@keets said:
if I understand the thread, the Langbord family has to return the coin(s) to the rightful owner. I was in the distinct minority and have thought this was the correct outcome from the start. all the legal wrestling aside, it comes down to a single point from MyLoftyPerch --- should a reasonable person have known that the coin(s) were illegal to own?? good old slippery Izzy Switt knew the answer.
You are just as wrong now as you were then.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@rhl said:
Even though it was the likely outcome you have no idea how hurt and angry we all feel.
Roy, I imagine most of us here on the coin forum were rooting for you for one reason or another. Thanks for taking a stand.
I'm curious if you would share with us whether there was ever any hint of a deal at any point in the litigation. That is, was there ever any negotiation about splitting up the coins or selling them or anything like that? Was the United States ever willing to talk settlement?
Again, thanks for your efforts and your interesting inside perspectives.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Keets, the executive order allowed for the "holding of no more than $200 in aggregate" of U.S. gold coinage.
That means Izzy could have kept 10 of the 1933 DE's , and in conformity of law. Ten times $20 is $200 in aggregate. Does that make him a thief ? A liar ? A scoundrel ? The fact that other 1933 coins were attributed to him throughout time, to me, only confirms one thing. He had more than the $200 in aggregate. Perhaps he knew (interpreted law) he could hide away 20 ten dollar gold coins, or 200 one dollar gold coins , or ten of every dated $20 gold with the same dates on them.
It wasn't as if Roosevelt was demanding death to the hobby. On the contrary. The executive order allowed it to continue well on, until someone in government sparked an outrage over the news that "So and So" bought a 1933 Gold Double eagle in auction, ... and that monster's been alive since. That's when the government took the Draconian route.
My contention remains the same. He (Izzy) could have legally gotten a few out to "would-be" collectors and he was probably a " modern coin geek dealer ", except ... he's not here to tell me the rest of the story.
Do we beat the dealer down throughout history because that's the way we do it around here ?
The world went on, and collectors did, too. As much as you'd like to say justice is finally served, I would argue that the same verbiage you use toward me ( as libertarian who's jets are fired, lol.... ), is the same kind of verbiage used throughout history to label others, and maybe vilify them, so as to discredit sound theory.
I disagree with you, in that our justice system got this right. For the sake of diverting attention away from the facts let's bring up politics.
As to my jets, you should be grateful I got a fire burning. This hobby might otherwise be diminished sooner, if not for guys like you, me and countless others who hold it kind of sacred. And I think most of us would like to see those ( 1933 Double Eagles) go piece by piece to collectors through an auction process to see who might like them.
On that note, I just bought a Sara Polk gold spouse proof coin for $650 in the shop, today. I paid more than spot. Just think, I could have traded it in for a new spouse back in the old days.
In my opinion, you are just as wrong now as you were then.
there Mark, I fixed it for you.
all of you guys can pontificate and spew what little Lawyer-eeze you think you know, but the case was heard with Professionals much more skilled and educated about the facts and, yes, the Law, then you guys. most of what everyone views as facts and bases their opinions on are simply the renderings of Sanction as he has updated us with "HIS UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS" and the individual members' thoughts that probably amounts to some College Education and too many episodes of Law and Order.
I'll stick with the court decision. unlike many here, I'm not so jaded and paranoid to the point where I think our Uncle is out to get me/us.
@keets said: In my opinion, you are just as wrong now as you were then.
there Mark, I fixed it for you.
all of you guys can pontificate and spew what little Lawyer-eeze you think you know, but the case was heard with Professionals much more skilled and educated about the facts and, yes, the Law, then you guys. most of what everyone views as facts and bases their opinions on are simply the renderings of Sanction as he has updated us with "HIS UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS" and the individual members' thoughts that probably amounts to some College Education and too many episodes of Law and Order.
I'll stick with the court decision. unlike many here, I'm not so jaded and paranoid to the point where I think our Uncle is out to get me/us.
Come on man. Anyone who has ever sat as a juror or even get to the juror selection stage knows that the Law has little to do with it. All of the lawyers in the case have bias and are doing everything to bend the law in their favor. Judges have bias as well. Astute lawyers can manipulate the proceedings such that some evidence can't be presented. On and on. We all know that many times justice is not served - we see examples of this every day. I bet you would find alot of lawyers out there that would have problems with the confiscation of these double eagles by the feds on various grounds - 'Professionals much more skilled and educated about the facts and, yes, the Law, than you guys' [fixed it for you].
@keets said:
if I understand the thread, the Langbord family has to return the coin(s) to the rightful owner. I was in the distinct minority and have thought this was the correct outcome from the start. all the legal wrestling aside, it comes down to a single point from MyLoftyPerch --- should a reasonable person have known that the coin(s) were illegal to own?? good old slippery Izzy Switt knew the answer.
One would think that you at least keep this civil if you disagree instead of calling a board members grandfather 'slippery'.........
Also, clear evidence shows that these coins were not illegal to own, there was a time window when such coins could have been legally distributed between minting and the FDR order. It seems to me that this was largely ignored in the hearings/trials at each stage because the fed lawyers manipulated the proceedings (if I recall correctly). This was a crucial point that was never resolved or could be, and then there is CAFRA which the feds appear to have violated. Any citizen of the US, whether they believe the coins were stolen, or not, should be very concerned about fed seizure of property and violating fed laws to do so?
@Elmhurst said:
I understand everyone's frustration here, but this isn't the type of case that the Supreme Court is going to take on. We care, but most people wouldn't even understand what it's about.
The case wasn't just about the ten coins, but whether or not the government has to follow the law or not. The Mint flagrantly violated the law in the way it seized these coins. Because they were upheld, other government agencies will seize other things illegally because now they have a precedent.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Nearly all "lawyers" are actually attorneys, they are not the same thing. Attorneys can talk all day long about procedure, but know little if anything about the underlying law.
@keets said:
why do you think "they" were upheld??
I suggest you read, in full, the decision of the Federal Court including the dissent (i.e., the last decision). Basically, the majority agreed with the government's position that it isn't a seizure or forfeiture if the government doesn't call it that. IMO by accepting this wordsmithing, the majority bent the rules and ignored the law to support the government's position. If you read the dissent, Justice Rendell states exactly why this is the wrong conclusion - - the government violated CAFRA, and therefore the property should be returned to the Langbords.
As to why the case went the way it did, as I posted long ago, the government had the "home-court advantage". They used this advantage to make sure that they got a trial judge they knew would be supportive of their position. Hence the allowing the government a "mulligan" to file a CAFRA filing nearly five years after the deadline, also not allowing any testimony regarding coin-for-coin exchanges at the Mint at that time, also allowing irrelevant defamatory testimony regarding Mr. Switt's character, allowing many statements to pass through based only on the government's say-so (for example, the coins are stolen because we say so), etc., etc.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
It's too bad; if they had returned the coins it would have been good for the economy, lots of taxes paid when they sold, that's what they want right, instead of the coins gathering dust in the darkness?
I'm not a lawyer, and don't speak legalese. I may be way off base here, but I wonder if the government, with this as precedent, might decide it wants some 1913 Liberty nickels...
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
@keets said: In my opinion, you are just as wrong now as you were then.
there Mark, I fixed it for you.
all of you guys can pontificate and spew what little Lawyer-eeze you think you know, but the case was heard with Professionals much more skilled and educated about the facts and, yes, the Law, then you guys. most of what everyone views as facts and bases their opinions on are simply the renderings of Sanction as he has updated us with "HIS UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS" and the individual members' thoughts that probably amounts to some College Education and too many episodes of Law and Order.
I'll stick with the court decision. unlike many here, I'm not so jaded and paranoid to the point where I think our Uncle is out to get me/us.
Perhaps on the Bubble Planet Keets
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I honestly couldn't care less about whether or not Mr. Switt obtained the coins legally in 1933 or thereabouts. The travesty of this decision, IMHO, is the further repercussions of the courts allowing the government to disregard the due process established by CAFRA simply because "we say so." No property is safe from seizure at this point, precedent has been established, therefore it is law. If the Miranda rights can allow a murderer to get off the hook, then even if you call the CAFRA violations a "mere technicality," it should certainly be one that nullifies the government's claims. I can see it no other way.
@Elmhurst said:
I understand everyone's frustration here, but this isn't the type of case that the Supreme Court is going to take on. We care, but most people wouldn't even understand what it's about.
It's not the Supreme Court's fault. It can't take every case. The blame lies with the government bureaucrats who decided to prosecute these cases back in the early 1940s for the benefit of their government careers.
The Federal Bureaucracies are out of control on many levels and issues. They have more power than the president and the congress. It's almost impossible to fire them even when they are guilty of wrongdoing. It is very hard to put limits on their power. It's a classic case for the "problems of democracy" course you take in high school except the kids will never study or even discuss the issue because the educational system is an entrenched bureaucracy.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I don't think Sancion ever explicitly said CAFRA has been effectively vacated, not at least first to say it. There's a few of us that has been saying it for a while and it wasn't from Sanction's support.
CAFRA is still the statutory law governing Civil Asset Forfeiture. However, the published En Banc decision of the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal is now "on the books" and can be cited binding case law precedent that interprets the CAFRA Statutes in a manner that would allow the government to avoid its application (and the burdens/obligations that it was designed to place upon the government) by asserting that CAFRA does not apply to a specific piece of property the government takes/seizes/spirits away from a person or business for the reasons stated in the En Banc decision.
@logger7 said:
It's too bad; if they had returned the coins it would have been good for the economy, lots of taxes paid when they sold, that's what they want right, instead of the coins gathering dust in the darkness?
I doubt that the Gov gave 2 hoots in Hell about any economic benefit.
@SanctionII said:
CAFRA is still the statutory law governing Civil Asset Forfeiture. However, the published En Banc decision of the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal is now "on the books" and can be cited binding case law precedent that interprets the CAFRA Statutes in a manner that would allow the government to avoid its application (and the burdens/obligations that it was designed to place upon the government) by asserting that CAFRA does not apply to a specific piece of property the government takes/seizes/spirits away from a person or business for the reasons stated in the En Banc decision.
What if that was the first seizure of 1933 DEs. Would CAFRA still apply? If an item was previously seized prior to CAFRA, does that exempt it from future seizure?
Landlord I'm with you cherfully to things that's past done because God created us for the reason he's gives us challenge in every moment that's he's can for us all experience every different step until it done .I believe that's you have joyed in every different feelin excitement worried wonder when this have seen .I know God's he's there everywhere looking down on us .lights is eternalty that's why when we birth first things we see its the light not mom not dad is the lives of light what's it your than it will be your to your is the calls coin rare stragiety challenges game name united state of American rare coin much love in ((**Believed is believing in you good luck future lanlord
@logger7 said:
It's too bad; if they had returned the coins it would have been good for the economy, lots of taxes paid when they sold, that's what they want right, instead of the coins gathering dust in the darkness?
I doubt that the Gov gave 2 hoots in Hell about any economic benefit.
Yes, they don't care about the level of the deficit or the economy. They only care about gathering power and job security for themselves.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@SanctionII said:
CAFRA is still the statutory law governing Civil Asset Forfeiture. However, the published En Banc decision of the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal is now "on the books" and can be cited binding case law precedent that interprets the CAFRA Statutes in a manner that would allow the government to avoid its application (and the burdens/obligations that it was designed to place upon the government) by asserting that CAFRA does not apply to a specific piece of property the government takes/seizes/spirits away from a person or business for the reasons stated in the En Banc decision.
Only in the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). There is no guarantee that any of the other circuit courts of appeal would follow the decision. The SCOTUS denial of certiorari has no precedential value, so there is no case law that is binding nationally. With that said, as a matter of law, the en banc decision was correct. If the coins were stolen then forfeiture statutes have no logical application to them as no forfeiture occurred (although a seizure certainly did). The plain meaning of the statutes and well-established definition of forfeiture are dispositive. The government's declaratory judgment action gave the Langbords a hearing and trial. They lost. I'm saddened by the result, but the real issue here is the erroneous jury verdict and not the application of civil forfeiture statutes. As such, I think the damage done by the case is minimized in terms of precedent.
It may be over in the judicial system, but there are other avenues that merit exploration. One that comes to mind is special legislation.
In the meantime, the coins constitute a National Treasure and they should be respected as such and not melted. At a minimum an injunction should be sought to preserve the coins for 'We The People" who apparently now hold title - at least until this week's wrong can be righted.
@ricko said:
Very sorry to hear this. I have followed this case since the beginning (as have many others here)... I think an injustice has been done. Cheers, RickO
But I'm in agreement with cameonut2011....
The injustice wasn't in not hearing this particular CARFA case. It was only a procedural "back door" that really had no bearing on the actual numismatic question. Those who think that Uncle Sam suddenly now has free reign to seize anything they wish are not accepting the difference between taking YOUR car/cash/home and reclaiming "stolen property".
The real issue here is whether the coins were "stolen property" or not! But that was apparently decided long ago...with questionable disregard for what I think were quite relevant issues, (proper records, time frame when they could have been acquired legally, etc.) By the time this procedural appeal came along, the IMPORTANT things were already decided....rightly or wrongly.
All very interesting to say the least. What will happen to the coins in question now that it is supposedly settled? Could they be donated to the Smithsonian or a similar place to be viewed by the public? or are they still some way considered evidence?
the coins should be melted as was the initial intended destination for them. the Hobby will be OK as a result of all this, though some collectors who allow it all the get them whipped up in a frothy frenzy may be butt hurt for awhile. my time circling the Sun has taught me that this isn't worthy of much concern.
This whole fiasco reminds me of how the government literally killed my friend Frank VanZandt in their grossly overzealous attempt to appease social activists who wrongly accused him of illegal possession/sale of Native American (aboriginal) artifacts. As God is my witness, never trust government to be your friend. Partisan politics is not about the intended function of any branch of government. Not ever. If one considers the root cause for why FDR took the U.S. monetary system off of the Gold standard, that should be acutely obvious.
@keets said:
the coins should be melted as was the initial intended destination for them.
Please share any government documents that corroborate your statement. The coins were lawfully struck, so the government would have no rational reason to destroy them. There are several examples in the National Archives which would not exist if there was an Executive Order from any level of government to destroy them.
(a) Gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person;
But there also was an allowance for "collectors" (Eliasberg, Pittman, Bareford, and others) who from my understanding could have legally built complete $1-$20 gold collections if they chose using the "exemption" to the $100 limit. Eliasberg didn't turn in his complete or nearly complete sets, especially the hundreds of gold coins that were part of the purchase of the Clapp collection in 1942. As David Ganz has explained it in his articles, you just couldn't have more than 5 examples of one date/mm....a collector could have dozens of $20's in their sets. Secretary of the Treasury William Woodin (1933) was an avid coin collector for decades and may have been responsible for getting the collector exemption written into the EO/law.
Doesn't the official confiscation of the 1933's now make things one step closer for the confiscation of other mint rarities/fantasy coins/patterns, etc?
@keets said:
the coins should be melted as was the initial intended destination for them.
Please share any government documents that corroborate your statement. The coins were lawfully struck, so the government would have no rational reason to destroy them. There are several examples in the National Archives which would not exist if there was an Executive Order from any level of government to destroy them.
The government has the power to do whatever it pleases so long as the courts don't stop it from doing it. That includes running ruff shod over the Constitution if the the judges decide to "modernize" it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Being happy about this "government victory" is like coming home happy from the Roman Colosseum after the lions ate the Christians. If you root for bullies, it's a great day.
it is unfortunate that these kind of threads always seem to turn political with weird and puzzling statements, comparisons, interpretations and ideologies. I guess at the end of the day we each see what we want to see, I just don't see the paranoid darkness that so many others do. please try to enjoy the Liberties that the Country you seem to despise so much affords you, try a reread of Desiderata and enjoy the time we each have left.
@keets said: Being happy about this "government victory" is like coming home happy from the Roman Colosseum after the lions ate the Christians. If you root for bullies, it's a great day.
it is unfortunate that these kind of threads always seem to turn political with weird and puzzling statements, comparisons, interpretations and ideologies. I guess at the end of the day we each see what we want to see, I just don't see the paranoid darkness that so many others do. please try to enjoy the Liberties that the Country you seem to despise so much affords you, try a reread of Desiderata and enjoy the time we each have left.
One could successfully argue, Keets, that the Langbord/Switt saga started off politically. It is virtually impossible to maintain a forum about the money of a nation without considering and discussing the nation itself.
I honestly couldn't care less about whether or not Mr. Switt obtained the coins legally in 1933 or thereabouts. The travesty of this decision, IMHO, is the further repercussions of the courts allowing the government to disregard the due process established by CAFRA simply because "we say so." No property is safe from seizure at this point, precedent has been established, therefore it is law. If the Miranda rights can allow a murderer to get off the hook, then even if you call the CAFRA violations a "mere technicality," it should certainly be one that nullifies the government's claims. I can see it no other way.
I felt from the start of this that everything was centered on how they were obtained. accepting that there was a practice in place where certain individuals would exchange with the cashier only explains how the coins were obtained. my thinking has been that what took place with the cashier wasn't always above board. also, with the timing of the Gold recall, the striking of the coins in question, the confiscation order and the cashier transfer it seems reasonable that the "deal" was done with the cashier under an assumption that the coins would be issued. OOPSY.
a term I use and one that sort of applies here is "Felon's Guilt" which we all feel from time to time. it's when you do something that you aren't sure is wrong but your conscience tells you it doesn't feel right. hence, the deception as to the coins whereabouts for many decades.
@keets said: I honestly couldn't care less about whether or not Mr. Switt obtained the coins legally in 1933 or thereabouts. The travesty of this decision, IMHO, is the further repercussions of the courts allowing the government to disregard the due process established by CAFRA simply because "we say so." No property is safe from seizure at this point, precedent has been established, therefore it is law. If the Miranda rights can allow a murderer to get off the hook, then even if you call the CAFRA violations a "mere technicality," it should certainly be one that nullifies the government's claims. I can see it no other way.
I felt from the start of this that everything was centered on how they were obtained. accepting that there was a practice in place where certain individuals would exchange with the cashier only explains how the coins were obtained. my thinking has been that what took place with the cashier wasn't always above board. also, with the timing of the Gold recall, the striking of the coins in question, the confiscation order and the cashier transfer it seems reasonable that the "deal" was done with the cashier under an assumption that the coins would be issued. OOPSY.
a term I use and one that sort of applies here is "Felon's Guilt" which we all feel from time to time. it's when you do something that you aren't sure is wrong but your conscience tells you it doesn't feel right. hence, the deception as to the coins whereabouts for many decades.
But there wasn't any deception, they just somehow got overlooked in the SDB, it could happen to anyone.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I sense a lot of jealousy in this thread. I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest the coins were stolen except for inadmissible, misleading, and unreliable hearsay and the Mint's supposed count of the coins (which have historically been wrong).
Comments
You are just as wrong now as you were then.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Roy, I imagine most of us here on the coin forum were rooting for you for one reason or another. Thanks for taking a stand.
I'm curious if you would share with us whether there was ever any hint of a deal at any point in the litigation. That is, was there ever any negotiation about splitting up the coins or selling them or anything like that? Was the United States ever willing to talk settlement?
Again, thanks for your efforts and your interesting inside perspectives.
Close, according to www.presidency.ucsb.edu, 131 - Executive Order 6260 on Hoarding and Exporting Gold.
August 28, 1933
(a) Gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person;
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
In my opinion, you are just as wrong now as you were then.
there Mark, I fixed it for you.
all of you guys can pontificate and spew what little Lawyer-eeze you think you know, but the case was heard with Professionals much more skilled and educated about the facts and, yes, the Law, then you guys. most of what everyone views as facts and bases their opinions on are simply the renderings of Sanction as he has updated us with "HIS UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS" and the individual members' thoughts that probably amounts to some College Education and too many episodes of Law and Order.
I'll stick with the court decision. unlike many here, I'm not so jaded and paranoid to the point where I think our Uncle is out to get me/us.
Come on man. Anyone who has ever sat as a juror or even get to the juror selection stage knows that the Law has little to do with it. All of the lawyers in the case have bias and are doing everything to bend the law in their favor. Judges have bias as well. Astute lawyers can manipulate the proceedings such that some evidence can't be presented. On and on. We all know that many times justice is not served - we see examples of this every day. I bet you would find alot of lawyers out there that would have problems with the confiscation of these double eagles by the feds on various grounds - 'Professionals much more skilled and educated about the facts and, yes, the Law, than you guys' [fixed it for you].
Best, SH
One would think that you at least keep this civil if you disagree instead of calling a board members grandfather 'slippery'.........
Also, clear evidence shows that these coins were not illegal to own, there was a time window when such coins could have been legally distributed between minting and the FDR order. It seems to me that this was largely ignored in the hearings/trials at each stage because the fed lawyers manipulated the proceedings (if I recall correctly). This was a crucial point that was never resolved or could be, and then there is CAFRA which the feds appear to have violated. Any citizen of the US, whether they believe the coins were stolen, or not, should be very concerned about fed seizure of property and violating fed laws to do so?
The case wasn't just about the ten coins, but whether or not the government has to follow the law or not. The Mint flagrantly violated the law in the way it seized these coins. Because they were upheld, other government agencies will seize other things illegally because now they have a precedent.
why do you think "they" were upheld??
Nearly all "lawyers" are actually attorneys, they are not the same thing. Attorneys can talk all day long about procedure, but know little if anything about the underlying law.
Interesting thread.
My YouTube Channel
I suggest you read, in full, the decision of the Federal Court including the dissent (i.e., the last decision). Basically, the majority agreed with the government's position that it isn't a seizure or forfeiture if the government doesn't call it that. IMO by accepting this wordsmithing, the majority bent the rules and ignored the law to support the government's position. If you read the dissent, Justice Rendell states exactly why this is the wrong conclusion - - the government violated CAFRA, and therefore the property should be returned to the Langbords.
As to why the case went the way it did, as I posted long ago, the government had the "home-court advantage". They used this advantage to make sure that they got a trial judge they knew would be supportive of their position. Hence the allowing the government a "mulligan" to file a CAFRA filing nearly five years after the deadline, also not allowing any testimony regarding coin-for-coin exchanges at the Mint at that time, also allowing irrelevant defamatory testimony regarding Mr. Switt's character, allowing many statements to pass through based only on the government's say-so (for example, the coins are stolen because we say so), etc., etc.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
It's too bad; if they had returned the coins it would have been good for the economy, lots of taxes paid when they sold, that's what they want right, instead of the coins gathering dust in the darkness?
I'm not a lawyer, and don't speak legalese. I may be way off base here, but I wonder if the government, with this as precedent, might decide it wants some 1913 Liberty nickels...
What probably / really happened -
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Langbord-Switt 1933 Double Eagles Case
http://www.coinweek.com/featured-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-langbord-switt-1933-double-eagle-case/
Perhaps on the Bubble Planet Keets
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It will have far reaching impact beyond coins and collecting.
I honestly couldn't care less about whether or not Mr. Switt obtained the coins legally in 1933 or thereabouts. The travesty of this decision, IMHO, is the further repercussions of the courts allowing the government to disregard the due process established by CAFRA simply because "we say so." No property is safe from seizure at this point, precedent has been established, therefore it is law. If the Miranda rights can allow a murderer to get off the hook, then even if you call the CAFRA violations a "mere technicality," it should certainly be one that nullifies the government's claims. I can see it no other way.
It's not the Supreme Court's fault. It can't take every case. The blame lies with the government bureaucrats who decided to prosecute these cases back in the early 1940s for the benefit of their government careers.
The Federal Bureaucracies are out of control on many levels and issues. They have more power than the president and the congress. It's almost impossible to fire them even when they are guilty of wrongdoing. It is very hard to put limits on their power. It's a classic case for the "problems of democracy" course you take in high school except the kids will never study or even discuss the issue because the educational system is an entrenched bureaucracy.
I don't think Sancion ever explicitly said CAFRA has been effectively vacated, not at least first to say it. There's a few of us that has been saying it for a while and it wasn't from Sanction's support.
CAFRA is still the statutory law governing Civil Asset Forfeiture. However, the published En Banc decision of the Third Circuit Court Of Appeal is now "on the books" and can be cited binding case law precedent that interprets the CAFRA Statutes in a manner that would allow the government to avoid its application (and the burdens/obligations that it was designed to place upon the government) by asserting that CAFRA does not apply to a specific piece of property the government takes/seizes/spirits away from a person or business for the reasons stated in the En Banc decision.
I doubt that the Gov gave 2 hoots in Hell about any economic benefit.
What if that was the first seizure of 1933 DEs. Would CAFRA still apply? If an item was previously seized prior to CAFRA, does that exempt it from future seizure?
"summum jus, summa injuria" —balding Italian man
Landlord I'm with you cherfully to things that's past done because God created us for the reason he's gives us challenge in every moment that's he's can for us all experience every different step until it done .I believe that's you have joyed in every different feelin excitement worried wonder when this have seen .I know God's he's there everywhere looking down on us .lights is eternalty that's why when we birth first things we see its the light not mom not dad is the lives of light what's it your than it will be your to your is the calls coin rare stragiety challenges game name united state of American rare coin much love in ((**Believed is believing in you good luck future lanlord
Yes, they don't care about the level of the deficit or the economy. They only care about gathering power and job security for themselves.
So sorry.........this is so wrong
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Only in the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). There is no guarantee that any of the other circuit courts of appeal would follow the decision. The SCOTUS denial of certiorari has no precedential value, so there is no case law that is binding nationally. With that said, as a matter of law, the en banc decision was correct. If the coins were stolen then forfeiture statutes have no logical application to them as no forfeiture occurred (although a seizure certainly did). The plain meaning of the statutes and well-established definition of forfeiture are dispositive. The government's declaratory judgment action gave the Langbords a hearing and trial. They lost. I'm saddened by the result, but the real issue here is the erroneous jury verdict and not the application of civil forfeiture statutes. As such, I think the damage done by the case is minimized in terms of precedent.
It may be over in the judicial system, but there are other avenues that merit exploration. One that comes to mind is special legislation.
In the meantime, the coins constitute a National Treasure and they should be respected as such and not melted. At a minimum an injunction should be sought to preserve the coins for 'We The People" who apparently now hold title - at least until this week's wrong can be righted.
Very sorry to hear this. I have followed this case since the beginning (as have many others here)... I think an injustice has been done. Cheers, RickO
But I'm in agreement with cameonut2011....
The injustice wasn't in not hearing this particular CARFA case. It was only a procedural "back door" that really had no bearing on the actual numismatic question. Those who think that Uncle Sam suddenly now has free reign to seize anything they wish are not accepting the difference between taking YOUR car/cash/home and reclaiming "stolen property".
The real issue here is whether the coins were "stolen property" or not! But that was apparently decided long ago...with questionable disregard for what I think were quite relevant issues, (proper records, time frame when they could have been acquired legally, etc.) By the time this procedural appeal came along, the IMPORTANT things were already decided....rightly or wrongly.
All very interesting to say the least. What will happen to the coins in question now that it is supposedly settled? Could they be donated to the Smithsonian or a similar place to be viewed by the public? or are they still some way considered evidence?
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
the coins should be melted as was the initial intended destination for them. the Hobby will be OK as a result of all this, though some collectors who allow it all the get them whipped up in a frothy frenzy may be butt hurt for awhile. my time circling the Sun has taught me that this isn't worthy of much concern.
The great Oz has spoken !
thank you, Joe. I try to help, and I always remain willing to step out from behind the curtain.
This whole fiasco reminds me of how the government literally killed my friend Frank VanZandt in their grossly overzealous attempt to appease social activists who wrongly accused him of illegal possession/sale of Native American (aboriginal) artifacts. As God is my witness, never trust government to be your friend. Partisan politics is not about the intended function of any branch of government. Not ever. If one considers the root cause for why FDR took the U.S. monetary system off of the Gold standard, that should be acutely obvious.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Please share any government documents that corroborate your statement. The coins were lawfully struck, so the government would have no rational reason to destroy them. There are several examples in the National Archives which would not exist if there was an Executive Order from any level of government to destroy them.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
I always wondered how much the attorney fees were to go through trial, appeal, and Supreme Court.
*Langbord.
But there also was an allowance for "collectors" (Eliasberg, Pittman, Bareford, and others) who from my understanding could have legally built complete $1-$20 gold collections if they chose using the "exemption" to the $100 limit. Eliasberg didn't turn in his complete or nearly complete sets, especially the hundreds of gold coins that were part of the purchase of the Clapp collection in 1942. As David Ganz has explained it in his articles, you just couldn't have more than 5 examples of one date/mm....a collector could have dozens of $20's in their sets. Secretary of the Treasury William Woodin (1933) was an avid coin collector for decades and may have been responsible for getting the collector exemption written into the EO/law.
Doesn't the official confiscation of the 1933's now make things one step closer for the confiscation of other mint rarities/fantasy coins/patterns, etc?
Weren't a few other confiscated examples melted?
The government has the power to do whatever it pleases so long as the courts don't stop it from doing it. That includes running ruff shod over the Constitution if the the judges decide to "modernize" it.
Being happy about this "government victory" is like coming home happy from the Roman Colosseum after the lions ate the Christians. If you root for bullies, it's a great day.
it is unfortunate that these kind of threads always seem to turn political with weird and puzzling statements, comparisons, interpretations and ideologies. I guess at the end of the day we each see what we want to see, I just don't see the paranoid darkness that so many others do. please try to enjoy the Liberties that the Country you seem to despise so much affords you, try a reread of Desiderata and enjoy the time we each have left.
One could successfully argue, Keets, that the Langbord/Switt saga started off politically. It is virtually impossible to maintain a forum about the money of a nation without considering and discussing the nation itself.
They should be returned to the Langbords.
My YouTube Channel
I honestly couldn't care less about whether or not Mr. Switt obtained the coins legally in 1933 or thereabouts. The travesty of this decision, IMHO, is the further repercussions of the courts allowing the government to disregard the due process established by CAFRA simply because "we say so." No property is safe from seizure at this point, precedent has been established, therefore it is law. If the Miranda rights can allow a murderer to get off the hook, then even if you call the CAFRA violations a "mere technicality," it should certainly be one that nullifies the government's claims. I can see it no other way.
I felt from the start of this that everything was centered on how they were obtained. accepting that there was a practice in place where certain individuals would exchange with the cashier only explains how the coins were obtained. my thinking has been that what took place with the cashier wasn't always above board. also, with the timing of the Gold recall, the striking of the coins in question, the confiscation order and the cashier transfer it seems reasonable that the "deal" was done with the cashier under an assumption that the coins would be issued. OOPSY.
a term I use and one that sort of applies here is "Felon's Guilt" which we all feel from time to time. it's when you do something that you aren't sure is wrong but your conscience tells you it doesn't feel right. hence, the deception as to the coins whereabouts for many decades.
But there wasn't any deception, they just somehow got overlooked in the SDB, it could happen to anyone.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I sense a lot of jealousy in this thread. I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest the coins were stolen except for inadmissible, misleading, and unreliable hearsay and the Mint's supposed count of the coins (which have historically been wrong).
The end is nigh
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
you forgot to add the passage of 114 years which essentially means the truth will really never be known. and I don't think anyone is jealous.