Time to TTT again. It looks more and more likely we will have to wait until 2016 for the court to render a decision. One week short of two MONTHS since the hearing and no word yet. Steve
TTT again! Two months since the rehearing now. With the holidays upon us, I figure we MIGHT have a shot at a decision on Friday, January 15, 2016. How's that for a prediction! Steve
Well, I blew that date! You'd think the 3rd circuit court is back from their "holiday vacation" by now. You'd also think they formed their opinion. So let's hear it this coming week. OK? Thanks.
Steve
TTT again after nine more days. We just can't let this thread get lost with almost 300 replies, can we? Someday, someone will check the court database and let us all know what the decision is. Sooner rather than later I hope. Steve
Another TTT as we await a decision from the 3rd circuit appeals court after FOUR months of deliberations following the October 14th rehearing before the full court. We all anxiously await the court's ruling. Steve
Another NINE days have past since the last post on this thread and MANY MORE days have past since I last posted on this thread, so it is time to go "TTT" once again while we wait for the third circuit judges to make their decision. I almost feel like I am performing a public service to alert coin forum participants that we're still interested in what the court has to say.
Of course, YOUR comments are always welcome. Steve
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
En banc opinions take longer. There are many more judges voting and circulating opinions.
They could have written "War and Peace" by now!!!!!
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
It is now a week and four days PLUS ONE HALF A YEAR since the hearing. Shouldn't the thirteen justices of the 3rd district appellate court of appeals have reached a decision by this time? The public wants to know if the Langbord family has won or lost. The public wants to know if the Government has won or lost. The public wants to know whether or not the losing side will appeal to the US Supreme Court and whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case the public wants to know whether 8 or 9 judges will hear the case. If 9 judges will hear the case, the public wants to know if a decision will be rendered before the end of the first term of the next President of the United States of America? The public wants to know. Steve
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Originally posted by: mr1874 Compare those 1933 Cashier records maintained by Hibberd Ott to leaving one's blood at a murder scene. It is a tall order for an attorney to explain to jurors why his client's blood was found at a murder scene. In a perfect world,the Langbords should absolutely lose their case because of those meticulous,well-maintained Cashier records and not win "the Coins" in spite of them. How can one reasonably conclude that 1933 double eagles that found their way into private hands were lawfully removed from the Mint given the existence of those Mint records?
IMO, that would be simple as it happened all the time at the Mint, whereas coins were removed by Mint employees, even Directors of the Mint did this (ex Linderman). Show clear examples where the Mint records state one thing and the actual evidence state another.... The 1913 vnick has no mint records of being created, therefore it should not exist. The question then becomes if a Mint employee takes property and sells it, is it stolen mint property and confiscatable? So for example if the Director orders patterns to be struck for himself and keeps them, is it then also stolen property? Linderman kept a 1868 alum pattern set, which he ordered. What makes a coin a legally struck coin also comes into question, it is suppose to be when the Coiner delivers them to the Superintendent of that Mint (sometimes just in counts as the coins were delivered to the Cashier), but there were many coins exchanged at different levels and are not delivered to the Cashier, such as 3 1894-S dimes given to one of the Mint employees, and Mint employees being permitted to obtain new specimens of newly struck coins. There are many exceptions to the rules which are acceptable deviations from the law. These should be presented. Did the Mint employee pay for these coins in exchange for taking them when they were struck?
If the law was something that is so clearcut, it would be possible to write a computerized expert system that would correctly evaluate any claim and do away with all the judges and courts. (Not a terrible idea, sure would save a lot of money. )
Unfortunately, the law is clear as mud, differs from time to time and place to place.
It is now a week and four days PLUS ONE HALF A YEAR since the hearing. Shouldn't the thirteen justices of the 3rd district appellate court of appeals have reached a decision by this time? The public wants to know if the Langbord family has won or lost. The public wants to know if the Government has won or lost. The public wants to know whether or not the losing side will appeal to the US Supreme Court and whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case the public wants to know whether 8 or 9 judges will hear the case. If 9 judges will hear the case, the public wants to know if a decision will be rendered before the end of the first term of the next President of the United States of America? The public wants to know. Steve
And,in time,the public will know. We must be patient.
“The strongest of all warriors are these two — Time and Patience.” ? Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
Originally posted by: WillieBoyd2 While we are eagerly awaiting the latest court decision, here is a picture of the Switt Philadelphia residence in 1940.
Funny, I didn't know they had Satellite dishes in 1940.
Seriously though, cool picture thanks for posting. Is this where the coins were hiding, or is his old shop still around?
Originally posted by: WillieBoyd2 While we are eagerly awaiting the latest court decision, here is a picture of the Switt Philadelphia residence in 1940.
Funny, I didn't know they had Satellite dishes in 1940.
Seriously though, cool picture thanks for posting. Is this where the coins were hiding, or is his old shop still around?
Maybe there is some time travel involved here It would explain a lot.
Israel Switt Antique Jewelry & Silver 130 S. 8th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107
The photo of his 1940 residence is a recent photograph, but his jewelry store has a Facebook page. "I. Switt has been in business since 1932. We specialize in Diamonds, Antiques, Jewelry, Precious..."
me:Compare those 1933 Cashier records maintained by Hibberd Ott to leaving one's blood at a murder scene. It is a tall order for an attorney to explain to jurors why his client's blood was found at a murder scene. In a perfect world,the Langbords should absolutely lose their case because of those meticulous,well-maintained Cashier records and not win "the Coins" in spite of them. How can one reasonably conclude that 1933 double eagles that found their way into private hands were lawfully removed from the Mint given the existence of those Mint records?
Kevin Flynn:IMO, that would be simple as it happened all the time at the Mint, whereas coins were removed by Mint employees, even Directors of the Mint did this (ex Linderman). Show clear examples where the Mint records state one thing and the actual evidence state another.... The 1913 vnick has no mint records of being created, therefore it should not exist. The question then becomes if a Mint employee takes property and sells it, is it stolen mint property and confiscatable? So for example if the Director orders patterns to be struck for himself and keeps them, is it then also stolen property? Linderman kept a 1868 alum pattern set, which he ordered. What makes a coin a legally struck coin also comes into question, it is suppose to be when the Coiner delivers them to the Superintendent of that Mint (sometimes just in counts as the coins were delivered to the Cashier), but there were many coins exchanged at different levels and are not delivered to the Cashier, such as 3 1894-S dimes given to one of the Mint employees, and Mint employees being permitted to obtain new specimens of newly struck coins. There are many exceptions to the rules which are acceptable deviations from the law. These should be presented. Did the Mint employee pay for these coins in exchange for taking them when they were struck?
The main suspect in the '33 Double eagle job is George McCann who had the plum job of head cashier,Philadelphia Mint beginning in early 1934.McCann was also main suspect in theft of a bag of double eagles,250 pieces,$5000 face value from a basement vault in 1937.McCann did time,one year in prison around 1940 for theft of petty change.
The 1933 Double eagle story is about thievery and corruption at the Mint.The Mint records maintained by Ott and Powell that tracked 1932 AND 1933 double eagles by DATE,show that not a single 1933 double eagle went to a member of the public.
I would be in favor of awarding a posthumous medal to both Powell and Ott for meritorious service by keeping those well-detailed,meticulous records,records which,by some miracle, still exist today.It's like two honest men with their ears to the ground could hear the Horsemen coming.
Most likely the '33's that were spirited from the Mint were exchanged for,one-for-one, with a common date piece such as a '28.I have a theory that some of the '28's out of the stolen bag were used to replace '33's taken.
Government has evidence that supports their case.Where is the Langbord's evidence that shows the ten 1933 double eagles they found in their sdb were obtained lawfully?
I'm thinking the en banc judges are in a state of quandary.We have CAFRA to thank for that.
Can the judges on the en banc panel take the position that a profoundly confusing,as written, law such as The Civil Asset Forfeiture and Reform Act of 2000 cannot in any way,shape,or form be reasonably applied in Langbord v. United States?
The best thing to do,IMO, is to have another jury trial,throwing away all the CAFRA considerations.
I'm thinking the en banc judges are in a state of quandary.We have CAFRA to thank for that.
Can the judges on the en banc panel take the position that a profoundly confusing,as written, law such as The Civil Asset Forfeiture and Reform Act of 2000 cannot in any way,shape,or form be reasonably applied in Langbord v. United States?
The best thing to do,IMO, is to have another jury trial,throwing away all the CAFRA considerations.
Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
How is a law enforced that even judges don't understand what it is saying? That is my point Mr. Urich,not that the judges should ignore law that might apply in a case they are considering,
It appears to me that the judges are in a quandary because of CAFRA.I would expect Congress to be able to provide the court with better law than CAFRA.
CAFRA has failed in Langbord v. United States.What can the judges do except throw it out of court and order a new trial?
Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
How is a law enforced that even judges don't understand what it is saying? That is my point Mr. Urich,not that the judges should ignore law that might apply in a case they are considering,
It appears to me that the judges are in a quandary because of CAFRA.I would expect Congress to be able to provide the court with better law than CAFRA.
CAFRA has failed in Langbord v. United States.What can the judges do except throw it out of court and order a new trial?
CAFRA hasn't failed in this case.
What failed in this case was the government, because they failed to follow the rules specified in the CAFRA law. The trial judge gave the government a "mulligan" and allowed them to file a forfeiture action which was over 4 years later than required.
The Langbords contend that the forfeiture filing being over 4 years later than required by the CAFRA law, makes the filing invalid, and therefore the forfeiture should not have occurred, and the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Originally posted by: mr1874 Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
How is a law enforced that even judges don't understand what it is saying? That is my point Mr. Urich,not that the judges should ignore law that might apply in a case they are considering,
It appears to me that the judges are in a quandary because of CAFRA.I would expect Congress to be able to provide the court with better law than CAFRA.
CAFRA has failed in Langbord v. United States.What can the judges do except throw it out of court and order a new trial?
CAFRA hasn't failed in this case.
What failed in this case was the government, because they failed to follow the rules specified in the CAFRA law. The trial judge gave the government a "mulligan" and allowed them to file a forfeiture action which was over 4 years later than required.
The Langbords contend that the forfeiture filing being over 4 years later than required by the CAFRA law, makes the filing invalid, and therefore the forfeiture should not have occurred, and the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
This is not an issue of a judge choosing to ignore or not enforce a specific law, nor is it an issue of CAFRA failing. CAFRA applies to non-judicial forfeitures. This is simply not a non-judicial forfeiture. In fact, it is not a forfeiture at all. You cannot legally forfeit something for which you never had any legal claim to; thus, CAFRA would apply only if the judge/jury found that the Langboard's had acquired a possessory interest in the pieces. If the pieces were stolen (which should be the government's burden to prove), then the Langboard's never acquired an interest.
I agree with those that think that the Langboards should have the coins back, but it has nothing to do with CAFRA which is nothing more than a red herring. It was erroneous of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to conclude otherwise, hence I am not surprised that the court granted en banc review.
I agree with those that think that the Langboards should have the coins back, but it has nothing to do with CAFRA which is nothing more than a red herring.
In the trial,the government sucessfully convinced a jury that the coins that the Langbords found in their safety deposit box were stolen by a Mint employee.
Aside from the red herring aka CAFRA,if the jury got it right why should the Langbords get the coins back?
The way it typically works is the judges take a straw vote in their conference after the hearing and a judge from the majority and minority side is assigned to write a draft opinion. Other judges read the opinions and either sign on or write their own. Some times there are concurrences or dissents that reach the same result via a different path.
But there are enough issues and enough options here that it's possible nobody has found the magic formula to get a majority to concur.
They could, for example simply uphold the original opinion from the 3 judge panel. That basically sent it back to trial with some instructions to the trial judge. But there could also be factions on the circuit court pro and anti CAFRA, and even some who just want to uphold the original trial result. All of which combine to equate to no majority. So it keeps churning. At some point (and we've seen the Supreme Court do this), the circuit court may order the lawyers on both sides to prepare additional briefs or even more oral arguments on a specific point of law.
-----Burton ANA 50+ year/Life Member (now "Emeritus") Author: 3rd Edition of the SampleSlabs book, https://sampleslabs.info/
That would actually make a very good T-shirt slogan.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
cameonut2011 CAFRA applies to non-judicial forfeitures. This is simply not a non-judicial forfeiture. In fact, it is not a forfeiture at all. You cannot legally forfeit something for which you never had any legal claim to; thus, CAFRA would apply only if the judge/jury found that the Langboard's had acquired a possessory interest in the pieces. If the pieces were stolen (which should be the government's burden to prove), then the Langboard's never acquired an interest.
If the statement above is true,receiving an offer of substantial reward from Treasury is as good as it should get for the Langbords,in my opinion.
I would be okay with a reward for the Langbords of up to 10% of the wholesale value of "the Coins" to the marketplace.$20M estimate of value seems about right.Paying a reward to the Langbords of up to $2M,would be a very generous amount by any measure.
Did the government not prove,in the first jury trial,by a preponderance of the evidence,that the pieces,"the Coins," were stolen from the Mint at some time in the 1930's?
This case is progressing through the federal court system in the manner that the federal court system has been designed (designed in part by the US Constitution; and designed in part by Congress through bills passed by both houses which were subsequently enacted into law by multiple presidents over the past 225+ years) and created.
The appellate process will eventually run its course. The outcome may be a decision which leaves nothing else to be done (i.e. the original trial court decision is upheld); or it may be a decision that returns the case to the trial court for further proceedings before the trial judge (i.e. a new trial on some or all issues; or instructions to the trial court for it to do specific and limited things).
The appellate courts will determine if the trial court decision is or is not legally correct. In doing so the appellate courts will obviously be required to look at and make decisions about various legal issues in the case (likely including issues regarding the applicability or non applicability of CAFRA; and issues related to the evidence that was admitted at trial).
The court system is functioning the way that it was and is designed to function. Like it or not the court system is where civilized society is supposed to go to present disputes and have them resolved. Uncle Sam, each of the 50 states, counties, cities are required to participate. Even if they would prefer not to do so. Just like individuals and businesses are required to.
What posters to this thread would like to see happen in this case, while interesting, has no bearing on what will actually happen. The reason why no decision by the En Banc panel has been issued yet may well be what BStrauss3 has suggested. It would be interesting to know how each of the justice on the panel view the case.
This is not an issue of a judge choosing to ignore or not enforce a specific law, nor is it an issue of CAFRA failing. CAFRA applies to non-judicial forfeitures. This is simply not a non-judicial forfeiture. In fact, it is not a forfeiture at all. You cannot legally forfeit something for which you never had any legal claim to; thus, CAFRA would apply only if the judge/jury found that the Langboard's had acquired a possessory interest in the pieces. If the pieces were stolen (which should be the government's burden to prove), then the Langboard's never acquired an interest.
Based on the court testimony, it seems that the one area where the trial court and all the appeals court judges agreed is that the Government needed to initiate a forfeiture proceeding in this case. CAFRA specifically says that it applies to cases where the Government is alleging that the property they took is stolen from them. The issues is what penalty is appropriate under CAFRA. The first trial judge and the Gov attorneys said that it is sufficient to just put the Langbords back to the position they would have been in had the government originally followed all the rules of CAFRA. (A do over) this meant that the gov was made to initiate forfeiture proceeding, and they had the burden of proof at the original trial. The Langbords attorneys said that was not sufficient, that under CAFRA the penalty for the Gov screwing up a CAFRA proceeding was that the Gov relinquishes all rights to the property. The original panel sided with the Langbords, is a 2-1 split decision, not it is up to the en blanc panel to decide the issue.
If the gov decided that in favor of the gov, then they have to look at the evidence admissibility of the original trial.
The way it typically works is the judges take a straw vote in their conference after the hearing and a judge from the majority and minority side is assigned to write a draft opinion. Other judges read the opinions and either sign on or write their own. Some times there are concurrences or dissents that reach the same result via a different path.
But there are enough issues and enough options here that it's possible nobody has found the magic formula to get a majority to concur.
They could, for example simply uphold the original opinion from the 3 judge panel. That basically sent it back to trial with some instructions to the trial judge. But there could also be factions on the circuit court pro and anti CAFRA, and even some who just want to uphold the original trial result. All of which combine to equate to no majority. So it keeps churning. At some point (and we've seen the Supreme Court do this), the circuit court may order the lawyers on both sides to prepare additional briefs or even more oral arguments on a specific point of law.
I thought that the original three judge panel found in favor of the Langbords, 2-1?
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Comments
Time to TTT again. It looks more and more likely we will have to wait until 2016 for the court to render a decision. One week short of two MONTHS since the hearing and no word yet. Steve
TTT again! Two months since the rehearing now. With the holidays upon us, I figure we MIGHT have a shot at a decision on Friday, January 15, 2016. How's that for a prediction! Steve
Well, I blew that date! You'd think the 3rd circuit court is back from their "holiday vacation" by now. You'd also think they formed their opinion. So let's hear it this coming week. OK? Thanks.
Steve
TTT again after nine more days. We just can't let this thread get lost with almost 300 replies, can we? Someday, someone will check the court database and let us all know what the decision is. Sooner rather than later I hope. Steve
Another TTT as we await a decision from the 3rd circuit appeals court after FOUR months of deliberations following the October 14th rehearing before the full court. We all anxiously await the court's ruling. Steve
Another NINE days have past since the last post on this thread and MANY MORE days have past since I last posted on this thread, so it is time to go "TTT" once again while we wait for the third circuit judges to make their decision. I almost feel like I am performing a public service to alert coin forum participants that we're still interested in what the court has to say.
Of course, YOUR comments are always welcome. Steve
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
En banc opinions take longer. There are many more judges voting and circulating opinions.
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
En banc opinions take longer. There are many more judges voting and circulating opinions.
OK. I can buy that! ttt
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
En banc opinions take longer. There are many more judges voting and circulating opinions.
They could have written "War and Peace" by now!!!!!
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody.
disagree.... I believe mostly the time is spent gollywoggling and on other matters.... just waiting to have the issue pushed. Cheers, RickO
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
So flip a coin and get it over with!!!!!
Flip ten coins and split the profit.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Compare those 1933 Cashier records maintained by Hibberd Ott to leaving one's blood at a murder scene.
It is a tall order for an attorney to explain to jurors why his client's blood was found at a murder scene.
In a perfect world,the Langbords should absolutely lose their case because of those meticulous,well-maintained Cashier records and not win "the Coins" in spite of them.
How can one reasonably conclude that 1933 double eagles that found their way into private hands were lawfully removed from the Mint given the existence of those Mint records?
IMO, that would be simple as it happened all the time at the Mint, whereas coins were removed by Mint employees, even Directors of the Mint did this (ex Linderman). Show clear examples where the Mint records state one thing and the actual evidence state another.... The 1913 vnick has no mint records of being created, therefore it should not exist. The question then becomes if a Mint employee takes property and sells it, is it stolen mint property and confiscatable? So for example if the Director orders patterns to be struck for himself and keeps them, is it then also stolen property? Linderman kept a 1868 alum pattern set, which he ordered. What makes a coin a legally struck coin also comes into question, it is suppose to be when the Coiner delivers them to the Superintendent of that Mint (sometimes just in counts as the coins were delivered to the Cashier), but there were many coins exchanged at different levels and are not delivered to the Cashier, such as 3 1894-S dimes given to one of the Mint employees, and Mint employees being permitted to obtain new specimens of newly struck coins. There are many exceptions to the rules which are acceptable deviations from the law. These should be presented. Did the Mint employee pay for these coins in exchange for taking them when they were struck?
Kevin
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
En banc opinions take longer. There are many more judges voting and circulating opinions.
Don't they know or understand the law?
If the law was something that is so clearcut, it would be possible to write a computerized expert system that would correctly evaluate any claim and do away with all the judges and courts. (Not a terrible idea, sure would save a lot of money.
Unfortunately, the law is clear as mud, differs from time to time and place to place.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody.
The road goes on forever it seems. Decision before October, 50 / 50 IMHO.
Is that October of 2050 ?
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody.
Come on now COURT. It is time that you announced your decision so we can all comment on it and I don't have to "TTT" once again. Steve
En banc opinions take longer. There are many more judges voting and circulating opinions.
Don't they know or understand the law?
Actually, it was sorta rhetorical.
And,in time,the public will know. We must be patient.
“The strongest of all warriors are these two — Time and Patience.”
? Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
According to the 1940 US Census, Israel, wife Elizabeth, and 10 year old daughter Joan lived at 5429 Sansom Street, Philadelphia.
5429 Sansom Street, Philadelphia (recent)
Joan is getting along, she turned 86 in March 2016.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Odd how the fascia stops mid building across the top.
It appears to be there, just that the light angle hides it on the right half
While we are eagerly awaiting the latest court decision, here is a picture of the Switt Philadelphia residence in 1940.
Funny, I didn't know they had Satellite dishes in 1940.
Seriously though, cool picture thanks for posting. Is this where the coins were hiding, or is his old shop still around?
While we are eagerly awaiting the latest court decision, here is a picture of the Switt Philadelphia residence in 1940.
Funny, I didn't know they had Satellite dishes in 1940.
Seriously though, cool picture thanks for posting. Is this where the coins were hiding, or is his old shop still around?
Maybe there is some time travel involved here
It would explain a lot.
Perhaps some more '33 Saints?? Cheers, RickO
Israel Switt is still in business.
Israel Switt Antique Jewelry & Silver
130 S. 8th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107
The photo of his 1940 residence is a recent photograph, but his jewelry store has a Facebook page.
"I. Switt has been in business since 1932. We specialize in Diamonds, Antiques, Jewelry, Precious..."
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Maybe there are some old trunks in the attic or basement.... hiding who knows what...
Perhaps some more '33 Saints?? Cheers, RickO
Smoeone should rent it and do a search.
It is a tall order for an attorney to explain to jurors why his client's blood was found at a murder scene.
In a perfect world,the Langbords should absolutely lose their case because of those meticulous,well-maintained Cashier records and not win "the Coins" in spite of them.
How can one reasonably conclude that 1933 double eagles that found their way into private hands were lawfully removed from the Mint given the existence of those Mint records?
Kevin Flynn:IMO, that would be simple as it happened all the time at the Mint, whereas coins were removed by Mint employees, even Directors of the Mint did this (ex Linderman). Show clear examples where the Mint records state one thing and the actual evidence state another.... The 1913 vnick has no mint records of being created, therefore it should not exist. The question then becomes if a Mint employee takes property and sells it, is it stolen mint property and confiscatable? So for example if the Director orders patterns to be struck for himself and keeps them, is it then also stolen property? Linderman kept a 1868 alum pattern set, which he ordered. What makes a coin a legally struck coin also comes into question, it is suppose to be when the Coiner delivers them to the Superintendent of that Mint (sometimes just in counts as the coins were delivered to the Cashier), but there were many coins exchanged at different levels and are not delivered to the Cashier, such as 3 1894-S dimes given to one of the Mint employees, and Mint employees being permitted to obtain new specimens of newly struck coins. There are many exceptions to the rules which are acceptable deviations from the law. These should be presented. Did the Mint employee pay for these coins in exchange for taking them when they were struck?
The main suspect in the '33 Double eagle job is George McCann who had the plum job of head cashier,Philadelphia Mint beginning in early 1934.McCann was also main suspect in theft of a bag of double eagles,250 pieces,$5000 face value from a basement vault in 1937.McCann did time,one year in prison around 1940 for theft of petty change.
The 1933 Double eagle story is about thievery and corruption at the Mint.The Mint records maintained by Ott and Powell that tracked 1932 AND 1933 double eagles by DATE,show that not a single 1933 double eagle went to a member of the public.
I would be in favor of awarding a posthumous medal to both Powell and Ott for meritorious service by keeping those well-detailed,meticulous records,records which,by some miracle,
still exist today.It's like two honest men with their ears to the ground could hear the Horsemen coming.
Most likely the '33's that were spirited from the Mint were exchanged for,one-for-one, with a common date piece such as a '28.I have a theory that some of the '28's out of the stolen bag were used to replace '33's taken.
Government has evidence that supports their case.Where is the Langbord's evidence that shows the ten 1933 double eagles they found in their sdb were obtained lawfully?
Can the judges on the en banc panel take the position that a profoundly confusing,as written, law such as The Civil Asset Forfeiture and Reform Act of 2000 cannot in any way,shape,or form be reasonably applied in Langbord v. United States?
The best thing to do,IMO, is to have another jury trial,throwing away all the CAFRA considerations.
I'm thinking the en banc judges are in a state of quandary.We have CAFRA to thank for that.
Can the judges on the en banc panel take the position that a profoundly confusing,as written, law such as The Civil Asset Forfeiture and Reform Act of 2000 cannot in any way,shape,or form be reasonably applied in Langbord v. United States?
The best thing to do,IMO, is to have another jury trial,throwing away all the CAFRA considerations.
Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
How is a law enforced that even judges don't understand what it is saying? That is my point Mr. Urich,not that the judges should ignore law that might apply in a case they are considering,
It appears to me that the judges are in a quandary because of CAFRA.I would expect Congress to be able to provide the court with better law than CAFRA.
CAFRA has failed in Langbord v. United States.What can the judges do except throw it out of court and order a new trial?
Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
How is a law enforced that even judges don't understand what it is saying? That is my point Mr. Urich,not that the judges should ignore law that might apply in a case they are considering,
It appears to me that the judges are in a quandary because of CAFRA.I would expect Congress to be able to provide the court with better law than CAFRA.
CAFRA has failed in Langbord v. United States.What can the judges do except throw it out of court and order a new trial?
CAFRA hasn't failed in this case.
What failed in this case was the government, because they failed to follow the rules specified in the CAFRA law. The trial judge gave the government a "mulligan" and allowed them to file a forfeiture action which was over 4 years later than required.
The Langbords contend that the forfeiture filing being over 4 years later than required by the CAFRA law, makes the filing invalid, and therefore the forfeiture should not have occurred, and the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Are you proposing that the Court decide which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore?
Should the Court decide that they if don't like the impact of CAFRA, then they should ignore the law?
I'm not certain what Congress's intent was when it passed CAFRA, but I doubt that their intent was that the law be ignored when the government doesn't like the result.
How is a law enforced that even judges don't understand what it is saying? That is my point Mr. Urich,not that the judges should ignore law that might apply in a case they are considering,
It appears to me that the judges are in a quandary because of CAFRA.I would expect Congress to be able to provide the court with better law than CAFRA.
CAFRA has failed in Langbord v. United States.What can the judges do except throw it out of court and order a new trial?
CAFRA hasn't failed in this case.
What failed in this case was the government, because they failed to follow the rules specified in the CAFRA law. The trial judge gave the government a "mulligan" and allowed them to file a forfeiture action which was over 4 years later than required.
The Langbords contend that the forfeiture filing being over 4 years later than required by the CAFRA law, makes the filing invalid, and therefore the forfeiture should not have occurred, and the coins should be returned to the Langbords.
This is not an issue of a judge choosing to ignore or not enforce a specific law, nor is it an issue of CAFRA failing. CAFRA applies to non-judicial forfeitures. This is simply not a non-judicial forfeiture. In fact, it is not a forfeiture at all. You cannot legally forfeit something for which you never had any legal claim to; thus, CAFRA would apply only if the judge/jury found that the Langboard's had acquired a possessory interest in the pieces. If the pieces were stolen (which should be the government's burden to prove), then the Langboard's never acquired an interest.
I agree with those that think that the Langboards should have the coins back, but it has nothing to do with CAFRA which is nothing more than a red herring. It was erroneous of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to conclude otherwise, hence I am not surprised that the court granted en banc review.
I agree with those that think that the Langboards should have the coins back, but it has nothing to do with CAFRA which is nothing more than a red herring.
In the trial,the government sucessfully convinced a jury that the coins that the Langbords found in their safety deposit box were stolen by a Mint employee.
Aside from the red herring aka CAFRA,if the jury got it right why should the Langbords get the coins back?
1.Advise Treasury to offer the Langbords a substantial reward for finding their stolen coins.
2.If the offer is rejected,the case goes back to jury trial.
A substantial reward offer would be hard for the Langbords to ignore since they would be faced with another jury trial on rejecting a reward.
The government has reward money from its share of the proceeds from the auction for the ex Farouk '33 DE.
I'm thinking the en banc judges are in a state of quandary.We have CAFRA to thank for that.
.
Are these the same judges hearing Tom Brady vs NFL? Free Brady Again!! Free the Langboard Saints!!
But there are enough issues and enough options here that it's possible nobody has found the magic formula to get a majority to concur.
They could, for example simply uphold the original opinion from the 3 judge panel. That basically sent it back to trial with some instructions to the trial judge. But there could also be factions on the circuit court pro and anti CAFRA, and even some who just want to uphold the original trial result. All of which combine to equate to no majority. So it keeps churning. At some point (and we've seen the Supreme Court do this), the circuit court may order the lawyers on both sides to prepare additional briefs or even more oral arguments on a specific point of law.
ANA 50+ year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Author: 3rd Edition of the SampleSlabs book, https://sampleslabs.info/
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody.
Which opinions,of course,were pretty much all about CAFRA which,we are now hearing,does not apply in this case.
What I don't get is why the jury verdict in the first trial is so completely disregarded around here.
It's time for both sides to cut their losses.Pay a reward to the Langbords for surrendering stolen government property and be done with it.
Wishful thinking....
Free the Langbord Saints!!
That would actually make a very good T-shirt slogan.
If the statement above is true,receiving an offer of substantial reward from Treasury is as good as it should get for the Langbords,in my opinion.
I would be okay with a reward for the Langbords of up to 10% of the wholesale value of "the Coins" to the marketplace.$20M estimate of value seems about right.Paying a reward to the Langbords of up to $2M,would be a very generous amount by any measure.
Did the government not prove,in the first jury trial,by a preponderance of the evidence,that the pieces,"the Coins," were stolen from the Mint at some time in the 1930's?
The appellate process will eventually run its course. The outcome may be a decision which leaves nothing else to be done (i.e. the original trial court decision is upheld); or it may be a decision that returns the case to the trial court for further proceedings before the trial judge (i.e. a new trial on some or all issues; or instructions to the trial court for it to do specific and limited things).
The appellate courts will determine if the trial court decision is or is not legally correct. In doing so the appellate courts will obviously be required to look at and make decisions about various legal issues in the case (likely including issues regarding the applicability or non applicability of CAFRA; and issues related to the evidence that was admitted at trial).
The court system is functioning the way that it was and is designed to function. Like it or not the court system is where civilized society is supposed to go to present disputes and have them resolved. Uncle Sam, each of the 50 states, counties, cities are required to participate. Even if they would prefer not to do so. Just like individuals and businesses are required to.
What posters to this thread would like to see happen in this case, while interesting, has no bearing on what will actually happen. The reason why no decision by the En Banc panel has been issued yet may well be what BStrauss3 has suggested. It would be interesting to know how each of the justice on the panel view the case.
This is not an issue of a judge choosing to ignore or not enforce a specific law, nor is it an issue of CAFRA failing. CAFRA applies to non-judicial forfeitures. This is simply not a non-judicial forfeiture. In fact, it is not a forfeiture at all. You cannot legally forfeit something for which you never had any legal claim to; thus, CAFRA would apply only if the judge/jury found that the Langboard's had acquired a possessory interest in the pieces. If the pieces were stolen (which should be the government's burden to prove), then the Langboard's never acquired an interest.
Based on the court testimony, it seems that the one area where the trial court and all the appeals court judges agreed is that the Government needed to initiate a forfeiture proceeding in this case. CAFRA specifically says that it applies to cases where the Government is alleging that the property they took is stolen from them. The issues is what penalty is appropriate under CAFRA. The first trial judge and the Gov attorneys said that it is sufficient to just put the Langbords back to the position they would have been in had the government originally followed all the rules of CAFRA. (A do over) this meant that the gov was made to initiate forfeiture proceeding, and they had the burden of proof at the original trial. The Langbords attorneys said that was not sufficient, that under CAFRA the penalty for the Gov screwing up a CAFRA proceeding was that the Gov relinquishes all rights to the property. The original panel sided with the Langbords, is a 2-1 split decision, not it is up to the en blanc panel to decide the issue.
If the gov decided that in favor of the gov, then they have to look at the evidence admissibility of the original trial.
The way it typically works is the judges take a straw vote in their conference after the hearing and a judge from the majority and minority side is assigned to write a draft opinion. Other judges read the opinions and either sign on or write their own. Some times there are concurrences or dissents that reach the same result via a different path.
But there are enough issues and enough options here that it's possible nobody has found the magic formula to get a majority to concur.
They could, for example simply uphold the original opinion from the 3 judge panel. That basically sent it back to trial with some instructions to the trial judge. But there could also be factions on the circuit court pro and anti CAFRA, and even some who just want to uphold the original trial result. All of which combine to equate to no majority. So it keeps churning. At some point (and we've seen the Supreme Court do this), the circuit court may order the lawyers on both sides to prepare additional briefs or even more oral arguments on a specific point of law.
I thought that the original three judge panel found in favor of the Langbords, 2-1?