Langbord Question for Sanction, et al.
shorecoll
Posts: 5,447 ✭✭✭✭✭
This was published in the E-sylum this morning.
"Israel Switt, a Philadelphia jeweler and pawn merchant, has been identified in recent years as included in the pedigree of every known specimen of the 1933 double eagle or $20 gold piece that ever surfaced. This includes a number of pieces in the 1940s and 1950s in a series of seizures or prosecutions, usually by the United States attorney in the district where the coin was seized."
If this is true, can't the government infer that Switt knew they were illegal all along, and use that as evidence in the case? This is not the case of an unknowing Iowa farmer's grandchildren pulling these out of an SDB 50 years after grandpa died.
Inquiring minds want to know.
"Israel Switt, a Philadelphia jeweler and pawn merchant, has been identified in recent years as included in the pedigree of every known specimen of the 1933 double eagle or $20 gold piece that ever surfaced. This includes a number of pieces in the 1940s and 1950s in a series of seizures or prosecutions, usually by the United States attorney in the district where the coin was seized."
If this is true, can't the government infer that Switt knew they were illegal all along, and use that as evidence in the case? This is not the case of an unknowing Iowa farmer's grandchildren pulling these out of an SDB 50 years after grandpa died.
Inquiring minds want to know.
ANA-LM, NBS, EAC
0
Comments
Just because the government declared them illegal, doesn't make them so forever.
They were almost certainly not stolen, they are genuine US coins, and should be collectible.
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
Furthermore, no one at the Mint who understood how coins were handled was interviewed, and important production information was not included. In effect, the investigators presumed guilt of certain people, and focused only on them. By doing so, they ignored everything else and biased the entire investigation.
Prior to 1944 there had been no claim by the government that 1933 DEs were different than any other coin.
Hope these brief comments help.
<< <i>This was published in the E-sylum this morning.
"Israel Switt, a Philadelphia jeweler and pawn merchant, has been identified in recent years as included in the pedigree of every known specimen of the 1933 double eagle or $20 gold piece that ever surfaced. This includes a number of pieces in the 1940s and 1950s in a series of seizures or prosecutions, usually by the United States attorney in the district where the coin was seized."
If this is true, can't the government infer that Switt knew they were illegal all along, and use that as evidence in the case? This is not the case of an unknowing Iowa farmer's grandchildren pulling these out of an SDB 50 years after grandpa died.
Inquiring minds want to know. >>
I don't know this case that well...just haven't read up on it, but my gut reaction is that that is essentially what the government is attempting to do: Create a circumstantial case sufficient to allow a trier of fact, in this case the judge, to infer that the coins were taken illegally and that the government is entitled to a return of the coins. In my view, that is a flawed, or at least a very weak approach. In addition to the reasons already stated by others, that argument relies too much on speculation and innuendo to sustain the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The government must meet it's burden in the first instance. If it can't, then the government's case will fall short.
Tom
I will respond to the op when I get back in my office.
<< <i>Sanction, I hadn't realized from your earlier postings that Switt had been involved in all prior cases. That's the point I was looking for your comment on. Thanks in advance. >>
Which is why the Treasury is willing to spend an unlimited amount of your (the taxpayer's) money attacking the Langbord's case, because if they lose that it means that they were wrong in seizing and destroying the other nine coins that Switt sold bask in the late 1930s and early 40's. They are probably afraid that the heirs of the people the coins were seized from back then will sue for damages.
TD
Here is my response to your OP.
It appears that Israel Switt has a connection to most, if not all, of the 1933 double eagles [except the two held by the Smithsonian]. Other persons have much more knowledge of the details of each coin and how they are connected to Mr. Switt. Many of these persons have written on the subject.
Even if Mr. Switt does have such a connection, why in the world would you, me, or anyone else find it acceptable to allow the "government to infer that Switt knew that they were illegal all along"; and "use that [the government's inference] as evidence in the case"?
Many people who have followed the Langbord case limit themselves to a consideration of nothing more than who [the government or the Langbord family] will be awarded the ten double eagles if the case does not settle and goes to a trial. Many people favor the government and many people favor the Langbord family for reasons solely their own.
Such a narrow point of view on this case is misguided, IMO.
The Langbord case raises a multitude of issues, the resolution of which are much more important than who the ten double eagles are awarded to.
The most important issue I see in the case is how and under what circumstances the government should be allowed to take property.
In this case the government was given possession of the ten double eagles for the purpose of authenticating same while the government and the Langbord family explored resolution of disputes over same [this is my summary of the position of the Langbord family communicated to the goverment by the Langbord's lawyer at the time the ten double eagles were delivered to the government].
In this case the government determined that the ten double eagles are authentic. Thereafter the government communicated that it would not return them, that the ten double eagles had been stolen, that the ten double eagles were government property and that the government would simply keep them without filing any lawsuit seeking a court determination of entitlement to same.
The government's position was "The coins are stolen, we own them, we are keeping them." This position was taken after meetings in which multiple government entities [except the Mint] were of the opinion that the government should file a lawsuit seeking to have a court determine that the ten double eagles should be forfeited to the government. The Mint disagreed and it's position that the government simply keep the coins ruled the day.
This position by the government was exactly the opposite of what the government did in connection with the 1933 double eagle that it seized from coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1996. In the Fenton case, the government filed a lawsuit seeking to have that coin forfeited. A few days before trial was to commence the government and Fenton settled the case by agreeing to have the double eagle sold and the proceeds split. The Fenton coin sold in July 2002 for over $7,500,000.00.
In 12-2006 the Langbord family filed suit against the government seeking various relief all designed to obtain a return of the ten double eagles and a court determination that the Langbords own same.
The government has fought this lawsuit tooth and nail. In July, 2009 the court ruled in favor the Langbords on summary judgment motions. The ruling determined that the government violated constitutional rights of the Langbords and awarded relief to the Langbord family. The relief awarded by the court was an order compelling the government to do exactly what it did in the Fenton case. The government was ordered to file a forfeiture lawsuit against the ten double eagles.
The government has been reluctant to do so and is doing so only because the court has ordered same. The government does not want to do so because under the current federal statutes [CAFRA, or the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act passed by Congress and singed into law by President Clinton] the government has the burden of proof. In summary the government, to establish that the ten double eagles should be forfeited to the government, must prove that the ten double eagles are stolen property or the proceeds of a crime.
This burden of proof is something that the government does not want to be saddled with. This burden requires that the government introduce at trial [in the form of legally admissible evidence, whose admission into evidence is allowed by the Federal Rules Of Evidence and case law interpreting same] which establishes by a "preponderance of the evidence" [51% to 49%] that the ten double eagles were stolen from the mint.
There are no living witnesses to the events of the 1930's and to the who, what, when, where, why and how concerning the ten specific double eagles and their departure from the mint.
The government and its expert take a certain position in support of the government's contention that the ten double eagles were stolen from the mint [or that they "did not leave the mint legally"]. The government position is based upon documentation relied upon by the government and its expert and the opinion of its expert.
I suspect that much of the documentation relied upon by the government and its expert may be legally inadmissible at trial, or even if admitted will be confusing, ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.
Further, there are other documents that exist which contradict the position taken by the goverment. Much of this other documentation is coming to the light of day as time goew by. It is being discovered by the persons involved in the lawsuit. It is also being discovered by persons who are not connected to the lawsuit, including RWB here on the forums.
Though I am not familiar with the documents which have surfaced that have bearing on this case, it is my understanding that in general much information exists which suggests that there are in fact mutiple ways in which a 1933 double eagle could have "legally left the mint".
If the government has the burden of proof to establish by legally admissible evidence that the ten specific double eagles "were stolen from the mint"; if the government can not prove same; and if it appears that there are multiple ways in which a 1933 double eagle could have "legally left the mint" where does that leave things?
It creates an environment where a very real possiblility exists that the government will not be able to prove its case. That reality may cause the government to do what it did in the Fenton case [settle days before trial was to start].
All of the above goes back to my point about the important issue in the Langbord case of how and under what circumstances the government should be allowed to take property.
My own view is that the abundance and prosperity that the USA has enjoyed for over 200 years is a result of "private property rights", capitalism and limited government. Congress and President Clinton placed CAFRA on the books. It was enacted to address significant abuses in the nations asset forfeiture laws [including placing the burden of proof on the individual contesting forfeiture to prove that the subject property shoudl not be forfeited].
The idea of government being able to take and keep property simply because it says "this property is stolen because we say it is, thus we will take it and keep it" is abhorrent.
If you, me or anyone believes that the government should be able to take and keep property simply because it says so [maybe in this case because you, me or anyone does not like the Langbord family or Israel Switt, or because we do not like the idea of the Langbord family receiving a windfall], just wait until the government puts you and the home your inherited from your parents in its crosshairs.
When you have valuable property and the government's "need" for revenue to finance its operations causes it to conclude [or "infer" using your terminology] that you have more than enough and that it needs your inherited home more than you do, watch out.
When I first posted on the Langbord case I stated that whoever the court places the burden or proof on will lose the case. My opinion has not changed. I also stated I do not care who gets the ten double eagles as long as they are not destroyed. That opinion has also not changed [though I am appalled at the manner in which the government has conducted itself in this case].
Do you still think that a connection by Israel Switt to most if not all 1933 double eagles should entitle the government to "infer that Switt knew they were illegal all along, and use that as evidence in the case"?
Tom
If the burden of proof in this case were placed upon the Langbords, the Langbords would have the same problem that the government has.
In fact, except for the CAFRA forfeiture claim filed by the government [since the CAFRA statute itself places the burden of proof on the government], it is not clear yet who will have the burden to prove what at the trial. There are four claims being asserted by the government and the Langbord family. The government asserts a CAFRA forfeiture claim and a declaratory relief claim. The Langbords assert a replevin claim and a conversion claim.
This case is progressing, but there is still plenty of pretrial work that will need to be done before this case goes to trial.
Pretrial motions regarding the admissibility or inadmissability of evidence [primarily documentary evidence] will be a major component of this case and will be hard fought.
<< <i>Thank you Sanction...great analysis. >>
Me 2
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 just reread my lengthy reply of this morning to the OP.
I just shake my head when I see so many typographical errors.
I should take my time and proof read two or three times before I hit send.
Time after time I fail to do so and my inability to find and correct errors makes my posts look terrible.
[However, I did reread this reply three times and I think I finally got it correct (at least this time).]
<< <i>You are welcome folks.
I just reread my lengthy reply of this morning to the OP.
I just shake my head when I see so many typographical errors.
I should take my time and proof read two or three times before I hit send.
Time after time I fail to do so and my inability to find and correct errors makes my posts look terrible.
[However, I did reread this reply three times and I think I finally got it correct (at least this time).]
Not claiming to know for sure, but isn't proofread a single word?
The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933
From: President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To: The United States Congress
Dated: 5 April, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 6102
Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled
An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes~',
in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists,
I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section to do hereby prohibit the hoarding gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of the order:
Section 1. For the purpose of this regulation, the term 'hoarding" means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.
Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:
(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.
(b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.
(c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements.
(d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for the other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including gold coin and gold bullion imported for the re-export or held pending action on applications for export license.
Section 3. Until otherwise ordered any person becoming the owner of any gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates after April 28, 1933, shall within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a),(b) or (c) of Section 2; or unless such gold coin, gold bullion is held for purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee or applicant for license pending action thereon.
Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Section 2 or 3, the Federal reserve bank or member bank will pay thereof an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the Unites States.
Section 5. Member banks shall deliver alt gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned or received by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to the Federal reserve banks of there respective districts and receive credit or payment thereof.
Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made available to the President by Section 501 of the Act of March 9, 1933, will in all proper cases pay the reasonable costs of transportation of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates delivered to a member bank or Federal reserve bank in accordance with Sections 2, 3, or 5 hereof, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon production of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this purpose may be procured from Federal reserve banks.
Section 7. In cases where the delivery of gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates by the owners thereof within the time set forth above will involve extraordinary hardship or difficulty, the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such delivery must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under oath; addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal reserve bank. Each applications must state the date to which the extension is desired, the amount and location of the gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in respect of which such application is made and the facts showing extension to be necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or difficulty.
Section 8. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue such further regulations as he may deem necessary to carry the purposes of this order and to issue licenses there under, through such officers or agencies as he may designate, including licenses permitting the Federal reserve banks and member banks of the Federal Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of other coin, currency or credit, to deliver, earmark or hold in trust gold coin or bullion to or for persons showing the need for same for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of Section 2 of these regulations.
Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or these regulation or of any rule, regulation or license issued there under may be fined not more than $10,000, or,if a natural person may be imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.
This order and these regulations may be modified or revoked at any time.
/s/
Franklin D. Roosevelt
President of the United States of America
April 5, 1933
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possession of 5 of these $20 Double Eagles would have been an aggregate of $100 , but ten ? In order to conform to the law, Izzy probably split ALL of them up between relatives. I can see him finding a solution, as numismatists are concerned, in order to comply with the letter of the law and still keep as many as he "traded out" for. I can even reason that he was capable of it legally, in the time frame where a window of opportunity existed.
Which of us wouldn't take advantage of our superior knowledge of the market and current events to capitalize on a situation even at great risk to our reputation ? But a man of his expertise at the time, was far ahead of the bankers and lawmakers. The guy is an American Numismatic Hero for what he preserved. (in my opinion).
I rest my case !
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
From everything I have read, I see very little chance that any of these left the mint under legal means.
Curses, foiled again.
If this case goes to trial the government will have a chance to prove that the ten double eagles were stolen from the mint [aka left the mint illegally].
The information contained in the documents uncovered by both sides and by third parties will provide as much of the "real story" about these ten double eagles and about 1933 double eagles in general as can be provided 75+ years after the fact.
However, the "real story" presented in 2010-11 will probably not even be close to what actually happened before 1933, in 1933 and in the years after 1933. It is too bad that the persons with first hand knowledge of the events are all dead.
Those who are interested will have to wait until the 1929-1946 research is complete and the book published....About 2 years, give or take a year. That should be about the time the Langbord trial date is set.
<< <i>Sorry to intrude, but the gold distribution and handling situation in the 20's and 30's was much more complicated than nearly all collectors (including the gold experts) realize. It is absolutely inaccurate to state that ALL of anything came from any individual, or any specific source; or to accept RELEASED as an operative word as most understand it.
Those who are interested will have to wait until the 1929-1946 research is complete and the book published....About 2 years, give or take a year. That should be about the time the Langbord trial date is set. >>
It will be fascinating to see what RWB can do with this topic. Unwinding the whole situation ain't gonna be easy. As RWB alludes to, you had different government agencies all working with different agendas. People like to think of the government as Simon Bar Sinister single mindedly running a vast conspiracy from his evil laboratory. The real beast is a lot more complex.
As for two years, I'd say the over/under for ALL the 1933 litigation is about ten years at this point. I have a lot more confidence in the timeliness of RWB's book.
That, incidentally, is also the weakness of the Treasury’s case: the 1933’s were treated just like any other date/mint of gold coin – they were Nothing Special! ALL – please absorb that little phrase: “Nothing Special,” “Nothing Special” Repeat as you gum your Mac&Cheez or chomp a prime rib steak….
It is my understanding that in 1933 and earlier [and probably after 1933 for a few years] 20th century gold coins of any date and mintmark were viewed by pretty much everyone as widgets and NOTHING SPECIAL.
It is my understanding that it was not until the publicized auction of a 1933 double eagle [by Stacks in the 1943 or 1944] got the attention of a government employee [which triggered inquiry into these coins; and which ultimately resulted in the Secret Service investigating and seizing a number of 1933 double eagles in private hands] that the government paid any attention to these coins.
Of course the government during the time period in question may have believed that none of the 1933 double eagles left the mint at all and thus never gave any though to these coins until the 1940's. If anyone in the government believed in the 1933 time period that 1933 double eagles were special, those persons would be few in number and probably higher level government employees who were involved in implementing FDR's executive order.
With the above being the likely reality of things in the 1930's, RWB's research efforts into Mint operations, etc. during the 1930's will clearly be of interest to both sides in the Langbord lawsuit.
I wonder how the Judge handling the case and/or any jury hearing the case at trial will view information establishing that the Langbord ten 1933 double eagles were NOTHING SPECIAL at the time that they left the mint.
<< <i>it has NEVER been proven that izzy stole anything, or knew who was stealing anything, izzy could have known a cashier at the mint and paid that cashier $21 for every 1933 saint, didnt want to get anyone in trouble and kept his mouth shut. >>
From a 2003 article in American Lawyer magazine (emphasis mine): Switt had become a wealthy man, though he still did business with some unsavory characters in New York. His own record was spotty: He had been arrested in 1934 at the Philadelphia train station, carrying a suspiciously heavy briefcase. City police officers seized the briefcase and found it filled with old gold coins. Switt was charged with, and eventually convicted of, illegal possession of gold.
Now, there are many people who frequent this site who would agree with the sentiment that someone who is a known criminal -- a common armed robber with prior convictions, for instance -- should not be "let off the hook" if the circumstances of a particular incident do not meet a sufficient legal standard of proof to result in a conviction. After all, the person is a criminal, and even if you can't prove he or she committed that particular crime, there are plenty of other crimes that were undetected that he or she should be punished for.
I think it's a bit hypocritical for these same people who would string up the armed robber despite a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to turn around and then celebrate Izzy Switt as some sort of "hero" who is "sticking it to the man."
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>
In this case the government was given possession of the ten double eagles for the purpose of authenticating same while the government and the Langbord family explored resolution of disputes over same [this is my summary of the position of the Langbord family communicated to the goverment by the Langbord's lawyer at the time the ten double eagles were delivered to the government].
In this case the government determined that the ten double eagles are authentic. Thereafter the government communicated that it would not return them, that the ten double eagles had been stolen, that the ten double eagles were government property and that the government would simply keep them without filing any lawsuit seeking a court determination of entitlement to same.
The government's position was "The coins are stolen, we own them, we are keeping them." This position was taken after meetings in which multiple government entities [except the Mint] were of the opinion that the government should file a lawsuit seeking to have a court determine that the ten double eagles should be forfeited to the government. The Mint disagreed and it's position that the government simply keep the coins ruled the day.
This position by the government was exactly the opposite of what the government did in connection with the 1933 double eagle that it seized from coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1996. In the Fenton case, the government filed a lawsuit seeking to have that coin forfeited. A few days before trial was to commence the government and Fenton settled the case by agreeing to have the double eagle sold and the proceeds split. The Fenton coin sold in July 2002 for over $7,500,000.00.
>>
IMHO, the Langbord's lawyer, Barry Berke, should be given the Nobel Prize For Extraordinary Brilliance for this bit of legal jujitsu, lulling the Mint into a false sense of security by handing them the coins so that they did not files the necessary paperwork to seize the coins.
Well played, Berke!!!
TD
<< <i>The Government needed to settle this in the '50s when all of these people were still alive. I am pretty sure most known '32s also came from him, but you cannot distinguish these from the few released in '32.
From everything I have read, I see very little chance that any of these left the mint under legal means. >>
Then it should be a slam dunk case for the guvmint to prove, no?
I do not think that anyone that played any part in the transfer of the ten double eagles from the Langbord fmaily tot he government in 2004 would have ever predicted that after the transfer things would have played out as they have in this case. Not in a million years could even Carnack The Magnificent have made such a prediction.
I personally don't care how this plays out. However there are real people involved in this case and the incessant waiting on court resolution, lawyers, legal fees, conjecture, etc. take a toll on real people. I know this firsthand.
That shouldn't be construed to think I side with the Langbord's. I just don't want to see the coins destroyed whatever happens. They're authentic, and they exist and no matter how they came to leave the mint, they're out there. Find some way to legalize them and move on. If the government gets the proceeds, great. If the Langbord's get the proceeds, great. If they act as partners as they did with Fenton, great.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>
<< <i>it has NEVER been proven that izzy stole anything, or knew who was stealing anything, izzy could have known a cashier at the mint and paid that cashier $21 for every 1933 saint, didnt want to get anyone in trouble and kept his mouth shut. >>
From a 2003 article in American Lawyer magazine (emphasis mine): Switt had become a wealthy man, though he still did business with some unsavory characters in New York. His own record was spotty: He had been arrested in 1934 at the Philadelphia train station, carrying a suspiciously heavy briefcase. City police officers seized the briefcase and found it filled with old gold coins. Switt was charged with, and eventually convicted of, illegal possession of gold.
Now, there are many people who frequent this site who would agree with the sentiment that someone who is a known criminal -- a common armed robber with prior convictions, for instance -- should not be "let off the hook" if the circumstances of a particular incident do not meet a sufficient legal standard of proof to result in a conviction. After all, the person is a criminal, and even if you can't prove he or she committed that particular crime, there are plenty of other crimes that were undetected that he or she should be punished for.
I think it's a bit hypocritical for these same people who would string up the armed robber despite a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to turn around and then celebrate Izzy Switt as some sort of "hero" who is "sticking it to the man." >>
Who, here, has celebrated Switt in that manner?
I wouldn't have turned my coins in then, but then again, they would have all been collectible. Maybe Izzy's coins that he had were collectible coins, as well.
Dealing in coins back then would have been extremely difficult.
There are other coin dealers have dealt in coins that are genuine and belong in collections, but may have been called illegal for some reason.
There is an argument that a law passed in the 60's, I think, that made any genuine coin legal to own.
I would handle a 1964 Peace dollar, a 1974 aluminum Lincoln, or any other genuine mint product.
Back in the 70's, I had a chance to handle some modern proof notes of the US, which were considered illegal then. They are openly sold today.
The same thing with the $10000. gold certificates from the PO fire in Washington. Considered illegal, but openly sold today.
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
He would have been very aware of that law. Can he (now the family) be held accountable for that? I'm aware that collectible coins were exempt however..........it seems that if the allegation is that the coins were treated normally then they weren't considered collectible then.
Or maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Seems like both sides of the street are being worked.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
Good question.
Judge Legrome Davis is 57 or 58 years old. He started his legal career in 1977. He first bacame a judge (in state court) in 1987. Before becoming a judge he worked as a DA, in private practice and as an attorney for a University. He was appointed to the federal district court in the eastern district of Penn. in early 2002 by President Bush. He was confirmed by the Senate and took the bench on 4-23-2002. He has been a judge of that court for 8+ years.
Absent injury, illness or death I do think that Judge Davis will handle the Langbord case at the trial court level from start to finish.
<< <i>I have one question that I think has been touched on here fairly well already. If the allegation is that the '33 DE's were treated as nothing special by the mint and that if Switt obtained them legally, shouldn't he have turned them in when the government called in gold?
He would have been very aware of that law. Can he (now the family) be held accountable for that? I'm aware that collectible coins were exempt however..........it seems that if the allegation is that the coins were treated normally then they weren't considered collectible then.
Or maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Seems like both sides of the street are being worked.
John >>
Just because the mint didn't consider them as anything special, numismatists know better. The mint's main job in 1933 was to make coins for circulation
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>I have one question that I think has been touched on here fairly well already. If the allegation is that the '33 DE's were treated as nothing special by the mint and that if Switt obtained them legally, shouldn't he have turned them in when the government called in gold?
He would have been very aware of that law. Can he (now the family) be held accountable for that? I'm aware that collectible coins were exempt however..........it seems that if the allegation is that the coins were treated normally then they weren't considered collectible then.
Or maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Seems like both sides of the street are being worked.
John >>
That is an interesting question.
However, since a lot of other gold that theoretically should have been turned in is still around, I don't think it would be actionable.
TD
<< <i>I have one question that I think has been touched on here fairly well already. If the allegation is that the '33 DE's were treated as nothing special by the mint and that if Switt obtained them legally, shouldn't he have turned them in when the government called in gold?
He would have been very aware of that law. Can he (now the family) be held accountable for that? I'm aware that collectible coins were exempt however..........it seems that if the allegation is that the coins were treated normally then they weren't considered collectible then.
Or maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Seems like both sides of the street are being worked.
John >>
Just as we cannot prove how these coins left the mint, we cannot prove Switt possessed them during that period of time.