So I guess we all will wait patiently for Monday, April 17th when the court should announce whether or not they have agreed to take this case. I do hope they do but, let's face it, the odds are not favorable. Good luck to the Langbords. Steve
It surprises me that the ANA and other coin groups didn't care enough to file an amicus brief. Although the facts vary from coin to coin, this does have logical applications to several other coins.
I have been wondering how this case was going. Looks like there might be an end in sight, just hope it works out for the Langbords. Unlawful seizure should default to defendant. Inability to prove stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt should default to the defendant. The government sure spent a lot of time and money on an 80 year old case when they don't even have any firsthand employee/witnesses available to testify to the "possible" missing property.
And I never did agree with the "evidence" cruising around the country for public "show and tell" while the case was pending. Just unprofessional and I would think a violation of evidence handling procedure.
Now that there will be a new Justice sitting in on the conference, do you think that this will help or hurt the chances of the appeal being heard?
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.
@Julian said:
Now that there will be a new Justice sitting in on the conference, do you think that this will help or hurt the chances of the appeal being heard?
Ms. Morrisone: 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.
This is not accurate. Moreover, this thread is drifting far from the primary points, which are important in regard to a great many pre-1934 numismatic items, not just 1933 double eagles.
(A) There is no evidence that any 1933 double eagles were stolen.
(B) It may be true that a clerk made an accounting error or forgot to enter some information that should have been entered. This does not mean that anything was stolen.
Not long ago, I mistakenly bought a particular pair of sweat pants from a store. When I came to exchange my pair for another pair, the woman in charge of the customer service department recognized me and did not wait for me to explain why I wished to make an exchange. She just said, "do you want to exchange those?", and I said "yes." She told me to "go grab another pair." I responded, "do I have to show you the pair I take"? She said, "no, do not worry about it. I am busy tonight, just take them and go." Minutes later, it became evident that she had no interest in even glancing at the replacement pair that I grabbed off the rack, per her instructions. Should she have done paperwork to indicate the nature of the pair that was returned and the inventory number of the pair that served as a replacement? I do not know. Suppose it was part of her job to do such paperwork and she refused to do it? So what, she was in charge of customer service. I made a like-for-like exchange, and nothing was stolen!
(C) I, QDB and others have repeatedly stated, it was the policy of the Philadelphia Mint, for many decades, probably since the 1790s, to allow anyone to trade old coins for new coins, at face value. Furthermore, records of such coin-for-coin trades were often not kept or did not survive. Those involved probably honestly believed that there was no legal requirement to keep such records. It is sort of like trading three old rolls for three rolls of new Lincoln Cents at a bank; it is unlikely that the teller will ask for ID from a known customer. When I was a kid, no teller insisted upon a form being filled out to trade rolls of pennies. There was no paperwork, as far as I knew. Would someone seriously think that rolls of Lincoln Cents were -stolen- if a record is not kept by a bank cashier of trades of Lincoln Cent rolls by a frequent visitor to the respective bank branch?
(D) QDB has made clear that anyone could have walked into the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 and traded old double eagles for 1933 double eagles. My research suggests that it would have been legal to do so during the first week or two of April as well.
(E) David Tripp mentions in his book that people traded for 1933 tens (single eagles), presumably an old eagle or $10 in change for a new 1933. He provided an example of a tourist who did so.
(F) It is logical to conclude that a tourist would be far more likely to ask for a receipt then a collector or a dealer. A non-collecting tourist may know that he would probably spend the 1933 ten (single eagle) at some point, and then the receipt could serve as a souvenir of his trip to the Philadelphia Mint. A collector or a dealer would be focused on the coin and would not feel a need to have a receipt as a souvenir and would typically not ask for one. After all, we are talking about obtaining new coins at FACE VALUE.
(G) Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced in the sense that the total number of double eagles was as it should have been, thus old double eagles were traded for new double eagles. In my view, such trades of old coins for new coins were considered to be legal and ethical by coin collectors and mint employees, probably since the 1790s!
(H) A numismatic item may legally leave the Philadelphia Mint, regardless of whether it is technically a coin in some monetary sense. Patterns, including the Ultra High Relief Saints in the Charles Barber estate, come to mind. Whether they are coins or not, it is extremely likely that all surviving 1933 double eagles legally left the mint. While it is possible that there could have been misconduct regarding accounting, I am unaware of evidence of any thefts of 1933 double eagles.
(I) There are no clear records in cashier's ledgers for "1834" Proof coins (including Class One 1804 dollars), 1841 quarter eagles, 1849-O quarters (as Captain Henway has mentioned) or 1870-S silver dollars, among many other items. It is clear enough that these are considered to be legitimate items, as are the 1931 and 1932 double eagles that Switt sold as well.
I apologize for the long post. The trend of this discussion, however, has lead me to believe that here is a strong need to re-state the issues of interest to coin collectors, which have implications far beyond the fate of any 1933 double eagles.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
@Analyst said:
I apologize for the long post. The trend of this discussion, however, has lead me to believe that here is a strong need to re-state the issues of interest to coin collectors, which have implications far beyond the fate of any 1933 double eagles.
In all honesty, my reading of the state of the case is that the numismatic issues have already either been decided or ignored, (depending on your POV). What's left is legal interpretations.
Numismatic opinions are a whole lot less applicable than Legal ones right now.
@Julian said:
Now that there will be a new Justice sitting in on the conference, do you think that this will help or hurt the chances of the appeal being heard?
Julian,
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but from what I understand of Justice Gorsuch, he is a fairly strict interpreter of the law. As such, I think it is helpful (or hopeful?) that SCOTUS will interpret that the government has violated CAFRA and a plain reading of the intent behind the seizure laws.
@Julian said:
Now that there will be a new Justice sitting in on the conference, do you think that this will help or hurt the chances of the appeal being heard?
I don't think it will hurt.
I agree with you. My understanding of the way the SCOTUS works, they need 4 votes to hear a case. Since they don't seem to change the threshold when a justice is missing, a missing justice is essentially like an automatic "No" vote to hearing any case. So it seems Gorsuch being at the April 17th Conference can only help the chances of the Langbords case being heard.
I also agree that having a strict constructionists on the court will only help the Langbords.
@rhl said:
The case has now been scheduled for consideration at the Supreme Court Conference on April 13th.
@Steve said:
So I guess we all will wait patiently for Monday, April 17th when the court should announce whether or not they have agreed to take this case. I do hope they do but, let's face it, the odds are not favorable. Good luck to the Langbords. Steve
Tomorrow is the "conference day" and the decision to hear or not to hear the Langbord appeal will involve all NINE supreme court justices. We should all know by next Monday (or sooner if Mr. Langbord chooses to post here before then) Good Luck! Steve
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.
TommyType: In all honesty, my reading of the state of the case is that the numismatic issues have already either been decided or ignored, depending on your [point of view]. What's left is legal interpretations. ... Numismatic opinions are a whole lot less applicable than Legal ones right now.
I am not sure that all pertinent issues were either "decided or ignored"! My understanding is that the trial judge refused to allow Burdette to mention coin-for-coin trades at the Philadelphia Mint with collectors, dealers and tourists; these were then considered permissible, ethical and legal by those involved. Moreover, such coin-for-coin trades had been going on for decades, possibly since 1793! Numismatic and legal issues are intertwined and it is possible that the jury did not hear about central concepts.
Agreed, that the case has evolved in such a way so that CAFRA issues are now paramount:
From the Switt-Langboard appeal to the U.S Supreme Court: Whether, when the government seizes property from private citizens in this case illegally in violation of their constitutional rights, and intends to retain it indefinitely, it can avoid the procedures, deadlines and penalties set forth in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) by merely asserting that the property was stolen from the government and declaring that it has no intention of seeking forfeiture?
This is a legal issue that has tremendous implications for coin collectors and numismatics in general. If the Supreme Court sides with the Treasury+Justice Departments position or refuses to hear the case, then it will be legal for the Treasury Department to ignore seizure laws (and thus be above the law) and seize any U.S. coins or patterns that the Treasury Department asserts have been 'stolen' from the Treasury Department.
Obviously, it would then be legal for them to take all 1913 Liberty Nickels, without presenting evidence or detailed reasons. Moreover, they could 'legally' seize thousands of items in PCGS holders, including, but not limited to, all 1870-S silver dollars, all 1849-O quarters, all 1841 quarter eagles, and most UHR Saints. Of course, I am not saying that the government would then seize all these items. The fact that such seizures would be 'legal,' given the horrid decisions by the district and appeals court judges, is alarming and indicates a whittling of constitutional rights.
If there is significant interest (3 old justices), the case will probably be rescheduled for a new conference. I doubt Gorsuch had time to review cert pool memos for today's conference.
@rhl said:
No orders issued today. Should be Monday.
Thank you again Mr. Langbord for keeping us here all advised.
I, and many others here hope that the decision on Monday is positive for you and your family and that after over a decade of conflict with the Government your case will finally be settled by the United States Supreme Court and the 10 1933 double eagles will be returned to you.
Just read a Bloomberg article it said Gorsuch did not participate in Thursday's conference. I presume this means he did not vote on the Langbord petition. He wanted to spend the time getting ready for oral arguments this week.
I just saw the report that the Supreme Court denied the Langbords' Petition.
Very unfortunate news, for the Langbord family, for the hobby and for the residents of the USA. The evolution of society towards one where government at all levels expands/predominates and the freedoms/liberties of the governed shrinks goes on.
Hang on to your property as much as you can and do not use same in a manner that will increase the chances that it will be noticed and taken from you simply because a faceless, nameless person decides that your are not entitled to it.
Kudos to and much admiration/respect for the Langbord family and their attorneys in taking the actions that they did.
"""Hang on to your property as much as you can and do not use same in a manner that will increase the chances that it will be noticed and taken from you simply because a faceless, nameless person decides that your are not entitled to it."""
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 is a sad time for our hobby BUT we must look to the future. I honestly didn't expect a favorable answer here, but I did HOPE. We must all hope that the right results will prevail in the end. Steve
The Langbords should have won at the federal district court based on the facts of the case, but not because of CAFRA. CAFRA has nothing to do with it as this was a seizure but not a forfeiture case. CAFRA is alive and well.
@MsMorrisine said:
Would love to read what the SCOTUS wrote.
I hope it is more than 1 line, and I hope there is something else written like Justice Thomas has done before.
There were no written dissenting opinions from the denial of certiorari and such writings are not common. Most cases are summarily denied in one-line orders without an explanation of the justices' reasoning. The fact that it was denied without Gorsuch suggests that fewer than 3 justices voted to grant the petition. If 3 had voted to grant, it most likely would have been carried over to the next conference (as other cases were this week) for participation by Gorsuch.
The Langbords should have won at the federal district court based on the facts of the case, but not because of CAFRA. CAFRA has nothing to do with it as this was a seizure but not a forfeiture case. CAFRA is alive and well.
Not if the government can say "The rules do not apply to us."
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.
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.
Comments
Great news! Good luck.
So I guess we all will wait patiently for Monday, April 17th when the court should announce whether or not they have agreed to take this case. I do hope they do but, let's face it, the odds are not favorable. Good luck to the Langbords. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
It surprises me that the ANA and other coin groups didn't care enough to file an amicus brief. Although the facts vary from coin to coin, this does have logical applications to several other coins.
Is it too late for ANA members to press for an amicus brief?
Hope justice is served, but government is always biased towards, well government........
I doubt it could arrive in time to be circulated before SCOTUS rules on the petition.
I have been wondering how this case was going. Looks like there might be an end in sight, just hope it works out for the Langbords. Unlawful seizure should default to defendant. Inability to prove stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt should default to the defendant. The government sure spent a lot of time and money on an 80 year old case when they don't even have any firsthand employee/witnesses available to testify to the "possible" missing property.
And I never did agree with the "evidence" cruising around the country for public "show and tell" while the case was pending. Just unprofessional and I would think a violation of evidence handling procedure.
Now that there will be a new Justice sitting in on the conference, do you think that this will help or hurt the chances of the appeal being heard?
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 don't think it will hurt.
Ms. Morrisone:
This is not accurate. Moreover, this thread is drifting far from the primary points, which are important in regard to a great many pre-1934 numismatic items, not just 1933 double eagles.
(A) There is no evidence that any 1933 double eagles were stolen.
(B) It may be true that a clerk made an accounting error or forgot to enter some information that should have been entered. This does not mean that anything was stolen.
Not long ago, I mistakenly bought a particular pair of sweat pants from a store. When I came to exchange my pair for another pair, the woman in charge of the customer service department recognized me and did not wait for me to explain why I wished to make an exchange. She just said, "do you want to exchange those?", and I said "yes." She told me to "go grab another pair." I responded, "do I have to show you the pair I take"? She said, "no, do not worry about it. I am busy tonight, just take them and go." Minutes later, it became evident that she had no interest in even glancing at the replacement pair that I grabbed off the rack, per her instructions. Should she have done paperwork to indicate the nature of the pair that was returned and the inventory number of the pair that served as a replacement? I do not know. Suppose it was part of her job to do such paperwork and she refused to do it? So what, she was in charge of customer service. I made a like-for-like exchange, and nothing was stolen!
(C) I, QDB and others have repeatedly stated, it was the policy of the Philadelphia Mint, for many decades, probably since the 1790s, to allow anyone to trade old coins for new coins, at face value. Furthermore, records of such coin-for-coin trades were often not kept or did not survive. Those involved probably honestly believed that there was no legal requirement to keep such records. It is sort of like trading three old rolls for three rolls of new Lincoln Cents at a bank; it is unlikely that the teller will ask for ID from a known customer. When I was a kid, no teller insisted upon a form being filled out to trade rolls of pennies. There was no paperwork, as far as I knew. Would someone seriously think that rolls of Lincoln Cents were -stolen- if a record is not kept by a bank cashier of trades of Lincoln Cent rolls by a frequent visitor to the respective bank branch?
(D) QDB has made clear that anyone could have walked into the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 and traded old double eagles for 1933 double eagles. My research suggests that it would have been legal to do so during the first week or two of April as well.
(E) David Tripp mentions in his book that people traded for 1933 tens (single eagles), presumably an old eagle or $10 in change for a new 1933. He provided an example of a tourist who did so.
(F) It is logical to conclude that a tourist would be far more likely to ask for a receipt then a collector or a dealer. A non-collecting tourist may know that he would probably spend the 1933 ten (single eagle) at some point, and then the receipt could serve as a souvenir of his trip to the Philadelphia Mint. A collector or a dealer would be focused on the coin and would not feel a need to have a receipt as a souvenir and would typically not ask for one. After all, we are talking about obtaining new coins at FACE VALUE.
(G) Tripp acknowledges that the books balanced in the sense that the total number of double eagles was as it should have been, thus old double eagles were traded for new double eagles. In my view, such trades of old coins for new coins were considered to be legal and ethical by coin collectors and mint employees, probably since the 1790s!
(H) A numismatic item may legally leave the Philadelphia Mint, regardless of whether it is technically a coin in some monetary sense. Patterns, including the Ultra High Relief Saints in the Charles Barber estate, come to mind. Whether they are coins or not, it is extremely likely that all surviving 1933 double eagles legally left the mint. While it is possible that there could have been misconduct regarding accounting, I am unaware of evidence of any thefts of 1933 double eagles.
(I) There are no clear records in cashier's ledgers for "1834" Proof coins (including Class One 1804 dollars), 1841 quarter eagles, 1849-O quarters (as Captain Henway has mentioned) or 1870-S silver dollars, among many other items. It is clear enough that these are considered to be legitimate items, as are the 1931 and 1932 double eagles that Switt sold as well.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
Insightful10@gmail.com
I apologize for the long post. The trend of this discussion, however, has lead me to believe that here is a strong need to re-state the issues of interest to coin collectors, which have implications far beyond the fate of any 1933 double eagles.
In all honesty, my reading of the state of the case is that the numismatic issues have already either been decided or ignored, (depending on your POV). What's left is legal interpretations.
Numismatic opinions are a whole lot less applicable than Legal ones right now.
People hate facts and documents once their minds are made up.
Julian,
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but from what I understand of Justice Gorsuch, he is a fairly strict interpreter of the law. As such, I think it is helpful (or hopeful?) that SCOTUS will interpret that the government has violated CAFRA and a plain reading of the intent behind the seizure laws.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I agree with you. My understanding of the way the SCOTUS works, they need 4 votes to hear a case. Since they don't seem to change the threshold when a justice is missing, a missing justice is essentially like an automatic "No" vote to hearing any case. So it seems Gorsuch being at the April 17th Conference can only help the chances of the Langbords case being heard.
I also agree that having a strict constructionists on the court will only help the Langbords.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Tomorrow is the "conference day" and the decision to hear or not to hear the Langbord appeal will involve all NINE supreme court justices. We should all know by next Monday (or sooner if Mr. Langbord chooses to post here before then) Good Luck! Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I will post something as soon as we know.
Good luck!
+1,000
TommyType:
I am not sure that all pertinent issues were either "decided or ignored"! My understanding is that the trial judge refused to allow Burdette to mention coin-for-coin trades at the Philadelphia Mint with collectors, dealers and tourists; these were then considered permissible, ethical and legal by those involved. Moreover, such coin-for-coin trades had been going on for decades, possibly since 1793! Numismatic and legal issues are intertwined and it is possible that the jury did not hear about central concepts.
Agreed, that the case has evolved in such a way so that CAFRA issues are now paramount:
From the Switt-Langboard appeal to the U.S Supreme Court:
This is a legal issue that has tremendous implications for coin collectors and numismatics in general. If the Supreme Court sides with the Treasury+Justice Departments position or refuses to hear the case, then it will be legal for the Treasury Department to ignore seizure laws (and thus be above the law) and seize any U.S. coins or patterns that the Treasury Department asserts have been 'stolen' from the Treasury Department.
Obviously, it would then be legal for them to take all 1913 Liberty Nickels, without presenting evidence or detailed reasons. Moreover, they could 'legally' seize thousands of items in PCGS holders, including, but not limited to, all 1870-S silver dollars, all 1849-O quarters, all 1841 quarter eagles, and most UHR Saints. Of course, I am not saying that the government would then seize all these items. The fact that such seizures would be 'legal,' given the horrid decisions by the district and appeals court judges, is alarming and indicates a whittling of constitutional rights.
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
Insightful10@gmail.com
I don't wish you luck. I wish you the justice that is required in this case.
If there is significant interest (3 old justices), the case will probably be rescheduled for a new conference. I doubt Gorsuch had time to review cert pool memos for today's conference.
As of Thursday, no order issued. We are likely to hear something either Friday or Monday.
Good luck!
Best of luck with this hearing... I certainly hope for a solid win.... Cheers, RickO
No orders issued today. Should be Monday.
Thank you again Mr. Langbord for keeping us here all advised.
I, and many others here hope that the decision on Monday is positive for you and your family and that after over a decade of conflict with the Government your case will finally be settled by the United States Supreme Court and the 10 1933 double eagles will be returned to you.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Just read a Bloomberg article it said Gorsuch did not participate in Thursday's conference. I presume this means he did not vote on the Langbord petition. He wanted to spend the time getting ready for oral arguments this week.
https://bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-17/ready-or-not-gorsuch-to-take-high-court-bench-a-week-after-oath
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
From the Supreme Court's website:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-612.htm
Apr 17 2017 Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Somewhere, King Farouk is laughing.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
I just saw the report that the Supreme Court denied the Langbords' Petition.
Very unfortunate news, for the Langbord family, for the hobby and for the residents of the USA. The evolution of society towards one where government at all levels expands/predominates and the freedoms/liberties of the governed shrinks goes on.
Hang on to your property as much as you can and do not use same in a manner that will increase the chances that it will be noticed and taken from you simply because a faceless, nameless person decides that your are not entitled to it.
Kudos to and much admiration/respect for the Langbord family and their attorneys in taking the actions that they did.
"""Hang on to your property as much as you can and do not use same in a manner that will increase the chances that it will be noticed and taken from you simply because a faceless, nameless person decides that your are not entitled to it."""
So no more posting of newps?
Very sad state of affairs! I would say more, but I don't want to be banned again.
Wrong and incorrect on so many points.
A dark day for the hobby.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
CAFRA is dead.
Get their gold, guns, and ground. Then you got them by their orbs.
CAFRA is dead.
Would love to read what the SCOTUS wrote.
I hope it is more than 1 line, and I hope there is something else written like Justice Thomas has done before.
This is a sad time for our hobby BUT we must look to the future. I honestly didn't expect a favorable answer here, but I did HOPE. We must all hope that the right results will prevail in the end. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The Langbords should have won at the federal district court based on the facts of the case, but not because of CAFRA. CAFRA has nothing to do with it as this was a seizure but not a forfeiture case. CAFRA is alive and well.
There were no written dissenting opinions from the denial of certiorari and such writings are not common. Most cases are summarily denied in one-line orders without an explanation of the justices' reasoning. The fact that it was denied without Gorsuch suggests that fewer than 3 justices voted to grant the petition. If 3 had voted to grant, it most likely would have been carried over to the next conference (as other cases were this week) for participation by Gorsuch.
Not if the government can say "The rules do not apply to us."
VERY DISAPPOINTED
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 am very disappointed in this decision - and the entire case. Cheers, RickO