U.S. Mint Speaks on the 1933 Double Eagle - Video Available

Coinosaurus

Video of Greg Weinman (U.S. Mint Senior Counsel) speaking on the 1933 double eagle, from the recent Pennsylvania Association of Numismatists (PAN) show is posted on Newman Portal at https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/545751.

Zoins

Interesting that the case allows for the Langbords or Isreal Switt to be bona fide purchasers of the 1933 DEs.

ricko

It is only by twisted legalese that somehow the government justifies the confiscation and retention of the Langbord coins. Cheers, RickO

tradedollarnut

The government owes them 10 double eagles at a minimum...since none were missing

CoinPhysicist

Was a pretty interesting story.

Spoiler. I was waiting until the very end wondering the whole time why the 1913 liberty nickel was not illegal to own but the 1933 double eagle was, hoping someone would ask the question. Was glad it was at asked although the answer didn't seem the most concrete.

RichieURich

Interesting. The government didn't follow the law, which states that for asset forfeitures, a CAFRA form had to be filed within 90 days after the forfeiture. They didn't file it. When this came up in the trial, the trial judge allowed the government to file the form then, which was well over 4 years after the forfeiture. Since the government didn't follow the CAFRA law, they should have lost the case. Which is what the 3 judge panel on the appellate court said. The full appellate court came up with some legal mumbo-jumbo to support their conclusion that the government should win the case. Which is what happened when the Supreme Court declined to review the case. In the tape, the government's lawyer doesn't discuss the appellate court at all, nor the failure to file the CAFRA form.

amwldcoin

Yeap...We the people....the Liberal side. I will go to my grave urked by how the government stole from the Langfords.

@RichieURich said:
Interesting. The government didn't follow the law, which states that for asset forfeitures, a CAFRA form had to be filed within 90 days after the forfeiture. They didn't file it. When this came up in the trial, the trial judge allowed the government to file the form then, which was well over 4 years after the forfeiture. Since the government didn't follow the CAFRA law, they should have lost the case. Which is what the 3 judge panel on the appellate court said. The full appellate court came up with some legal mumbo-jumbo to support their conclusion that the government should win the case. Which is what happened when the Supreme Court declined to review the case. In the tape, the government's lawyer doesn't discuss the appellate court at all, nor the failure to file the CAFRA form.

tradedollarnut

@amwldcoin said:
Yeap...We the people....the Liberal side. I will go to my grave urked by how the government stole from the Langfords.

@RichieURich said:
Interesting. The government didn't follow the law, which states that for asset forfeitures, a CAFRA form had to be filed within 90 days after the forfeiture. They didn't file it. When this came up in the trial, the trial judge allowed the government to file the form then, which was well over 4 years after the forfeiture. Since the government didn't follow the CAFRA law, they should have lost the case. Which is what the 3 judge panel on the appellate court said. The full appellate court came up with some legal mumbo-jumbo to support their conclusion that the government should win the case. Which is what happened when the Supreme Court declined to review the case. In the tape, the government's lawyer doesn't discuss the appellate court at all, nor the failure to file the CAFRA form.

That’s an idiotic assertion. The judges appointed by Democratic Presidents voted for the Langbord’s

TwoSides2aCoin

Both sides of the G-force are wrong. Liberal or conservative. And not even ____ can fix the corrupt or the damned. Look at that damned Izzy, for instance. The history books made a thief out of him, without any evidence of a theft. So, is possession of stolen goods a crime ? If so, why are the Lanbords not being prosecuted for having been in possession of such ?

Barf bags for sale.

Timbuk3

Wow, interesting !!!

Boosibri

Which is more probable...that 10 Double Eagles were stolen from the mint yet the records balance and do not confirm a theft or that they were legitimately released and documented under a different date. My money is on the latter.

Desert Moon

No way I could look at that video and see a biased view that has no reality on the truth.

Best, SH

Unknown

This content has been removed.

EagleEye

The key for me in all this is the answer to the question "Was $500 (25 Double Eagles) stolen from the mint?"

Because if it wasn't then nothing was stolen. There is no difference between a 1932 Double Eagle and a 1933 in the accounting. It is only 10 years after the swap, in 1944, that the coins were determined to be a rare date and the property of the Government. This decision was based on the date on the coin and not the face value.

Justacommeman

@afford said:
I still cannot figure out which side is right.
Obviously a coin collectors forum is going to side with the collector/dealer and against the gov't seizing the coins, that is a no brainer.
But removing any and all bias I see it as both sides being wrong. The gov't is a bully, that is a given, they make their own rules and we are forced to deal with the aftermath. But was Mr Switt as innocent as many see claim. We I am biased against many dealers, so many shysters are out there and my spider senses tell me Mr Switt very well could have been another.

We know for certain that the Gov was the bully

We don’t know for certain that Swift did anything wrong

That is the difference and it’s a big one.

m

Coinosaurus

I still don't get why the 1913 Liberty nickels aren't on the radar. No record of their manufacture, and they first appear in the hands of someone who was fired from the Mint for cause.

Or 1804 dollars for that matter - they do not bear the correct year of striking and are a violation of the stated law as such.

The attorney sort of seemed to say they wouldn't pursue something unless all the facts were dropped in their lap. But the basic facts of these other coins have been known for a long time. Doesn't add up.

divecchia

Thanks for sharing the video. It was very interesting.

Donato

1630Boston

A well prepared presentation, thanks for sharing it here

HighRelief

Great video, explains a lot about the history of the 1933 DE and the legends behind it.

SanctionII

The legal system played out to almost its fullest extent in this case.

Lawsuit filed in the trial court; fully litigated in the trial court with a decision made by a jury after a fully contested trial; trial court decision appealed to the first level of appellate review; decision by a 3 justice panel to overturn the trial court judgment and award the 10 double eagles to the Langbords (due to the government failing to comply with CAFRA requirements); rehearing before the entire panel of the Court Of Appeal successfully sought by Uncle Sam; the En Banc panel does a 180 and gives a victory to Uncle Sam; Langbords unsuccessfully seek US Supreme Court review of the En Banc decision.

The only thing that could have happened was the US Supreme Court taking the case, hearing oral argument and then deciding whether to affirm or reject the En Banc decision.

tradedollarnut

@Coinosaurus said:
I still don't get why the 1913 Liberty nickels aren't on the radar. No record of their manufacture, and they first appear in the hands of someone who was fired from the Mint for cause.

Or 1804 dollars for that matter - they do not bear the correct year of striking and are a violation of the stated law as such.

The attorney sort of seemed to say they wouldn't pursue something unless all the facts were dropped in their lap. But the basic facts of these other coins have been known for a long time. Doesn't add up.

Might have something to do with all US coins being made legal tender retroactively... with certain exceptions iirc.

rhl

You know I haven’t been here in a while but this video really made me angry. To say it is a one sided, distorted view of the facts and the law is charitable. Like their praised “expert” David Tripp, this video simply omits or ignores any facts or actions that are not consistent with their desired storyline. For example, in reality the conclusion of the Secret Service investigation in 1944 was that the investigators could not determine how, when or under what circumstances 1933 Double Eagles left the Philadelphia Mint. Similarly, the statement that it is now settled law in the US that the 1933 Double Eagles were stolen is misleading. One federal circuit court, the 3rd, has made this ruling. It is not binding on any other circuit.

However, most upsetting to me is the claim that the Mint knows the location of other 1933 Double Eagles and that they have no intention of attempting to confiscate them. It seems the reward for being an honest American is to have your Constitutional rights violated and your property confiscated. The clear lesson for anyone else is to never trust or engage in negotiations with the United States Mint.

A sad day for us all.