Time for an update on the Langbord suit.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,612 ✭✭✭✭✭
Yesterday the Langbord family, through counsel, filed a motion for an order dismissing the government's "Claim" (to ownership of the ten double eagles) that it filed (while wearing its "we own the double eagles hat") in response to the forfeiture proceeding that it filed (while wearing its "law enforcement officer for the USA" hat).
The Langbords claim that for various legal reasons, it is improper and unheard of for a party who files a legal action to respond to the same legal action. In otherwords, it is improper for the government to bring a lawsuit against itself. One can not be a Plaintiff and at the same time be a Defendant in the same legal claim.
The Langbords also provided an brief overview of the case:
1. The government, when it seeks to take from citizens property that it alleges to be the proceeds or instrumentalities of a crime (it claims the 10 1933 double eagles are stoeln property, aka the proceeds of the crime of theft) it must commence a forfeiture proceeding (which the Mint had refused to do, until the court this summer ordered it to do, even though in 2004 three other federal agencies believed should be done); and it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property should be forfeited (in this case prove that the ten 1933 double eagles were stolen from the Mint);
2. If the government proves that the property is forfeitable (in this case if it proves that the ten double eagles were stolen from the Mint), the property is forfeited to the government and if it can not so prove, the property is released to the private citizens who have filed a claim to the property (the Langbord family in this case);
3. From the inception of this case the government has attempted in every way possible to avoid and evade this simple framework;
4. Once the government authenticated the ten double eagles is chose to summarily seize them instead of seeking and obtain a warrant allowing it to properly take possession of them;
5. Next the government has spent years trying to defend its conduct before the court in the case filed by the Langbords until the court this summer ordered the government to file a forfeiture proceeding against the double eagles;
6. Next the government filed on 9-28-2009 a forfeiture proceeding and three additional legal claims (which the Langbords have objected to); and
7. Next on 11-2-2009 the government filed its own "Claim" to the double eagles in response to the forfeiture proceeding it had filed on 9-28-2009.
The Langbords claim that this recent conduct by the government (the 11-2-2009 "Claim" it filed) is gamesmanship calculated to distract from the merits of the case (whether the government can prove that the ten double eagles a forfeitable, aka that they were stolen from the Mint).
The Langbords claim that only the government can initiate forfeiture proceedings; and that only persons other than the government can challenge forfeiture proceedings. The Langbords point out that the attorneys who represent the government in the forfeiture proceeding that was filed on 9-28-2009 are the same attorneys who represent the government in its 11-2-2009 "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords also point out that their legal research has revealed no legal precedent that allows the government to bring a forfeiture proceeding and at the same time assert a separate "Claim" to the property sought to be forfeited.
The Langbords also claim that the 11-2-2009 "Claim" by the government is the latest of many attempts to avoid and evade the burden of proving that the 10 double eagles were stolen more than 70 years ago.
The Langbords point to earlier reply papers filed by the government that asserts that under no circumstances should the Langbords retake possession of the ten double eagles without ever having proven the strength of their claim of ownership of same.
In a nutshell, the government is taking the position that if, in the forfeiture claim, it fails to prove that the ten double eagles were stolen from the Mint, that merely means that the double eagles are not forfeited to the government. The goverment takes the position that if it loses the forfeiture proceeding that does not automatically mean that the Langbords win ownership and possession of the coins. The government takes the position that ownership of the coins would still be undecided, leaving things as they are [the government has possession of the double eagles and the competing claims to ownership of same by the government and the Langbord family remain unresolved; and must be determined through litigation of other claims (i.e. the three additional claims the government is seeking to inject into the case), in which the Langbords would have the burden of proof].
The next round of rulings by the court [on the government's motion for an order allowing it to assert the three additional legal claims; and on the Langbords' motion for an order dismissing the 11-2-2009 "Claim" filed by the government in response to the 9-28-2009 forfeiture proceeding that it filed] will either go a very long way to pushing this case to conclusion at the trial court level (if the court disallows the three additional claims and if it dismisses the 11-2-2009 government "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding) or will stoke the fires for additional litigation, motions, discovery and pretrial wrangling (if it allows the three additional claims and if it does not dismiss the 11-2-2009 government "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding.
That is all for now.
The Langbords claim that for various legal reasons, it is improper and unheard of for a party who files a legal action to respond to the same legal action. In otherwords, it is improper for the government to bring a lawsuit against itself. One can not be a Plaintiff and at the same time be a Defendant in the same legal claim.
The Langbords also provided an brief overview of the case:
1. The government, when it seeks to take from citizens property that it alleges to be the proceeds or instrumentalities of a crime (it claims the 10 1933 double eagles are stoeln property, aka the proceeds of the crime of theft) it must commence a forfeiture proceeding (which the Mint had refused to do, until the court this summer ordered it to do, even though in 2004 three other federal agencies believed should be done); and it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property should be forfeited (in this case prove that the ten 1933 double eagles were stolen from the Mint);
2. If the government proves that the property is forfeitable (in this case if it proves that the ten double eagles were stolen from the Mint), the property is forfeited to the government and if it can not so prove, the property is released to the private citizens who have filed a claim to the property (the Langbord family in this case);
3. From the inception of this case the government has attempted in every way possible to avoid and evade this simple framework;
4. Once the government authenticated the ten double eagles is chose to summarily seize them instead of seeking and obtain a warrant allowing it to properly take possession of them;
5. Next the government has spent years trying to defend its conduct before the court in the case filed by the Langbords until the court this summer ordered the government to file a forfeiture proceeding against the double eagles;
6. Next the government filed on 9-28-2009 a forfeiture proceeding and three additional legal claims (which the Langbords have objected to); and
7. Next on 11-2-2009 the government filed its own "Claim" to the double eagles in response to the forfeiture proceeding it had filed on 9-28-2009.
The Langbords claim that this recent conduct by the government (the 11-2-2009 "Claim" it filed) is gamesmanship calculated to distract from the merits of the case (whether the government can prove that the ten double eagles a forfeitable, aka that they were stolen from the Mint).
The Langbords claim that only the government can initiate forfeiture proceedings; and that only persons other than the government can challenge forfeiture proceedings. The Langbords point out that the attorneys who represent the government in the forfeiture proceeding that was filed on 9-28-2009 are the same attorneys who represent the government in its 11-2-2009 "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding. The Langbords also point out that their legal research has revealed no legal precedent that allows the government to bring a forfeiture proceeding and at the same time assert a separate "Claim" to the property sought to be forfeited.
The Langbords also claim that the 11-2-2009 "Claim" by the government is the latest of many attempts to avoid and evade the burden of proving that the 10 double eagles were stolen more than 70 years ago.
The Langbords point to earlier reply papers filed by the government that asserts that under no circumstances should the Langbords retake possession of the ten double eagles without ever having proven the strength of their claim of ownership of same.
In a nutshell, the government is taking the position that if, in the forfeiture claim, it fails to prove that the ten double eagles were stolen from the Mint, that merely means that the double eagles are not forfeited to the government. The goverment takes the position that if it loses the forfeiture proceeding that does not automatically mean that the Langbords win ownership and possession of the coins. The government takes the position that ownership of the coins would still be undecided, leaving things as they are [the government has possession of the double eagles and the competing claims to ownership of same by the government and the Langbord family remain unresolved; and must be determined through litigation of other claims (i.e. the three additional claims the government is seeking to inject into the case), in which the Langbords would have the burden of proof].
The next round of rulings by the court [on the government's motion for an order allowing it to assert the three additional legal claims; and on the Langbords' motion for an order dismissing the 11-2-2009 "Claim" filed by the government in response to the 9-28-2009 forfeiture proceeding that it filed] will either go a very long way to pushing this case to conclusion at the trial court level (if the court disallows the three additional claims and if it dismisses the 11-2-2009 government "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding) or will stoke the fires for additional litigation, motions, discovery and pretrial wrangling (if it allows the three additional claims and if it does not dismiss the 11-2-2009 government "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding.
That is all for now.
0
Comments
Shouldn't our gov't have bigger worries, like the BCS System or Barry Bonds?
Thanks for the update.
keep it going until the party is dead or broke
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)
<< <i>and if the government wins what will happen.....i'm willing to bet they auction the coins off to private well know collectors......
I think the presedence is clear that that would not happen. They would keep them locked up or donated them to the Smithsonian where no one would ever be able to own them.
And from all these posts, I know now why I never want to be an attorney. My brain hurts.
The military uses a simple little acronym... BLUF or Bottm Line Up Front. From what I see of all of this, you have a counter motion from the Langboards... the judge hasn't ruled on the previous government "law enforcement" motion... and the lawyers for the Langboards now get at least two of the coins.
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
<< <i>Can we sue the government for using too many tax payer dollars on this and other things like Barry Bonds? In all seriousness the are soooo many things more important than this and the gov is already sooooo far in debt.
Thanks for the update. >>
When we're trillions in the hole, what's a few million between friends?
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
TD
What a legal mess they have woven.....
Would you have even a wild guess what this case has cost up to this point?
I'm thinking most people could never have fought this as long as the Langbord's have.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
I enjoy keeping up to date on the case and reporting on it.
As far as lawyers go, without clients who want to take their disputes to court, there would not be the number of lawyers that there are. What lawyers do is a reflection of what their clients (and society) want. Thank goodness we have a fairly stable court system that gives everyone, even ones with modest means, a chance to have their case heard and decided by a jury or judge.
Now there is no doubt that lawyers, many times, make things worse. But just as many times lawyers make things so much better for their clients on many different levels.
The thing I most enjoy about being a lawyer is helping clients out of disputes that they find themselves in that they have no ability to deal with and resolve.
<< <i>Now there is no doubt that lawyers, many times, make things worse. But just as many times lawyers make things so much better for their clients on many different levels.
The thing I most enjoy about being a lawyer is helping clients out of disputes that they find themselves in that they have no ability to deal with and resolve. >>
I mostly agree, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Free Trial
<< <i>
The next round of rulings by the court [on the government's motion for an order allowing it to assert the three additional legal claims; and on the Langbords' motion for an order dismissing the 11-2-2009 "Claim" filed by the government in response to the 9-28-2009 forfeiture proceeding that it filed] will either go a very long way to pushing this case to conclusion at the trial court level (if the court disallows the three additional claims and if it dismisses the 11-2-2009 government "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding) or will stoke the fires for additional litigation, motions, discovery and pretrial wrangling (if it allows the three additional claims and if it does not dismiss the 11-2-2009 government "Claim" in response to the forfeiture proceeding.
>>
Thanks again for the summary. Is the Howard Hughes will still in litigation? Maybe these guys can beat the record
Ray
<< <i>I wonder what poor Uncle Izzy would say about these crooks. >>
At least he was a successful and honest crook. I cannot say that for the government.