Yesterday I spent a little time looking at the complaint filed by the Langboards against Uncle Sam.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,594 ✭✭✭✭✭
It was a very interesting read. It seeks recovery of the coins or there value on multiple legal theories, both statutory and constitutional.
I was going to start reading the motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment filed by Uncle Sam, but did not have the time.
The little time I spent reading the complaint yesterday, plus the fact that I am an attorney who collects coins is going to result in me spending a lot of time reading the court file and keeping up with the case as it progresses through the court system. Fascinating IMHO. A very interesting facet of the case is the fact that Uncle Sam has simply taken the position that the coins are and always have been government property and thus it does not need to comply with any of the laws cited by the Langboards.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, I hope that the coins are not destroyed or kept locked up in a Cabinet at the Smithsonian. Instead I would like to see them made legal to own.
I was going to start reading the motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment filed by Uncle Sam, but did not have the time.
The little time I spent reading the complaint yesterday, plus the fact that I am an attorney who collects coins is going to result in me spending a lot of time reading the court file and keeping up with the case as it progresses through the court system. Fascinating IMHO. A very interesting facet of the case is the fact that Uncle Sam has simply taken the position that the coins are and always have been government property and thus it does not need to comply with any of the laws cited by the Langboards.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, I hope that the coins are not destroyed or kept locked up in a Cabinet at the Smithsonian. Instead I would like to see them made legal to own.
0
Comments
Ahh, too late, too late
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>It should disturb every American when property is seized by our Government with no due process. >>
Exactly. There's a reason why the government prefers CIVIL forfeiture. The Constitutional protections in criminal law do not apply, and tend to shift the burden of proof to the accused. It's an end-around to bypass the Bill of Rights.
Maybe SanctionII and I should have a moot court by video conference and each argue a side. Maybe we can stream the video into the boards!
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Go to your search engine and type in PACER. Click and this will take you to the PACER web page. You will have to register with PACER to use the system. Once you have registered, you can then go the the US District Court for the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania and follow the prompts to the page where you insert the court case # (the Case # is 06-05315) and click. It takes you to the case docket and while in the docket you can select the document you want to look at. The document appears on your screen and you can read it (and print it out), just as if you were in the clerk's office looking at a paper file (though I think federal courts now require e-filing, so there is no paper file anymore for federal court cases).
Have fun.
<< <i>Longacre,
Go to your search engine and type in PACER. Click and this will take you to the PACER web page. You will have to register with PACER to use the system. Once you have registered, you can then go the the US District Court for the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania and follow the prompts to the page where you insert the court case # (the Case # is 06-05315) and click. It takes you to the case docket and while in the docket you can select the document you want to look at. The document appears on your screen and you can read it (and print it out), just as if you were in the clerk's office looking at a paper file (though I think federal courts now require e-filing, so there is no paper file anymore for federal court cases).
Have fun. >>
Thanks. I never used PACER before. I will try Westlaw, and if it is not there, then I will register for PACER. Appreciate the info.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
An interesting point raised by the Langboards in their complaint is that Congress (after the settlement in the Fenton case) passed a law known as CAFRA (Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act) which restructured the Civil Forfeiture laws in favor of the persons whose assets have been forfeited and against Uncle Sam. The burdens have been shifted to Uncle Sam making it more difficult for the government to take property.
jamesfsm. I have not read the PNG brief yet. I suspect that you are correct in your vies of the brief (long on prose, short of citation to legal authority). I do not know much about when and how Amicus Briefs are used, however it is my understanding that they are mostly used in cases pending before court's of appeal instead of trial courts.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>Is this about the 1933 $20 gold coins stolen by a mint employee? >>
Allegedly stolen. And the question is whether or not the burden of proof needs to be on the government or the Langbords.
My opinion: Not one cent for the Langboards.
I specialize in Errors, Minting, Counterfeit Detection & Grading.
Computer-aided grading, counterfeit detection, recognition and imaging.
Denver show double eagles
New York FRB double eagle
Judges seem to often view amicus briefs as unnecessary verbosity so when writing one it's important to come up with something novel or important that is not raised by the parties.
One other point- The PNG brief cited books like Breen for all kinds of numismatic "facts." These books will not be entirely accepted as evidence by what is known as judicial notice and these "facts" were not presented in proper summary judgment format. The government could possibly move to strike some of the interesting numismatic facts as not being properly presented in the way lawyers present factual evidence in the summary judgment process.
<< <i>Since the government's stance has always been to hunt down and confiscate all 1933 coins, why should the Langboards have any legal basis to claim them as "personal property". >>
Because there may be legitimate question about whether the government had the legal authority, above and beyond "because we said so," to take that confiscatory position.
Seems like every couple of months we go back and forth on this debate. Ultimately, it usually boils down to this: Which party do you believe has the burden of proof? Those siding with the government usually believe it's up to the Langbords to prove they were NOT stolen, and those supporting the Langbords believe it's the government responsibility to prove that they WERE stolen.
Ultimately this is a debate about legal philosophy where no one will be swayed with reason one way or the other.
1929 is the date I would love to have in my collection. That date has a lot history behind it.
The bigger issue, is that if the govt should win this case, it's a hop, skip and a jump for them to consider confiscating other patterns, errors, and fantasy coins.
roadrunner
<< <i>The government assumed they were stolen. They have offered no proof. In time, I think Izzy and the hobby will win out. >>
Here's another question: If it turns out that the government is made to prove their case and fail -- if the Langbords can keep the 10 coins (plus any more that may be out) -- will that open the door for those who had theirs confiscated to sue the government for damages? For example, we know Eliasberg had one and surrendered it. Could his descendants/heirs attempt sue for damages due to wrongful/unlawful seizure of property? (I'm assuming the answer is "no" because of the statute of limitations, but someone may try...)
<< <i>It should disturb every American when property is seized by our Government with no due process. tradedollarnut >>
I agree completely.
If you happen to be at some particular point in life where you can steal Government property and hide it away for some extended period of time, it should become rightfully yours.
You should also be able to steal tradedollarnuts' 1913 V Nickel and hide it away for an extended period of time and then it should become rightfully yours as well.
Ray
<< <i>You should also be able to steal tradedollarnuts' 1913 V Nickel and hide it away for an extended period of time and then it should become rightfully yours as well. >>
Actually, if the government can seize property by calling it 'stolen' without proof, they might be next to go after (what used to be) TDN's 1913 V nickel by claiming it was stolen property (having never been authorized for release).
He makes the point that if you don't continue to make basic efforts to find stolen property, it can be deemed that you have forfeited the right to ownership. I would think in the same way Eliasberg and others (not necessarliy knowing how those $20 1933's were obtained) gave up their right to ownership when they failed to contest ownership. Reciprocally, the US govt may have given up any rights to the 1913 5c's by not arguing ownership from the 1920's onward.
Personally, I think it's impossible for the govt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 33's were taken illegally. They are hanging their hats on the fact that earlier specimens were seized by the secret service, hence "they must be illegal to own." Not a very rigorous proof, though "my stick is bigger than yours" was a good argument in the 1940's!
roadrunner
<< <i>For there to be any benefit to all the 1933 Saints out there in hiding, does this need to go to trial instead of being settled? >>
Depends on the terms of the settlement and whether it's made public. Most likely, they would have to 'settle' each case separately.
Such 'settlement', if any occurred to legalize these coins, would likely require giving compensation to the guy who paid $7 million for the "unique" Fenton piece.
Every person employed by the United States Government who is paid by MY tax dollars is a SERVANT. He or she is a CIVIL SERVANT while us taxpayers are, for the most part, American citizens and the BOSS of these servants who are collecting a check that WE, the people are funding.
I just think the government should worry more about the millions of dollars in 2001 Kennedy halves that they "OVER PRODUCED" than a few gold pieces from 75 yrs ago that were "UNDERPRODUCED".
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Dang it...I 'm gettin that Saint "itch" again. I smell a MS-63 or 64 1908 No Motto in my future to go along with my MS-63 1928. Sorry to go off topic, but all this Saint talk...LOL. I just had to vent for second. >>
Got a kool one in a MS-62 (no motto)...
What an interesting court battle this is.
In summary:
a. Multiple government agencies met after the coins were delivered by the family to the Government and a topic of discussion was what to do. All agencies but the Mint recommended having the government file a legal proceeding seeking forfieture of the 10 coins. The Mint balked at this and as a result the Government's position is simply that "the coins were stolen from the mint; they are government property; and the government does not have to do anything but keep the coins"; and
b. The family contends (for various reasons) that a legal proceeding seeking forfieture of the 10 coins is necessary and that under the CAFRA [Civil Asset Forfieture Reform Act] the government has the burden to prove that the coins could not have legally left the mint. The family also contends that the government will never be able to prove this.
Thus, this case, if it ever makes it to trial, will stand or fall based upon the judge's rulings on the issue of who has the burden of proof on whether the coins could have or could not have legally left the mint, and rulings by the court on what evidence offered by the parties to the case is legally admissable under the Federal Rules Of Evidence.
The families papers also (naturally) paint the family as saintly and pure as fresh fallen snow, while the government is the big bad wolf.
The government on the other hand has come up with interesting information that shows that the family is not saintly and pure (including documents showing that the safe deposit box in which Israel Switt's daughter supposedly found the 10 coins in 2003 was not a safe deposit box rented by Israel Switt before his death in 1990, but was instead a safe deposit box opened in 1996 (six years after his death) by one or more of his heirs; and including documents from the Israel Switt Pennsylvania state court probate case which shows that contrary to legal requirements the personal representative of his estate [his son in law and his daughter's husband] did not list the 10 coins on the probate inventory, did not include the value of the 10 coins in the probate estate and pay taxes on them; and did not distribute ownership of the 10 coins out of the probate estate upon the distribution of the assets of the estate.
Again, very interesting.
If you were entitled to part of the estate and now you found out that the executor kept these hidden, how would you feel about him now? Can this be considered theft and breach of contract for the executor?
Nice summary SanctionII
<< <i>Is this about the 1933 $20 gold coins stolen by a mint employee? >>
No, it's about the 1933 $20 gold coins stolen by the United States Secret Service a couple of years ago.
<< <i>Even if they won the case, I don't think the Mint would give them back. I think the Mint would say, "They're in Fort Knox. If you think you can get them out, go ahead and try it." >>
In which case, the Mint Director would be spending a long time in prison on contempt charges. You don't just tell a court "No, I don't think I'll comply with your judgement."
<< <i>It's gonna be real intresting how this trial is gonna end up... Just like the Anna Nicole Smith case... >>
Unlike her this case won't be all over "Entertainment Tonight" with the latest updates.
Even if there was some collusion between the cashier and the buyer, the coins were paid for, not stolen.
This will be interesting to watch and I want to thank Sanction II for converting legalese into english for those of us who cannot read lawyerspeak.
I read the documents I printed out yesterday in detail last night.
The attorneys for the family have done their homework and have set forth in their complaint and in the legal brief in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss a case that attacks the government's 9-22-2004 receipt of the 10 coins from the family (which according to the family was for the limited purposes of determining if the coins were authentic and for safe keeping while the family and government explored/negotiated the issue of ownership) and the government's subsequent to simply keep the coins without first filing a legal action seeking to have the coins forfeited to the government. The family has a multi pronged attack against the government, based upon statutory and constitutional grounds.
The government, on the other hand, is taking a simple position. The position is that since no 1933 double eagles ever legally left the mint, the 10 coins are stolen property. Ownership of stolen property remains with the owner at the time of the theft (the government) and thus the government can simply keep the coins and there is no need for the government to file any forfeiture action.
The family takes the position that a forfeiture action does need to be brought by the government and that under the CAFRA (Civil Asset Forefeiture Reform Act) the rules regarding the burden of proof in forfeiture cases have been changed to place the burden of proof (via competent, legally admissable evidence) on the government. The family takes the position that in any forfeiture action the government must prove that the 10 coins should be forfeited to the government. They also take the position that the government will not be able to meet its burden of proof (i.e. prove that the 10 ten coins could not have legally left the mint and thus remain property of the government) and thus the family owns the coins.
Again, the crucial issue for the court to determine is who has the burden of proof in the case. Does the family have to prove the coins legally left the mint; or does the government have to prove that the coins did not legally leave the mint.
The government's motion to dismiss or alternative motion for summary judgment is the first time in this case that the judge will have to review things and make a ruling. I assume that the court will make a detailed, written ruling that will be very interesting to read. I would love to be able to be present for the hearing on the motion so that I could watch the attorneys and court make their presentations.
<< <i>PNG's counsel Vartian has had some articles in CW recently about stolen property, passing title, giving up on stolen property, etc.
He makes the point that if you don't continue to make basic efforts to find stolen property, it can be deemed that you have forfeited the right to ownership. I would think in the same way Eliasberg and others (not necessarliy knowing how those $20 1933's were obtained) gave up their right to ownership when they failed to contest ownership. Reciprocally, the US govt may have given up any rights to the 1913 5c's by not arguing ownership from the 1920's onward.
Personally, I think it's impossible for the govt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 33's were taken illegally. They are hanging their hats on the fact that earlier specimens were seized by the secret service, hence "they must be illegal to own." Not a very rigorous proof, though "my stick is bigger than yours" was a good argument in the 1940's!
roadrunner >>
I think if they have an order that all coins be seized and destroyed, and in fact they thought they were all seized and destroyed according to Mint records, then it's easy to conclude any coins showing up must have been stolen and documents forged to cover it up the theft.
While I don't like it, I think the government wins this case hands down and will refuse to settle.
Free Trial
The family correctly points out that a clause in the will of Israel Switt provides that the residue of his estate (whenever and wherever found, even after the probate case is completed and closed) is to be distributed to the family. Further, the family states that the bank in which the 10 coins were found in 2003 is, via corporate mergers, takeovers, etc, the successor to a bank that had an Israel Switt safe deposit box in the early 1980's (well before his death in 1990) and that the bank in 2003 was simply the current custodian of the safe deposit box and its contents.
<< <i>I think if they have an order that all coins be seized and destroyed... >>
The problem here is that such an order has to be *lawful* in order to be legally binding. If the order overstepped their authority, the order can be voided. What if there were coins that legally left BEFORE the order to destroy the balance of the coins? What legal right does the government have to retroactively declare them contraband and require their seizure?
If a government agency received an order to kill everyone who was exactly 52 years old, for example, is their "order" justifiable and legally enforceable? Of course not, because it's an illegal order that isn't authorized by the Constitution or laws within its framework. Obviously that's a much more extreme example but the concept is the same.
Frankly, there's a lot of sentiment here that seems to think the government should be able to do whatever they want because they are the government and "because they said so." In a nation of laws and a Constitution, the government needs to show that their actions are consistent with the Constitution (and constitutional laws) in order for those actions to be legally acceptable.
If we don't require the government to prove their case, what's to stop them from seizing whatever else they want by calling it "stolen"? If you have property the government wants, what's to stop them from declaring it "stolen" and seizing it, if they don't have to prove it was stolen? I don't understand why people supporting the government's argument are so afraid to make them *prove* their case.
Civil forfeiture can be scary. I'd encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to Google "Donald Scott."
The interesting thing about the point you raise is that the family and their attorney have laid out (and supported by reference to documentation going back to early 1933) multiple different ways that a 1933 double eagle could have in fact left the mint legally. Thus, if there is possible ways for 1933 dated coins to have legally left the mint, the outcome of this case depends on whether the party with the burden of proof can come up with legally admissable evidence that proves that the 10 coins did not legally leave the mint (the government would have to prove this if the government has the burden of proof); or that the 10 coins legally left the mint (the family would have to prove this if the family has the burden of proof).
Again, this case will stand or fall based upon who has the burden of proof.
<< <i>this case will stand or fall based upon who has the burden of proof. >>
Is which party having the burden of proof more likely given past rulings?
I had to research federal criminal and civil asset forfeiture statutes in effect at the time. Very complicated and confusing. In the end, the property was sold by the US Marshal's office and my client, via settlement with the feds, got paid her principal, interest and part of her attorneys fees. My client was extremely greedy (and in actuality not a very nice person) and she was extermely upset when the payoff funds were paid to my office and her attorney fee bill was deducted from the payoff and she got the rest. She was offended that she actually had to pay her lawyers for their services (without those services she would have gotten nothing and would have lost her loan).
<< <i>Is which party having the burden of proof more likely given past rulings? >>
And might it depend on whether or not one of the parties is the government?
I have not read CAFRA, but if the government has the burden of proof in a CAFRA proceeding and if CAFRA applies to the 10 coins, then the government has the burden of proof. The mint (contrary to other governmental agencies) has taken the position that the government can simply keep the coins since they are stolen property (thus the government does not have to file a CAFRA forfeiture proceeding).
If the courts ever rule that a CAFRA forfeiture proceeding is necessary and if the government has the burden of proof, it will be very difficult for the government to prove that the coins did not legally leave the mint (given the families' list of different ways that the 10 coins could have legally left the mint).
<< <i>did not include the value of the 10 coins in the probate estate and pay taxes on them; >>
(according to the government, the family doesn't even own the coins?)
If the Langboards win, will they win?
At issue is what will the estate/probate value of such 1933 double eagles be at date of death?
Who can even try to determine this? Would it have been the value of a type $20 Saint in Choice Uncirculated condition at that time?
I am disturbed by the fact that I have not yet read that the estate tax return has been amended to show to inclusion of the 10 1933 Saints.
If the Langboards win their case, look for the IRS to argue that since the Langboards belived the coins to be legal when discovered that the estate return needed to be recomputed at full market value less a interest rate discount for the year of death PLUS INTEREST and PENALTIES (normal civil portion). The ultimate payout of such taxes, penalties and interest could be as high as 70% of the entire present value of the coins!!!!!!!!!
I am amazed that the IRS doesn't come in and ARGUE as a hostile friend of the Langboards FOR THE COINS TO BE DECLARED AS LEGAL!!!
Works for me!