<< <i>Lemme see if I understand this. Coin dealer "X" tells all his employees not to sell me coin "Y". They sell it to me anyway. Are you saying that the coin dealer "X" now has legal recourse against me? >>
So you fail to see any difference between the Treasury of the US Mint and a coin dealer? That's the craziest tangent so far.
>>
So tell me, who is the largest coin dealer in the world? Hint - it's not Heritage.
<< <i>"the fact remains the gold coins that weren't supposed to leave the mint and shouldn't have left the mint and were found in someone's sdb"
The coins were not supposed to leave the mint.Case closed. >>
So if its THAT cut and dried then why doesn't/can't the Guvmint PROVE its case and end it? >>
uhhhhh, because it hasn't gome to the court yet?
It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that?
<< <i>Lemme see if I understand this. Coin dealer "X" tells all his employees not to sell me coin "Y". They sell it to me anyway. Are you saying that the coin dealer "X" now has legal recourse against me? >>
So you fail to see any difference between the Treasury of the US Mint and a coin dealer? That's the craziest tangent so far.
>>
So tell me, who is the largest coin dealer in the world? Hint - it's not Heritage. >>
Please....this is more semantics and rhetoric.
The TREASURY may sell more coins than anyone but they are the ruling body that determines what gets sold. They said NO SELL to the '33's. End of this tack.
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator?
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this.
The FED won over Congress back in 1913 during "Xmas" with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Yes or No ?
Essentially this gave the Federal Reserve System the power to govern the Treasury. They printed the paper that backed the gold and "We the People" pay the interest on the paper we work for, which also bails out the bad loans that so many BAD AMERICANS took out. Shame on US.
If the above is true, then judges & lawyers and law enforcement are being paid off with all of this paper we call money. The money keeps flowing , via paper, fiat money, electronic means. That's commerce, but the paper is worthless. The only concern now is "stature". And back to Stature...
Someone is writing a book while someone is writing a bad check. I hope it's Spielberg and Uncle Sam. They've got some hot potatoes right out of the oven with Madoff, while smart bankers can't explain to stupid politicians who have to have someone else change their flat tire and "Bail" them out while they SPEND our LIFE on their agendas, as to why we need to create more money. We have to feed the GOVERNMENT machine Now, am I just reading rumors about tons of charities taken down or are these true ?
So if one wrong is committed and covered up, it will set precedence for future wrong and excuse it from the highest seat in the land.
We must ask ourselves collectively and individually who will help the sole less that just keep asking questions ? Who's buying the stimulus package ? The Mint is selling " it" in the form of UHRs.
Thank God the bankers have control. I'd be afraid if the politicians or wall streeters did. We might have been forced to buy our gold from Dubai instead of Australia.
The bank could have siezed the contents of the SDBs long ago but didn't want to flex it's muscle until there was something to "FIGHT" the people for. And the fight didn't start until the Langbords had legal advice using a loophole and shifting the burden of proof on .... The Bankers
Touche'
Fact or fiction ? Law or Lawless ? Help me see without opinion.
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this. >>
<< <i>Andy, you must weigh the underlying situation at the time to have the proper perspective.
The government was calling in all gold. They did not want the 1933's to be released because the coins were minted while the law was about to take effect. This wasn't a situation where swaps were ok because they were a zero sum game. The Fed wanted all gold. And they knew that by releasing a handful of one date they would create a highly desiredcand rare coin that was not authorized.
It's like setting up a roadblock to stop all enemies but letting a few through who had snuck in the day before. It's wrong. They clearly wanted NO 1933 Saints to ever be released. That's their right, they make the riles and because some were absconded doesn't make them excluded.
Look, I justvwanted to create a clear timeline as to what happened immediately upon enacting the recall. The mint and it's emplyees are not interpreters if the law nor do their friends or henchmen get exclusions. By the dates outlinedcabove it's clear that no new gold coins were to ever be released! That's why they were all locked in the vault under very strict control. This wasn't about food stamps. There was a critically serious threat to the soundness if the US dollar due to the shrinkage if money supply and billins if dollars if gold being expatriates by panicky citizens. Had all the gold left the US the dollar would have collapsed and Woodin knew this when he enacted the Gold Act. There was no funny business allowed and just because a weasel like McCann found a way to "feed" Switt doesn't make it less of a felony.
McCann was a sneeky guy. There are numerous reports in the no t records if him handling coins that hecwasnt authorized to. He fit the mold if the type if guy who would capitalize on a crisis and Switt was just the guy to egg him on to break the law.
If Switt was honest why would he have 10 coins that he KNEW were illegal? After all, be was being visited and investigayed by the Secret Service constantly as the coins be sold were being traced back to him and yet he stashed them anyway. He knrw damn well that he had been tracked diwn and he gave up names!
Switt knew that he was the fix caught in the henhouse and he still kept ten coins that had no trail fir the Feds to find. Let's not be naiive. >>
This entire post is full of supposition and inuendo - clearly inadmissable. If you're trying to get added to the government's expert witness list, you're gonna have to do better than that!
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this. >>
One way of saying you dont know I guess. >>
No. One way of not responding to a stupid propaganda queerie. I'm not going to play with stupid questions. I stated what I thought was compelling enough documentation for what I think will be the outcome; you make up your own mind as you take a break from throwing Molotov cokktails at the next G-8 meeting.
Oh TDN. Stick to Trade Dollars. This stuff is too shiny and new for your testimony.
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this. >>
One way of saying you dont know I guess. >>
No. One way of not responding to a stupid propaganda queerie. I'm not going to play with stupid questions. I stated what I thought was compelling enough documentation for what I think will be the outcome; you make up your own mind as you take a break from throwing Molotov cokktails at the next G-8 meeting.
Oh TDN. Stick to Trade Dollars. This stuff is too shiny and new for your testimony. >>
Sainty, sainty - we all know that if it was YOUR grandfather that did the deed you'd be screaming to Hell and high water about due process!
<< <i>The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 took effect recalling all gold On March 5, 1933 when the Director of the Cashier at the Philadelphia Mint, Harry Powell was notified that NO gold coins were to be exchanged for any other gold.
On Feb. 15, nine days after the meltdown commenced, Izzy Switt, a Philadelphia jeweler and coin dealer with a shady reputation sold a 1933 Double Eagle to James Macallister for $300. More would be discovered as they made their way to the market over the next 5 years, all traced back to Izzy Switt! Switt was a known figure who had a reputation of hanging around the mint frequently...he knew McCann. >>
So, is it possible that Switt purchased these from Powell?
<< <i> NO 1933 Double Eagles had "officially" been delivered to the cashier at that time. Production had begun because no one else at the Mint had received any instructions to halt production, as a Mint Director said, 'We're just a factory". >>
Do we know this for sure? (perhaps we do -- but perhaps there was poor documentation of transfer of the coins to the cashier prior to Feb 15).
To me, this is all about our government not being able to take property without due process. It transcends the numismatic aspects of the case.
And, it doesn't matter one iota if there's a 99.99% chance that it was done illegally. As long as there is ONE way it could have happened legally, then the government should have to prove its case.
<< <i>"the fact remains the gold coins that weren't supposed to leave the mint and shouldn't have left the mint and were found in someone's sdb"
The coins were not supposed to leave the mint.Case closed. >>
So if its THAT cut and dried then why doesn't/can't the Guvmint PROVE its case and end it? >>
uhhhhh, because it hasn't gome to the court yet?
It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that?
CHEESEHEAD. >>
If they can PROVE it why does it need to go to court?
<< <i>Lemme see if I understand this. Coin dealer "X" tells all his employees not to sell me coin "Y". They sell it to me anyway. Are you saying that the coin dealer "X" now has legal recourse against me? >>
So you fail to see any difference between the Treasury of the US Mint and a coin dealer? That's the craziest tangent so far. >>
So tell me, who is the largest coin dealer in the world? Hint - it's not Heritage. >>
Please....this is more semantics and rhetoric. The TREASURY may sell more coins than anyone but they are the ruling body that determines what gets sold. They said NO SELL to the '33's. End of this tack. Try again. >>
They SAID no sell. But can you actually prove what they DID or DID NOT do? That is the legal question here.
Ok lets seperate a few things, there is more than one real issue going on here lets take this one by one.
1. Did the Mint or anyone else have the legal right to sellgive rade those coins?
Unless there was some sort of legal screw up I dont know of it was illegal for those coins to leave the mint. So in fact (again unless there is something we dont know) the transaction was illegal and could be considered theft since the transaction went outside the legality behind the mint.
2. Was this theft punishable?
If you can prove the transaction took place between the two parties in a reasonable manner then yes but only for the two fellows that have allready died.
3. Is it possible the transaction was in good faith (at least on the buyer side?)
First was it even legal in any capicaty for this guy to go to the mint and exchange coins? No matter if he "accidently" got 1933's or not, was it even legal for him to be there. If so it still appears to not matter since the process by which the coins where isolated was meant to preclude any possiblity of their release. Thus the Govment made a good faith and honest effort to prevent their release and as such any release is more than reasonable to assume to be criminal.
4. Who is the legal owner of the coins?
If we agree on item one then the US goverment has the right to the coins.
Lets put this into a different light.
Lets say I have a very nice home entertainment system complete with the latest gaming system. My landlord who is greedy decides to make a quick buck and opens my home up and takes my nice new system out to the front lawn where he proceeds to have an impromtu yard sale. He sells it for 200 bucks and tells me later that the house was broken into. I file a police report and a couple of weeks later the police happen to find my gear inside a pawn shop. The owner of the pawn shop (as far as I know) is required to reliqunish my property to me without compensation.
So just like with the above situation the Goverment is in fact the real owner of these coins since they were never autherized to leave the mint and only did so via a criminal act. The only possible thing i could think of that might change this is the law behind the length of time an owner can reclaim stolen property. I would think there would have to be a limit placed on how long you can go claim it. If my Great Great Great Great Grandfather stole a painting out of the museum 150 years ago does that museum have the legal right to reclaim it from me?
Bottom Feeder collector, Happy collector of Moderns
I like spirited discussion regarding American numismatics, but I enjoy historical facts and reality much better.
There are a few bits of mis-information presented in the original post. Among those are concept that the 1934 Gold Reserve Act, which was actually approved by FDR on January 30, 1934, "took effect" on March 5, 1933.
On March 5, 1933, the day the Democrats took over, there was an informal meeting for the new cabinet members at the White House beginning at 2:30 pm to discuss the acute banking situation and agree on a policy.
After this meeting, FDR decided to issue an Executive Order which was to appear in the newspapers the following day. This was the Banking Holiday proclomation that closed all banks for 3 days. This was done to stop the runs on the banks.
On March 9, 1933 FDR issued the Emergency Banking Act which stated in part that all people were required to deliver their gold to the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank nearest them. This Act passed through the complete legislative process in a single day! The wording used was classic..."An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes".
This led to the Executive Order #6102 of April 5th, 1933, where it was now punishable by fines or imprisonment if Americans were caught hoarding gold.
This is the way it really began. As for what the Treasury Dept. was dictating to the Mint, and what Treasury Secretary Woodin was telling FDR, that is another can of unknown worms. At the time, there was much more going on than simply dealing with a bunch of gold coins sitting around at the Philadelphia Mint.
Coin collectors should forever thank William Hartman Woodin, as it was his past collecting interest that added the few words "...and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusal coins". If it weren't for that clause. all U.S. gold coins would have been illegal to own after that time.
PM me if you are looking for U.S. auction catalogs
Lots of cases are settled out of court because one side or tuther knows when to say uncle. In this case if the Guvmint has proof then lay it out and get it over with. All they are doing is wasting tax dollars unless their real intent is harrassment/bullying, in which case its a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars..
This thread remains full of conclusions without citations to the legal basis that would have permitted or prohibited the Mint from releasing the 1933 $20s. The coins were minted after the Emergency Banking Act went into effect. The Secretary of the Treasury could have prevented the minting if he or the President had already determined that the coins should not be released to the public.
The Emergency Banking Act that went into law on March 9, 1933 did NOT make ownership of gold coin illegal, nor did it prohibit the Mint from paying out gold coin to the public. Rather, the Act stated, in part, that the Secretary of the Treasury may require gold to be delivered to the Treasury. Also, the President was empowered to issue orders or regulations regulating or restricting the hoarding, export and melting of gold etc.
It appears that there were Treasury orders issued on March 6 (though I have not seen the text of the orders nor has anyone playing in this thread posted or linked them) that prohibited paying out gold during the banking holiday that Roosevelt declared. The banking holiday ran from March 6 to March 9.
The next Executive Order issued on the subject was the April 9 gold surrender order, but even that permitted ownership of up to $100 in gold plus rare coins. So unless the Treasury had a continuing order in place from March 6 onward, there was a window of opportunity for the nimble to obtain gold coin from the Mint legally. Even the April 9 surrender order would have permitted the retention of 5 $20s. And if by then the coins were rare, it would have allowed the continued ownership of all of them. Of course it would have been an issue whether the coins were rare if they had just been obtained at face value, but once the release of more coins was halted, they may have become rare instantly.
So, now people, tell us, on what date did Mr. Swift obtain the 1933 $20s and what Treasury or Executive Orders and regulations were in effect on that date that would have prohibited the Mint from paying out the coins to him.
I'd bet anytyhing that Switt got the coins in 1937!
Screw this 1933 crap. They were meaningless then. Switt had no idea that they would be so valuable at that time. He was too busy hiding the gold he already had.
BUT, in 1937....now that's a different story. And it would explain the sale to James Macallister the week after the coins were removed from the vault.
Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence?
<< <i>I'd bet anytyhing that Switt got the coins in 1937!
Screw this 1933 crap. They were meaningless then. Switt had no idea that they would be so valuable at that time. He was too busy hiding the gold he already had.
BUT, in 1937....now that's a different story. And it would explain the sale to James Macallister the week after the coins were removed from the vault.
Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence? >>
The factual truth does not matter if you can't get past the procedural burden of proof issue.
Why is it that everyone is so exercised about the 1933 DE that went out the back door, perhaps in 1937 as stated by SG and no one cares about the 1804 Type II and III that went out the back door of the Mint? I just wanted to add those to the 1913 nickel backdoor situation as well.
Why not confiscate ALL of those coins? I for one would prefer a small bill that made it legal to owni any U.S. Mint coin produced before XXX date, fill in XXX with the date of your choice, perhaps 1965.
Let's not destroy numismatic history. Just MHO with no bias towards or against either side in the 1933 DE case in terms of legality.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Al, I once had to go around a detour to get to a business on a street in my town. After maneuvering my way around twists and turns in a "back street" neighborhood. Thats one of those areas only those living in know how to get in and out of..., I got back on the closed street into the business. As I left the place, it was about twenty feet from where the barricades were closing the street. I exited that way and was promptly pulled over for using the street that was closed.
I told the officer the problem and suggested that his cruiser parked where it was , was nothing more than entrapment to give tickets to everyone who needed to get to one of the businesses affected by the street closure. He gave me my license back and told me to STFU and move along.
It's been twenty years or so and I'm not afraid to speak about it now.
Don't you just love the spirited discourse that erupts around here when the 1933 Double Eagles are discussed?
Nothing will be settled until the lawsuit is settled or is decided by a court judgment that becomes final and not subect to any further appellate review. Once that happens, the spirited discourse can shift from the coins to the settlement or to the court judgment.
The information presented by Saint Guru in this post is very compelling. Much of it is excellently presented and discussed in Allison Frankel's book. However, lawsuits are funny things and many times are decided in ways which have no connection with fairness or justice [whatever those things may be in the Langbord case depends on the eye of the beholder].
The bottom line, again, is who has to prove what. Whoever is required to prove things in this case may well turn out to be the loser. Forumites will either be ecstatic or depondent over any final court judgment issued in the Langbord case, depending on who wins and who loses.
Such ecstasy and despondency will, themselves, provide additional fodder for much more spirited discourse in the future, to the entertainment, education, aggravation and enrichment of us all.
<< <i>I'd bet anytyhing that Switt got the coins in 1937!
Screw this 1933 crap. They were meaningless then. Switt had no idea that they would be so valuable at that time. He was too busy hiding the gold he already had.
BUT, in 1937....now that's a different story. And it would explain the sale to James Macallister the week after the coins were removed from the vault.
Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence? >>
On what day were all of the 1933 Saints said to be destroyed and were all of those purported to be minted, actually accounted for in the melt or was it equal weight only?
<< <i> Nothing will be settled until the lawsuit is settled or is decided by a court judgment that becomes final and not subect to any further appellate review. >>
Good, that gives us another ten years to correct SG and his wrong-thinking ways
Here is one thing I guess I still dont understand about all this.....
What was the procedure for this person to go to the mint to obtain these coins. Lets say instead of 1933 (or 37) lets say he did this in 1929 and wanted to exchange a previous years coin for a yet to be released coin from the mint. Would that be legal and was there an established protocol in place for someone like him to do that at the mint.
Can a guy show up at the mint today with a 2007 gold eagle and ask to trade it in for a 2009?
Just curious
Bottom Feeder collector, Happy collector of Moderns
The above discussions are very interesting but generally miss the mark by a wide margin except for a couple of postings. The following can be stated, based on an actual study of the original documents:
1) The mints had the legal right to pay out gold until early April 1933.
2) There was no law banning the release of the 1933 double eagles.
3) The 1933 double eagles could have been legally switched for other dates until the April edict from FDR. That no physical record was kept was not a violation of the governing 1873 law but did violate departmental regulations, which probably would have not been enforceable in court under such conditions.
4) The government cannot prove that the 1933s were not obtained by switching coins in that year.
Some additional background material is worth noting. In 1992, after the sale of the Fenton coin, I notified the defense people that I was going to publish the material that had been found at the Archives. I was told that I had no legal right to do so, with obvious implications. (I had done the Archival research for the attorneys and had been scheduled to testify at the trial, which of course was never held.)
The material I found was in fact published in Numismatic News in October 2002. Both Alison Frankel and David Tripp were well aware of this article but did not put it in their bibliography. Comparing the findings from these two books with the NN article will explain why the article was not listed.
There is considerably more to this matter than I have stated but the above is sufficient to make the point.
If the coins left the mint in 1937 and not 1933 where were they for 4 years? Did Izzy Switt smuggle an equal number of replacement coins into the mint in 1937?
<< <i>If the coins left the mint in 1937 and not 1933 where were they for 4 years? Did Izzy Switt smuggle an equal number of replacement coins into the mint in 1937? >>
Vault F of the Philadelphia Mint under lock and sealed.
Sanction II had some very succinct comments. After I read "The Defense Never Rests" by F. Lee Bailey many, many years ago, I began to understand having a good lawyer is often more important than being innocent or guilty.
Whomever has the best lawyers will win this case. FYI, the Mint has lawyers on staff so it will be interesting to see how this comes out.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Comments
I like the Philly connection, Jay.
These guys would sell the soles of your shoes when you were running from them "
That was a belly acher.
Edit to change stomach to belly.
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>Lemme see if I understand this. Coin dealer "X" tells all his employees not to sell me coin "Y". They sell it to me anyway. Are you saying that the coin dealer "X" now has legal recourse against me? >>
So you fail to see any difference between the Treasury of the US Mint and a coin dealer? That's the craziest tangent so far.
>>
So tell me, who is the largest coin dealer in the world? Hint - it's not Heritage.
<< <i>
<< <i>"the fact remains the gold coins that weren't supposed to leave the mint and shouldn't have left the mint and were found in someone's sdb"
The coins were not supposed to leave the mint.Case closed. >>
So if its THAT cut and dried then why doesn't/can't the Guvmint PROVE its case and end it? >>
uhhhhh, because it hasn't gome to the court yet?
It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that?
CHEESEHEAD.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Lemme see if I understand this. Coin dealer "X" tells all his employees not to sell me coin "Y". They sell it to me anyway. Are you saying that the coin dealer "X" now has legal recourse against me? >>
So you fail to see any difference between the Treasury of the US Mint and a coin dealer? That's the craziest tangent so far.
>>
So tell me, who is the largest coin dealer in the world? Hint - it's not Heritage. >>
Please....this is more semantics and rhetoric.
The TREASURY may sell more coins than anyone but they are the ruling body that determines what gets sold. They said NO SELL to the '33's. End of this tack.
Try again.
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator?
<< <i>
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this.
Essentially this gave the Federal Reserve System the power to govern the Treasury. They printed the paper that backed the gold and "We the People" pay the interest on the paper we work for, which also bails out the bad loans that so many BAD AMERICANS took out. Shame on US.
If the above is true, then judges & lawyers and law enforcement are being paid off with all of this paper we call money. The money keeps flowing , via paper, fiat money, electronic means. That's commerce, but the paper is worthless. The only concern now is "stature". And back to Stature...
Someone is writing a book while someone is writing a bad check. I hope it's Spielberg and Uncle Sam. They've got some hot potatoes right out of the oven with Madoff, while smart bankers can't explain to stupid politicians who have to have someone else change their flat tire and "Bail" them out while they SPEND our LIFE on their agendas, as to why we need to create more money. We have to feed the GOVERNMENT machine
Now, am I just reading rumors about tons of charities taken down or are these true ?
So if one wrong is committed and covered up, it will set precedence for future wrong and excuse it from the highest seat in the land.
We must ask ourselves collectively and individually who will help the sole less that just keep asking questions ? Who's buying the stimulus package ? The Mint is selling " it" in the form of UHRs.
Thank God the bankers have control. I'd be afraid if the politicians or wall streeters did. We might have been forced to buy our gold from Dubai instead of Australia.
The bank could have siezed the contents of the SDBs long ago but didn't want to flex it's muscle until there was something to "FIGHT" the people for. And the fight didn't start until the Langbords had legal advice using a loophole and shifting the burden of proof on ....
The Bankers
Touche'
Fact or fiction ? Law or Lawless ?
Help me see without opinion.
Joe
(I'm writing a mystery)
edit in "bold type"
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this. >>
One way of saying you dont know I guess.
<< <i>Andy, you must weigh the underlying situation at the time to have the proper perspective.
The government was calling in all gold. They did not want the 1933's to be released because the coins were minted while the law was about to take effect. This wasn't a situation where swaps were ok because they were a zero sum game. The Fed wanted all gold. And they knew that by releasing a handful of one date they would create a highly desiredcand rare coin that was not authorized.
It's like setting up a roadblock to stop all enemies but letting a few through who had snuck in the day before. It's wrong. They clearly wanted NO 1933 Saints to ever be released. That's their right, they make the riles and because some were absconded doesn't make them excluded.
Look, I justvwanted to create a clear timeline as to what happened immediately upon enacting the recall. The mint and it's emplyees are not interpreters if the law nor do their friends or henchmen get exclusions. By the dates outlinedcabove it's clear that no new gold coins were to ever be released! That's why they were all locked in the vault under very strict control. This wasn't about food stamps. There was a critically serious threat to the soundness if the US dollar due to the shrinkage if money supply and billins if dollars if gold being expatriates by panicky citizens. Had all the gold left the US the dollar would have collapsed and Woodin knew this when he enacted the Gold Act. There was no funny business allowed and just because a weasel like McCann found a way to "feed" Switt doesn't make it less of a felony.
McCann was a sneeky guy. There are numerous reports in the no t records if him handling coins that hecwasnt authorized to. He fit the mold if the type if guy who would capitalize on a crisis and Switt was just the guy to egg him on to break the law.
If Switt was honest why would he have 10 coins that he KNEW were illegal? After all, be was being visited and investigayed by the Secret Service constantly as the coins be sold were being traced back to him and yet he stashed them anyway. He knrw damn well that he had been tracked diwn and he gave up names!
Switt knew that he was the fix caught in the henhouse and he still kept ten coins that had no trail fir the Feds to find. Let's not be naiive. >>
This entire post is full of supposition and inuendo - clearly inadmissable. If you're trying to get added to the government's expert witness list, you're gonna have to do better than that!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this. >>
One way of saying you dont know I guess. >>
No. One way of not responding to a stupid propaganda queerie. I'm not going to play with stupid questions. I stated what I thought was compelling enough documentation for what I think will be the outcome; you make up your own mind as you take a break from throwing Molotov cokktails at the next G-8 meeting.
Oh TDN. Stick to Trade Dollars. This stuff is too shiny and new for your testimony.
I have it on good authority that Izzy paid for his 1933's with 1927-D's ... perhaps the family should be reimbursed for full market value?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that? >>
Who is they and did they make it law or were they just acting like they are a dictator? >>
Do some reading. I'm not going to school you on this. >>
One way of saying you dont know I guess. >>
No. One way of not responding to a stupid propaganda queerie. I'm not going to play with stupid questions. I stated what I thought was compelling enough documentation for what I think will be the outcome; you make up your own mind as you take a break from throwing Molotov cokktails at the next G-8 meeting.
Oh TDN. Stick to Trade Dollars. This stuff is too shiny and new for your testimony.
Sainty, sainty - we all know that if it was YOUR grandfather that did the deed you'd be screaming to Hell and high water about due process!
<< <i>The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 took effect recalling all gold On March 5, 1933 when the Director of the Cashier at the Philadelphia Mint, Harry Powell was notified that NO gold coins were to be exchanged for any other gold.
On Feb. 15, nine days after the meltdown commenced, Izzy Switt, a Philadelphia jeweler and coin dealer with a shady reputation sold a 1933 Double Eagle to James Macallister for $300. More would be discovered as they made their way to the market over the next 5 years, all traced back to Izzy Switt! Switt was a known figure who had a reputation of hanging around the mint frequently...he knew McCann.
>>
So, is it possible that Switt purchased these from Powell?
<< <i>
NO 1933 Double Eagles had "officially" been delivered to the cashier at that time. Production had begun because no one else at the Mint had received any instructions to halt production, as a Mint Director said, 'We're just a factory". >>
Do we know this for sure? (perhaps we do -- but perhaps there was poor documentation of transfer of the coins to the cashier prior to Feb 15).
And, it doesn't matter one iota if there's a 99.99% chance that it was done illegally. As long as there is ONE way it could have happened legally, then the government should have to prove its case.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"the fact remains the gold coins that weren't supposed to leave the mint and shouldn't have left the mint and were found in someone's sdb"
The coins were not supposed to leave the mint.Case closed. >>
So if its THAT cut and dried then why doesn't/can't the Guvmint PROVE its case and end it? >>
uhhhhh, because it hasn't gome to the court yet?
It's that cut and dry IMO. And let's not forget that when they did re-ALLOW (I said re-allow) the "Farouk" coin they made it 100% clear that NO OTHER 1933 Saint would ever be allowed to be owned. Is there something vague about that?
CHEESEHEAD.
If they can PROVE it why does it need to go to court?
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Lemme see if I understand this. Coin dealer "X" tells all his employees not to sell me coin "Y". They sell it to me anyway. Are you saying that the coin dealer "X" now has legal recourse against me? >>
So you fail to see any difference between the Treasury of the US Mint and a coin dealer? That's the craziest tangent so far.
>>
So tell me, who is the largest coin dealer in the world? Hint - it's not Heritage. >>
Please....this is more semantics and rhetoric.
The TREASURY may sell more coins than anyone but they are the ruling body that determines what gets sold. They said NO SELL to the '33's. End of this tack.
Try again. >>
They SAID no sell. But can you actually prove what they DID or DID NOT do? That is the legal question here.
1. Did the Mint or anyone else have the legal right to sellgive rade those coins?
Unless there was some sort of legal screw up I dont know of it was illegal for those coins to leave the mint. So in fact (again unless there is something we dont know) the transaction was illegal and could be considered theft since the transaction went outside the legality behind the mint.
2. Was this theft punishable?
If you can prove the transaction took place between the two parties in a reasonable manner then yes but only for the two fellows that have allready died.
3. Is it possible the transaction was in good faith (at least on the buyer side?)
First was it even legal in any capicaty for this guy to go to the mint and exchange coins? No matter if he "accidently" got 1933's or not, was it even legal for him to be there. If so it still appears to not matter since the process by which the coins where isolated was meant to preclude any possiblity of their release. Thus the Govment made a good faith and honest effort to prevent their release and as such any release is more than reasonable to assume to be criminal.
4. Who is the legal owner of the coins?
If we agree on item one then the US goverment has the right to the coins.
Lets put this into a different light.
Lets say I have a very nice home entertainment system complete with the latest gaming system. My landlord who is greedy decides to make a quick buck and opens my home up and takes my nice new system out to the front lawn where he proceeds to have an impromtu yard sale. He sells it for 200 bucks and tells me later that the house was broken into. I file a police report and a couple of weeks later the police happen to find my gear inside a pawn shop. The owner of the pawn shop (as far as I know) is required to reliqunish my property to me without compensation.
So just like with the above situation the Goverment is in fact the real owner of these coins since they were never autherized to leave the mint and only did so via a criminal act. The only possible thing i could think of that might change this is the law behind the length of time an owner can reclaim stolen property. I would think there would have to be a limit placed on how long you can go claim it. If my Great Great Great Great Grandfather stole a painting out of the museum 150 years ago does that museum have the legal right to reclaim it from me?
<< <i>How about a nice frothy mug of STFU?
Remember, Jay is ALWAYS right...
There are a few bits of mis-information presented in the original post. Among those are concept that the 1934 Gold Reserve Act, which was actually approved by FDR on January 30, 1934, "took effect" on March 5, 1933.
On March 5, 1933, the day the Democrats took over, there was an informal meeting for the new cabinet members at the White House beginning at 2:30 pm to discuss the acute banking situation and agree on a policy.
After this meeting, FDR decided to issue an Executive Order which was to appear in the newspapers the following day. This was the Banking Holiday proclomation that closed all banks for 3 days. This was done to stop the runs on the banks.
On March 9, 1933 FDR issued the Emergency Banking Act which stated in part that all people were required to deliver their gold to the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank nearest them. This Act passed through the complete legislative process in a single day! The wording used was classic..."An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes".
This led to the Executive Order #6102 of April 5th, 1933, where it was now punishable by fines or imprisonment if Americans were caught hoarding gold.
This is the way it really began. As for what the Treasury Dept. was dictating to the Mint, and what Treasury Secretary Woodin was telling FDR, that is another can of unknown worms. At the time, there was much more going on than simply dealing with a bunch of gold coins sitting around at the Philadelphia Mint.
Coin collectors should forever thank William Hartman Woodin, as it was his past collecting interest that added the few words "...and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusal coins". If it weren't for that clause. all U.S. gold coins would have been illegal to own after that time.
<< <i>How about a nice frothy mug of STFU?
Lots of cases are settled out of court because one side or tuther knows when to say uncle. In this case if the Guvmint has proof then lay it out and get it over with. All they are doing is wasting tax dollars unless their real intent is harrassment/bullying, in which case its a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars..
The Emergency Banking Act that went into law on March 9, 1933 did NOT make ownership of gold coin illegal, nor did it prohibit the Mint from paying out gold coin to the public. Rather, the Act stated, in part, that the Secretary of the Treasury may require gold to be delivered to the Treasury. Also, the President was empowered to issue orders or regulations regulating or restricting the hoarding, export and melting of gold etc.
It appears that there were Treasury orders issued on March 6 (though I have not seen the text of the orders nor has anyone playing in this thread posted or linked them) that prohibited paying out gold during the banking holiday that Roosevelt declared. The banking holiday ran from March 6 to March 9.
The next Executive Order issued on the subject was the April 9 gold surrender order, but even that permitted ownership of up to $100 in gold plus rare coins. So unless the Treasury had a continuing order in place from March 6 onward, there was a window of opportunity for the nimble to obtain gold coin from the Mint legally. Even the April 9 surrender order would have permitted the retention of 5 $20s. And if by then the coins were rare, it would have allowed the continued ownership of all of them. Of course it would have been an issue whether the coins were rare if they had just been obtained at face value, but once the release of more coins was halted, they may have become rare instantly.
So, now people, tell us, on what date did Mr. Swift obtain the 1933 $20s and what Treasury or Executive Orders and regulations were in effect on that date that would have prohibited the Mint from paying out the coins to him.
CG
Screw this 1933 crap. They were meaningless then. Switt had no idea that they would be so valuable at that time. He was too busy hiding the gold he already had.
BUT, in 1937....now that's a different story. And it would explain the sale to James Macallister the week after the coins were removed from the vault.
Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence?
<< <i>I'd bet anytyhing that Switt got the coins in 1937!
Screw this 1933 crap. They were meaningless then. Switt had no idea that they would be so valuable at that time. He was too busy hiding the gold he already had.
BUT, in 1937....now that's a different story. And it would explain the sale to James Macallister the week after the coins were removed from the vault.
Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence?
The factual truth does not matter if you can't get past the procedural burden of proof issue.
Why not confiscate ALL of those coins? I for one would prefer a small bill that made it legal to owni any U.S. Mint coin produced before XXX date, fill in XXX with the date of your choice, perhaps 1965.
Let's not destroy numismatic history. Just MHO with no bias towards or against either side in the 1933 DE case in terms of legality.
<< <i>Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence?
Cointroversy keeps it lively.
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I told the officer the problem and suggested that his cruiser parked where it was , was nothing more than entrapment to give tickets to everyone who needed to get to one of the businesses affected by the street closure. He gave me my license back and told me to STFU and move along.
It's been twenty years or so and I'm not afraid to speak about it now.
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence?
I don't ignore it. There are two issues here:
* What really happened.
* What will happen now as a matter of law.
I plead "OJ" on this one - my opinion is that the coins escaped illegally, and that they will be returned to the family anyway, as a matter of law.
Nothing will be settled until the lawsuit is settled or is decided by a court judgment that becomes final and not subect to any further appellate review. Once that happens, the spirited discourse can shift from the coins to the settlement or to the court judgment.
The information presented by Saint Guru in this post is very compelling. Much of it is excellently presented and discussed in Allison Frankel's book. However, lawsuits are funny things and many times are decided in ways which have no connection with fairness or justice [whatever those things may be in the Langbord case depends on the eye of the beholder].
The bottom line, again, is who has to prove what. Whoever is required to prove things in this case may well turn out to be the loser. Forumites will either be ecstatic or depondent over any final court judgment issued in the Langbord case, depending on who wins and who loses.
Such ecstasy and despondency will, themselves, provide additional fodder for much more spirited discourse in the future, to the entertainment, education, aggravation and enrichment of us all.
If the glove don't fit you can't convict?
<< <i>I'd bet anytyhing that Switt got the coins in 1937!
Screw this 1933 crap. They were meaningless then. Switt had no idea that they would be so valuable at that time. He was too busy hiding the gold he already had.
BUT, in 1937....now that's a different story. And it would explain the sale to James Macallister the week after the coins were removed from the vault.
Why has everyone who has posted here ignored that not-so-coincidental coincidence?
On what day were all of the 1933 Saints said to be destroyed and were all of those purported to be minted, actually accounted for in the melt or was it equal weight only?
<< <i>
Nothing will be settled until the lawsuit is settled or is decided by a court judgment that becomes final and not subect to any further appellate review.
>>
Good, that gives us another ten years to correct SG and his wrong-thinking ways
What was the procedure for this person to go to the mint to obtain these coins. Lets say instead of 1933 (or 37) lets say he did this in 1929 and wanted to exchange a previous years coin for a yet to be released coin from the mint. Would that be legal and was there an established protocol in place for someone like him to do that at the mint.
Can a guy show up at the mint today with a 2007 gold eagle and ask to trade it in for a 2009?
Just curious
for a couple of postings. The following can be stated, based on an actual study of the original
documents:
1) The mints had the legal right to pay out gold until early April 1933.
2) There was no law banning the release of the 1933 double eagles.
3) The 1933 double eagles could have been legally switched for other dates until the April edict
from FDR. That no physical record was kept was not a violation of the governing 1873 law but did
violate departmental regulations, which probably would have not been enforceable in court under
such conditions.
4) The government cannot prove that the 1933s were not obtained by switching coins in that year.
Some additional background material is worth noting. In 1992, after the sale of the Fenton coin, I notified
the defense people that I was going to publish the material that had been found at the Archives. I was told
that I had no legal right to do so, with obvious implications. (I had done the Archival research for the
attorneys and had been scheduled to testify at the trial, which of course was never held.)
The material I found was in fact published in Numismatic News in October 2002. Both Alison Frankel and
David Tripp were well aware of this article but did not put it in their bibliography. Comparing the findings from
these two books with the NN article will explain why the article was not listed.
There is considerably more to this matter than I have stated but the above is sufficient to make the point.
Denga
<< <i>If the coins left the mint in 1937 and not 1933 where were they for 4 years? Did Izzy Switt smuggle an equal number of replacement coins into the mint in 1937? >>
Vault F of the Philadelphia Mint under lock and sealed.
Whomever has the best lawyers will win this case. FYI, the Mint has lawyers on staff so it will be interesting to see how this comes out.