the coins to the cashier/Fed or whoever is empowered to receive them, then the monetization is completed because they are now officially money. it's not rocket science.
Back in those days that would usually occur after assay and other quality control results were delivered to the coiner.
@ModCrewman said:
Because I don't know...is "conference" where they decide to consider the case or where they consider the case?
Both. The judges vote on whether to grant petitions, and for cases that have already reached the merits stage (i.e. been granted, briefed, and argued orally before the court) they take a preliminary vote and assign a justice to write the opinion of the court.
Outside of nonsense pieces which we all agree are trials of design, metal, etc. I am of the belief that when they are making coins it is that act that makes them spendable money. I believe the gub'mint invented monetization to justify action.
The question can be rephrased as: would the gub'mint hold to their monetization rule for blanks? If asked, would they be resolute and absolute in defending a dime blank as monetized 10 cents?
On our end, it has been said that once minted it becomes money. We wouldn't worry about blanks being gub'mint property, however would blanks be money? Legally issued, thus privately held is legal?
They were issued no doubt, as they can be found in the wild. They are legal to own. Money? They weren't fully minted. So, not money yet legally owned is it. So, I guess a coin it is not. However, a coin is money because it was run through the press.
See the conundrum? To the gub'mint, it's not rocket science. Once delivered it is monetized. Under that definition a blank is money... a coin.
@MsMorrisine said:
Outside of nonsense pieces which we all agree are trials of design, metal, etc. I am of the belief that when they are making coins it is that act that makes them spendable money. I believe the gub'mint invented monetization to justify action.
The question can be rephrased as: would the gub'mint hold to their monetization rule for blanks? If asked, would they be resolute and absolute in defending a dime blank as monetized 10 cents?
On our end, it has been said that once minted it becomes money. We wouldn't worry about blanks being gub'mint property, however would blanks be money? Legally issued, thus privately held is legal?
They were issued no doubt, as they can be found in the wild. They are legal to own. Money? They weren't fully minted. So, not money yet legally owned is it. So, I guess a coin it is not. However, a coin is money because it was run through the press.
See the conundrum? To the gub'mint, it's not rocket science. Once delivered it is monetized. Under that definition a blank is money... a coin.
hmmmmm...
Except that the coins weren't delivered. The coins passed muster for assay on a Friday I believe, but IIRC the info was mailed to the coiner and before the coiner received it, the order to stop issuing gold was given/went into effect. So as far as I can tell, the coins were never moved far enough along in the production process to become money.
The order for example did not initially ban gold for gold exchanges. Plus, the Mint in that period never behaved that formally. One of the great contradictions of David Tripp's writing is how on the one hand he talks about how the Mint was run by the "Four Horsemen" however they wanted and on the other relies on a strict compliance with formal processes to make the claim that 1933 Double Eagles could only have left the Mint by an act of theft. It is similar to his concept of "orphan documents" (documents that contradict his theory should be ignored) or his description of my grandfather who in one chapter is a "red headed sucker" and in the next is a mastermind outfoxing the Secret Service. It really shouldn't be a surprise though, David Tripp was not formally trained as a historian; most if not all of his income for many years during the course of this litigation came from the government; and his other most visible job seemed to be drawing "Sadie" a cartoon that ran in the back of "Cat Fancy" magazine.
Comments
SCOTUS Justice Thomas made an interesting comment regarding civil asset forfeiture in an unrelated case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clarence-thomas-civil-forfeiture_us_58bda8a5e4b0d8c45f453f8f?section=politics
No. The government must file a response by the 8th. The court will then need time to review the brief before circulating the petition for conference again. There is no time table at this point.
and here comes the government's reply....
The government filed its papers yesterday. I'm probably not the best one to summarize their argument, but basically they say ignore our illegal and unconstitutional actions, and focus on the fact that because we say these coins belong to us and were stolen, we can take them and are not subject to any forfeiture laws. Oh, and so long as we didn't say we "seized" someone's property, we haven't. Unreal...
I believe this is their brief: Brief of March 8, 2017
Thanks for the update RHL.
I know I sound like a broken record when I restate the same thing over and over again.
But so what.
I will say it again.
This lawsuit over the 10 1933 double eagles presents (now to SCOTUS) for decision an issue that at its core concerns what the relationship should be between the government and the governed with respect to property rights.
Is it desirable to have a system in place where the government can take, and keep property from a individual (or corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.) and avoid the application of asset forfeiture laws (which were passed by legislative bodies on the national, state and local levels and signed into law by the president, governors and mayors) by simply saying that the subject property belongs to it?
I have no idea if SCOTUS will decide to hear and decide this case. If it does decide to hear and decide this case it will be very interesting to see how the individual justices views on the case and it will be interesting to see to what extent and how the legal media, political media and general media will cover the case.
Actually, there is only upside to the Langbords if the case is heard by 9 Justices, with two small caveats. Remember the Langbords lost the last round, and if their is a 4-4 tie the lower court is affirmed. If the existing Justices split anything other than 4-4 his vote makes no difference in the case. So lets say the existing justices are split 4-4, if Gorsuch sides with the government, it would be 4-5 with the lower court being affirmed. So this result would be the same to the Langbords, as it would had he not yet been confirmed, although the 4-5 vote could make the decision precedent setting, but that wouldn't matter to the Langbords personally. Of course if it is 4-4 and Gorsuch goes with the Langbords, they win, a huge upside for them.
Caveat 1 - I am assuming that all 8 justices hear the case, it an odd number of Justices recuse themselves, it could through off the math. However, this seems really remote as I doubt any of the 8 have a reason to recuse.
Caveat 2 - I am not considering the possible changes in dynamics if Gorsuch is appointed and strong favors the Government position (seems unlikely) he could potentially persuade other Justices. Although it seems unlikely he would strongly favor the Gov. and even if he did he probably have limited influence on the other Justices, since he is the new kid that just arrived.
In summary, the case is heard by the SCOTUS I think it will be a huge advantage to the Langbords, if they have all 9 justices.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
In general, I agree with Tomthecoinguy's view that 9 justices would help the Langbords. I also don't know whether the Court will agree to hear the case. I hope so. I googled the case and printed of the Petition for Cert brief. I haven't found the responsive brief (it doesn't appear to be on Pacer), but it will show up shortly. This is in my backyard, so if they hear it, I will attend, if I can get in.
Tom
Any comments on the post I made about Justice Thomas and civil asset forfeitures?
I think having a ninth member would be most beneficial at the petition stage. It would provide an extra justice to potentially put the case on the "discuss list" for the conference and may provide an extra vote for certiorari. I doubt that Gorsuch would be confirmed in time to participate in the case at the petition stage. As for a 4-4 or 5-4 split, I don't see this case as splitting among ideological lines.
So, back to a stupid question.
IF the coins were "missed" in a safety deposit box, how many "heirs" have they had, and how many people certified probate on on the disposition of estates that was incorrect because these were missed (how you can miss a something in a safety deposit box baffles me, but I digress) ?
Would there be retroactive estate taxes, with punishing interest that could be more than the value of the coins? If the estate tax, set at 70% from 1935 to 1981 were applied, times how ever many estates they went through, with retroactive penalties and interest, the tax, interest and penalties would far exceed the value of the coins.
I unfortunately went through something like that, in that a large brokerage firm, while consolidating various accounts for my father, incorrectly assigned a post tax account as a 401K account. My father did not notice this, as it was buried away in a lot of transactions. The money was moved to a different brokerage firm later. While sorting out my father's estate, I found the error, but the original company is no more. The penalties for having post tax money in a pre tax account accumulate year by year, and turned out to be cheaper just to have my mom "repay" the tax, as her net tax rate is rather low. and not ruffle the feathers of the IRS.
There is a general 3-year statute of limitation on all federal tax returns, including those for estate tax returns. If items are missing and it is 25% or more of the gross value, then a 6-year statute of limitations would apply absent fraud or willful tax evasion (in which case the statute of limitations is no bar to a government action). Whether the government would try to concoct some sort of equitable tolling principle in the absence of fraud or evasion, I don't know.
Does CAFRA apply to events that were in play BEFORE it was enacted or is it a from now on situation?
The biggest hurdle is the other 7. He had that opinion and the case was not heard with a one line reason.
After that, he may not view the Langbords as patently innocent.
I think, in a tie for 2nd, is the property taken isn't simple cash or a car. This is a tractor everyone knows the government had first and the family had next. There is a question if ownership passed. In the cases questioned typically the seized property isn't sought because it is presented as stolen government property in the hands of the descendants who it is said to stole it.
Plus, this tractor is actually 10 smithsonian level gold coins. they could be viewed as historically important national treasures.
I think he is poking the populace to challenge a seized bank account or car or non-government owned tractor based on Constitutional grounds.
Should it be heard, he may be an ally should he question the theft claim and if he feels it is one of those civil vs. criminal issues mentioned in the article.
the seizure took place much after CAFRA was enacted.
I thought that article seemed exactly on-point to me Tom.
It's past the 8th. Did the government meet their deadline? (What happens if they don't?)
http://www.shieldnickels.net
ModCrewman has a link above
I think this shows that civil forfeiture is an area of concern for Justice Thomas, while the Langbord case is a different angle on the issue, I can see Thomas encouraging them to hear the case.
Also, did anyone notice that the Langbord petition was listed as the "Petition of the day" over at the SCOTUSblog on February 7th?
scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/langbord-v-department-treasury/
This means that they are going to be following the progress of that petition. While they follow many more petitions than actually get heard, it seems a good sign that they saw this case as one with an above average chance of being taken up by the court.
-Tom
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
So when is the next step? Is it weeks or months away? Cheers, RickO
Very interesting!
But the very same coins [1933 DEs] were subject to seizure BEFORE CAFRA was enacted.
laughably sad:
4. Before the Mint could distribute the 1933 Double Eagles, however, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt forbade U.S. banks from paying out gold. Id. at 4-5.1 The Mint sent two of the unissued 1933 Double Eagles to the Smithsonian Institution. Id. at 5. Government records demonstrate that the Mint did not issue, release, or otherwise transfer any other 1933 Double Eagles. Id. at 91-105. Instead, the Mint carried out President Roosevelt’s mandate by melting the Double Eagles that remained in its possession. Id. at 5. 5. Some 1933 Double Eagles were stolen from the Mint before they could be melted, however, and the United States has attempted to recover each one once the government has located it. : The government had mistakenly granted an export license for that Double Eagle in the 1940s, before it discovered that the gold piece was stolen.again
they don't know how many their government records demonstrate were stolen.
I hope you are right that Thomas is pushing this. It is also interesting that SCOTUS Blog only covered the case after it was first distributed for conference and a response was requested. It looks like SCOTUS Blog interprets the request for a response as significant.
The next step is we are drafting a short response to the government's papers, will be filed in less than two weeks...
As to the question about how can you miss something in a safe deposit box, the answer is this wasn't a traditional safe deposit box. It is one of I believe only four in the bank. It is about a foot in width and height and over two feet deep, really closer to a small vault. The box contained among other things a number of my grandmother's possessions, including her jewelry and various family papers. And, to make things worse, virtually everything in the box was in a cardboard box or a paper or plastic bag. Unless you took everything out and opened everything up you would have no idea whatsoever what was in the box.
And in the government response they say it had to be drilled open
let me write a book and wait 20 years
that's wholly reliable.
isn't what they did effectively a nonjudicial forfeiture?
good cause. ha! "won't don't think it applies, everyone else in the government does, and the district court allowed us a do over because we just thought it didn't apply."
I guess that """"good cause"""" could be used repeatedly for every seizure action.
We're not gonna take your coins...but we're not giving them back. Lol
squirreled
sufficient evidence.
this is right up Justice Thomas' alley
Arguably no. It hinges on the definition of what it means to forfeit something. You cannot legally or logically forfeit something for which you never had a possessory interest in or title to; title does not pass if the coins were stolen. We can argue all day about whether the coins were stolen or not. In the legal system, the only "facts" that matter are the "facts" found by the jury and the federal district court. This judicial fact-finding is only overturned in very rare cases if it is clearly erroneous. I wish this case had ended differently, but in my mind, the kiss of death was the erroneous jury verdict which federal judges are hesitant to throw out.
P.S. I hope SCOTUS disagrees with my interpretation of the law and grants cert, reversing by summary judgment.
Question: if the Government can parse words and get around forfeiture by utilizing that argument, then why did Congress include the term stolen property under the types of items applying to Cafra? It seems to me that the clear intent of the law trumphs any word weaseling.
If the Government can parse words and get around forfeiture by utilizing that argument, then the CAFRA law applies only when the Government wants it to apply, which makes the CAFRA law basically worthless in terms of protecting citizens against Government seizures. Which is basically what Justice Rendell said in her dissent to the last ruling by the Court.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I will need to look back at the statutory language and will try to do so later tonight, but what portion of the act are you looking at specifically? Forfeiture law is very broad and is meant to cover several different scenarios.
If you do a close read of the government's Supreme Court papers, they totally avoid the undisputed facts at the heart of this case--they acted unconstitutionally. And what was the consequence of that action? Effectively, nothing. No penalty, of any kind. They basically get to start over as if they did nothing wrong. In fact, at trial the Judge ruled that the Jury could not even hear about the government's misconduct.
"In fact, at trial the Judge ruled that the Jury could not even hear about the government's misconduct."
That is intriguing... was there any written logic behind that ruling? Taken as written, it seems very arbitrary... as well as biased. I would think that also could be a point in the plaintiffs favor... obviously, I am not a lawyer, and what appears to be common sense often is not in the legal world. Cheers, RickO
It does seem unfair since they did allow prejudicial stuff about Izzy allegedly violating Roosevelt's gold order into evidence if I recall correctly.
OK. we're talking blanks now.
There are lots of blanks out there. There are those of us that say once it is minted or struck it is fair game. Are blanks minted?
And the gub'mint says that they must monetize their issues. Then the blanks would generally be monetized now that they have been issued, right? A dime blank is valid and monetized 10 cents to them?
The case has now been scheduled for consideration at the Supreme Court Conference on April 13th.
Great news.... Look forward to this....Is this a public activity? Or closed and we have to wait for information?
Cheers, RickO
Closed. The court usually posts the order list the Monday following the conference.
Great news!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Because I don't know...is "conference" where they decide to consider the case or where they consider the case?
Conference is where the Justices decide whether or not to hear a case. It is private.
Monetization is a process and not a specific step. Once the coiner delivers the coins to the cashier/Fed or whoever is empowered to receive them, then the monetization is completed because they are now officially money. it's not rocket science.
Back in those days that would usually occur after assay and other quality control results were delivered to the coiner.
Both. The judges vote on whether to grant petitions, and for cases that have already reached the merits stage (i.e. been granted, briefed, and argued orally before the court) they take a preliminary vote and assign a justice to write the opinion of the court.
Outside of nonsense pieces which we all agree are trials of design, metal, etc. I am of the belief that when they are making coins it is that act that makes them spendable money. I believe the gub'mint invented monetization to justify action.
The question can be rephrased as: would the gub'mint hold to their monetization rule for blanks? If asked, would they be resolute and absolute in defending a dime blank as monetized 10 cents?
On our end, it has been said that once minted it becomes money. We wouldn't worry about blanks being gub'mint property, however would blanks be money? Legally issued, thus privately held is legal?
They were issued no doubt, as they can be found in the wild. They are legal to own. Money? They weren't fully minted. So, not money yet legally owned is it. So, I guess a coin it is not. However, a coin is money because it was run through the press.
See the conundrum? To the gub'mint, it's not rocket science. Once delivered it is monetized. Under that definition a blank is money... a coin.
hmmmmm...
Except that the coins weren't delivered. The coins passed muster for assay on a Friday I believe, but IIRC the info was mailed to the coiner and before the coiner received it, the order to stop issuing gold was given/went into effect. So as far as I can tell, the coins were never moved far enough along in the production process to become money.
The order for example did not initially ban gold for gold exchanges. Plus, the Mint in that period never behaved that formally. One of the great contradictions of David Tripp's writing is how on the one hand he talks about how the Mint was run by the "Four Horsemen" however they wanted and on the other relies on a strict compliance with formal processes to make the claim that 1933 Double Eagles could only have left the Mint by an act of theft. It is similar to his concept of "orphan documents" (documents that contradict his theory should be ignored) or his description of my grandfather who in one chapter is a "red headed sucker" and in the next is a mastermind outfoxing the Secret Service. It really shouldn't be a surprise though, David Tripp was not formally trained as a historian; most if not all of his income for many years during the course of this litigation came from the government; and his other most visible job seemed to be drawing "Sadie" a cartoon that ran in the back of "Cat Fancy" magazine.