New Langbord lawsuit information.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,599 ✭✭✭✭✭
I looked at the case docket today and found that the Langbords have filed a reply memorandum in support of their pretrial motions. It is a very interesting read.
The reply memorandum responds to the legal papers filed by the government in opposition to the Langbords pretrial motions. In the governement's opposition it presents argument and legal citation to support why the evidence the government seeks to admit into evidence should be admitted.
The Langbords reply memorandum points out that on multiple legal grounds (including hearsay, lack of authentication, lack of relevance and unfair prejudice) certain of the governments evidence (including documents surrounding the 1934 arrest of Izzy Switt on gold seizure charges; the Secret Service recommending prosecution of Izzy Switt; the US Attorney declining to do so on statute of limitations grounds; the Secret Service 1940's seizure of 9 other 1933 double eagles in private hands; the findings and decision of the federal district court in the 1947 Bernard case; the documents concerning the Pennsylvania probate cases for Izzy Switt and his wife) should be excluded from the trial.
I get the impression that the government wants to introduce these documents into evidence not necessarily to prove what must be proven in this case for the government to win [of course, it still has not been decided by the court what legal claims and defenses will be actually tried and decided in this case], but to show the Langbords and Izzy Switt to be "bad guys". The government will probably have trouble accomplishing this, as it generally is not allowed to introduce evidence of prior crimes or bad conduct to prove a current crime or bad conduct.
The government also has argued that this evidence will help in establishing for the jury the "complete story" of the 1933 double eagles. While this argument has a gut level appeal, it can only go so far and it can not violate other rules that compel the exclusion of evidence. Of course, the "complete story" that the government would want to present is only "half of the complete story", consisting only of the evidence that the government thinks would help it. The goverment would not want the Langbords' half of the complete story [including evidence of the goverment being a bully by not returning the coins and forcing the Langbords to sue; and the inconsistent treatment by the government of the 1933 double eagles compared to the government's treatment of other, even more suspect, coins such as the 1913 Liberty Nickels].
It will be interesting to see how much of the "entire complete story" that court allows into evidence at trial.
What is even more interesting in the reply memorandum is the portion that discusses the extent to which the "expert opinions" of the government expert witnesses [that any 1933 double eagles in "private hands must have been stolen, or through fraudulen breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia mint" (Tripp); and "possession of the coins by a private party is unlawful" (Rauchway)].
Apparently both of these experts base their opinions on, among other things, the findings and conclusions of the federal district court in the 1947 Barnard opinion.
In Tripp's report there is a section titled "The court in United States v. Barnard correctly concluded as a matter of fact that no 1933 Double Eagles left the mint and 'regulate and lawfully issued money or currency", and that all 1933 Double Eagles in private hands must have been 'stolen, or through fraudulent breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia Mint,". After quoting Judge Boyd's findings in Barnard at length, Tripp opines that "Judge Boyd's findings are "absolutely correct," that he (Tripp) is "not aware of any contrary evidence" and that Judge Boyd's findings "apply fully and equally to all of the 1933 Double Eagles at issue in this case."
So the governments' experts base their expert opinions on the findings and conclusions of the federal distruct judge in the Barnard case. However in prior rulings in this case the judge has, in summary, stated that the Barnard decision has no effect on the outcome of this case.
The Langbords assert that the government is attempting, through its experts, to have introduced into evidence the objectionable documents [the findings and conclusions of the court in the Barnard case] through the back door. In summary, even if the court were to rule the evidence improper and not allow its introduction at trial, the testimony of the government experts would have the information contained in the documents introduced into evidence because the basis of the expert's opinions is the information contained in the documents and that the experts rely on the truthfulness of the information contained in the documents. It may be that the court, if it excludes the evidence objected to by the Langbords [including the Barnard court's findings and conclusions] that it may also not aloow the government experts to testify about same when giving their expert testimony [that would weaken their credibility and the credibility of their opinions if they are not allowed to reveal the factual basis of their opinions].
So, in summary, the court's rulings on the pending pretrial motions will go a long way to determining exactly what claims and defenses will be allowed at trial and what evidence will or will not be allowed at trial. If these rulings favor the Langbords and cut against the government, then the government (which has the burden of proof to prove by a prepondernace of the evidence that the 10 double eagles were stolen from the mint) may find itself in the same position that it was in a decade ago in the Fenton case. It may find itself in a position where it has serious problems in proving its case.
If that is the way this case turns out, I wonder if the government will cave in and talk settlement a few days before trial.
The reply memorandum responds to the legal papers filed by the government in opposition to the Langbords pretrial motions. In the governement's opposition it presents argument and legal citation to support why the evidence the government seeks to admit into evidence should be admitted.
The Langbords reply memorandum points out that on multiple legal grounds (including hearsay, lack of authentication, lack of relevance and unfair prejudice) certain of the governments evidence (including documents surrounding the 1934 arrest of Izzy Switt on gold seizure charges; the Secret Service recommending prosecution of Izzy Switt; the US Attorney declining to do so on statute of limitations grounds; the Secret Service 1940's seizure of 9 other 1933 double eagles in private hands; the findings and decision of the federal district court in the 1947 Bernard case; the documents concerning the Pennsylvania probate cases for Izzy Switt and his wife) should be excluded from the trial.
I get the impression that the government wants to introduce these documents into evidence not necessarily to prove what must be proven in this case for the government to win [of course, it still has not been decided by the court what legal claims and defenses will be actually tried and decided in this case], but to show the Langbords and Izzy Switt to be "bad guys". The government will probably have trouble accomplishing this, as it generally is not allowed to introduce evidence of prior crimes or bad conduct to prove a current crime or bad conduct.
The government also has argued that this evidence will help in establishing for the jury the "complete story" of the 1933 double eagles. While this argument has a gut level appeal, it can only go so far and it can not violate other rules that compel the exclusion of evidence. Of course, the "complete story" that the government would want to present is only "half of the complete story", consisting only of the evidence that the government thinks would help it. The goverment would not want the Langbords' half of the complete story [including evidence of the goverment being a bully by not returning the coins and forcing the Langbords to sue; and the inconsistent treatment by the government of the 1933 double eagles compared to the government's treatment of other, even more suspect, coins such as the 1913 Liberty Nickels].
It will be interesting to see how much of the "entire complete story" that court allows into evidence at trial.
What is even more interesting in the reply memorandum is the portion that discusses the extent to which the "expert opinions" of the government expert witnesses [that any 1933 double eagles in "private hands must have been stolen, or through fraudulen breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia mint" (Tripp); and "possession of the coins by a private party is unlawful" (Rauchway)].
Apparently both of these experts base their opinions on, among other things, the findings and conclusions of the federal district court in the 1947 Barnard opinion.
In Tripp's report there is a section titled "The court in United States v. Barnard correctly concluded as a matter of fact that no 1933 Double Eagles left the mint and 'regulate and lawfully issued money or currency", and that all 1933 Double Eagles in private hands must have been 'stolen, or through fraudulent breach of trust, taken from the Philadelphia Mint,". After quoting Judge Boyd's findings in Barnard at length, Tripp opines that "Judge Boyd's findings are "absolutely correct," that he (Tripp) is "not aware of any contrary evidence" and that Judge Boyd's findings "apply fully and equally to all of the 1933 Double Eagles at issue in this case."
So the governments' experts base their expert opinions on the findings and conclusions of the federal distruct judge in the Barnard case. However in prior rulings in this case the judge has, in summary, stated that the Barnard decision has no effect on the outcome of this case.
The Langbords assert that the government is attempting, through its experts, to have introduced into evidence the objectionable documents [the findings and conclusions of the court in the Barnard case] through the back door. In summary, even if the court were to rule the evidence improper and not allow its introduction at trial, the testimony of the government experts would have the information contained in the documents introduced into evidence because the basis of the expert's opinions is the information contained in the documents and that the experts rely on the truthfulness of the information contained in the documents. It may be that the court, if it excludes the evidence objected to by the Langbords [including the Barnard court's findings and conclusions] that it may also not aloow the government experts to testify about same when giving their expert testimony [that would weaken their credibility and the credibility of their opinions if they are not allowed to reveal the factual basis of their opinions].
So, in summary, the court's rulings on the pending pretrial motions will go a long way to determining exactly what claims and defenses will be allowed at trial and what evidence will or will not be allowed at trial. If these rulings favor the Langbords and cut against the government, then the government (which has the burden of proof to prove by a prepondernace of the evidence that the 10 double eagles were stolen from the mint) may find itself in the same position that it was in a decade ago in the Fenton case. It may find itself in a position where it has serious problems in proving its case.
If that is the way this case turns out, I wonder if the government will cave in and talk settlement a few days before trial.
0
Comments
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I'm going with a Langford landslide victory. Keep up the good work. >>
This is what I am hoping for...
Edit: I hope the governement tries to settle...then I hope the Langfords refuse to settle and kick some major butt!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
We'll see.
bob
http://www.shieldnickels.net
SanctionII, thx for the update.
<< <i>Don't forget the government has a problem with the current owner of the "legal" '33, so I'd expect that party to be represented in any settlement as well. >>
How likely is this vs. having a separate agreement?
THANKS once again!!!!!
interesting expert testimony.
<< <i>Obligatory comment so SanctionII knows I'm interested and appreciate his post! >>
Me Too!
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>Obligatory comment so SanctionII knows I'm interested and appreciate his post! >>
Me Too! >>
Me three
<< <i>Obligatory comment so SanctionII knows I'm interested and appreciate his post! >>
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
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>Don't forget the government has a problem with the current owner of the "legal" '33, so I'd expect that party to be represented in any settlement as well. Maybe he gets an extra couple pieces out of the pot of ten or something........ >>
One would think that the Langbords might have a big problem with this.
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't forget the government has a problem with the current owner of the "legal" '33, so I'd expect that party to be represented in any settlement as well. >>
How likely is this vs. having a separate agreement? >>
What is the problem?
Tom
I have two questions. First, the governments' experts seem to be providing "ultimate issue" opinions which, I would think, would be inadmissable because they invade the province of the judge/jury. Is that argument in play, or did the court ask for these opinions? Second, is the settlement agreement in the previous lawsuit an exhibit in this case, and, if so, what is its relevance? I am wondering if the government has no choice in the matter and whether under the terms of the previous settlement, it is obligated to prosecute this claim or risk some monetary sanction.
Tom
It would be fun if this case were on television. I think it would be great theater.
Once again,
THANKS!
Or is the owner of the Fenton coin in the same position as the owner of any rare coin for which a hoard is discovered after he buys his example?
http://www.shieldnickels.net
TPRC states (and poses questions):
"First, the governments' experts seem to be providing "ultimate issue" opinions which, I would think, would be inadmissable because they invade the province of the judge/jury. Is that argument in play, or did the court ask for these opinions? Second, is the settlement agreement in the previous lawsuit an exhibit in this case, and, if so, what is its relevance? I am wondering if the government has no choice in the matter and whether under the terms of the previous settlement, it is obligated to prosecute this claim or risk some monetary sanction."
With respect to the first question, I do not know if that argument is in play. Such "ultimate opinions" by experts can be ruled inadmissible for the reasons you state. I think that this issue may come up, most likely during trial. We shall see.
With respect to the second question, I do not know. The documents available on PACER at this time do not include either a list describing the two sides proposed exhibits, or copies of the exhibits themselves. The pretrial motions only discuss selected exhibits with specificity. I have no idea if the settlement in the prior Fenton lawsuit is an exhibit. I can not think about why it, or the information contained therein, would be relevant to any of the issues present in the Langbord case.
If a settlement is discussed and reached, I can only assume that it would be one that includes the buyer of the Fenton coin. It would make no sense to settle the Langbord lawsuit under circumstances where the buyer of the Fenton coin would (if he chooses) be in a position to file a lawsuit of his own against Uncle Sam [though who in his right mind would want to do that??????].
<< <i>I saved my 10,000th post for a very special poster (SanctionII) and his very special threads! >>