@roadrunner said:
Doesn't the official confiscation of the 1933's now make things one step closer for the confiscation of other mint rarities/fantasy coins/patterns, etc?
For many coins, I think it depends on the circumstances on how they left the mint. If there are documented releases (1933 Eagle) or similar coins (Martha Washington pattern found in change), they seem to be left to collectors. What if the coins were found buried in a can like the Saddle Ridge board? Or what if the 1974-D aluminum cent was found in circulation as a government released error?
Not a trick. If Woodin obtained his legally (ie something the Landbord ruling has said was impossible for anyone, including Izzy), then maybe so did others. It's not like the Sect of the Treasury has to resort to illegal tactics to obtain their coins. Woodin got a pretty good deal back around 1910 when he traded/sold a pair of $50 gold half union patterns for cases of rare US patterns, including the set of 1872 gold Amazonians, $10/$5 Bickford and Sailor head gold patterns, etc. He apparently knew how to deal.
@keets said:
the coins should be melted as was the initial intended destination for them.
Please share any government documents that corroborate your statement. The coins were lawfully struck, so the government would have no rational reason to destroy them. There are several examples in the National Archives which would not exist if there was an Executive Order from any level of government to destroy them.
Weren't a few other confiscated examples melted?
I believe they were back in the 1940s. There is a legend or rumor that one owner thew his coin in ocean!
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Keets, the executive order allowed for the "holding of no more than $200 in aggregate" of U.S. gold coinage.
That means Izzy could have kept 10 of the 1933 DE's , and in conformity of law. Ten times $20 is $200 in aggregate. Does that make him a thief ? A liar ? A scoundrel ? The fact that other 1933 coins were attributed to him throughout time, to me, only confirms one thing. He had more than the $200 in aggregate. Perhaps he knew (interpreted law) he could hide away 20 ten dollar gold coins, or 200 one dollar gold coins , or ten of every dated $20 gold with the same dates on them.
It wasn't as if Roosevelt was demanding death to the hobby. On the contrary. The executive order allowed it to continue well on, until someone in government sparked an outrage over the news that "So and So" bought a 1933 Gold Double eagle in auction, ... and that monster's been alive since. That's when the government took the Draconian route.
My contention remains the same. He (Izzy) could have legally gotten a few out to "would-be" collectors and he was probably a " modern coin geek dealer ", except ... he's not here to tell me the rest of the story.
Do we beat the dealer down throughout history because that's the way we do it around here ?
The world went on, and collectors did, too. As much as you'd like to say justice is finally served, I would argue that the same verbiage you use toward me ( as libertarian who's jets are fired, lol.... ), is the same kind of verbiage used throughout history to label others, and maybe vilify them, so as to discredit sound theory.
I disagree with you, in that our justice system got this right. For the sake of diverting attention away from the facts let's bring up politics.
As to my jets, you should be grateful I got a fire burning. This hobby might otherwise be diminished sooner, if not for guys like you, me and countless others who hold it kind of sacred. And I think most of us would like to see those ( 1933 Double Eagles) go piece by piece to collectors through an auction process to see who might like them.
On that note, I just bought a Sara Polk gold spouse proof coin for $650 in the shop, today. I paid more than spot. Just think, I could have traded it in for a new spouse back in the old days.
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......
A few thoughts. First, as to the question of a possible settlement with the government, the answer was that at the very start there were discussions which is why at the Mint's request our coins were provided for the limited purpose of authentication. After they seized the coins the settlement issue was never raised by the government again. Second, for those of you who think this case is not going to change government behavior, do a search for news about NASA and a 70 year old widow and a moon rock fragment. Oh, and the Mint lawyer who was on our case is now at NASA. Third, I've been reading these threads from the beginnning and I've noticed a pattern whereby every few years some new "expert" with zero knowledge of law or history and who has not read any of the actual case filings or original documents pops up to trash my family. I would strongly urge anyone with that temptation to please think how they would feel being on the receiving end of such posts. And yes Mr Keets whoever you are I am currently referring to you. Fourth, for those who asked, the legal fees in this case were in the millions of dollars. Finally, I do not believe in conspiracy theories or that there are secret government plans to take away vast amounts of personal property or lock citizens up in detention camps. But I have experienced an unchecked government bureacracy and a court system that is biased toward the government and is way too cumbersome, complicated and costly to be successfully accessed by most people. Just sayin...
I'm for the idea that we keep history (Orbs of silver/gold/copper/platinum/zinc/ etc.,) in the hands of those who appreciate it; more than in the possession of those who would like to destroy the hobby and history, that they themselves created.
Quote:
I have experienced an unchecked government bureacracy and a court system that is biased toward the government and is way too cumbersome, complicated and costly to be successfully accessed by most people.
And yes Mr Keets whoever you are I am currently referring to you.
don't worry about it, I sleep fine and I don't believe in Fairy Tales. you can PM me if you really have something to say or you can come visit me if it really bugs you that much, I am accessible.
@cmerlo1 said:
I'm not a lawyer, and don't speak legalese. I may be way off base here, but I wonder if the government, with this as precedent, might decide it wants some 1913 Liberty nickels...
In stamps, "Farley's Follies" dealt with govt misconduct by printing millions more.
@Throwback1959 said:
Below is a link to an article from Law360, which is national legal publication and provides a legal summary from a non-collector's perspective.
Sorry. Was able to copy article as set forth below.
Justices Won't Hear Appeal Of $76M Rare Coin Seizure
Share us on: By Abraham Moussako
Law360, New York (April 17, 2017, 4:29 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear to an appeal from an en banc Third Circuit ruling that a set of rare gold coins valued at $76 million rightfully belonged to the government and not the heirs of an antique dealer accused of conspiring to smuggle them out of the U.S. Mint more than 70 years ago.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari to Joan Langbord and her two sons, heirs of antique dealer Israel Switt, who had asked the high court to take another look at a 9-3 en banc decision by the Third Circuit which upheld a jury verdict ruling the government had not failed to follow rules for seizing private property set out by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act when it took possession of the so-called Double Eagle gold coins minted in 1933.
The Third Circuit's en banc decision last August ruled that even though a jury trial over ownership of the coins had been marred by evidentiary issues, including the improper admission of testimony about the antique dealer's prior arrest and forfeiture, the outcome in favor of the government was fair because those evidentiary issues did not affect the trial's outcome.
The coins were initially discovered by the family in a safe-deposit box in 2002, according to court records, and the Langbords proposed to sell them at auction and split the proceeds with the government. While the Langbords made the coins available to the government for authentication, explicitly reserving their rights to them, court filings say the mint refused to return them on grounds that they were government property.
The dispute exploded into court in 2006 as the family accused the government of failing to follow rules for seizing private property set out by the CAFRA.
A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in July 2009 that the government wasn't obligated to file a formal forfeiture action within the 90-day windows provided by CAFRA following the family's claims to take back the coins.
A three-judge panel initially upset the ruling in April 2015, but the court agreed to hear the case en banc last July.
The en banc panel agreed with the judge's finding in its August 2016 ruling, saying that the CAFRA process was only warranted in instances where property was seized through a formal nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
In a March brief to the Supreme Court, which was previously posted on the website SCOTUSblog, the Langbords argued that the government was obligated to begin forfeiture proceedings when it was informed about the coins, as its initial conduct in seizing them was directly related to its law enforcement powers.
"The government was clearly acting as 'sovereign law enforcer' at the time it seized the coins and when it later decided not to follow CAFRA's dictates," the family argued. "The fact that, over four years later, after being found to have violated the Langbords' constitutional rights, the government belatedly came up with the idea of filing a declaratory judgment claim does not in any way change or erase the reality that it was acting as law enforcer in 2004 and 2005 when it took possession of and then unconstitutionally seized the coins."
The family had also argued, echoing the en banc Third Circuit dissent, that the precedent set by the appeals court would vastly expand federal authority to seize property.
"The government will be permitted to take, seize and retain property ... by merely asserting that it is the lawful owner and that the private citizen from whom it took the property has no legal title," the Langbords argued.
The government had countered in its own brief to the Supreme Court, also previously posted on the website SCOTUSblog, that the circuit court had correctly considered the government’s actions as not being a criminal forfeiture proceeding.
"A forfeiture proceeding transfers title based on a finding of criminal activity," the government argued. "But here, the government already held lawful title to the Double Eagles. Because petitioners had never obtained title in the stolen property, forfeiture proceedings were unnecessary for the government to 'assert its ownership rights to the coins.'"
A representative from the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. Counsel for the Langbords were not available for comment on Monday.
The Langbords are represented by Barry Berke and Eric A. Tirschwell of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury is represented by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall and attorneys Mark B. Stern, Sharon Swingle and Sarah Carroll.
The case is Roy Langbord et al. v. Department of the Treasury et al., case number 16-612, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
@Throwback1959 said:
Sorry. Was able to copy article as set forth below.
Justices Won't Hear Appeal Of $76M Rare Coin Seizure
Share us on: By Abraham Moussako
Law360, New York (April 17, 2017, 4:29 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear to an appeal from an en banc Third Circuit ruling that a set of rare gold coins valued at $76 million rightfully belonged to the government and not the heirs of an antique dealer accused of conspiring to smuggle them out of the U.S. Mint more than 70 years ago.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari to Joan Langbord and her two sons, heirs of antique dealer Israel Switt, who had asked the high court to take another look at a 9-3 en banc decision by the Third Circuit which upheld a jury verdict ruling the government had not failed to follow rules for seizing private property set out by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act when it took possession of the so-called Double Eagle gold coins minted in 1933.
The Third Circuit's en banc decision last August ruled that even though a jury trial over ownership of the coins had been marred by evidentiary issues, including the improper admission of testimony about the antique dealer's prior arrest and forfeiture, the outcome in favor of the government was fair because those evidentiary issues did not affect the trial's outcome.
The coins were initially discovered by the family in a safe-deposit box in 2002, according to court records, and the Langbords proposed to sell them at auction and split the proceeds with the government. While the Langbords made the coins available to the government for authentication, explicitly reserving their rights to them, court filings say the mint refused to return them on grounds that they were government property.
The dispute exploded into court in 2006 as the family accused the government of failing to follow rules for seizing private property set out by the CAFRA.
A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in July 2009 that the government wasn't obligated to file a formal forfeiture action within the 90-day windows provided by CAFRA following the family's claims to take back the coins.
A three-judge panel initially upset the ruling in April 2015, but the court agreed to hear the case en banc last July.
The en banc panel agreed with the judge's finding in its August 2016 ruling, saying that the CAFRA process was only warranted in instances where property was seized through a formal nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
In a March brief to the Supreme Court, which was previously posted on the website SCOTUSblog, the Langbords argued that the government was obligated to begin forfeiture proceedings when it was informed about the coins, as its initial conduct in seizing them was directly related to its law enforcement powers.
"The government was clearly acting as 'sovereign law enforcer' at the time it seized the coins and when it later decided not to follow CAFRA's dictates," the family argued. "The fact that, over four years later, after being found to have violated the Langbords' constitutional rights, the government belatedly came up with the idea of filing a declaratory judgment claim does not in any way change or erase the reality that it was acting as law enforcer in 2004 and 2005 when it took possession of and then unconstitutionally seized the coins."
The family had also argued, echoing the en banc Third Circuit dissent, that the precedent set by the appeals court would vastly expand federal authority to seize property.
"The government will be permitted to take, seize and retain property ... by merely asserting that it is the lawful owner and that the private citizen from whom it took the property has no legal title," the Langbords argued.
The government had countered in its own brief to the Supreme Court, also previously posted on the website SCOTUSblog, that the circuit court had correctly considered the government’s actions as not being a criminal forfeiture proceeding.
"A forfeiture proceeding transfers title based on a finding of criminal activity," the government argued. "But here, the government already held lawful title to the Double Eagles. Because petitioners had never obtained title in the stolen property, forfeiture proceedings were unnecessary for the government to 'assert its ownership rights to the coins.'"
A representative from the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. Counsel for the Langbords were not available for comment on Monday.
The Langbords are represented by Barry Berke and Eric A. Tirschwell of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury is represented by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall and attorneys Mark B. Stern, Sharon Swingle and Sarah Carroll.
The case is Roy Langbord et al. v. Department of the Treasury et al., case number 16-612, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Extending my sincerest condolences to the family, their representatives and to the good citizens of America and the good ol' U.S.A., in this fiasco. We all lose, without as much as a consideration for the whole truth, which apparently got lost, in the shuffle.
This is like eminent domain without the compensation.
In retrospect, the Langbords should have allowed the Mint to authenticate the coins only at a place of their choosing. Giving up possession of the coins was a GRAVE mistake.
@BAJJERFAN said:
In retrospect, the Langbords should have allowed the Mint to authenticate the coins only at a place of their choosing. Giving up possession of the coins was a GRAVE mistake.
I'm sure it was a tough call. Everyone KNEW a court fight was in the future....Just a question about how you start the process.
And in the end, I don't think it really mattered. The case was decided, (rightly or wrongly), completely independent of who actually had possession at the time of the hearings and proceedings.
Comments
For many coins, I think it depends on the circumstances on how they left the mint. If there are documented releases (1933 Eagle) or similar coins (Martha Washington pattern found in change), they seem to be left to collectors. What if the coins were found buried in a can like the Saddle Ridge board? Or what if the 1974-D aluminum cent was found in circulation as a government released error?
Supposedly, Secretary of the Treasury Woodin owned a specimen. How did he obtain it, as by definition, it couldn't have been illegally?
hey roadrunner, is that a trick question??
Not a trick. If Woodin obtained his legally (ie something the Landbord ruling has said was impossible for anyone, including Izzy), then maybe so did others. It's not like the Sect of the Treasury has to resort to illegal tactics to obtain their coins. Woodin got a pretty good deal back around 1910 when he traded/sold a pair of $50 gold half union patterns for cases of rare US patterns, including the set of 1872 gold Amazonians, $10/$5 Bickford and Sailor head gold patterns, etc. He apparently knew how to deal.
I believe they were back in the 1940s. There is a legend or rumor that one owner thew his coin in ocean!
I thought it was $100 per person but if the box was in his and his wife's name he would have been good to go.
Successful trades.... MichaelDixon,
Switt and the Langbords were crowbarred.
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......
A few thoughts. First, as to the question of a possible settlement with the government, the answer was that at the very start there were discussions which is why at the Mint's request our coins were provided for the limited purpose of authentication. After they seized the coins the settlement issue was never raised by the government again. Second, for those of you who think this case is not going to change government behavior, do a search for news about NASA and a 70 year old widow and a moon rock fragment. Oh, and the Mint lawyer who was on our case is now at NASA. Third, I've been reading these threads from the beginnning and I've noticed a pattern whereby every few years some new "expert" with zero knowledge of law or history and who has not read any of the actual case filings or original documents pops up to trash my family. I would strongly urge anyone with that temptation to please think how they would feel being on the receiving end of such posts. And yes Mr Keets whoever you are I am currently referring to you. Fourth, for those who asked, the legal fees in this case were in the millions of dollars. Finally, I do not believe in conspiracy theories or that there are secret government plans to take away vast amounts of personal property or lock citizens up in detention camps. But I have experienced an unchecked government bureacracy and a court system that is biased toward the government and is way too cumbersome, complicated and costly to be successfully accessed by most people. Just sayin...
So the coins were seized by the government by false pretense.
Confiscation is allowed, under martial law.
I'm for the idea that we keep history (Orbs of silver/gold/copper/platinum/zinc/ etc.,) in the hands of those who appreciate it; more than in the possession of those who would like to destroy the hobby and history, that they themselves created.
Quote:
I have experienced an unchecked government bureacracy and a court system that is biased toward the government and is way too cumbersome, complicated and costly to be successfully accessed by most people.
This
And yes Mr Keets whoever you are I am currently referring to you.
don't worry about it, I sleep fine and I don't believe in Fairy Tales. you can PM me if you really have something to say or you can come visit me if it really bugs you that much, I am accessible.
In stamps, "Farley's Follies" dealt with govt misconduct by printing millions more.
https://postalmuseum.si.edu/deliveringhope/exhibition_p2.html
Below is a link to an article from Law360, which is national legal publication and provides a legal summary from a non-collector's perspective.
https://www.law360.com/articles/914002/justices-won-t-hear-appeal-of-76m-rare-coin-seizure
Unfortunately, a pay site. I would have liked to see a dispassionate summary of the issues and opinions.
(But, not sure I have enough need for legal opinions to pursue it....or the stomach for the email traffic a free 7day preview would generate!!).
Sorry. Was able to copy article as set forth below.
Justices Won't Hear Appeal Of $76M Rare Coin Seizure
Share us on: By Abraham Moussako
Law360, New York (April 17, 2017, 4:29 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear to an appeal from an en banc Third Circuit ruling that a set of rare gold coins valued at $76 million rightfully belonged to the government and not the heirs of an antique dealer accused of conspiring to smuggle them out of the U.S. Mint more than 70 years ago.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari to Joan Langbord and her two sons, heirs of antique dealer Israel Switt, who had asked the high court to take another look at a 9-3 en banc decision by the Third Circuit which upheld a jury verdict ruling the government had not failed to follow rules for seizing private property set out by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act when it took possession of the so-called Double Eagle gold coins minted in 1933.
The Third Circuit's en banc decision last August ruled that even though a jury trial over ownership of the coins had been marred by evidentiary issues, including the improper admission of testimony about the antique dealer's prior arrest and forfeiture, the outcome in favor of the government was fair because those evidentiary issues did not affect the trial's outcome.
The coins were initially discovered by the family in a safe-deposit box in 2002, according to court records, and the Langbords proposed to sell them at auction and split the proceeds with the government. While the Langbords made the coins available to the government for authentication, explicitly reserving their rights to them, court filings say the mint refused to return them on grounds that they were government property.
The dispute exploded into court in 2006 as the family accused the government of failing to follow rules for seizing private property set out by the CAFRA.
A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in July 2009 that the government wasn't obligated to file a formal forfeiture action within the 90-day windows provided by CAFRA following the family's claims to take back the coins.
A three-judge panel initially upset the ruling in April 2015, but the court agreed to hear the case en banc last July.
The en banc panel agreed with the judge's finding in its August 2016 ruling, saying that the CAFRA process was only warranted in instances where property was seized through a formal nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding.
In a March brief to the Supreme Court, which was previously posted on the website SCOTUSblog, the Langbords argued that the government was obligated to begin forfeiture proceedings when it was informed about the coins, as its initial conduct in seizing them was directly related to its law enforcement powers.
"The government was clearly acting as 'sovereign law enforcer' at the time it seized the coins and when it later decided not to follow CAFRA's dictates," the family argued. "The fact that, over four years later, after being found to have violated the Langbords' constitutional rights, the government belatedly came up with the idea of filing a declaratory judgment claim does not in any way change or erase the reality that it was acting as law enforcer in 2004 and 2005 when it took possession of and then unconstitutionally seized the coins."
The family had also argued, echoing the en banc Third Circuit dissent, that the precedent set by the appeals court would vastly expand federal authority to seize property.
"The government will be permitted to take, seize and retain property ... by merely asserting that it is the lawful owner and that the private citizen from whom it took the property has no legal title," the Langbords argued.
The government had countered in its own brief to the Supreme Court, also previously posted on the website SCOTUSblog, that the circuit court had correctly considered the government’s actions as not being a criminal forfeiture proceeding.
"A forfeiture proceeding transfers title based on a finding of criminal activity," the government argued. "But here, the government already held lawful title to the Double Eagles. Because petitioners had never obtained title in the stolen property, forfeiture proceedings were unnecessary for the government to 'assert its ownership rights to the coins.'"
A representative from the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. Counsel for the Langbords were not available for comment on Monday.
The Langbords are represented by Barry Berke and Eric A. Tirschwell of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury is represented by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall and attorneys Mark B. Stern, Sharon Swingle and Sarah Carroll.
The case is Roy Langbord et al. v. Department of the Treasury et al., case number 16-612, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Extending my sincerest condolences to the family, their representatives and to the good citizens of America and the good ol' U.S.A., in this fiasco. We all lose, without as much as a consideration for the whole truth, which apparently got lost, in the shuffle.
This is like eminent domain without the compensation.
In retrospect, the Langbords should have allowed the Mint to authenticate the coins only at a place of their choosing. Giving up possession of the coins was a GRAVE mistake.
I'm sure it was a tough call. Everyone KNEW a court fight was in the future....Just a question about how you start the process.
And in the end, I don't think it really mattered. The case was decided, (rightly or wrongly), completely independent of who actually had possession at the time of the hearings and proceedings.
This is like eminent domain without the compensation.
it all comes down to perspective. I see it as goods returned to the rightful owner, but it isn't worth arguing about.