Poll - Will the Supreme Court Agree to Hear the Langbord's appeal?

Tomthecoinguy · August 4, 2016 12:49AM

I thought it would be fun to have a poll on if people think the Supreme court will grant Certiorari to the Langbords. While the odds are statistically against it, I am going to say yes they will.

The odds were also against the en blanc panel hearing the case, yet they did.

I also agree with the point someone made to me that every judge that has looked at this case has thought it was an interesting case. The SCOTUS judges are not immune from the desire to hear interesting cases.

Shamika · August 4, 2016 1:23AM

If they did, it would likely end in a 4-4 tie. That's all I'll say.

roadrunner · August 4, 2016 1:48AM

Originally posted by: Shamika

If they did, it would likely end in a 4-4 tie. That's all I'll say.

If they do agree to hear the case, the open 9th position will have been filled by then.

jcping · August 4, 2016 1:51AM

Highly doubt it

TPRC · August 4, 2016 4:38AM

I voted yes. Then again, I'm an optimist.

BStrauss3 · August 4, 2016 4:51AM

There are no questions where the circuit courts disagree, therefore there is no supreme question.

WoodenJefferson · August 4, 2016 4:56AM

I'm thinking the tax payer has been burdened enough already with this case...the issue is now dead in the water.

johnny9434 · August 4, 2016 5:05AM

no i do not think it will. who knows for certain though

mustangmanbob · August 4, 2016 6:47AM

Divide it up:

1 per justice, 1 for the lead government lawyer and 1 for the plaintiff lawyer.

Case closed.

BillJones · August 4, 2016 7:00AM

The Supreme Court only takes on precedent setting cases. This does not qualify.

coinhack · August 4, 2016 7:06AM

I can't see it ever happening.

Tomthecoinguy · August 4, 2016 7:37AM

Originally posted by: BillJones
The Supreme Court only takes on precedent setting cases. This does not qualify.

I think you could fairly say that anything they decide sets a precedent.

I don't think the SCOTUS has ever weighed in on CAFRA, so that would be a new precedent they would be setting.

tradedollarnut · August 4, 2016 7:49AM

Originally posted by: BillJones
The Supreme Court only takes on precedent setting cases. This does not qualify.

It's not precedent setting for the Government to ignore CAFRA because they claim ownership? Hmmmmm

BillJones · August 4, 2016 7:58AM

Originally posted by: tradedollarnut

Originally posted by: BillJones
The Supreme Court only takes on precedent setting cases. This does not qualify.

It's not precedent setting for the Government to ignore CAFRA because they claim ownership? Hmmmmm

I agree with the poster who said it would go to a 4-4 tie in the present court. I can't see any of the "progressive" justices siding with the Langboards. If Hillary wins, which seems likely, the Langbords are really dead in the water, but like I said before, I can't see the Supreme Court picking up this case.

cameonut2011 · August 4, 2016 8:03AM

Originally posted by: BStrauss3
There are no questions where the circuit courts disagree, therefore there is no supreme question.

+1

cladking · August 4, 2016 8:24AM

Originally posted by: Shamika

If they did, it would likely end in a 4-4 tie. That's all I'll say.

Exactly.

Four people who believe in the Constitution and four who do not.

Eight who can't read.

TPRC · August 4, 2016 8:34AM

From the Supreme Court's Rules

"Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law."

It is not just a conflict between and/or among the Circuits that forms the basis for review by the Supremes. However, I could see an argument being made, for example, that the finding of Harmless Error, as it applied to the overwhelming improper hearsay rulings, amounts to both a conflict among the Circuits and/or such a departure from accepted judicial proceedings as to justify the Supreme Court's review.

Having said that, statistically, the chances are against a grant of cert. And as to my favorite issue, improper application of the hearsay rule or, more precisely, the improper finding of harmless error, the chances of a review on that basis is even lower than normal, both because it involves the Rules of Evidence, and because it involves facts.

As Sanction said, a Petition will undoubtedly be made, so I live in hope.

SanctionII · August 4, 2016 8:36AM

Consider this summary of a media report on SOCTUS:

"The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to put on hold a federal judge's order in the growing controversy over restrictions on the use of bathrooms by transgender students.

The school board in Gloucester County, Virginia, is challenging a decision by a federal appeals court that ruled it must allow a student, who was born a girl but now identifies as male, to use the boys' bathroom during the coming school year.

While the board prepares to appeal the decision, it asked the Supreme Court to block the lower court order. And on Wednesday, the justices granted that request in a brief order".

If the SCOTUS chooses to get involved in a legal dispute over use of bathrooms by transgender students, it would not surprise me to see it choose to get involved in a legal dispute consisting of the factual and legal issues presented by the Langbord case.

Whether legal cases over the use of bathrooms by transgender students or over property rights are, vis-a-vis each other, more important to society in general will vary with each individual.

SCOTUS decides what cases it will or will not hear and decide. Predictions of what it will or will not do in the Langbord case are nothing other than fodder for discussion around the water cooler, chat room, coin shop, coin club meeting, bourse or workplace of dealers and TPGs. Until the Langbords file a Petition For Review with the SCOTUS nothing of substance will exist except yesterday's ruling in favor of Uncle Sam.

mr1931S · August 5, 2016 12:11AM

SantionII:If the SCOTUS chooses to get involved in a legal dispute over use of bathrooms by transgender students, it would not surprise me to see it choose to get involved in a legal dispute consisting of the factual and legal issues presented by the Langbord case.

Presently,the social issues in this country far out-weigh the issue of who gets to keep ten discs of gold.

The chance of Supreme Court review of Langbord v. United States is very close to nil in my view.SCOTUS has its hands full with social issues,issues that affect many more Americans than the Langbords or the numismatic community.

btw,what is the hearsay evidence that is so obnoxious to you all? Gov didn't even need SS hearsay evidence,for example,to make it's case.

ChrisRx · August 5, 2016 12:41AM

They should have never sent the coins in to begin with.

No good deed goes unpunished.

ricko · August 5, 2016 1:47AM

I really would like SCOTUS to take the case..... If they do, we may see a reversal... Cheers, RickO

s4ny · August 7, 2016 11:06PM

First: I don't think the SCOTUS would take the case.

Second: the vote would not likely be the 4-4 liberal/conservative split
expected. Elena Kagan might agree with Samuel Alito and Breyer and Roberts
might dissent. Or, it could be 8-0.

Gold12 · November 13, 2016 12:50PM

@mr1874 said:

Presently,the social issues in this country far out-weigh the issue of who gets to keep ten discs of gold.

The issue is not who gets the "10 discs of gold" as you say but about the power of the government to take and keep a citizen’s property without due process. I hope the case is heard and publicized as, from what I have read regarding this case, the government ignored it's own laws when they confiscated these coins.

TommyType · November 13, 2016 2:35PM

@Gold12 said:

@mr1874 said:

Presently,the social issues in this country far out-weigh the issue of who gets to keep ten discs of gold.

The issue is not who gets the "10 discs of gold" as you say but about the power of the government to take and keep a citizen’s property without due process. I hope the case is heard and publicized as, from what I have read regarding this case, the government ignored it's own laws when they confiscated these coins.

I think there is some over-simplifying going on. I think there IS a difference between these two scenarios:

1) Government takes away your car, because you are transporting drugs.
2) Government takes a laptop computer from your possession that was demonstrated to be stolen from a government office building.

I think the CAFRA laws everyone is crowing about is INTENDED to cover scenario #1. Taking away what was obviously never a government asset, and to which the government has no claim beyond the seizure rules.

You can try to force scenario #2 into those rules, but it's not an easy fit, and probably wasn't the rules intention.

Is the Supreme court required to define that difference? Possibly not....depends on how well the lower courts did in considering it?

(Note, I did NOT use the 1933 DE as an example for a reason....The legal issues dealing with 'ownership' there are far from simple, and it's hard to say easily which of the two scenarios apply! And I'm not going to stake a claim there....)

logger7 · November 13, 2016 2:48PM

It should be interesting to see how the new President's decision to appoint will affect the Scotus make up and decisions. Personally since the issue has been decided on several court levels already it would be unlikely to see any change there. A businessman as President--not sure if he could step in on cases like this he disagrees with, probably not.

rhl · November 13, 2016 3:23PM

CAFRA specifically references property allegedly stolen from the United States and was clearly intended to apply to property the government claimed to be stolen. Read the now superceded initial appeals Court decision in the Langbord case to see the specific statutory language and how it works. What was done by the enbanc panel was to twist the statutory language and intent to exclude my family property. Most unbiased legal experts I am aware of who have reviewed that decision describe it as "results oriented adjudication"-- that is the Court looked for any all possible justifications and loopholes to read the law and the statutes so as to achieve the result it had predetermined--that the coins should stay with the government.

rhl · November 13, 2016 3:35PM

Oh and let me add one thing I have wanted to say for a long time--Mr.1874 whoever you are, first you know nothing about my family; second, repeating large segments from David Tripp's book does not qualify you as knowledgeable; and third, posting prolifically does not make you an expert. There are a few other choice things I would like to say but they would in all liklihood have me banned from this forum. Lol

MsMorrisine · November 13, 2016 4:16PM

aw
it looks like the poll disappeared with the new forum.

I see the en banc ruling as a "how we think the property should be handled" vs "how we interpret the law" with the "how the property should be handled" side winning.

As the only route to an appeal where I think the law was more than not interpreted properly, it was largely side-stepped, the Supreme Court needs to hear this. Perhaps if they are so moved as to think the property was proven stolen (it wasn't) but the given time elapsed and thus the property goes to the Langbords, then they can mention the short coming of the laws as written in their opinion.

vote: hears it

Gold12 · November 13, 2016 4:22PM

@TommyType said:

@Gold12 said:

@mr1874 said:

The issue is not who gets the "10 discs of gold" as you say but about the power of the government to take and keep a citizen’s property without due process. I hope the case is heard and publicized as, from what I have read regarding this case, the government ignored it's own laws when they confiscated these coins.

I think there is some over-simplifying going on. I think there IS a difference between these two scenarios:

1) Government takes away your car, because you are transporting drugs.
2) Government takes a laptop computer from your possession that was demonstrated to be stolen from a government office building.

I think the CAFRA laws everyone is crowing about is INTENDED to cover scenario #1. Taking away what was obviously never a government asset, and to which the government has no claim beyond the seizure rules.

You can try to force scenario #2 into those rules, but it's not an easy fit, and probably wasn't the rules intention.

Is the Supreme court required to define that difference? Possibly not....depends on how well the lower courts did in considering it?

(Note, I did NOT use the 1933 DE as an example for a reason....The legal issues dealing with 'ownership' there are far from simple, and it's hard to say easily which of the two scenarios apply! And I'm not going to stake a claim there....)

I agree with your last statement, that the legal issues are not simple. But, if I'm not mistaken, the courts did rule that CAFRA was applicable but allowed the government to comply years after the original deadline. A "do over" if you will. That is what I am referring to when I said that the government ignored their own laws.

MsMorrisine · November 13, 2016 4:36PM

A laptop - never make it to SC because the gub'mint might just let it go if it had no data on the laptop.
A group of 33 gold DE - might never be given a proper hearing on proper theft status and thus may have courts falling over themselves trying to give them back to the gub'mint. After all, money of this type can safely be assumed to be precious gub'mint property, right?

How about some WWII era C47s (DC-3s) where the owner says they were bought surplus years ago vs the gub'mint saying they have no such sales in their immaculate records -- and they must be ours cause we made em for us and never released these.

MsMorrisine · November 13, 2016 4:53PM

I just don't see how CAFRA can apply ... but with the do over ... have courts convinced they are stolen ... but ignore CAFRA by giving a do over ... have some members of the appeals court view that CAFRA applies and they go to the Langbords without saying those ruling in the majority aren't dancing around the law.

Obviously I think the dancing plus the clarification of CAFRA would be enough for the SC to hear this.

Obviously, I think the gub'mint viewing 33 gold DEs as precious gub'mint property might keep the SC from hearing this

On the one hand, this is an important chance for a interpretation of CAFRA, on the other such a fuzzy situation may never arise again.

Coinosaurus · November 13, 2016 5:54PM

I doubt they'll hear it, but I think it would be a good thing for numismatics if they do.

golden · November 13, 2016 6:41PM

I don't think that they will.

TwoSides2aCoin · November 13, 2016 7:18PM

Anything is possible. We got gay marriage laws passed faster than gas.

BillJones · November 13, 2016 8:06PM

The short answer is no. Unless the Supreme Court benefits in an enhancement of its power, it's not going to hear the case. The Supreme Court will not say, "No," to Saint Franklin Roosevelt even if it is a conservative court. There is no earth shaking issue here for them adjudicate.

ricko · November 14, 2016 5:56AM

Well... I would really like the Supreme Court to take this case..... I have no idea if they will or not. I am certainly not a legal scholar, but I feel the government, in this case, has been a bully and has not proved their case. I guarantee there would have been a hung jury if I were a member. Cheers, RickO

BillJones · November 14, 2016 7:52AM

I'd be a member of the hung jury too, but the Langbords are up against the Federal Government, the most powerful organization in the world. Beating them in court is very hard because the government has almost unlimited resources and does not care how much money it spends.

SoFlo · November 14, 2016 9:07AM

The people that found the coins were foolish, they should have melted them down and kept quiet.

It's no different than the police pulling you over and finding a stolen property in your vehicle, they're gonna confiscate it.

rhl · November 14, 2016 12:41PM

Being one of the people who found these coins, I have to respectfully disagree. Melting down ten ounces of gold would be worth about $10 or $12 thousand dollars, our coins estimated market value as 1933 Double Eagles was around $30 to $50 million dollars.

logger7 · November 14, 2016 4:32PM

What I would do is offer a percentage of the resulting profit if the case is successful with Scotus; imaginative and courageous law firms like Bernhoft, Mac Macpherson, Becraft, advisors like Dr. Edwin Vieira known for sticking their necks out for tax protestors or more mainstream lawyers may be enticed if the potential swag is big enough like 50%. Let them present their best potential arguments in tandem with Roger Burdette or other researchers or comb through all extant records again or pay those who come up with original advantageous research a share of any successful result. Probably you would need a top flight lawyer like David Boies to fine tune the arguments as part of a larger legal "dream team". Unfortunately many lawyers and judges are not motivated enough, pride, arrogance and greed, some of the deadly sins that dog the legal professionals......

rhl · November 14, 2016 5:33PM

I believe that you will find that our lawyers-- Kramer, Levin and our lead counsel in particular Barry Berke--are among the best and most respected lawyers in the United States. Their behavior has been exemplary.

Danye West · November 14, 2016 5:58PM

RHL for President.

logger7 · November 14, 2016 6:46PM

With that type of money and honor at stake, I would be turning over every rock and offering powerful incentives to come up with research that could turn the case in my favor. RWB did a lot of research, my guess is there is still evidence out there that could convince the government of your case. Has everything pertinent been unearthed in the case?

rhl · November 14, 2016 8:33PM

Again, unfortunately for us, the Supreme Court does not review findings and issues of facts, only legal questions. One of the big issues that made this case difficult from the start was the evidence that the trial court did and did not allow to be presented to the jury.

Poll - Will the Supreme Court Agree to Hear the Langbord's appeal?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories