Originally posted by: BStrauss3 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?
You are correct, the three judge panel found in favor of the Langbords 2-1, that the CAFRA Death penalty applies, i.e. the gov must return the coins and not try to get them ever again. The three judge panel did not send it back to the trail court. However, they did say in a footnote, that had the CAFRA death penalty not applied they would have sent it back to the trial court, and ordered a new trial without the hearsay evidence.
Now that we've reached another mile marker , as thread count goes... (400 +), how about a simple thread with a poll asking if YOU think these coins were stolen by Israel Switt, or was he just a coin geek, acquiring the newest, and latest issues as soon as the opportunity afforded itself ? And after the dust settled, the government took the position that "Hey, wait, .... we didn't intend to issue these, but we did make hundreds of thousands and we did have a precedent set for "exchange", in a window where these things happened, regularly ... if not ; often.
My belief remains that he was a "do whatever " kind of dealer, trying to get the modern crap to other dealers and collectors for a buck .... And let's admit it. Back in them days, gold was money. Who took that away ?
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
The old Switt residence looks like it was in an apartment building.I think I will have my brother check the 1930 Census to see if the Switts had a different address than 5429 Sansom Street in 1930.
how about a simple thread with a poll asking if YOU think these coins were stolen by Israel Switt, or was he just a coin geek, acquiring the newest, and latest issues as soon as the opportunity afforded itself ?
I. Switt was an accomplice to theft,a "fence," if you will.The '33 Saints were unlawfully "spirited" out of the Mint by G. McCann and then received by Switt,according to David Tripp,the individual who wrote the first book on the '33 Saint story.Method of removal of '33 doubles from the Mint was most likely by baggy pants pocket.
Switt was a gold coin geek to be sure and just didn't accept the government position of gold ownership as being illegal for private citizens like himself.Switt dabbled as a dealer in the rough and tumble '30's.
The opportunity for Switt to acquire '33 Saints afforded itself at some point during the so-called great gold coin melt which commenced starting 1934 and was finished early in 1937.
Switt didn't have any '33 Saints in his possession until 1936,after he went to New York to sell some '31 and '32 Saints to Max Barenstein (who ripped him off), is my theory.
The once well-to-do Switts may have fallen on hard times by 1940 as indicated by their residence in 1940.
My brother researched Switt residence in 1930 and found that they lived at the same address in 1930 as 1940.
Israel Switt's given first name was actually Isadore and his father immigrated from Russia were some other findings that my brother made by searching US Census records.
Originally posted by: mr1874 how about a simple thread with a poll asking if YOU think these coins were stolen by Israel Switt, or was he just a coin geek, acquiring the newest, and latest issues as soon as the opportunity afforded itself ?
I. Switt was an accomplice to theft,a "fence," if you will.The '33 Saints were unlawfully "spirited" out of the Mint by G. McCann and then received by Switt,according to David Tripp,the individual who wrote the first book on the '33 Saint story.Method of removal of '33 doubles from the Mint was most likely by baggy pants pocket.
Switt was a gold coin geek to be sure and just didn't accept the government position of gold ownership as being illegal for private citizens like himself.Switt dabbled as a dealer in the rough and tumble '30's.
The opportunity for Switt to acquire '33 Saints afforded itself at some point during the so-called great gold coin melt which commenced starting 1934 and was finished early in 1937.
Switt didn't have any '33 Saints in his possession until 1936,after he went to New York to sell some '31 and '32 Saints to Max Barenstein (who ripped him off), is my theory.
The once well-to-do Switts may have fallen on hard times by 1940 as indicated by their residence in 1940.
You have your theories and beliefs. I have mine and my doubts.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
My opinion is that Mr. Switt was a dealer who had a decent business selling new Mint issues.
Since he was in Philadelphia, he could visit the Mint often and obtain the new issues, then sell them to his customers.
Since he was trading cash for cash, he probably didn't get or ask for receipts.
One year he obtained 1933 double eagles, then afterward, the Mint decided to not issue the 1933 double eagles.
Bingo! Big profit!
This is the smartest, most logical theory of any of these 400+ posts in this thread.
Hooray for common sense!
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
Last day of the month. The end of half a year for 2016. Time moves along and I patiently await for the 3rd circuit court in Philadelphia to render a decision in the case between the US Federal government and the Langbord family. So here is another "TTT" to remind the 13 judges that it is your DUTY to render a decision. Any decision. For the GOVERNMENT, for the LANGBORDS, for a RETRIAL, for whatever just to show that justice moves swiftly only when there is big MONEY involved.
My question posed months ago, what will happen first, a Supreme Court justice confirmed or Langbord decision is still about a push. This is way too long for a Langbord decision, either way. Very irritating!!
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
The evidence is overwhelming,in the form of the Cashier records from 1933-34,which exist to this day,that all 1933 double eagles,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,were stolen.
The government has hard evidence that theft occurred,presented it at the trial,and managed to convince a jury that theft occurred.Basically,it was a slam-dunk for government at the jury trial.
I would expect no different a result at a second jury trial.I hope this doesn't happen since a second trial would largely be a waste of time and money for both plaintiff and defendant.
Originally posted by: mr1874 The evidence is overwhelming,in the form of the Cashier records from 1933-34,which exist to this day,that all 1933 double eagles,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,were stolen.
The government has hard evidence that theft occurred,presented it at the trial,and managed to convince a jury that theft occurred.Basically,it was a slam-dunk for government at the jury trial.
I would expect no different a result at a second jury trial.I hope this doesn't happen since a second trial would largely be a waste of time and money for both plaintiff and defendant.
If theft occurred, why was there no deficit upon melting?
The evidence is overwhelming,in the form of the Cashier records from 1933-34,which exist to this day,that all 1933 double eagles,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,were stolen.
The government has hard evidence that theft occurred,presented it at the trial,and managed to convince a jury that theft occurred.Basically,it was a slam-dunk for government at the jury trial.
I would expect no different a result at a second jury trial.I hope this doesn't happen since a second trial would largely be a waste of time and money for both plaintiff and defendant.
If theft occurred, why was there no deficit upon melting?
Indeed.
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.
The Cashier records 1933-34 tracked 1933 double eagles by DATE even though there was no legal requirement to do so.
Careful examination of these records accounts for each and every 1933 double eagle ever made.From the records,one can only conclude that not a single '33 double SHOULD HAVE fallen into the hands of a member of the public.
In other words,all of the '33's SHOULD HAVE been melted as the records indicate.Who supervised the melt? None other than George McCann,who became head cashier in 1934.
There was no gold discrepency at melt because the '33's swiped were replaced by McCann with coins from another year such as 1928.My theory is that the replacement pieces most likely came from the bag of 250 double eagles,$5000 face value, that was stolen by a Mint worker or workers from the basement storage vault in 1933,according to the Secret Service.
McCann was the Secret Service's main suspect in the theft of the $5000 bag.The bag was never recovered and no one was ever convicted for this theft.
The hard evidence coupled with the circumstantial evidence is very compelling so its no wonder to me why the government won the jury over by preponderance of the evidence.
If every year's records were accurate then that would be a compelling argument - but taken in context of an overall inaccurate ledger it's mystifying why anyone would put any stock whatsoever into Mint records
Would you be a forceful proponent of the 1933-34 Cashier's Records being definitive and compelling proof if the these records did not show that all 1933 double eagles were accounted for (thus leaving open the possibility that the 10 double eagles left the Mint legally)?
Or would you still take the position that ownership of the ten double eagles should be awarded to the government?
Originally posted by: tradedollarnut If every year's records were accurate then that would be a compelling argument - but taken in context of an overall inaccurate ledger it's mystifying why anyone would put any stock whatsoever into Mint records
Imo, the number one failure of the Langbord legal team was this. Mint records have always been hit or miss. Where are the 1804$1 circulation strikes? Where are the 1873-S seated dollars? Why are ther 1884 and 1885 trade dollars and 1913 Liberty Head nickels? The records just aren't accurate... To ignore that fact and point to one year's records and say it's evidence of theft is totally foolish
Would you be a forceful proponent of the 1933-34 Cashier's Records being definitive and compelling proof if the these records did not show that all 1933 double eagles were accounted for (thus leaving open the possibility that the 10 double eagles left the Mint legally)?
Or would you still take the position that ownership of the ten double eagles should be awarded to the government?
The tracking by DATE that Powell and Ott did in the Cashier records is intriguing to me. Why would these two Mint workers do this?
My theory here is that these two had their ears to the ground and could hear one or more of the so-called "Four Horsemen" coming. The Horsemen were:
1.George McCann,who became Head Cashier early in 1934. 2.Chester "Doc" Ziegler,Assayer. 3.Ralph Roland,Head Bookkeeper and, 4.Fred Chaffin,Chief Clerk.
One can read about the Horsemen,who essentially controlled the early '30's Philadelphia mint, in Tripp's book,Illegal Tender. According to Tripp, "the ambitious McCann was their whippersnapper or did their (the Horsemen's) bidding."
Getting to the question,
Sanction,I would NOT be a forceful proponent of the Cashier records being definitive and compelling proof if date tracking of the 1933 double eagles had not been done.
To me,its a miracle that the 1933 date tracking was done in the first place and another miracle is that the record exists to this day,for modern day investigators to examine.
The Cashier records from 1933-34 are "meticulous" according to Tripp and a Langbord expert witness acknowledged on the stand that the records have no discrepencies that he could detect.
If tracking of double eagles in 1933-34 was not done by date OR if discrepencies were detected in the cashier record,I would take the position that there is too much doubt about how the ten 1933 doubles eventually found their way into the Langbord's SDB. If this were the case,its my opinion that they,the Langbords,should get to keep all ten pieces.
As it stands,it's my opinion that the Langbords are entitled to a substantial reward only,not ownership of the ten 1933 doubles that Israel Switt put in the family SDB with no receipt,nothing indicating that he,Israel Switt, obtained the coins lawfully.
have you ever walked into your bank and asked if they had the new release yet? If they did and you bought a number of the coins/currency did you get a receipt or did you save one?
Why would a walk up to the mint cashier that was buying/swapping DE's ask for or keep a receipt? Especially if this was before they got pulled and melted.
Just answer me that.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
Who's to say the Mint Report wasn't created when the witch hunt started for the 33 Double Eagles????? Would be very easy to do and wouldn't surprise me 1 bit!
Why would a walk up to the mint cashier that was buying/swapping DE's ask for or keep a receipt? Especially if this was before they got pulled and melted.
No receipt,real or bogus, accompanying the ten pieces the Langbords found translates into big problem for them to claim ownership of same when one considers what went down years earlier with Switt involved.
Secret Service confiscated ten other 1933 double eagles in the '40's and '50's all of which were traced to just one person,Israel Switt. When Switt was questioned by Secret Service he was evasive and uncooperative.
I haven't read anywhere,not in Tripp's book or Frankel's, that Switt ever claimed to Secret Service of having made a lawful exchange of old double eagles for shiny new ones at the Mint window in 1933.
Indeed,the audit where no so-called "1933 gold" was found to be missing would have supported a Switt claim of "I got 'em at the window."
Switt's lack of vision is proving to be the foil to the 1933 double eagle caper. Why wouldn't Switt claim during Secret Service interrogation that he obtained 1933 double eagles lawfully at the Mint window on an exchange basis if,in fact, that is what happened?
Who's to say the Mint Report wasn't created when the witch hunt started for the 33 Double Eagles?????
To claim that those cashier records from 1933-34 are bogus is a real stretch. I can't imagine Langbord/Berke spending more than a minute or two considering playing this desperate angle.
The 1933 Mint Head Cashier's name was Harry Powell,not Robert Powell as I have written.
"Special Agent Harry Strang had all of the handwritten Cashier's Daily Settlements and cleanly typed Cashier's Daily Settlement of Receipts,Disbursements,and Balances at his disposal. In 1933,the Cashier had been Harry Powell,an honest man with no apparent ties to any of the Mint's cliques,who was soon to retire after years of exemplary service."
It's my feeling that Switt is not unlike so many people today. They are very wary of government intervention in their personal lives. I too would not have said sh*t to the government and just played dumb. The law says he's innocent until proven guilty of any misdeeds..
The Gov has not done that in my mind. Too many ways to throw this one out of court and never even let the jury decide.
Just split the dmn things.
I'm not lawyer (that might just be evident) but I could be in the jury panel and nobody in the Prosecution has convinced me of anything. Just too many holes and what if's and should have's, etc.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
If i innocently gave the Cashier twenty $20 gold pieces for '33's,i wouldn't have a problem telling the Secret Service that's exactly what happened.
No problem with telling SS that's how i came by ten of them anyway.The ten i'm talking about here are the ten '33's SS confiscated from their collector holders in the '40's and '50's.
The Government is not a coin collector. Only a collector would put added value on the date 1933. The gold is what the government accounted for in 1933 and the gold was not lost. The Government only started caring about the 1933 date in 1944 after added value was placed on the date due to the Governments own melting of the remaining 1933 lot of DE's.
A case could be made for the government being a coin dealer.Coin dealers have been known to put added value on coins?
'33 doubles started to show up in the marketplace in 1937,shortly after the last of the government store of them,they thought all of them,except the two in the Smithsonian,had been melted.
Timing of first seeing '33's for sale in the marketplace is highly suspicious to this investigator.
A horsemen to another horsemen:"Hey,we can get alot more for these few we have unlawfully removed from the Mint,in other words,stole, if we wait until the hundreds of thousands of other pieces have been melted."
1933 double eagles were trading for in excess of $500 apiece after the melt was completed.King Farouk paid $1575,a huge amount of money in the '30's and '40's, for his '33.
Should it be government policy to not melt stockpiles of coins because inside-house thieves might manage to steal a few of them?
Originally posted by: mr1874 If i innocently gave the Cashier twenty $20 gold pieces for '33's,i wouldn't have a problem telling the Secret Service that's exactly what happened.
No problem with telling SS that's how i came by ten of them anyway.The ten i'm talking about here are the ten '33's SS confiscated from their collector holders in the '40's and '50's.
Did they give $20 when confiscated? Heck no. You'd risk losing $200 to the jackboots? That's your house back then
Switt didn't lose any money in his dealings with '33 double eagles.The dollar losses were suffered by the collectors from whom the pieces were confiscated.
It seems to me that a legitimate move would be for these collectors to attempt to recover dollars from the individuals who sold them the pieces confiscated by SS.
Philadelphia dealer James Macallister would need to cough up dough for at least five '33's he sold to collectors and then should have sued Switt for selling him stolen goods.
Except for L.G. Barnard,the rich collectors who had purchased a '33 just laid down.To my knowledge,poor Barnard was left twisting in the wind by his rich fellow collectors in US v. Barnard.
All of the discussion is completely irrelevant. The appeals court asked the parties to brief and argue two specific points, which appear to accept the stolen property argument and deal with forfeiture and whether the Government has already screwed up on that argument...
"(1) whether the 1933 Double Eagle coins in this case should be considered "monetary instruments" under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(4) or other "merchandise" under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607(a)(1) and 1401(c), and the implications of that determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 and 18 U.S.C. §981(d); and (2) whether the Government has waived this argument on appeal, see John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. v. CIGNA Int'l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1076 n.6 (3d Cir. 1997)."
If any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage is not subject to section 1607 of this title, the appropriate customs officer shall transmit a report of the case, with the names of available witnesses, to the United States attorney for the district in which the seizure was made for the institution of the proper proceedings for the condemnation of such property.
(D) Any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross receipts obtained, directly or indirectly, from a violation of— (i) section 666(a)(1) (relating to Federal program fraud);
(ii) section 1001 (relating to fraud and false statements);
(iii) section 1031 (relating to major fraud against the United States);
(iv) section 1032 (relating to concealment of assets from conservator or receiver of insured financial institution);
(v) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud); or
(vi) section 1343 (relating to wire fraud),
if such violation relates to the sale of assets acquired or held by the the?[1] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as conservator or receiver for a financial institution, or any other conservator for a financial institution appointed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the National Credit Union Administration, as conservator or liquidating agent for a financial institution.
-----Burton ANA 50+ year/Life Member (now "Emeritus") Author: 3rd Edition of the SampleSlabs book, https://sampleslabs.info/
1933 double eagles were determined to be chattel or article of vitu,never becoming legal tender,by Judge Boyd.I bolded the more interesting parts of Judge Boyd's opinion,more interesting at least to me...
UNITED STATES v. BARNARD
72 F. Supp. 531 (W.D.Tenn. 1947).
BOYD, District Judge.
This action, in the nature of a replevin, was brought by the United States of America to recover from the defendant a $20 Gold Piece of the United States, commonly called a "Double Eagle", bearing date of the year 1933.
The coin in question was purchased in the year 1944 for $900, by the defendant, a member of the American Numismatic Association, from one Bell, who was also a collector of rare and unusual coins.
The plaintiff contends the coin in dispute was lawfully minted by the United States Mint at Philadelphia, but was never lawfully issued or put in circulation as money, and never became currency or legal tender of the United States; that said coin, never having been lawfully issued as money, or currency, was a chattel, or an article of virtu, at the time it left the Mint .and thereafter, and the defendant, though a bona fide purchaser, acquired no title in the purchase of same against the United States Government, the rightful owner. Plaintiff alleges the coin was illegally taken from the Mint upon substitution of a like coin of another year.
The defendant denies plaintiff is entitled to have the coin returned to it, asserting that he is a collector of rare and unusual coins and, as such, purchased this one from another collector in good faith, in due course of trade and without knowledge that it had been stolen or surreptitiously taken from the Mint if it had, in fact, been so stolen, or taken. He claims the coin in controversy was lawfully minted as United States money, or currency, was issued as such, and is not a chattel, or an article of virtu; further, that regardless of the manner in which the coin left the Philadelphia Mint, it was complete on its face, negotiable and transferable by delivery, and his right, title and interest in same is superior to any claim or title of the plaintiff.
On these issues the decisive question, in the Court's opinion, is whether the coin in dispute, after having been minted, was issued as money or currency of the United States, or whether the status of the same was that of a chattel, or an article of virtu.
The proof is that the United States Government minted 445,500 Double Eagle coins at its Philadelphia Mint during the period between March 15, 1933, and May 19, 1933; that such coin could only be issued and circulated legally by the Philadelphia Mint, upon receipt by said Mint of an order from the Treasurer of the United States; that the Mint did not, at any time, receive such an order except one to deliver two of these coins to the Smithsonian Institute. In addition to the two coins sent to the Smithsonian Institute, twenty-nine others were destroyed by testing and by the Assay Commission, leaving 445,469 Double Eagle coins for the year 1933 on hand at the Philadelphia Mint when they were later ordered melted into bullion. The remaining Double Eagle coins were carefully and meticulously weighed before and after they were melted and the weight of same, following the melting process at the Mint, equalled the weight of these coins prior thereto.
Restrictions on all gold became operative in the early part of 1933, when, on March 6, 1933, the President of the United States proclaimed a "Bank Holiday" during which all banks were prohibited from paying out gold coin. On the same date, the Secretary of the Treasury, with Presidential approval, issued instructions to the Director of the Mint and the Treasurer of the United states to make payments in gold coin only under license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. On April 5, 1933, the President of the United States issued Executive Order No. 6102 requiring the delivery to the United States of all gold coin with the exception of gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding, in the aggregate, $100, and gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The President of the United states, on August 28, 1933, issued Executive Order No. 6260, 12 U.S.C.A. I 95a, which prohibited the issue of gold coin as currency but permitted the acquisition of gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The Secretary of the Treasury, on December 28, 1933, issued an order requiring the delivery to the United States of all gold coin other than that of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The Gold Reserve Act, approved January 30, 1934, 48 Stat. 337, prohibited the coinage and payment of gold coin by the United States. Under this Act and the regulations pursuant thereto, gold coin may only be acquired and held when such gold coin is of special recognized value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. These restrictions, generally, are still in full force and effect at this time.
In view of these undisputed facts, it is clear that the gold piece which is the basis of this lawsuit did not leave the Mint as regularly and lawfully issued money, or currency, therefore, the rule under the law merchant that title to money passes with delivery to a person who acquires it in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and which was adopted to insure the ready acceptability of money as currency in normal channels of trade, is not applicable here. Brown v. Perera. Sup., 176 N.Y.S. 215; Land Oberoesterreich v. Gude. 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 621. The coin here involved was not, at any time, money or currency, but was a chattel, or an article of virtu. In re Gay's Gold, 80 U.S. 358, 20 L.Ed. 606; Moss v. Han*****, 2 Q.B. 3; Brown v. Perera, supra. It is virtually impossible, under the existing laws and careful methods in vogue at the Mint, for gold to be issued or released for circulation. It is a fair inference, from the proof in this case, that the Double Eagle here involved was taken out of the Mint in an unlawful manner; and, further, it is entirely reasonable to say, considering the customs and strict practices at the Mint, that it was abstracted by some one who substituted a similar coin for it before the coins were reduced to bullion. It is the Court's opinion this coin was abstracted by some one who had in mind that it would have a special value as a rare and unusual coin and that it could be disposed of from that standpoint. Since this gold piece was stolen or, through fraudulent breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia Mint, the defendant, as the purchaser, took the same subject to the defects in its title and this is true, even though the property was acquired in good faith, for a valuable consideration and without notice of any infirmity of title. He cannot maintain ownership in such property against one who has been deprived of it by theft or other illegal act. This principle of law is so well settled that it is only necessary to cite a few cases. Ventress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161, 9 L.Ed. 382; Dows v. National Exchange Bank, 91 U.S. 618, 23 L.Ed. 214; In re Ketchum. D.C., 1 F. 815; Parham v. Riley 44 Tenn. 5; Godwin v. Taenzer, 122 Tenn. 101, 119 S.W. 1133; Cowan v. Thompsonf 25 Tenn.App. 130, 152 S.W.2d 1036, cert, denied by Sup.Ct.
It follows that title to the coin in litigation is in the plaintiff, United States of America, and plaintiff is entitled to its restoration. ___________________________________________________________________________
Question for investigators: Has a written order ever been found,from the Treasurer of the United States to the Philadelphia Mint, for issuance of 1933 double eagles as money,or legal tender?
Originally posted by: mr1874 And if they were exchanged for other $20 gold pieces before the stop order was issued? Which would have made the 'count' accurate.... Plausible point. Cheers, RickO
The problem with your theory RickO is that the records maintained by Hibberd Ott tracked 1933 double eagles by date even though there was no legal requirement to do so. Each and every 1933 double eagle,all 445,500, are accounted for in the Mint records. The accountability of 1933 double eagles by date while the pieces were still behind Mint walls is hard to argue with. See Illegal Tender for more information.
It's almost as if head cashier Harry Powell and his assistant,Hibberd Ott,could see the huge potential for gold coin theft at the Mint while America reached the depths of the Great Depression in the early months of 1933.
Hibberd Ott and Harry Powell deserve to be honored for their efforts which was most likely done to cover their own and other innocent backsides in the corrupt 1933 Philadelphia Mint.
Switt deserves to be honored for his preservation of these coins, in my humble opinion.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
Thanks mr1874. I respect the views of everyone. I just do not happen to agree with hearsay as fact. People write books. People research. People still get it wrong.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
Wow! 11 days and over 200 posts in this forum since the last post to this thread. It's the start of a new week so maybe my "ttt" will mean our good judges at the 3rd district will announce their decision in the Langbord vrs US Government case. Maybe?????? Steve
This decision is unfortunate as far as the hobby is concerned. I really can't imagine that the Supreme Court of the US would take this case if the Langbords do appeal. The spread of the court decision at 9 to 3 says a lot about how the judges felt. I will be interested in reading the opinion and other members here comments. Steve
Comments
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?
You are correct, the three judge panel found in favor of the Langbords 2-1, that the CAFRA Death penalty applies, i.e. the gov must return the coins and not try to get them ever again. The three judge panel did not send it back to the trail court. However, they did say in a footnote, that had the CAFRA death penalty not applied they would have sent it back to the trial court, and ordered a new trial without the hearsay evidence.
My belief remains that he was a "do whatever " kind of dealer, trying to get the modern crap to other dealers and collectors for a buck
.... And let's admit it. Back in them days, gold was money. Who took that away ?
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
I. Switt was an accomplice to theft,a "fence," if you will.The '33 Saints were unlawfully
"spirited" out of the Mint by G. McCann and then received by Switt,according to David Tripp,the individual who wrote the first book on the '33 Saint story.Method of removal of '33 doubles from the Mint was most likely by baggy pants pocket.
Switt was a gold coin geek to be sure and just didn't accept the government position of gold ownership as being illegal for private citizens like himself.Switt dabbled as a dealer in the rough and tumble '30's.
The opportunity for Switt to acquire '33 Saints afforded itself at some point during the so-called great gold coin melt which commenced starting 1934 and was finished early in 1937.
Switt didn't have any '33 Saints in his possession until 1936,after he went to New York to sell some '31 and '32 Saints to Max Barenstein (who ripped him off), is my theory.
The once well-to-do Switts may have fallen on hard times by 1940 as indicated by their residence in 1940.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Since he was in Philadelphia, he could visit the Mint often and obtain the new issues, then sell them to his customers.
Since he was trading cash for cash, he probably didn't get or ask for receipts.
One year he obtained 1933 double eagles, then afterward, the Mint decided to not issue the 1933 double eagles.
Bingo! Big profit!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
'er nevermind.
bob
Israel Switt's given first name was actually Isadore and his father immigrated from Russia were some other findings that my brother made by searching US Census records.
how about a simple thread with a poll asking if YOU think these coins were stolen by Israel Switt, or was he just a coin geek, acquiring the newest, and latest issues as soon as the opportunity afforded itself ?
I. Switt was an accomplice to theft,a "fence," if you will.The '33 Saints were unlawfully
"spirited" out of the Mint by G. McCann and then received by Switt,according to David Tripp,the individual who wrote the first book on the '33 Saint story.Method of removal of '33 doubles from the Mint was most likely by baggy pants pocket.
Switt was a gold coin geek to be sure and just didn't accept the government position of gold ownership as being illegal for private citizens like himself.Switt dabbled as a dealer in the rough and tumble '30's.
The opportunity for Switt to acquire '33 Saints afforded itself at some point during the so-called great gold coin melt which commenced starting 1934 and was finished early in 1937.
Switt didn't have any '33 Saints in his possession until 1936,after he went to New York to sell some '31 and '32 Saints to Max Barenstein (who ripped him off), is my theory.
The once well-to-do Switts may have fallen on hard times by 1940 as indicated by their residence in 1940.
You have your theories and beliefs. I have mine and my doubts.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
My opinion is that Mr. Switt was a dealer who had a decent business selling new Mint issues.
Since he was in Philadelphia, he could visit the Mint often and obtain the new issues, then sell them to his customers.
Since he was trading cash for cash, he probably didn't get or ask for receipts.
One year he obtained 1933 double eagles, then afterward, the Mint decided to not issue the 1933 double eagles.
Bingo! Big profit!
This is the smartest, most logical theory of any of these 400+ posts in this thread.
Hooray for common sense!
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
... just to show that justice moves swiftly only when there is big MONEY involved.
Steve
Aren't we already waaaaayyyyyy too late for that?
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Tom
Rules are not necessarily sacred,principles are.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
The government has hard evidence that theft occurred,presented it at the trial,and managed to convince a jury that theft occurred.Basically,it was a slam-dunk for government at the jury trial.
I would expect no different a result at a second jury trial.I hope this doesn't happen since a second trial would largely be a waste of time and money for both plaintiff and defendant.
The evidence is overwhelming,in the form of the Cashier records from 1933-34,which exist to this day,that all 1933 double eagles,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,were stolen.
The government has hard evidence that theft occurred,presented it at the trial,and managed to convince a jury that theft occurred.Basically,it was a slam-dunk for government at the jury trial.
I would expect no different a result at a second jury trial.I hope this doesn't happen since a second trial would largely be a waste of time and money for both plaintiff and defendant.
If theft occurred, why was there no deficit upon melting?
The evidence is overwhelming,in the form of the Cashier records from 1933-34,which exist to this day,that all 1933 double eagles,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,were stolen.
The government has hard evidence that theft occurred,presented it at the trial,and managed to convince a jury that theft occurred.Basically,it was a slam-dunk for government at the jury trial.
I would expect no different a result at a second jury trial.I hope this doesn't happen since a second trial would largely be a waste of time and money for both plaintiff and defendant.
If theft occurred, why was there no deficit upon melting?
Indeed.
Careful examination of these records accounts for each and every 1933 double eagle ever made.From the records,one can only conclude that not a single '33 double SHOULD HAVE fallen into the hands of a member of the public.
In other words,all of the '33's SHOULD HAVE been melted as the records indicate.Who supervised the melt? None other than George McCann,who became head cashier in 1934.
There was no gold discrepency at melt because the '33's swiped were replaced by McCann with coins from another year such as 1928.My theory is that the replacement pieces most likely came from the bag of 250 double eagles,$5000 face value, that was stolen by a Mint worker or workers from the basement storage vault in 1933,according to the Secret Service.
McCann was the Secret Service's main suspect in the theft of the $5000 bag.The bag was never recovered and no one was ever convicted for this theft.
The hard evidence coupled with the circumstantial evidence is very compelling so its no wonder to me why the government won the jury over by preponderance of the evidence.
Would you be a forceful proponent of the 1933-34 Cashier's Records being definitive and compelling proof if the these records did not show that all 1933 double eagles were accounted for (thus leaving open the possibility that the 10 double eagles left the Mint legally)?
Or would you still take the position that ownership of the ten double eagles should be awarded to the government?
If every year's records were accurate then that would be a compelling argument - but taken in context of an overall inaccurate ledger it's mystifying why anyone would put any stock whatsoever into Mint records
Imo, the number one failure of the Langbord legal team was this. Mint records have always been hit or miss. Where are the 1804$1 circulation strikes? Where are the 1873-S seated dollars? Why are ther 1884 and 1885 trade dollars and 1913 Liberty Head nickels? The records just aren't accurate... To ignore that fact and point to one year's records and say it's evidence of theft is totally foolish
Would you be a forceful proponent of the 1933-34 Cashier's Records being definitive and compelling proof if the these records did not show that all 1933 double eagles were accounted for (thus leaving open the possibility that the 10 double eagles left the Mint legally)?
Or would you still take the position that ownership of the ten double eagles should be awarded to the government?
The tracking by DATE that Powell and Ott did in the Cashier records is intriguing to me.
Why would these two Mint workers do this?
My theory here is that these two had their ears to the ground and could hear one or more of the so-called "Four Horsemen" coming. The Horsemen were:
1.George McCann,who became Head Cashier early in 1934.
2.Chester "Doc" Ziegler,Assayer.
3.Ralph Roland,Head Bookkeeper and,
4.Fred Chaffin,Chief Clerk.
One can read about the Horsemen,who essentially controlled the early '30's Philadelphia mint, in Tripp's book,Illegal Tender. According to Tripp, "the ambitious McCann was their whippersnapper or did their (the Horsemen's) bidding."
Getting to the question,
Sanction,I would NOT be a forceful proponent of the Cashier records being definitive and compelling proof if date tracking of the 1933 double eagles had not been done.
To me,its a miracle that the 1933 date tracking was done in the first place and another miracle is that the record exists to this day,for modern day investigators to examine.
The Cashier records from 1933-34 are "meticulous" according to Tripp and a Langbord expert witness acknowledged on the stand that the records have no discrepencies that he could detect.
If tracking of double eagles in 1933-34 was not done by date OR if discrepencies were detected in the cashier record,I would take the position that there is too much doubt about how the ten 1933 doubles eventually found their way into the Langbord's SDB. If this were the case,its my opinion that they,the Langbords,should get to keep all ten pieces.
As it stands,it's my opinion that the Langbords are entitled to a substantial reward only,not ownership of the ten 1933 doubles that Israel Switt put in the family SDB with no receipt,nothing indicating that he,Israel Switt, obtained the coins lawfully.
Why would a walk up to the mint cashier that was buying/swapping DE's ask for or keep a receipt? Especially if this was before they got pulled and melted.
Just answer me that.
bob
No receipt,real or bogus, accompanying the ten pieces the Langbords found translates into big problem for them to claim ownership of same when one considers what went down years earlier with Switt involved.
Secret Service confiscated ten other 1933 double eagles in the '40's and '50's all of which were traced to just one person,Israel Switt. When Switt was questioned by Secret Service he was evasive and uncooperative.
I haven't read anywhere,not in Tripp's book or Frankel's, that Switt ever claimed to Secret Service of having made a lawful exchange of old double eagles for shiny new ones at the Mint window in 1933.
Indeed,the audit where no so-called "1933 gold" was found to be missing would have supported a Switt claim of "I got 'em at the window."
Switt's lack of vision is proving to be the foil to the 1933 double eagle caper. Why wouldn't Switt claim during Secret Service interrogation that he obtained 1933 double eagles lawfully at the Mint window on an exchange basis if,in fact, that is what happened?
To claim that those cashier records from 1933-34 are bogus is a real stretch. I can't imagine Langbord/Berke spending more than a minute or two considering playing this desperate angle.
The 1933 Mint Head Cashier's name was Harry Powell,not Robert Powell as I have written.
"Special Agent Harry Strang had all of the handwritten Cashier's Daily Settlements and cleanly typed Cashier's Daily Settlement of Receipts,Disbursements,and Balances at his disposal. In 1933,the Cashier had been Harry Powell,an honest man with no apparent ties to any of the Mint's cliques,who was soon to retire after years of exemplary service."
Illegal Tender,p.156
The Gov has not done that in my mind. Too many ways to throw this one out of court and never even let the jury decide.
Just split the dmn things.
I'm not lawyer (that might just be evident) but I could be in the jury panel and nobody in the Prosecution has convinced me of anything. Just too many holes and what if's and should have's, etc.
bob
No problem with telling SS that's how i came by ten of them anyway.The ten i'm talking about here are the ten '33's SS confiscated from their collector holders in the '40's and '50's.
'33 doubles started to show up in the marketplace in 1937,shortly after the last of the government store of them,they thought all of them,except the two in the Smithsonian,had been melted.
Timing of first seeing '33's for sale in the marketplace is highly suspicious to this investigator.
A horsemen to another horsemen:"Hey,we can get alot more for these few we have unlawfully removed from the Mint,in other words,stole, if we wait until the hundreds of thousands of other pieces have been melted."
1933 double eagles were trading for in excess of $500 apiece after the melt was completed.King Farouk paid $1575,a huge amount of money in the '30's and '40's, for his '33.
Should it be government policy to not melt stockpiles of coins because inside-house thieves might manage to steal a few of them?
If i innocently gave the Cashier twenty $20 gold pieces for '33's,i wouldn't have a problem telling the Secret Service that's exactly what happened.
No problem with telling SS that's how i came by ten of them anyway.The ten i'm talking about here are the ten '33's SS confiscated from their collector holders in the '40's and '50's.
Did they give $20 when confiscated? Heck no. You'd risk losing $200 to the jackboots? That's your house back then
It seems to me that a legitimate move would be for these collectors to attempt to recover dollars from the individuals who sold them the pieces confiscated by SS.
Philadelphia dealer James Macallister would need to cough up dough for at least five '33's he sold to collectors and then should have sued Switt for selling him stolen goods.
Except for L.G. Barnard,the rich collectors who had purchased a '33 just laid down.To my knowledge,poor Barnard was left twisting in the wind by his rich fellow collectors in US v. Barnard.
"(1) whether the 1933 Double Eagle coins in this case should be considered "monetary
instruments" under 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a)(4) or other "merchandise" under 19 U.S.C. §§
1607(a)(1) and 1401(c), and the implications of that determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 and
18 U.S.C. §981(d); and
(2) whether the Government has waived this argument on appeal, see John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. v.
CIGNA Int'l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1076 n.6 (3d Cir. 1997)."
19 U.S. Code § 1610 - Seizure; judicial forfeiture proceedings - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1610
If any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage is not subject to section 1607 of this title, the appropriate customs officer shall transmit a report of the case, with the names of available witnesses, to the United States attorney for the district in which the seizure was made for the institution of the proper proceedings for the condemnation of such property.
and
18 U.S.C. §981(d) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981
(D) Any property, real or personal, which represents or is traceable to the gross receipts obtained, directly or indirectly, from a violation of—
(i) section 666(a)(1) (relating to Federal program fraud);
(ii) section 1001 (relating to fraud and false statements);
(iii) section 1031 (relating to major fraud against the United States);
(iv) section 1032 (relating to concealment of assets from conservator or receiver of insured financial institution);
(v) section 1341 (relating to mail fraud); or
(vi) section 1343 (relating to wire fraud),
if such violation relates to the sale of assets acquired or held by the the?[1] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as conservator or receiver for a financial institution, or any other conservator for a financial institution appointed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the National Credit Union Administration, as conservator or liquidating agent for a financial institution.
ANA 50+ year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Author: 3rd Edition of the SampleSlabs book, https://sampleslabs.info/
UNITED STATES v. BARNARD
72 F. Supp. 531 (W.D.Tenn. 1947).
BOYD, District Judge.
This action, in the nature of a replevin, was brought by the United States of America to recover from the defendant a $20 Gold Piece of the United States, commonly called a "Double Eagle", bearing date of the year 1933.
The coin in question was purchased in the year 1944 for $900, by the defendant, a member of the American Numismatic Association, from one Bell, who was also a collector of rare and unusual coins.
The plaintiff contends the coin in dispute was lawfully minted by the United States Mint at Philadelphia, but was never lawfully issued or put in circulation as money, and never became currency or legal tender of the United States; that said coin, never having been lawfully issued as money, or currency, was a chattel, or an article of virtu, at the time it left the Mint .and thereafter, and the defendant, though a bona fide purchaser, acquired no title in the purchase of same against the United States Government, the rightful owner. Plaintiff alleges the coin was illegally taken from the Mint upon substitution of a like coin of another year.
The defendant denies plaintiff is entitled to have the coin returned to it, asserting that he is a collector of rare and unusual coins and, as such, purchased this one from another collector in good faith, in due course of trade and without knowledge that it had been stolen or surreptitiously taken from the Mint if it had, in fact, been so stolen, or taken. He claims the coin in controversy was lawfully minted as United States money, or currency, was issued as such, and is not a chattel, or an article of virtu; further, that regardless of the manner in which the coin left the Philadelphia Mint, it was complete on its face, negotiable and transferable by delivery, and his right, title and interest in same is superior to any claim or title of the plaintiff.
On these issues the decisive question, in the Court's opinion, is whether the coin in dispute, after having been minted, was issued as money or currency of the United States, or whether the status of the same was that of a chattel, or an article of virtu.
The proof is that the United States Government minted 445,500 Double Eagle coins at its Philadelphia Mint during the period between March 15, 1933, and May 19, 1933; that such coin could only be issued and circulated legally by the Philadelphia Mint, upon receipt by said Mint of an order from the Treasurer of the United States; that the Mint did not, at any time, receive such an order except one to deliver two of these coins to the Smithsonian Institute. In addition to the two coins sent to the Smithsonian Institute, twenty-nine others were destroyed by testing and by the Assay Commission, leaving 445,469 Double Eagle coins for the year 1933 on hand at the Philadelphia Mint when they were later ordered melted into bullion. The remaining Double Eagle coins were carefully and meticulously weighed before and after they were melted and the weight of same, following the melting process at the Mint, equalled the weight of these coins prior thereto.
Restrictions on all gold became operative in the early part of 1933, when, on March 6, 1933, the President of the United States proclaimed a "Bank Holiday" during which all banks were prohibited from paying out gold coin. On the same date, the Secretary of the Treasury, with Presidential approval, issued instructions to the Director of the Mint and the Treasurer of the United states to make payments in gold coin only under license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. On April 5, 1933, the President of the United States issued Executive Order No. 6102 requiring the delivery to the United States of all gold coin with the exception of gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding, in the aggregate, $100, and gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The President of the United states, on August 28, 1933, issued Executive Order No. 6260, 12 U.S.C.A. I 95a, which prohibited the issue of gold coin as currency but permitted the acquisition of gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The Secretary of the Treasury, on December 28, 1933, issued an order requiring the delivery to the United States of all gold coin other than that of recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The Gold Reserve Act, approved January 30, 1934, 48 Stat. 337, prohibited the coinage and payment of gold coin by the United States. Under this Act and the regulations pursuant thereto, gold coin may only be acquired and held when such gold coin is of special recognized value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. These restrictions, generally, are still in full force and effect at this time.
In view of these undisputed facts, it is clear that the gold piece which is the basis of this lawsuit did not leave the Mint as regularly and lawfully issued money, or currency, therefore, the rule under the law merchant that title to money passes with delivery to a person who acquires it in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and which was adopted to insure the ready acceptability of money as currency in normal channels of trade, is not applicable here. Brown v. Perera. Sup., 176 N.Y.S. 215; Land Oberoesterreich v. Gude. 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 621. The coin here involved was not, at any time, money or currency, but was a chattel, or an article of virtu. In re Gay's Gold, 80 U.S. 358, 20 L.Ed. 606; Moss v. Han*****, 2 Q.B. 3; Brown v. Perera, supra. It is virtually impossible, under the existing laws and careful methods in vogue at the Mint, for gold to be issued or released for circulation. It is a fair inference, from the proof in this case, that the Double Eagle here involved was taken out of the Mint in an unlawful manner; and, further, it is entirely reasonable to say, considering the customs and strict practices at the Mint, that it was abstracted by some one who substituted a similar coin for it before the coins were reduced to bullion. It is the Court's opinion this coin was abstracted by some one who had in mind that it would have a special value as a rare and unusual coin and that it could be disposed of from that standpoint. Since this gold piece was stolen or, through fraudulent breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia Mint, the defendant, as the purchaser, took the same subject to the defects in its title and this is true, even though the property was acquired in good faith, for a valuable consideration and without notice of any infirmity of title. He cannot maintain ownership in such property against one who has been deprived of it by theft or other illegal act. This principle of law is so well settled that it is only necessary to cite a few cases. Ventress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161, 9 L.Ed. 382; Dows v. National Exchange Bank, 91 U.S. 618, 23 L.Ed. 214; In re Ketchum. D.C., 1 F. 815; Parham v. Riley 44 Tenn. 5; Godwin v. Taenzer, 122 Tenn. 101, 119 S.W. 1133; Cowan v. Thompsonf 25 Tenn.App. 130, 152 S.W.2d 1036, cert, denied by Sup.Ct.
It follows that title to the coin in litigation is in the plaintiff, United States of America, and plaintiff is entitled to its restoration.
___________________________________________________________________________
Question for investigators: Has a written order ever been found,from the Treasurer of the United States to the Philadelphia Mint, for issuance of 1933 double eagles as money,or legal tender?
And if they were exchanged for other $20 gold pieces before the stop order was
issued? Which would have made the 'count' accurate.... Plausible point.
Cheers, RickO
The problem with your theory RickO is that the records maintained by Hibberd Ott tracked 1933 double eagles by date even though there was no legal requirement to do so. Each and every 1933 double eagle,all 445,500, are accounted for in the Mint records. The accountability of 1933 double eagles by date while the pieces were still behind Mint walls is hard to argue with. See Illegal Tender for more information.
It's almost as if head cashier Harry Powell and his assistant,Hibberd Ott,could see the huge potential for gold coin theft at the Mint while America reached the depths of the Great Depression in the early months of 1933.
Hibberd Ott and Harry Powell deserve to be honored for their efforts which was most likely done to cover their own and other innocent backsides in the corrupt 1933 Philadelphia Mint.
Switt deserves to be honored for his preservation of these coins, in my humble opinion.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
I respect your view about Switt with regard to preservation,TwoSides.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Fully expected this outcome though. The government did have the home court advantage, as they say.
Bummer. A loss to everyone. They will now reside deep in a vault somewhere, never to be seen again. The coins, that is.