Options
Tomorrow the Court Of Appeal will hear oral arguments in the Langbord case.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just looked at the docket and note that the hearing it tomorrow.
I wonder if the hobby media will have a reporter at the hearing?
I wonder if the hobby media will have a reporter at the hearing?
0
Comments
Probably a smart move.
Let us know if anyone reports the outcome.
Thanks,
bob
i wish them luck in appeals...but feel it's a lost cause
i still puzzle over the reward for the 1st 1964 peace dollar to be submitted
"they" will just step in and scoop that up too
As for whether a "crime" occurred, I thought that was what we had courts for
Maybe the jury will be stacked?
<< <i>In the courtroom, jury selection took much of the first day. The process, as usual, was grindingly slow, but had its moments. Judge Davis, a large man with a sonorous voice who tips back so far in his chair that sometimes only his head is visible over the desk, asked a potential juror whether the fact that her husband collected coins would influence her.
Did she share his hobby?
“I don’t collect coins,” she said. “I spend them.”
She was seated.
>>
BTW- it also talked about the bidding frenzy for gold as it hit a record high of $1,100 /ozt.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I just ran across and old Greysheet form November 13, 2009. It mentions that NGC announced they had graded the 10 Langbord 1933 $20 gold. One MS66, two MS65, six MS64, and one unc details. I thought it was really odd that the government had them graded. Anyone care to speculate why they would do this?
BTW- it also talked about the bidding frenzy for gold as it hit a record high of $1,100 /ozt. >>
Good to know. I'm not sure but perhaps they were thinking of showing them off at ANA conventions, but with the recent hits with the HOF and Kennedy gold coins, perhaps they don't need them to get traffic.
Here's a photo from atscoin.com:
my take
they know coin value can be tied to grade
for accounting of value in government holdings
could be for future sales too
once ownership issue is laid to rest...
maybe the langbords can buy them back at a government surplus auction...yes...no...?
<< <i>If they are sold and and you buy some, make sure to get a receipt.... >>
And send Izzy Switt a thank you note.
<< <i>
<< <i>If they are sold and and you buy some, make sure to get a receipt.... >>
And send Izzy Switt a thank you note. >>
Do you mean to send a thank you note to the Langbords instead? I don't think there's any hard evidence to link these to Izzy.
Guilty until proven innocent
BHNC #203
<< <i>I'm confused. I thought this was settled years ago. I guess they must have appealed? >>
Hencs the "Court of Appeal" mention in the thread title.
I don't suppose anybody who is a member here sat in on the proceedings?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If they are sold and and you buy some, make sure to get a receipt.... >>
And send Izzy Switt a thank you note. >>
Do you mean to send a thank you note to the Langbords instead? I don't think there's any hard evidence to link these to Izzy. >>
They are relatives IIRC.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If they are sold and and you buy some, make sure to get a receipt.... >>
And send Izzy Switt a thank you note. >>
Do you mean to send a thank you note to the Langbords instead? I don't think there's any hard evidence to link these to Izzy. >>
They are relatives IIRC. >>
Yes, but I thought a big part of the case was that the coins aren't traceable to Izzy and that they don't know how they came into possession of the coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If they are sold and and you buy some, make sure to get a receipt.... >>
And send Izzy Switt a thank you note. >>
Do you mean to send a thank you note to the Langbords instead? I don't think there's any hard evidence to link these to Izzy. >>
They are relatives IIRC. >>
Yes, but I thought a big part of the case that the coins aren't traceable to Izzy and that they don't know how they came into possession of the coins. >>
I should have added a winky!
<< <i>I wish them luck.
Guilty until proven innocent >>
Very common these days, but wether that is common in the future is all up to us as individuals. I hope they win their case against the government.
It wasn't designed to stop production of gold coins, or the keeping of some of them, by any collectors AT THE TIME. OBVIOUSLY (this included dealers who could see the future ) THIS INCLUDED VISIONARIES and they may have had to hide things for a while, like the Diary of Anne Frank.
Though in my lowly layman's opinion : Who's blind is deaf and who's dumb is accusing who's guilty…. and there's no proof because they're all dead. Yet here the coins are . And by God (believe THAT or not), THEY (those damned coins) are here now. Aren't they ? We could say the founding fathers were slave owners so the laws today do not count, but every BLACK man in the world would say "YOU DON'T OWN me". The Jews said it to the Egyptians and the Romans. The PEOPLE said it in Tianimen(sp) Square.
Let's be realistic …. Executive Orders do ALLOW for the ownership of these coins and gives no authority to any branch, to confiscate them , despite the years that went by. Oh sure, there were rumors and threats after the fact, but this is not about a statute of limitations, even if the GOVERNMENT spend .0001 percent of THE PEOPLE's TIME on this case, it will not set a precedence. It will prove that the people are US. And the judge in every court knows that simple truth. WE are paying THEIR retirement check with "court costs".
Joan Langbord held the firm belief in her RIGHTS enough as a U.S. Citizen to challenge those who confiscated HER inheritance. And where was there ever a "CONFISCATION " ? There was no law demanding people to turn in ALL the gold, nor any door to door confiscations that I've read about in our storied past. This is a precedence, isn't it ?
Free your minds and the rest will follow.
There. Fixed the world in just a few paragraphs.
Izzy probably exchanged coins at that time. 10 for 10 …. as the law allowed. And NO PREMIUM was attached. $200 was two hundred dollars.
I suppose my lack of a degree or my financial status (being lower middle class) or being one of the unwashed masses gives me NO RIGHT to express these views, but maybe those in power can be swayed with "our" thoughts. And these thoughts are rational, even if I appear radical.
I confess judge. I don't go to church on Sundays, but I do believe. IGWT. Now on with the APPEAL. Who's prosecuting who here ?
Let me reiterate my stance. "THIS IS NOT about guilt or innocence". This is about the "RIGHTS that FDR gave us with that one little clause" (in the aggregate of $200 )
Maybe I never made my personal view clear. Then again, rarely am I PM'd for correction. If targeted, it's here in the open forum. If corrected, I accept it as graciously as I am able.
And , in case my anonymity bothers anyone. Imagine how afraid I'd be if I had something to hide. No hidden agenda. No tricks up the sleeve.
TRUTH … isn't that what this is about ? Applying the law in a "fair" and truthful fashion ? What LAW forbids ownership in the aggregate of $200 ?
The coin WAS minted by the mint and it was released as they were during that time. No theft occurred. A friendly exchange and planned out for months before the ORDER was ever signed.
I charge Izzy Switt with premeditated heroics.
Thank you.
Edit: * one footnote to my assertions and beliefs….. Since the order was not yet signed, who really knows if 20, 30, 40 coins got exchanged ?
Or if Izzy "divvied" them out upon passage of said "law" in order to stay in conformity of it ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>This is not about guilt or innocence. This is about the right to possess collectible coins in the aggregate of $200, as the law allowed when that executive order was signed.
It wasn't designed to stop production of gold coins, or the keeping of some of them, by any collectors AT THE TIME. OBVIOUSLY (this included dealers who could see the future ) THIS INCLUDED VISIONARIES and they may have had to hide things for a while, like the Diary of Anne Frank.
Though in my lowly layman's opinion : Who's blind is deaf and who's dumb is accusing who's guilty…. and there's no proof because they're all dead. Yet here the coins are . And by God (believe THAT or not), THEY (those damned coins) are here now. Aren't they ? We could say the founding fathers were slave owners so the laws today do not count, but every BLACK man in the world would say "YOU DON'T OWN me". The Jews said it to the Egyptians and the Romans. The PEOPLE said it in Tianimen(sp) Square.
Let's be realistic …. Executive Orders do ALLOW for the ownership of these coins and gives no authority to any branch, to confiscate them , despite the years that went by. Oh sure, there were rumors and threats after the fact, but this is not about a statute of limitations, even if the GOVERNMENT spend .0001 percent of THE PEOPLE's TIME on this case, it will not set a precedence. It will prove that the people are US. And the judge in every court knows that simple truth. WE are paying THEIR retirement check with "court costs".
Joan Langbord held the firm belief in her RIGHTS enough as a U.S. Citizen to challenge those who confiscated HER inheritance. And where was there ever a "CONFISCATION " ? There was no law demanding people to turn in ALL the gold, nor any door to door confiscations that I've read about in our storied past. This is a precedence, isn't it ?
Free your minds and the rest will follow.
There. Fixed the world in just a few paragraphs.
Izzy probably exchanged coins at that time. 10 for 10 …. as the law allowed. And NO PREMIUM was attached. $200 was two hundred dollars.
I suppose my lack of a degree or my financial status (being lower middle class) or being one of the unwashed masses gives me NO RIGHT to express these views, but maybe those in power can be swayed with "our" thoughts. And these thoughts are rational, even if I appear radical.
I confess judge. I don't go to church on Sundays, but I do believe. IGWT. Now on with the APPEAL. Who's prosecuting who here ?
Let me reiterate my stance. "THIS IS NOT about guilt or innocence". This is about the "RIGHTS that FDR gave us with that one little clause" (in the aggregate of $200 )
Maybe I never made my personal view clear. Then again, rarely am I PM'd for correction. If targeted, it's here in the open forum. If corrected, I accept it as graciously as I am able.
And , in case my anonymity bothers anyone. Imagine how afraid I'd be if I had something to hide. No hidden agenda. No tricks up the sleeve.
TRUTH … isn't that what this is about ? Applying the law in a "fair" and truthful fashion ? What LAW forbids ownership in the aggregate of $200 ?
The coin WAS minted by the mint and it was released as they were during that time. No theft occurred. A friendly exchange and planned out for months before the ORDER was ever signed.
I charge Izzy Switt with premeditated heroics.
Thank you.
<< <i>I know the US Supreme court makes audio recordings of oral arguments available. Anyone know if this court makes the audio recordings available? It would be fun to listen too. >>
One could I suppose order the transcripts, which is excatly what the court did. Due by December 3rd, then a decision at some point in time later.
Click on the first link to MP3 file dated 11-19-2014
Hard to summary but the main issues discussed are those property forfeiture/seizure related and how those were or were not followed as well as interpretation of them. These will be familiar to those who read the posts from the original case
Also at issue were admission and instructions regarding texts published to the jury about the "theft" of them from the mint and the documents containing varying levels of heresay and prior precedent involving similar. Interesting the gov't side cited The Jefferson Davis during examination which brought about amused amazement from the 3 presiding.
It finished with both sides pointing at each other effectively saying if you don't see it our way on the seizure/forfeiture, the other (gov vs individual) will run amok with either seizure or claims.
I hope they publish all the audio for this. Good Stuff.
<< <i>Listened to every second
Hard to summary but the main issues discussed are those property forfeiture/seizure related and how those were or were not followed as well as interpretation of them. These will be familiar to those who read the posts from the original case
Also at issue were admission and instructions regarding texts published to the jury about the "theft" of them from the mint and the documents containing varying levels of heresay and prior precedent involving similar. Interesting the gov't side cited The Jefferson Davis during examination which brought about amused amazement from the 3 presiding.
It finished with both sides pointing at each other effectively saying if you don't see it our way on the seizure/forfeiture, the other (gov vs individual) will run amok with either seizure or claims.
I hope they publish all the audio for this. Good Stuff. >>
Thanks for listening & posting!
The way the government got the hearsay characterization of Izzy as a thief in front of the jury may have been to clever by half. Not predicting the way the case will go, but if the government loses my guess is it is likely to be on this point.
(A) Time value of the face value appreciation since that period...taking into account inflation and a standardized growth
(B) Direct replacement with a similar product...different year, obviously, but same grade and face value.
(C) Gold to match and replace the gold content
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Does anyone really expect a resolution soon?
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>Does anyone really expect a resolution soon? >>
No.
The court of appeals can do one of three things
/a/ rule for the Government
/b/ rule for the Langbord's
In either of those cases, the losing party will try to craft an appeal to the Supreme court (which would only take the case if there is a Federal question across the circuits - i.e. if two of them have ruled differently in similar cases
or, most likely, they will rule on one or more technicalities and remand the case back to the trial court in light of that. For example, rule the jury instruction was defective and require a new trial.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>Here are the Oral Arguments in 12-4574 - Langbord v.US Dept Treasury
Click on the first link to MP3 file dated 11-19-2014 >>
Wow! I just listened to the entire oral argument. Thanks for the link. Having argued before the 4th Circuit and the Federal Circuit, but not the 3rd Circuit, I can say that this is one of the most interesting oral arguments, and one of the most lively oral arguments, I have ever heard. I have never heard such a glib court panel, or a more relaxed court panel. I haven't read the briefs, but I will give you my 2-cents worth, for whatever it is worth to those interested. I am sure I missed much. I am just offering my perspective having listened to the argument.
Both sides argued well and were prepared. Burke, the Appellant's counsel, was very, very good.
First, Appellant argues that this is an improper seizure and that, having seized the coins, and a notice having been filed by the Langbords of a seized asset claim, the Government failed to file a forfeiture claim. The Government argued that the coins were essentially like illegal drugs and they had the right to seize them and keep them. It seems compellingly clear to me from the arguments and comments that the court will rule that the Government acted improperly. The ramifications of that action were discussed and they range from harmless error to requiring a new trial to a complete reversal with a return of the coins to the Appellant.
Second, Appellant argues that the court improperly allowed hearsay, double hearsay and triple hearsay into evidence under, among other exceptions, the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule. The Government argued that the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule allowed all this information in properly. This was the issue that was most troubling to me in the trial. I do think that this was clear reversible error. It was not clear to me how the court would rule on this matter, though the panel was troubled by it.
Third, The Appellant argues that this was a classic replevin action and that, under state law, they should have been afforded a right to trial by jury and to have heard all of the evidence in a classic proceeding. Appellan argues that if that had happened, Appellant would have been able to prove that the items weren't illegally taken. Instead, all of this hearsay was allowed into evidence instead. The Appellant argues that the case should not have been heard in a declaratory judgment proceeding. The Government argued that the court actually corrected any problems by essentially requiring the Government, rather than the Langbords, to sustain the burden of proof, and the Government did that. I'm not sure I've explained this quite right but here it is anyway.
Fourth, Appellant argues that much of the evidence admitted under federal rule of evidence 703 was improper because it was not the proper subject of expert testimony, through an expert named Tripp. The Government argued that this was proper. Another interesting issue and one that is in flux in the law in my view. I have seen a trend of this type of expert being used in recent Government cases and, in my opinion, it is troubling because an expert was then allowed to testify about all of these old issues and he was allowed to opine that the coins were stolen. I don't have a feel for how the court would rule on this issue. However, the use of an expert, combined with the admissibility of the hearsay mentioned above, is troubling.
Fifth, evidence of Switt's arrest should not have been allowed because it was overly prejudicial (FRE 403). I do not think that this, standing alone, is enough to overturn the decision.
There were other issues, but this is what stuck out to me from the arguments.
I don't know how this will be resolved, but it seems to me that, at a minimum, the Langbords should get a new trial with more limited evidence allowed. A more overwhelming ruling would mean that the coins are returned and the matter is over.
Just my opinion.
Tom
I suspect that eventually the supreme court will be asked to review the case.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here are the Oral Arguments in 12-4574 - Langbord v.US Dept Treasury
Click on the first link to MP3 file dated 11-19-2014 >>
Wow! I just listened to the entire oral argument. Thanks for the link. Having argued before the 4th Circuit and the Federal Circuit, but not the 3rd Circuit, I can say that this is one of the most interesting oral arguments, and one of the most lively oral arguments, I have ever heard. I have never heard such a glib court panel, or a more relaxed court panel. I haven't read the briefs, but I will give you my 2-cents worth, for whatever it is worth to those interested. I am sure I missed much. I am just offering my perspective having listened to the argument.
Both sides argued well and were prepared. Burke, the Appellant's counsel, was very, very good.
First, Appellant argues that this is an improper seizure and that, having seized the coins, and a notice having been filed by the Langbords of a seized asset claim, the Government failed to file a forfeiture claim. The Government argued that the coins were essentially like illegal drugs and they had the right to seize them and keep them. It seems compellingly clear to me from the arguments and comments that the court will rule that the Government acted improperly. The ramifications of that action were discussed and they range from harmless error to requiring a new trial to a complete reversal with a return of the coins to the Appellant.
Second, Appellant argues that the court improperly allowed hearsay, double hearsay and triple hearsay into evidence under, among other exceptions, the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule. The Government argued that the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule allowed all this information in properly. This was the issue that was most troubling to me in the trial. I do think that this was clear reversible error. It was not clear to me how the court would rule on this matter, though the panel was troubled by it.
Third, The Appellant argues that this was a classic replevin action and that, under state law, they should have been afforded a right to trial by jury and to have heard all of the evidence in a classic proceeding. Appellan argues that if that had happened, Appellant would have been able to prove that the items weren't illegally taken. Instead, all of this hearsay was allowed into evidence instead. The Appellant argues that the case should not have been heard in a declaratory judgment proceeding. The Government argued that the court actually corrected any problems by essentially requiring the Government, rather than the Langbords, to sustain the burden of proof, and the Government did that. I'm not sure I've explained this quite right but here it is anyway.
Fourth, Appellant argues that much of the evidence admitted under federal rule of evidence 703 was improper because it was not the proper subject of expert testimony, through an expert named Tripp. The Government argued that this was proper. Another interesting issue and one that is in flux in the law in my view. I have seen a trend of this type of expert being used in recent Government cases and, in my opinion, it is troubling because an expert was then allowed to testify about all of these old issues and he was allowed to opine that the coins were stolen. I don't have a feel for how the court would rule on this issue. However, the use of an expert, combined with the admissibility of the hearsay mentioned above, is troubling.
Fifth, evidence of Switt's arrest should not have been allowed because it was overly prejudicial (FRE 403). I do not think that this, standing alone, is enough to overturn the decision.
There were other issues, but this is what stuck out to me from the arguments.
I don't know how this will be resolved, but it seems to me that, at a minimum, the Langbords should get a new trial with more limited evidence allowed. A more overwhelming ruling would mean that the coins are returned and the matter is over.
Just my opinion. >>
I thought, at points, both sides were a bit whitewashing with their points. Is this normal?
Also, didn't the previous cases consist of a declaratory one which the judge ruled based off the jury trial? It was interesting how both sides addressed that, with the government simply stating the judge found in favor of the government and the appellate arguing that ruling was based off the flawed jury trial. I'm sure the panel understood the flow, but after the appellate arguing at length about forfeiture,seizure, replevin, and so forth, it was a bit odd to hear the government simply state that the judge made a declaratory ruling in the government's favor. It was as if the government wanted to make it seem like the judge ruled separately, and could(?) rule separately, from the jury trial.
<< <i> I have never heard such a glib court panel, or a more relaxed court panel. >>
Since I have nothing for comparison, I couldn't know either way.
I did get the impression that they had genuine interest in getting this one right.
<< <i>
<< <i> I have never heard such a glib court panel, or a more relaxed court panel. >>
Since I have nothing for comparison, I couldn't know either way.
I did get the impression that they had genuine interest in getting this one right. >>
It is pretty normal to resist making concessions. Sometimes you just don't know where the court panel is leading you with those concessions and that can be dangerous. However, it depends. Langbords' counsel Burke made several concessions or at least appeared more agreeable in his presentation; however, that is because he knew everything about the case that there was to know. That is why I thought he was so good. I do think the Government should have made some concessions on argument number 1--Seizure. Still, they may have been constrained by other agencies' positions or by any number of factors. I just don't know. Sanction II has been following this closely, and added some context above your comments. Perhaps he can offer his view. Still, by any measure, the procedural context is complex and difficult to follow if you haven't been in it. I'll not even attempt to do that here. I will say that this case is pretty high profile, the court does appear genuinely interested in getting it right (but to me, they always are), and they also appeared very troubled by the seizure and by the wholesale introduction of hearsay upon hearsay evidence into the record.
Whether that means (1) no harm no foul; (2) another trial is in order; or (3) the appropriate sanction is the death penalty (for the government's claims), remains to be seen. I think that at a minimum, another trial is in order with more limited evidence. I just don't know enough about the law on seizure to offer an opinion on alternate (3).
Tom
<< <i>Here are the Oral Arguments in 12-4574 - Langbord v.US Dept Treasury
Click on the first link to MP3 file dated 11-19-2014 >>
Thank you CoinBoy for posting the link. It was a lot of fun to listen to. I agree that the judges seemed very relaxed, and have an understanding that you can do your job and have fun at the same time. Including joking about who would play each of them in the movie version of the case. One of the judges also joked a lot about the ancient document definition in the rules of evidence. The rule says that a document has to be at least 20 years old to be considered Ancient. She comment that she was well over 20 and does not consider herself ancient.
Now for my 2 cents. I think the government is in some trouble in this case, and I expect that the Langbord will win at least a partial victory, and I think they have a good shot at getting the "death penalty" for the governments claims, based on what some might think is a technicality.
I really think the US Mint messed up in the way they handled this claim. They wanted to be cute, and used the strategy that they did not have to start a forfeiture proceedings on the coins because the coins were theirs all along. As a result of this ill conceived strategy the government ignored some critical deadlines in the forfeiture process, and lost their rights to the coins. They did this despite the fact that three different federal agencies advised them to follow the forfeiture proceedings. The lower court also ruled that they needed to follow those procedures, but that judge stopped short of disallowing the claim. The appellants said that the trial judge erred in allowing to governments claim to go forward, despite the governments missing a key deadline. The government said that the language that would disallow the claim was in a different section and would not apply in their situation when the ownership of the items was in dispute. The arguments seemed to turn on what the language of the statute actually said, so I looked up the Statue myself, and I think the appellant is right, and the government just messed up and the law would prevent them from any further claim to the coins. Here is what I see as the relevant section of the law.
‘‘(3)(A) Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the property pending the filing of a complaint, except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be filed may extend the period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties.
(B) If the Government does not—
(i) file a complaint for forfeiture or return the property, in accordance with subparagraph (A); or
(ii) before the time for filing a complaint has expired—
(I) obtain a criminal indictment containing an allegation that the property is subject to forfeiture; and
(II) take the steps necessary to preserve its right to maintain custody of the property as provided in the applicable criminal forfeiture statute,
the Government shall promptly release the property pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and may not take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of such property in connection with the underlying offense.
I think the appellants attorney made a really good point, that the whole reason for the CAFRA law was to stop abuses like the one that government did in this case. I also think the justices seemed receptive to his argument.
If the justices do not just return the coins on the above grounds, then they will have to decide if the trial judge erred in allowing some US Mint / Secret Service investigative reports into evidence, under the 'ancient documents' exception. My understanding of this rule, is typically hearsay is not allowed in the courts, in other words you cannot testify about what someone told you. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, one of them is if the hearsay was in a document that is over 20 years old. The theory of this exception is that if the document is that old, and the makers of the documents had no reason to make things up, then the evidence should be let in. There seems to be some disagreement in the legal community, if this ancient document provision also applies to double and triple hear say, within an ancient document. That was the main focus of that part of the oral arguments. There was double and triple hearsay in the document, for example the author was not only writing about what someone told them (hear say) the writer was also writing about what someone told them someone else told them (double hearsay.) I thought this was very interesting, and I suspect the justices will go with the Appellants on these grounds as well. If the appellants win on these grounds it would probably mean a new trial without the questionable documents. The government attorney said he still thought the government would win even without this hearsay evidence.
In the ancient documents discussion of the oral arguments, they just touched on an argument I thought was really compelling. One of the points the appellants made was that the investigation was part of an effort by the Mint to try and get the 1933 double eagles back. I think it is a reasonable argument that the ancient documents exception should not apply because the documents were created in anticipation of a court case. This very case. It just took a long time for the mint to find the coins, and start a court action to recover them. But that investigation was all part of their effort to recover the coins. They didn't spend much time on this particular point in the oral arguments, but I found it very interesting.
So that is my 2 cents, I will be anxiously waiting the ruling from the court.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Very lively exchanges back and forth between the appellate court justices and the attorney's for both sides. Both attorneys were equally lively and responded promptly to the questions posed to them by the justices.
From the questions posed by the justices it seems that one or more of them have concerns about: 1. the failure of the government to file a CAFRA forfeiture proceeding within 90 days after the Langbords filed the CAFRA required claim to the 10 coins; and 2. the admission of documents containing hearsay statements into evidence through the government expert, Mr. Tripp.
There was discussion of what remedy the court should give to the Langbords if the court finds in their favor on the appeal, including 1. ordering the government to return the coins to the Langbords and confirming that they own the coins; or 2. ordering both sides back to the trial court level to go through a new trial of the case conducted in accordance with the instructions contained in the decision of the court of appeal.
As mentioned in prior posts to this thread, both attorneys painted worst case, doom and gloom scenarios if the court rules for or against their clients on the CAFRA issues, including the death penalty. The arguments presented by both sides touch upon the relationship between the government and the individual with respect to property rights.
The decision of the court of appeal should be an interesting read.
<< <i>This could result in a really interesting decision (or not). Reading the accounts (arguments etc.), I can almost believe it is possible for the Langbords to get the coins back. Cheers, RickO >>
It is possible that the court will tell Treasury "Sorry, dummies! You dropped the ball!" but somehow I don't think it will be allowed to happen.
After the decision on the appeal is issued the litigants have further recourse including:
1. seeking a rehearing before the 3rd District Court Of Appeal (but instead of a panel of three justices, a rehearing would be held before the entire panel of justices sitting on the 3rd District Court Of Appeal); and
2. thereafter seeking review of the case by the US Supreme Court.
I do not know the specifics of the procedures for both of the above, but in general it is my understanding that unlike the appeal from the trial court to the Court Of Appeal [which the Langbords and the government have an absolute right to have], there is no absolute right to a rehearing before the full panel of justices, nor is there an absolute right to US Supreme Court review. A party to a case has the right to request either one of these items, but the Court of Appeal and the US Supreme Court are not obligated to take up the case. Whether or not to take the case is a matter that is within the discretion of each court. For US Supreme Court cases, many, many requests for Supreme Court review are made each year and only a tiny, tiny percentage of the requests are granted.
All the legal maneuvering that is presently going on does not change this fact of law.
The Government erred by not melting all of the 1933 Double Eagles,except for the two that are in the US coin collection, very soon after they were struck.We were in the depths of The Great Depression in 1933.It's not hard for me to imagine a corrupt government employee of those times trying to make a few bucks illegally by supplying an unscrupulous individual with a few coins from a freshly minted bag of 1933 Double Eagles that were destined for the melting pot.
In Illegal Tender,chapter 13,"Grounds for Recovery",author David Tripp presents the government's reasoning in the effort to recover the 1933 Double Eagles that,should be no surprise to anyone,of those recovered were in the hands of wealthy men of the time.The only 1933 DE of those known and considered stolen that "fell through the cracks," so to speak, is the Farouk coin.
The Farouk specimen was eventually monetized,is legal to own,and will always be legal to own.If I were to win a big enough lottery,I would pay up to $25 million for this coin.If successful in buying this coin,I would then put it on display at various coin shows along with the only other gold coin that I presently own,a 1987W,U.S. Constitution Bicentennial gold $5 piece that I obtained legally (it was given to me by a dear friend) a few years ago.
Eventually,like after I have passed,I would give the ex. Farouk coin to the Smithsonian so that it can rest in peace in the U.S. collection along with the other two legal 1933 Double Eagles.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
So, the oral Args did address the criminal aspects.