Thanks Sanction II...Langbord Poll

DieClash · April 7, 2009 2:13PM

Sanction II has been keeping us updated over the past year(s) as to the developments in USA vs. Langbord. I'm just curious how the membership here feels about this case. Are you for the defendants (USA) or for the Plaintiffs (Langbord family) or do you even care aobut the outcome. Vote early and vote often is my motto!

78750Aggie · April 7, 2009 2:45PM

If the Langbords win, we will finally get to see pic's of the 1964 Peace Dollar? If the 1933 St evaded the mint release controls, I bet the 64 Peace did too.

Batman23 · April 7, 2009 3:08PM

There is a difference on who I think is right and who I think should win. I will vote... who I think should win

BAJJERFAN · April 8, 2009 5:35AM

The Langbords.

BECOKA · April 8, 2009 5:59AM

Who is right or who will win?

I think the gov is right though wrong for keeping them and that if it goes to jury trial with burden on gov the Langbords will win.

RWB · April 8, 2009 6:21AM

The 1933 double eagles and 1964-D Peace dollars are not the same critter, so one is very unlikely to affect the other.

dbldie55 · April 8, 2009 6:25AM

The Government is right in this case. I hope all of the heirs end up in prison.

dan383 · April 8, 2009 6:42AM

I don't know how he got them out of the mint . I do know nobody was raped , maimed , shot ,

or killed in the process . I do think the Goverment took them from the Langbords illegally .

I don't agree that the Goverment can demand it's citizens to hand over property with out

a court ruling . First they take your expensive Gold coins , then your Guns , then what ever...............

Dan

dbldie55 · April 8, 2009 6:45AM

Interesting. Since Switt is on record as stating he never had them, then his heirs must not have inherited them. I guess there is really no case.

SanctionII · April 8, 2009 6:58AM

I have no idea who will win and I do not care who wins.

My only hope is that the coins are not melted [as were other 1933 Double Eagles that were seized by the Secret Service in the 40's] and are kept as they are.

If the government wins the coins should be put on display.

If the Langbords win the coins should rightfully enter into the market place and come out of the "coin underground".

denga · April 8, 2009 7:04AM

dbldie55 April 08, 2009

The Government is right in this case. I hope all of the heirs end up in prison.

No, the government is wrong, period. The coins could have been legally removed from
the Mint in late March 1933. If you have definitive information to the contrary, please post
it.

Denga

Julian · April 8, 2009 7:23AM

<< dbldie55 April 08, 2009

The Government is right in this case. I hope all of the heirs end up in prison.

No, the government is wrong, period. The coins could have been legally removed from
the Mint in late March 1933. If you have definitive information to the contrary, please post
it.

Denga >>

adamlaneus · April 8, 2009 7:28AM

I think the lawyers deserve the coins.

It's sort of like Solomon and Baby-splitting.

DieClash · April 8, 2009 10:43AM

Batman, the ambiguity in the OP and Poll was intended! I figure each of us has to sort out how we feel about the outcome of this case both on its legal merits and our own emotional attachment or lack thereof. I voted Langbord, both because I feel they are right and because I am pulling for them to win.

<< There is a difference on who I think is right and who I think should win. I will vote... who I think should win

>>

EDITED: just realized ambiguity has a 'b' in it.

DieClash · April 23, 2009 10:15AM

zeebob · April 23, 2009 10:19AM

Coins belong to the the US Government.

Government should not have seized the coins without due process.

Langbords are lucky GW and his ilk didn't lock 'em in some dark hole in Saudi and waterboard them. However, once due process is served, the coins should find their way home and be put into the Smithsonian.

ksteelheader · April 23, 2009 10:19AM

<< The Government is right in this case. I hope all of the heirs end up in prison. >>

Why do you always act like an idiotic child??

SanctionII · April 23, 2009 10:29AM

dbldie55.

Do you really think that the Langbords should be put in prison?

If so, for what? Simply having possession of 10 coins that Izzy Switt got his hands on?

That seems to be a harsh result that is not merited under any conceivable set of facts I am aware of that are present in the case.

If the court rules against the Langbords, I would think that a final court judgment that establishes that they do not own the coins and have not right to them at all would be more than an adequate result.

tradedollarnut · April 23, 2009 5:08PM

I have a desire to see coins with such a numismatic history about them on the market, but even more importantly I want to see our government abide by the rule of law.

stinkinlincoln · April 23, 2009 5:47PM

Prison for the heirs? Geesh! I think the heirs should win. The Govt was wrong in how they took the coins.

abitofthisabitofthat · April 23, 2009 8:31PM

<< dbldie55.

Do you really think that the Langbords should be put in prison?

If so, for what? Simply having possession of 10 coins that Izzy Switt got his hands on?

That seems to be a harsh result that is not merited under any conceivable set of facts I am aware of that are present in the case.

If the court rules against the Langbords, I would think that a final court judgment that establishes that they do not own the coins and have not right to them at all would be more than an adequate result. >>

No that I necessarily want to see them go to prison, but since you asked about any conceivable set of facts - wouldn't intentionally filing fraudulent estate tax returns be a felony?

Longacre · April 23, 2009 10:04PM

I'm just disappointed that the government is probably going to try to drag poor uncle Izzy through the mud during this case, and he isn't even around to defend himself. I hope his heirs do honor to their uncle and defend him vigorously.

TwoSides2aCoin · April 23, 2009 11:00PM

The government should be shut down for not operating in the black.

Steve27 · April 24, 2009 12:16AM

1) The Gov has been consistent over the years in confiscating any/all of these coins; the Langbord coins should be treated the same way.
2) They should be given to the Smithsonian and made part of the permanent collection.
3) They and other coins should be shown at ANA Conventions so that we can all enjoy them.

ksteelheader · April 24, 2009 2:00AM

<< 1) The Gov has been consistent over the years in confiscating any/all of these coins; the Langbord coins should be treated the same way.
2) They should be given to the Smithsonian and made part of the permanent collection.
3) They and other coins should be shown at ANA Conventions so that we can all enjoy them. >>

Yeah, let's start with those 1913 nickels.

dbldie55 · April 24, 2009 2:12AM

<< 

<< 1) The Gov has been consistent over the years in confiscating any/all of these coins; the Langbord coins should be treated the same way.
2) They should be given to the Smithsonian and made part of the permanent collection.
3) They and other coins should be shown at ANA Conventions so that we can all enjoy them. >>

Yeah, let's start with those 1913 nickels.

>>

Can you explain how the 1913 nickels have anything to do with the 1933 Saints? There is nothing in common between them, unless you think the Government officially minted them (which no one I know of believes)

ksteelheader · April 24, 2009 2:15AM

<< 

<< 

<< 1) The Gov has been consistent over the years in confiscating any/all of these coins; the Langbord coins should be treated the same way.
2) They should be given to the Smithsonian and made part of the permanent collection.
3) They and other coins should be shown at ANA Conventions so that we can all enjoy them. >>

Yeah, let's start with those 1913 nickels.

>>

Can you explain how the 1913 nickels have anything to do with the 1933 Saints? There is nothing in common between them, unless you think the Government officially minted them (which no one I know of believes) >>

They were not monetized, dumkoff.

GFourDriver · April 24, 2009 2:39AM

I've been following Sanction II's posts on this and he is doing everyone a service keeping us updated about the twists and turns of the case. However, I have to say that it has ended up where most high dollar cases end up, in a flurry of motions, precedents, legalspeak, and high billing hours resulting in an unpopular decision.

dbldie55 · April 24, 2009 2:51AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 1) The Gov has been consistent over the years in confiscating any/all of these coins; the Langbord coins should be treated the same way.
2) They should be given to the Smithsonian and made part of the permanent collection.
3) They and other coins should be shown at ANA Conventions so that we can all enjoy them. >>

Yeah, let's start with those 1913 nickels.

>>

Can you explain how the 1913 nickels have anything to do with the 1933 Saints? There is nothing in common between them, unless you think the Government officially minted them (which no one I know of believes) >>

They were not monetized, dumkoff. >>

DCARR's coins are not monetized either. Still have no idea what that has to do with the 1933 Saints.

ksteelheader · April 24, 2009 3:07AM

<< 
DCARR's coins are not monetized either. Still have no idea what that has to do with the 1933 Saints. >>

They're not legal tender either.

dbldie55 · April 24, 2009 3:31AM

<< 

<< 
DCARR's coins are not monetized either. Still have no idea what that has to do with the 1933 Saints. >>

They're not legal tender either. >>

Neither were Liberty Nickels. (at least not until 1965)

SanctionII · April 24, 2009 3:34AM

dbldie55.

So, you have not yet responded to my question.

Do you really think the heirs should go to prison?

DieClash · May 30, 2009 4:55AM

DieClash · June 5, 2009 10:32AM

I am raising the Poll again in conjunction with Sanction IIs latest update on the case.

Cheers!

DieClash · June 7, 2009 9:12AM

If you haven't had a chance to register your thoughts, now's a good opportunity!

sumnom · June 7, 2009 9:13AM

<< There is a difference on who I think is right and who I think should win. I will vote... who I think should win

>>

I know what you mean but I voted for I think is right rather than who I want to win.

DieClash · June 10, 2009 10:50AM

with all the recent chatter, this poll deserves a bump IMO!

tradedollarnut · June 10, 2009 11:23AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 1) The Gov has been consistent over the years in confiscating any/all of these coins; the Langbord coins should be treated the same way.
2) They should be given to the Smithsonian and made part of the permanent collection.
3) They and other coins should be shown at ANA Conventions so that we can all enjoy them. >>

Yeah, let's start with those 1913 nickels.

>>

Can you explain how the 1913 nickels have anything to do with the 1933 Saints? There is nothing in common between them, unless you think the Government officially minted them (which no one I know of believes) >>

They were not monetized, dumkoff. >>

The Federal Reserve didn't exist when those Lib nickels were minted, so they couldn't have been 'monetized'.... even if that wasn't just a made up process to justify seizure of the 1933's.

Raufus · June 10, 2009 2:21PM

<< I don't know how he got them out of the mint . I do know nobody was raped , maimed , shot ,

or killed in the process . I do think the Goverment took them from the Langbords illegally .

I don't agree that the Goverment can demand it's citizens to hand over property with out

a court ruling . First they take your expensive Gold coins , then your Guns , then what ever...............

Dan >>

Agree 100%

DieClash · June 11, 2009 1:03PM

Since SanctionII is inquirig, if you care to vote you can vote here too.

DieClash · June 16, 2009 9:58AM

For whatever reason, I find this whole ordeal quite mesmerizing and can't seem to get enough of it. Since the Langbord case is back on page one, here's another opportunity to vote if you haven't already.

Cheers!

stinkinlincoln · June 16, 2009 10:11AM

<<DCARR's coins are not monetized either. Still have no idea what that has to do with the 1933 Saints. >>

The 1913's were Mint made, the same with the 33's. Dcarrs coins were not. They are fantasy pieces. Which in this discussion are no relevant. Why the 1913's are relevant here, is that they left the Mint in unknown ways. Hence why people bring them up, along with several other suspect coins.

To say the heirs deserve to go to jail is abit much.

DieClash · June 22, 2009 7:48AM

telephoto1 · June 22, 2009 8:43AM

<< Interesting. Since Switt is on record as stating he never had them, then his heirs must not have inherited them. I guess there is really no case. >>

Admittedly I've not done a lot of study on this case, but if the above is true, then the Langbords should have lost some traction with their claims IMO. I'm already on record as stating that I don't feel they aren't the rightful owners anyway, and that these coins and the ownership thereof have been way over-romanticized through the years. This is akin to having a relative steal a bunch of lottery tickets... and then inheriting them and wanting to collect the winnings from said tickets.

IMO it doesn't matter how the government took the coins; it's their property in the first place. And it doesn't matter if they were taken out of the mint before FDR's edict. If they were, that means the offender only broke one law instead of two. They still weren't officially authorized to be released regardless of the timing of their "liberation". Am I wrong? Show me anything bona fide that gives the Langbords any upper hand here and I'll gladly concede my position.

SanctionII · June 22, 2009 8:47AM

If the court does not complete dispose of the case through its ruling on the five pending summary judgment motions and it proceeds to trial, the winner and loser of the case will in all likelihood be determined by any pretrial ruling issued by the court placing the burden of proof on one side or the other. Whoever has the burden of proof placed upon them will have a very difficult time at trial since much of the evidence offered at trial may be inadmissible.

Korona · June 22, 2009 9:43AM

The case settles after the government loses on its SJ motions.

Aegis3 · June 22, 2009 11:28AM

I guess we have to ask. Does the burden of proof necessarily have to be placed on one side, or can it be shared between the sides (and then not necessarily with equal weight)?

And what level of proof is needed, and may it differ for the assorted claims, and whatnot?

Coinosaurus · June 22, 2009 11:39AM

<< 

<< Interesting. Since Switt is on record as stating he never had them, then his heirs must not have inherited them. I guess there is really no case. >>

>>

I don't think anything Switt said after the fact changes what happened in 1933. That is the key point, what actually happened then, not what Switt said about it later.

If your parents said they never had you, does that mean you cease to exist

DieClash · July 31, 2009 10:55AM

Probably an appropriate time to ttt this poll. Seeing as how this case is heating up again.

DieClash · October 30, 2009 6:46AM

It's been over 3 years already! When will this case finally be resolved?

pennyannie · October 31, 2009 1:17PM

SanctionII- How many coins do you think the lawyer is going to recieve if he wins the case for the langbords?

I hope the langbords win, and that the coins bring millions for them and some lucky few collectors can add one to their collection.

As far as not reporting the coins on the estate, i am sure that can be amended.

dbldie55- you be hating on the langbords.

Thanks Sanction II...Langbord Poll

Comments

Leave a Comment