Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Well, today's CW Online post is certainly thorough. I guess it takes time to write this much. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
This beats the heck out of having to wait until next Monday to read it online.
If anybody wants to volunteer to sit in court and post here from their laptop, go right ahead. Otherwise, quit complaining.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Regarding Coin World's coverage of the 1933 Double Eagle trial:
No cameras, electronic recording devices, cell phones, or computers are being allowed in the court room. Thus, there is no opportunity to Tweet updates in real time or post electronically from the court building. Reporters have to take notes the old fashioned way: by hand on paper. Trial is going from approximately 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a short lunch break.
We are endeavoring to provide comprehensive coverage. Due to the complexity of the testimony and the length of the court day, we believe it is more important to be correct in reporting than rush to post with possible errors. So far as we are aware, Coin World is the only numismatic publication with a reporter in the court room.
Beth Deisher, Editor Coin World.
Posted by William T. Gibbs, News Editor Coin World
<< <i>Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero began by asking Tripp how he would describe the Mint’s vault logs of the 1930s. Tripp described as “untidy” and “scruffy.” [...]
Next the March 7, 1933, wire stating that Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins was brought up. Described on July 8 in the courtroom as an “orphan” document, Tripp admitted that the wire gave him pause, and that he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents. >>
Does it seem like the gold for gold approval letter could be the "smoking gun" which makes these 1933 coins legal? It seems like Tripp knows this is a weakness in his presentation and wants to downplay it. It will be interesting to see how RWB and others portray this piece.
<< <i>Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero began by asking Tripp how he would describe the Mint’s vault logs of the 1930s. Tripp described as “untidy” and “scruffy.” [...]
Next the March 7, 1933, wire stating that Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins was brought up. Described on July 8 in the courtroom as an “orphan” document, Tripp admitted that the wire gave him pause, and that he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents. >>
Does it seem like the gold for gold approval letter could be the "smoking gun" which makes these 1933 coins legal? It seems like Tripp knows this is a weakness in his presentation and wants to downplay it. It will be interesting to see how RWB and others portray this piece. >>
That will be one thing. The other is whether or not mint production records and material movement logistics actually placed the coins in a position to be legally exchanged. If the coins were approved as being available for exchange during the "window of legality" [that is McCann had as much access to the 33s as he did of any others] then the Government is SOL.
Beth, Thank you for clarifying that update. It obviously adds to the difficulty of reporting. If I had known this before I would not have been complaining about the updates. Perhaps a nightly update would be better than every morning though? Thanks,
<< <i>Regarding Coin World's coverage of the 1933 Double Eagle trial:
No cameras, electronic recording devices, cell phones, or computers are being allowed in the court room. Thus, there is no opportunity to Tweet updates in real time or post electronically from the court building. Reporters have to take notes the old fashioned way: by hand on paper. Trial is going from approximately 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a short lunch break.
We are endeavoring to provide comprehensive coverage. Due to the complexity of the testimony and the length of the court day, we believe it is more important to be correct in reporting than rush to post with possible errors. So far as we are aware, Coin World is the only numismatic publication with a reporter in the court room.
Beth Deisher, Editor Coin World.
Posted by William T. Gibbs, News Editor Coin World >>
I thank you for the clarification. You are of course correct that it is more important to be correct that first. Here in Chicago we are still living down the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline.
(Not the Dewey in the avatar, of course).
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The jury was more interested today than it was on Friday.
Sanction - what happens if a juror nods off during the trial? Do fellow jurors give him/her an elbow? Does the judge saying something? Does it go into the record?
Am I correct that this is a civil case whereby 51%/49% is the criteria for establishing who is to prevail in the case, rather than the higher "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in a criminal case?
Also thanks to CoinWorld for the updates, and clarification on the limitations of moment by moment courtroom updates.
<< <i>The jury was more interested today than it was on Friday.
Sanction - what happens if a juror nods off during the trial? Do fellow jurors give him/her an elbow? Dopes the judge saying something? Does it go into the record? >>
Funny thing is jury duty was being discussed on a local radio station last week since one of the hosts was serving on a jury. Someone called where they had served on a jury and during the trial the judge nodded off.
<< <i>Regarding Coin World's coverage of the 1933 Double Eagle trial:
No cameras, electronic recording devices, cell phones, or computers are being allowed in the court room. Thus, there is no opportunity to Tweet updates in real time or post electronically from the court building. Reporters have to take notes the old fashioned way: by hand on paper. Trial is going from approximately 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a short lunch break.
We are endeavoring to provide comprehensive coverage. Due to the complexity of the testimony and the length of the court day, we believe it is more important to be correct in reporting than rush to post with possible errors. So far as we are aware, Coin World is the only numismatic publication with a reporter in the court room.
Beth Deisher, Editor Coin World.
Posted by William T. Gibbs, News Editor Coin World >>
Thank you Beth & William for this clarification of the physical situation in the courtroom. I, and I am sure, the others here on this CU forum now understand what constraints you are under. I agree that it is more important to get the facts correct, even if it takes an extra day. We DO appreciate that Coin World IS reporting this very interesting trial. Thanks again. Steve
I predict this trial will be much like coin grading: Subjective. And how does anyone stay "impartial" when the money our government has already spent , isn't worth the money/time they (We The People)'re wasting by fighting for less than ten ounces of exchanged gold coins ?
Rhetorical question, but I'm sure any good "bean counter" could figure it out.
If a juror nods off during a trial, a fellow juror can give them a nudge; the judge can wake the juror up; or even other people can do something (like make a loud noise) to wake the juror up.
If a judge falls asleep, that is another matter. Ususally when that happens the court clerk, or courtroom attendant/bailiff will do something or say something to wake the judge up.
Civil cases are judged by a standard of proof which is "preponderance of the evidence". That standard of proof requires the party suing to prove their case by 51% to 49% or better.
What if this trial was about the five (5) 1913 Liberty nickels and the government confiscated them from one individual,say B. Max Mehl, And he had To prove he obtained them legally. That would absolutely be impossible. Yet they are legal to buy and auction and sell them.
Then isn't this trial ridiculous for the government to try and prove these coins were illegal tender when they were indeed a mint made product ?
The other fact that most people on this forum do not realize is there are probably,most definitely more 1933 Double Eagles that are tucked away.
<< <i>Civil cases are judged by a standard of proof which is "preponderance of the evidence". That standard of proof requires the party suing to prove their case by 51% to 49% or better. >>
Sorry to be so dumb but does that mean EVERYONE on the jury has to think that it is 51% likely that the coins were not stolen or does that mean that 51% of the jury have to think they weren't stolen (5 jurors)?
I do not know what the rule is for a verdict in a federal civil trial.
In California a civil jury consists of 12 persons. For there to be a legally binding verdict in a civil case the vote myst be 9-3, 10-2, 11-1 or 12-0. A vote of 8-4, 7-5 or 6-6 results in a mistrial.
The two civil jury trials I have handled in Calif. both came back with 11-1 verdicts in favor of my client.
In cirminal trials in California the vote must be 12-0 to convict or acquit. Anything less than 12-0 gets you a mistrial.
Stewart's point about the 1913 Liberty Nickels is a good one. Why is the government not taken action to seize these "illegal" coins? In the Langbord case this point is something that the Langbords want to bring up in front of the jury. The government wants this information to be kept out of the case and away from the jury. I do not know if the judge is going to let this information be presented to the jury or not. If the judge does allow this information on the 1913 Liberty Nickels to be presented to the jury, I bet that would make jury members scratch their head and wonder how things could be so mixed up.
The difference between the two situations being 'monetization'. The government claims that the 1933's were never monetized and thus are not legal tender. Of course, there is no regulation nor definition of monetization that the government can point to to support their contention. But there was no Federal Reserve in early 1913, thus that point is moot with regard to the nickels.
<< <i>If this case makes all 33 DEs legal, and other coins exist, I think the other owners should thank the Langbords, RWB, Berke, etc.. >>
In a general way, maybe, but not specifically. Judge Davis denied the Government's motion to add Joe Doe defendants which I believe means that the outcome of this trial does not automatically apply to all potential holders of 1933 DEs.
I'm no attorney but that is my interpretation. The motion was filed in September, 2009 and denied in October 2010.
Steve Roach at Coin World wrote an article about it, which I am referencing, in the November 22, 2010 issue of Coin World.
<< <i>I do not know what the rule is for a verdict in a federal civil trial. . >>
I found this on the internet:
PETIT JURIES-CIVIL CASES
For federal civil cases, the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial. The number of jurors varies from six to 12, depending on the court but all federal juries must render a unanimous verdict in civil cases.
"Monetization" is a word that, to my understanding, has no meaning. It is not a legal term. It appears in no statute, regulation, appellate case opinion or constitution.
It is something that someone made up and used in some context. It since has become part of the vernacular when talking about 1933 double eagles, but it still is not a legal term with a precise definition.
I wonder if there were "moments of high drama" today during Mr. Tripp's cross examination.
One thing that attorneys always do when they cross examine an opposing party's expert is ask backgound questions, including how much of their time/income is spent/derives from testifying as an expert witness; how much their hourly rate is, how much their trial appearance fee is; and how much money they are making for their services. This is designed to show possible bias and lack of credibility. Other questions can be asked to show the same thing.
Years ago I had a case where an opposing expert was deposed. I took the deposition. He was an economist who worked as a professor at a school in the California State University System. Turned out he was a "professional expert witness" who derived about 40% of his income from testifying as an expert witness regarding the amount of monetary "damages" his clients had suffered and would suffer into the future as a result of the wrongful act inflicted upon his clients by the defendants.
In my case the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who operated a restaurant/bar under a commercial lease with the owner of the building. The owner failed to make loan payments and the lender foreclosed on the building [and about 40 other buildings in the complex in which the building was located]. The lender became the owner through foreclosure; took possession of the entire complex without the tenant lease files of the prior owner [the prior owner tossed all of their records in the trash out of spite]; installed a property manager who had to recreate files form the ground up; and attempted to develop a good relationship with the tenants. The husband and wife did not like my client or the new property manager. They demanded immediate action by the new owner on problems they claimed existed with their leased space. The new owner and property manager did not work fast enough. So a lawsuit was filed through which the husband and wife sought money damages (in the form of reduced revenue to the restaurant).
The expert witness testified that his clients had suffered and would suffer money damages extending 5 years into the future as a result of what my client had done/not done. He had a methodology through which he computed the damages to be suffered and reduced same to a present value figure of $700,000.00. I went through his methodology with him and understood how he crunched his numbers to come up with the $700,000.00 figure.
I then asked him how many times he met with his clients before he came up with his expert opinion, how many times he was at the restaurant, what he and his clients discussed, what he did while at the resaurant, and most specifically what it was that he understood my client did or did not do to cause his clients the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages. He was very vague and evasive, but I finally got him to state that what my client did or did not do to cause damage to his clients was four things:
1. not promptly (within 3 weeks of the foreclosure sale where my client became the owner of the property) clearing a clogged drain;
2. not promptly (again, 3 weeks) replacing a worn rubber anti skid mat on an outside wooden stair case of about 5 steps leading from the parking lot level to the patio level of the restaurant;
3. restricting access to a portion of the parking lot serving the restaurant (my client hired people to come in and resurface/restripe the parking lot and reconfigure raised planter areas in the parking lot and this project caused one half the the parking lot to be closed off of about one week after which the other half was similarly worked on); and
4. refusing the husband and wife permission to install a larger sign with the name of their restaurant at the edge of the parking lot [the city had restrictions on the size of signs and the husband and wife wanted to put up a sign that was larger than the city allowed].
I asked the expert economist to point out and describe the clogged drain. He did not know where it was, what is purpose was, or the nature and extent of the clogging. He also could not tell me how much of the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages was attributable to the clogged drain. Similar lack of knowledge on his part regarding the other three items.
I also asked him why "3 weeks" was the time period in which the new owner/property manager should have unclogged the drain and replaced the anti skid mat. He stated it was his expert opinion that 3 weeks was more than enough time for a new owner through foreclosure to do these things. I asked him why and how he came to that "expert opinon". I asked him what he knew about the foreclosure, the property that was foreclosed and what information the new owner and property manager had about the tenants. He stated he did not know. He did not know that the restaurant building was just one of about 40 commercial buildings that were sold to my client at foreclosure. He did not know that the prior owner had thrown out all tenant files and leases.
In short the "expert economist" was a joke who went around crunching numbers given to him by his clients (which they made up out of thin air) and stating that his clients have incurred $XXXXX in monetary damages. His testimony at deposition was a classic example of "garbage in, garbage out".
<< <i>What if this trial was about the five (5) 1913 Liberty nickels and the government confiscated them from one individual,say B. Max Mehl, And he had To prove he obtained them legally. That would absolutely be impossible. Yet they are legal to buy and auction and sell them. >>
To try and apply that logic a bit more broadly....
Couldn't the same question be asked of virtually all US patterns which now lie in the hands of collectors?
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>The difference between the two situations being 'monetization'. The government claims that the 1933's were never monetized and thus are not legal tender. Of course, there is no regulation nor definition of monetization that the government can point to to support their contention. But there was no Federal Reserve in early 1913, thus that point is moot with regard to the nickels. >>
Don't forget the fact that the gummint hasn't tinkled away millions of dollars chasing 1913 nickels over the years that it has to justify by keeping on keeping on!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
10 years and one post. I do believe you talk too much.
Thanks for sharing CW's editorial info on the limitations and for assigning Steve Roach to be there. I'm curious how large the attendance is at this trial. Care to share?
And kudos to SanctionII for his cotinuous coverage.
In recent threads we have seen several examples of the exposure this trial is gaining in the main-stream media. It is welcome attention indeed!
Cheers!
Kirk
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
Federal civil juries are typically 6 persons, with a simple majority verdict required. Some specific federal laws require unanimous civil verdicts but it is not constitutionally required. Interestingly, the Supreme Court held in 1972 that unanimous criminal verdicts were required federally but not in state criminal proceedings unless the state's constitution otherwise required.
I would be surprised if those in attendance went beyond party relatives, court personnel, a few financial press members, and lawyers.
It seems to me that Tripp's testimony could be problematic for the government. His comments regarding the "gold for gold coins" wire being an "orphan document" and later saying he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents seems to highlight the fact that records from the time are incomplete. I would be interested in knowing what other "orphan documents" exist and to what extent (if any) his conclusions are based on any of them, or if he discounted the content of any such documents in reaching his conclusions.
Tradedollarnut - The issue of monetization is a good one. My issue though is that the 1913 nickels were never officially minted.However
The 1933 double eagles were an official mint made product authorized be the US Government. Therefore would the government let us coin weenies collect 1934 double eagles ?
Another case of fact is the infamous 1959 Wheat Back Lincoln Cent which the US Mint ( the government) issued a letter stating it was an official mint made product. However we in the Numismatic community know it is a unique " fake".
What I believe is this case is something the government should just ignore and let us coin weenies have our FUN.
<< <i>It seems to me that Tripp's testimony could be problematic for the government. His comments regarding the "gold for gold coins" wire being an "orphan document" and later saying he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents seems to highlight the fact that records from the time are incomplete. I would be interested in knowing what other "orphan documents" exist and to what extent (if any) his conclusions are based on any of them, or if he discounted the content of any such documents in reaching his conclusions. >>
This could indeed be the proverbial "smoking gun."
How did he treat it in his book?
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>"Monetization" is a word that, to my understanding, has no meaning. It is not a legal term. It appears in no statute, regulation, appellate case opinion or constitution.
It is something that someone made up and used in some context. It since has become part of the vernacular when talking about 1933 double eagles, but it still is not a legal term with a precise definition.
I wonder if there were "moments of high drama" today during Mr. Tripp's cross examination.
One thing that attorneys always do when they cross examine an opposing party's expert is ask backgound questions, including how much of their time/income is spent/derives from testifying as an expert witness; how much their hourly rate is, how much their trial appearance fee is; and how much money they are making for their services. This is designed to show possible bias and lack of credibility. Other questions can be asked to show the same thing.
Years ago I had a case where an opposing expert was deposed. I took the deposition. He was an economist who worked as a professor at a school in the California State University System. Turned out he was a "professional expert witness" who derived about 40% of his income from testifying as an expert witness regarding the amount of monetary "damages" his clients had suffered and would suffer into the future as a result of the wrongful act inflicted upon his clients by the defendants.
In my case the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who operated a restaurant/bar under a commercial lease with the owner of the building. The owner failed to make loan payments and the lender foreclosed on the building [and about 40 other buildings in the complex in which the building was located]. The lender became the owner through foreclosure; took possession of the entire complex without the tenant lease files of the prior owner [the prior owner tossed all of their records in the trash out of spite]; installed a property manager who had to recreate files form the ground up; and attempted to develop a good relationship with the tenants. The husband and wife did not like my client or the new property manager. They demanded immediate action by the new owner on problems they claimed existed with their leased space. The new owner and property manager did not work fast enough. So a lawsuit was filed through which the husband and wife sought money damages (in the form of reduced revenue to the restaurant).
The expert witness testified that his clients had suffered and would suffer money damages extending 5 years into the future as a result of what my client had done/not done. He had a methodology through which he computed the damages to be suffered and reduced same to a present value figure of $700,000.00. I went through his methodology with him and understood how he crunched his numbers to come up with the $700,000.00 figure.
I then asked him how many times he met with his clients before he came up with his expert opinion, how many times he was at the restaurant, what he and his clients discussed, what he did while at the resaurant, and most specifically what it was that he understood my client did or did not do to cause his clients the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages. He was very vague and evasive, but I finally got him to state that what my client did or did not do to cause damage to his clients was four things:
1. not promptly (within 3 weeks of the foreclosure sale where my client became the owner of the property) clearing a clogged drain;
2. not promptly (again, 3 weeks) replacing a worn rubber anti skid mat on an outside wooden stair case of about 5 steps leading from the parking lot level to the patio level of the restaurant;
3. restricting access to a portion of the parking lot serving the restaurant (my client hired people to come in and resurface/restripe the parking lot and reconfigure raised planter areas in the parking lot and this project caused one half the the parking lot to be closed off of about one week after which the other half was similarly worked on); and
4. refusing the husband and wife permission to install a larger sign with the name of their restaurant at the edge of the parking lot [the city had restrictions on the size of signs and the husband and wife wanted to put up a sign that was larger than the city allowed].
I asked the expert economist to point out and describe the clogged drain. He did not know where it was, what is purpose was, or the nature and extent of the clogging. He also could not tell me how much of the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages was attributable to the clogged drain. Similar lack of knowledge on his part regarding the other three items.
I also asked him why "3 weeks" was the time period in which the new owner/property manager should have unclogged the drain and replaced the anti skid mat. He stated it was his expert opinion that 3 weeks was more than enough time for a new owner through foreclosure to do these things. I asked him why and how he came to that "expert opinon". I asked him what he knew about the foreclosure, the property that was foreclosed and what information the new owner and property manager had about the tenants. He stated he did not know. He did not know that the restaurant building was just one of about 40 commercial buildings that were sold to my client at foreclosure. He did not know that the prior owner had thrown out all tenant files and leases.
In short the "expert economist" was a joke who went around crunching numbers given to him by his clients (which they made up out of thin air) and stating that his clients have incurred $XXXXX in monetary damages. His testimony at deposition was a classic example of "garbage in, garbage out". >>
Sanction II: I want you on my side if I ever get sued!
<< <i>Tradedollarnut - The issue of monetization is a good one. My issue though is that the 1913 nickels were never officially minted.However
The 1933 double eagles were an official mint made product authorized be the US Government. Therefore would the government let us coin weenies collect 1934 double eagles ?
Another case of fact is the infamous 1959 Wheat Back Lincoln Cent which the US Mint ( the government) issued a letter stating it was an official mint made product. However we in the Numismatic community know it is a unique " fake".
What I believe is this case is something the government should just ignore and let us coin weenies have our FUN.
Stewart Blay >>
Were all of the other previously struck Saints routinely "monetized" before being made available for their intended purpose? Sounds like this was some sort of Government invented term used to save their arse. Kinda like Gore's "controlling legal authority". Wonder why they aren't going after the high leaf and low leaf Wisconsin quarters. As for the 1913 libs, the ones who authorized them were probably too high up in the food chain to take any action against.
Great updatte on www.coinworld.com! Berke rocks!!!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Yes, today's summary of yesterday's action is a good read.
Looks like Tripp is doing OK for himself hiring out as an expert witness -
<<As a testifying expert, Tripp works for the government and Berke worked hard to establish that the payment provided as an expert was a substantial part of Tripp’s income for the past five years, with a total of $350,000 to $400,000 emerging as the likely amount that Tripp has been and will be paid by the government for his expertise.>>
I must be naive, that seems like an awful lot of money.
If, God forbid, this trial is still going on when the government shuts down on August 2, do they just put everything on hold until Uncle Sam is back in business?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I am conflicted over this case because I believe (without evidence or proof) that Switt was "icky". I want the numismatic community to have the coins, but don't want the family overly profiting from "ill-gotten" gains. The best outcome to me would be for the Langbords to win and then have about 20 more rolls surface before the first 10 are sold (Who knows, maybe there's another safe-deposit box with more coins in it that was opened by Izzy even longer after he died). The Langbords win the case, the government loses the goose chase, and the numismatic community wins by having a sufficient number available for the serious high-end Saint collectors at a reasonable price. Sue me...I'm weird. (By sue me, I don't include Sanction...he scares me!!!)
I agree with Rick...if you only knew what some government consultants and even some (not all) regular government employees are paid...this is chump change. This is what is hurting government spending and budgets. The growth in $100k+ government jobs over the past 10 years or so has been staggering and each one of those has long term obligations in health care and retirement. Off the soap box.
<< <i>It seems to me that Tripp's testimony could be problematic for the government. His comments regarding the "gold for gold coins" wire being an "orphan document" and later saying he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents seems to highlight the fact that records from the time are incomplete. I would be interested in knowing what other "orphan documents" exist and to what extent (if any) his conclusions are based on any of them, or if he discounted the content of any such documents in reaching his conclusions. >>
This could indeed be the proverbial "smoking gun."
How did he treat it in his book?
TD >>
I wonder about that also but I haven't read his book. It would seem like another area for the Langbord side to look into. I also wonder how much the issue of missing documents might impact the jury's perceptions of Tripp's conclusions and testimony regarding them. Many things that once seemed clear based on the available evidence at the time have been disproven by later discoveries. Just my 2¢, but personally I think I would tend to view any conclusions reached from a partial knowledge of the facts as an opinion. More of a matter of "based on available evidence, I believe..." rather than something presented as "it must have been..."
Keep in mind that due to the court's 7-5-2011 ruling that denied the Langbords' motion to toss out the declaratory relief claim, the jury verdict on the CAFRA claim will end the case only if the jury rules in favor of the government [in which case the coins would be forfeited to the government]. If the jury rules in favor of the Langbords, the judge would then decide, separately, the declaratory relief claim to determine who wins ownership and possession of the coins.
This court ruling has seriously minimized the importance of the jury trial on the CAFRA forfeiture claim by allowing the government to have a "Plan B", or "do over".
<< <i>Keep in mind that due to the court's 7-5-2011 ruling that denied the Langbords' motion to toss out the declaratory relief claim, the jury verdict on the CAFRA claim will end the case only if the jury rules in favor of the government [in which case the coins would be forfeited to the government]. If the jury rules in favor of the Langbords, the judge would then decide, separately, the declaratory relief claim to determine who wins ownership and possession of the coins.
This court ruling has seriously minimized the importance of the jury trial on the CAFRA forfeiture claim by allowing the government to have a "Plan B", or "do over". >>
It seems crazy to me that the government is going through all the expense of a trial, and if the Langbords win, it just goes back in front of a judge to decide. Is this something that happens right away at the end of the trial?
If the Langbords win on the forfeiture claim, would the judge really go against the jury verdict on the declaratory relief claim?
<< <i>Keep in mind that due to the court's 7-5-2011 ruling that denied the Langbords' motion to toss out the declaratory relief claim, the jury verdict on the CAFRA claim will end the case only if the jury rules in favor of the government [in which case the coins would be forfeited to the government]. If the jury rules in favor of the Langbords, the judge would then decide, separately, the declaratory relief claim to determine who wins ownership and possession of the coins.
This court ruling has seriously minimized the importance of the jury trial on the CAFRA forfeiture claim by allowing the government to have a "Plan B", or "do over". >>
Comments
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
His cross examination by the Langbord attorney will start tomorrow. This should definitely be a highlight.
The jury was more interested today than it was on Friday.
The judge may require that the 10 double eagles be produced by the Government at the trial. That would be a highlight of the trial.
<< <i>The direct examination of Tripp finished today. He testified from Secret Service documents in the 1940's. This could be an issue in any appeal.
His cross examination by the Langbord attorney will start tomorrow. This should definitely be a highlight.
The jury was more interested today than it was on Friday.
The judge may require that the 10 double eagles be produced by the Government at the trial. That would be a highlight of the trial. >>
I suppose it is possible they are having a trial over fictional coins. I wish I had the money they will spend on security for them.
TD
If anybody wants to volunteer to sit in court and post here from their laptop, go right ahead. Otherwise, quit complaining.
TD
No cameras, electronic recording devices, cell phones, or computers are being allowed in the court room. Thus, there is no opportunity to Tweet updates in real time or post electronically from the court building. Reporters have to take notes the old fashioned way: by hand on paper. Trial is going from approximately 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a short lunch break.
We are endeavoring to provide comprehensive coverage. Due to the complexity of the testimony and the length of the court day, we believe it is more important to be correct in reporting than rush to post with possible errors. So far as we are aware, Coin World is the only numismatic publication with a reporter in the court room.
Beth Deisher, Editor
Coin World.
Posted by William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World
Here is a video I shot of the 2002 Sotheby's/Stack's auction:
Part 1
You can see the first bid put out by Barry Goldwater Jr. - part of a prearranged first bid agreement.
Part 2
You can see "Killer" Kelly being the underbidder (for Don Kagin, I believe).
<< <i>Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero began by asking Tripp how he would describe the Mint’s vault logs of the 1930s. Tripp described as “untidy” and “scruffy.” [...]
Next the March 7, 1933, wire stating that Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins was brought up. Described on July 8 in the courtroom as an “orphan” document, Tripp admitted that the wire gave him pause, and that he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents. >>
Does it seem like the gold for gold approval letter could be the "smoking gun" which makes these 1933 coins legal? It seems like Tripp knows this is a weakness in his presentation and wants to downplay it. It will be interesting to see how RWB and others portray this piece.
<< <i>From Coin World
<< <i>Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero began by asking Tripp how he would describe the Mint’s vault logs of the 1930s. Tripp described as “untidy” and “scruffy.” [...]
Next the March 7, 1933, wire stating that Mint supervisors could continue exchanging gold for gold coins was brought up. Described on July 8 in the courtroom as an “orphan” document, Tripp admitted that the wire gave him pause, and that he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents. >>
Does it seem like the gold for gold approval letter could be the "smoking gun" which makes these 1933 coins legal? It seems like Tripp knows this is a weakness in his presentation and wants to downplay it. It will be interesting to see how RWB and others portray this piece. >>
That will be one thing. The other is whether or not mint production records and material movement logistics actually placed the coins in a position to be legally exchanged. If the coins were approved as being available for exchange during the "window of legality" [that is McCann had as much access to the 33s as he did of any others] then the Government is SOL.
Thank you for clarifying that update. It obviously adds to the difficulty of reporting. If I had known this before I would not have been complaining about the updates. Perhaps a nightly update would be better than every morning though?
Thanks,
<< <i>Regarding Coin World's coverage of the 1933 Double Eagle trial:
No cameras, electronic recording devices, cell phones, or computers are being allowed in the court room. Thus, there is no opportunity to Tweet updates in real time or post electronically from the court building. Reporters have to take notes the old fashioned way: by hand on paper. Trial is going from approximately 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a short lunch break.
We are endeavoring to provide comprehensive coverage. Due to the complexity of the testimony and the length of the court day, we believe it is more important to be correct in reporting than rush to post with possible errors. So far as we are aware, Coin World is the only numismatic publication with a reporter in the court room.
Beth Deisher, Editor
Coin World.
Posted by William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World >>
I thank you for the clarification. You are of course correct that it is more important to be correct that first. Here in Chicago we are still living down the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline.
(Not the Dewey in the avatar, of course).
TD
Sanction - what happens if a juror nods off during the trial? Do fellow jurors give him/her an elbow? Does the judge saying something? Does it go into the record?
(edited for typo)
Am I correct that this is a civil case whereby 51%/49% is the criteria for establishing who is to prevail in the case, rather than the higher "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in a criminal case?
Also thanks to CoinWorld for the updates, and clarification on the limitations of moment by moment courtroom updates.
<< <i>The jury was more interested today than it was on Friday.
Sanction - what happens if a juror nods off during the trial? Do fellow jurors give him/her an elbow? Dopes the judge saying something? Does it go into the record? >>
Funny thing is jury duty was being discussed on a local radio station last week since one of the hosts was serving on a jury. Someone called where they had served on a jury and during the trial the judge nodded off.
<< <i>Regarding Coin World's coverage of the 1933 Double Eagle trial:
No cameras, electronic recording devices, cell phones, or computers are being allowed in the court room. Thus, there is no opportunity to Tweet updates in real time or post electronically from the court building. Reporters have to take notes the old fashioned way: by hand on paper. Trial is going from approximately 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a short lunch break.
We are endeavoring to provide comprehensive coverage. Due to the complexity of the testimony and the length of the court day, we believe it is more important to be correct in reporting than rush to post with possible errors. So far as we are aware, Coin World is the only numismatic publication with a reporter in the court room.
Beth Deisher, Editor
Coin World.
Posted by William T. Gibbs, News Editor
Coin World >>
Thank you Beth & William for this clarification of the physical situation in the courtroom. I, and I am sure, the others here on this CU forum now understand what constraints you are under. I agree that it is more important to get the facts correct, even if it takes an extra day. We DO appreciate that Coin World IS reporting this very interesting trial. Thanks again. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Rhetorical question, but I'm sure any good "bean counter" could figure it out.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
If a judge falls asleep, that is another matter. Ususally when that happens the court clerk, or courtroom attendant/bailiff will do something or say something to wake the judge up.
Civil cases are judged by a standard of proof which is "preponderance of the evidence". That standard of proof requires the party suing to prove their case by 51% to 49% or better.
What if this trial was about the five (5) 1913 Liberty nickels and the government confiscated them from one individual,say B. Max Mehl,
And he had To prove he obtained them legally. That would absolutely be impossible. Yet they are legal to buy and auction and sell them.
Then isn't this trial ridiculous for the government to try and prove these coins were illegal tender when they were indeed a mint made product ?
The other fact that most people on this forum do not realize is there are probably,most definitely more 1933 Double Eagles that are tucked away.
Stewart Blay
<< <i>Civil cases are judged by a standard of proof which is "preponderance of the evidence". That standard of proof requires the party suing to prove their case by 51% to 49% or better. >>
Sorry to be so dumb but does that mean EVERYONE on the jury has to think that it is 51% likely that the coins were not stolen or does that mean that 51% of the jury have to think they weren't stolen (5 jurors)?
If successful and RWB played a key role, I think it would be a nice gesture if he got one of the coins.
In California a civil jury consists of 12 persons. For there to be a legally binding verdict in a civil case the vote myst be 9-3, 10-2, 11-1 or 12-0. A vote of 8-4, 7-5 or 6-6 results in a mistrial.
The two civil jury trials I have handled in Calif. both came back with 11-1 verdicts in favor of my client.
In cirminal trials in California the vote must be 12-0 to convict or acquit. Anything less than 12-0 gets you a mistrial.
Stewart's point about the 1913 Liberty Nickels is a good one. Why is the government not taken action to seize these "illegal" coins? In the Langbord case this point is something that the Langbords want to bring up in front of the jury. The government wants this information to be kept out of the case and away from the jury. I do not know if the judge is going to let this information be presented to the jury or not. If the judge does allow this information on the 1913 Liberty Nickels to be presented to the jury, I bet that would make jury members scratch their head and wonder how things could be so mixed up.
<< <i>If this case makes all 33 DEs legal, and other coins exist, I think the other owners should thank the Langbords, RWB, Berke, etc.. >>
In a general way, maybe, but not specifically. Judge Davis denied the Government's motion to add Joe Doe defendants which I believe means that the outcome of this trial does not automatically apply to all potential holders of 1933 DEs.
I'm no attorney but that is my interpretation. The motion was filed in September, 2009 and denied in October 2010.
Steve Roach at Coin World wrote an article about it, which I am referencing, in the November 22, 2010 issue of Coin World.
<< <i>I do not know what the rule is for a verdict in a federal civil trial. . >>
I found this on the internet:
PETIT JURIES-CIVIL CASES
For federal civil cases, the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial. The number of jurors varies from six to 12, depending on the court but all federal juries must render a unanimous verdict in civil cases.
http://www.halt.org/articles/8/38.php
So I guess I answered my own question that the jury decision must be unanimous.
It is something that someone made up and used in some context. It since has become part of the vernacular when talking about 1933 double eagles, but it still is not a legal term with a precise definition.
I wonder if there were "moments of high drama" today during Mr. Tripp's cross examination.
One thing that attorneys always do when they cross examine an opposing party's expert is ask backgound questions, including how much of their time/income is spent/derives from testifying as an expert witness; how much their hourly rate is, how much their trial appearance fee is; and how much money they are making for their services. This is designed to show possible bias and lack of credibility. Other questions can be asked to show the same thing.
Years ago I had a case where an opposing expert was deposed. I took the deposition. He was an economist who worked as a professor at a school in the California State University System. Turned out he was a "professional expert witness" who derived about 40% of his income from testifying as an expert witness regarding the amount of monetary "damages" his clients had suffered and would suffer into the future as a result of the wrongful act inflicted upon his clients by the defendants.
In my case the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who operated a restaurant/bar under a commercial lease with the owner of the building. The owner failed to make loan payments and the lender foreclosed on the building [and about 40 other buildings in the complex in which the building was located]. The lender became the owner through foreclosure; took possession of the entire complex without the tenant lease files of the prior owner [the prior owner tossed all of their records in the trash out of spite]; installed a property manager who had to recreate files form the ground up; and attempted to develop a good relationship with the tenants. The husband and wife did not like my client or the new property manager. They demanded immediate action by the new owner on problems they claimed existed with their leased space. The new owner and property manager did not work fast enough. So a lawsuit was filed through which the husband and wife sought money damages (in the form of reduced revenue to the restaurant).
The expert witness testified that his clients had suffered and would suffer money damages extending 5 years into the future as a result of what my client had done/not done. He had a methodology through which he computed the damages to be suffered and reduced same to a present value figure of $700,000.00. I went through his methodology with him and understood how he crunched his numbers to come up with the $700,000.00 figure.
I then asked him how many times he met with his clients before he came up with his expert opinion, how many times he was at the restaurant, what he and his clients discussed, what he did while at the resaurant, and most specifically what it was that he understood my client did or did not do to cause his clients the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages. He was very vague and evasive, but I finally got him to state that what my client did or did not do to cause damage to his clients was four things:
1. not promptly (within 3 weeks of the foreclosure sale where my client became the owner of the property) clearing a clogged drain;
2. not promptly (again, 3 weeks) replacing a worn rubber anti skid mat on an outside wooden stair case of about 5 steps leading from the parking lot level to the patio level of the restaurant;
3. restricting access to a portion of the parking lot serving the restaurant (my client hired people to come in and resurface/restripe the parking lot and reconfigure raised planter areas in the parking lot and this project caused one half the the parking lot to be closed off of about one week after which the other half was similarly worked on); and
4. refusing the husband and wife permission to install a larger sign with the name of their restaurant at the edge of the parking lot [the city had restrictions on the size of signs and the husband and wife wanted to put up a sign that was larger than the city allowed].
I asked the expert economist to point out and describe the clogged drain. He did not know where it was, what is purpose was, or the nature and extent of the clogging. He also could not tell me how much of the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages was attributable to the clogged drain. Similar lack of knowledge on his part regarding the other three items.
I also asked him why "3 weeks" was the time period in which the new owner/property manager should have unclogged the drain and replaced the anti skid mat. He stated it was his expert opinion that 3 weeks was more than enough time for a new owner through foreclosure to do these things. I asked him why and how he came to that "expert opinon". I asked him what he knew about the foreclosure, the property that was foreclosed and what information the new owner and property manager had about the tenants. He stated he did not know. He did not know that the restaurant building was just one of about 40 commercial buildings that were sold to my client at foreclosure. He did not know that the prior owner had thrown out all tenant files and leases.
In short the "expert economist" was a joke who went around crunching numbers given to him by his clients (which they made up out of thin air) and stating that his clients have incurred $XXXXX in monetary damages. His testimony at deposition was a classic example of "garbage in, garbage out".
<< <i>What if this trial was about the five (5) 1913 Liberty nickels and the government confiscated them from one individual,say B. Max Mehl,
And he had To prove he obtained them legally. That would absolutely be impossible. Yet they are legal to buy and auction and sell them. >>
To try and apply that logic a bit more broadly....
Couldn't the same question be asked of virtually all US patterns which now lie in the hands of collectors?
<< <i>The difference between the two situations being 'monetization'. The government claims that the 1933's were never monetized and thus are not legal tender. Of course, there is no regulation nor definition of monetization that the government can point to to support their contention. But there was no Federal Reserve in early 1913, thus that point is moot with regard to the nickels. >>
Don't forget the fact that the gummint hasn't tinkled away millions of dollars chasing 1913 nickels over the years that it has to justify by keeping on keeping on!!!
10 years and one post. I do believe you talk too much.
Thanks for sharing CW's editorial info on the limitations and for assigning Steve Roach to be there. I'm curious how large the attendance is at this trial. Care to share?
And kudos to SanctionII for his cotinuous coverage.
In recent threads we have seen several examples of the exposure this trial is gaining in the main-stream media. It is welcome attention indeed!
Cheers!
Kirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
I would be surprised if those in attendance went beyond party relatives, court personnel, a few financial press members, and lawyers.
The 1933 double eagles were an official mint made product authorized be the US Government. Therefore would the government let us coin weenies collect 1934 double eagles ?
Another case of fact is the infamous 1959 Wheat Back Lincoln Cent which the US Mint ( the government) issued a letter stating it was an official mint made product. However we in the Numismatic community know it is a unique " fake".
What I believe is this case is something the government should just ignore and let us coin weenies have our FUN.
Stewart Blay
They were never officially released and they certainly haven't been monetized.
<< <i>It seems to me that Tripp's testimony could be problematic for the government. His comments regarding the "gold for gold coins" wire being an "orphan document" and later saying he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents seems to highlight the fact that records from the time are incomplete. I would be interested in knowing what other "orphan documents" exist and to what extent (if any) his conclusions are based on any of them, or if he discounted the content of any such documents in reaching his conclusions. >>
This could indeed be the proverbial "smoking gun."
How did he treat it in his book?
TD
<< <i>"Monetization" is a word that, to my understanding, has no meaning. It is not a legal term. It appears in no statute, regulation, appellate case opinion or constitution.
It is something that someone made up and used in some context. It since has become part of the vernacular when talking about 1933 double eagles, but it still is not a legal term with a precise definition.
I wonder if there were "moments of high drama" today during Mr. Tripp's cross examination.
One thing that attorneys always do when they cross examine an opposing party's expert is ask backgound questions, including how much of their time/income is spent/derives from testifying as an expert witness; how much their hourly rate is, how much their trial appearance fee is; and how much money they are making for their services. This is designed to show possible bias and lack of credibility. Other questions can be asked to show the same thing.
Years ago I had a case where an opposing expert was deposed. I took the deposition. He was an economist who worked as a professor at a school in the California State University System. Turned out he was a "professional expert witness" who derived about 40% of his income from testifying as an expert witness regarding the amount of monetary "damages" his clients had suffered and would suffer into the future as a result of the wrongful act inflicted upon his clients by the defendants.
In my case the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who operated a restaurant/bar under a commercial lease with the owner of the building. The owner failed to make loan payments and the lender foreclosed on the building [and about 40 other buildings in the complex in which the building was located]. The lender became the owner through foreclosure; took possession of the entire complex without the tenant lease files of the prior owner [the prior owner tossed all of their records in the trash out of spite]; installed a property manager who had to recreate files form the ground up; and attempted to develop a good relationship with the tenants. The husband and wife did not like my client or the new property manager. They demanded immediate action by the new owner on problems they claimed existed with their leased space. The new owner and property manager did not work fast enough. So a lawsuit was filed through which the husband and wife sought money damages (in the form of reduced revenue to the restaurant).
The expert witness testified that his clients had suffered and would suffer money damages extending 5 years into the future as a result of what my client had done/not done. He had a methodology through which he computed the damages to be suffered and reduced same to a present value figure of $700,000.00. I went through his methodology with him and understood how he crunched his numbers to come up with the $700,000.00 figure.
I then asked him how many times he met with his clients before he came up with his expert opinion, how many times he was at the restaurant, what he and his clients discussed, what he did while at the resaurant, and most specifically what it was that he understood my client did or did not do to cause his clients the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages. He was very vague and evasive, but I finally got him to state that what my client did or did not do to cause damage to his clients was four things:
1. not promptly (within 3 weeks of the foreclosure sale where my client became the owner of the property) clearing a clogged drain;
2. not promptly (again, 3 weeks) replacing a worn rubber anti skid mat on an outside wooden stair case of about 5 steps leading from the parking lot level to the patio level of the restaurant;
3. restricting access to a portion of the parking lot serving the restaurant (my client hired people to come in and resurface/restripe the parking lot and reconfigure raised planter areas in the parking lot and this project caused one half the the parking lot to be closed off of about one week after which the other half was similarly worked on); and
4. refusing the husband and wife permission to install a larger sign with the name of their restaurant at the edge of the parking lot [the city had restrictions on the size of signs and the husband and wife wanted to put up a sign that was larger than the city allowed].
I asked the expert economist to point out and describe the clogged drain. He did not know where it was, what is purpose was, or the nature and extent of the clogging. He also could not tell me how much of the $700,000.00 in lost revenue damages was attributable to the clogged drain. Similar lack of knowledge on his part regarding the other three items.
I also asked him why "3 weeks" was the time period in which the new owner/property manager should have unclogged the drain and replaced the anti skid mat. He stated it was his expert opinion that 3 weeks was more than enough time for a new owner through foreclosure to do these things. I asked him why and how he came to that "expert opinon". I asked him what he knew about the foreclosure, the property that was foreclosed and what information the new owner and property manager had about the tenants. He stated he did not know. He did not know that the restaurant building was just one of about 40 commercial buildings that were sold to my client at foreclosure. He did not know that the prior owner had thrown out all tenant files and leases.
In short the "expert economist" was a joke who went around crunching numbers given to him by his clients (which they made up out of thin air) and stating that his clients have incurred $XXXXX in monetary damages. His testimony at deposition was a classic example of "garbage in, garbage out". >>
Sanction II: I want you on my side if I ever get sued!
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>Tradedollarnut - The issue of monetization is a good one. My issue though is that the 1913 nickels were never officially minted.However
The 1933 double eagles were an official mint made product authorized be the US Government. Therefore would the government let us coin weenies collect 1934 double eagles ?
Another case of fact is the infamous 1959 Wheat Back Lincoln Cent which the US Mint ( the government) issued a letter stating it was an official mint made product. However we in the Numismatic community know it is a unique " fake".
What I believe is this case is something the government should just ignore and let us coin weenies have our FUN.
Stewart Blay >>
Were all of the other previously struck Saints routinely "monetized" before being made available for their intended purpose? Sounds like this was some sort of Government invented term used to save their arse. Kinda like Gore's "controlling legal authority". Wonder why they aren't going after the high leaf and low leaf Wisconsin quarters. As for the 1913 libs, the ones who authorized them were probably too high up in the food chain to take any action against.
Looks like Tripp is doing OK for himself hiring out as an expert witness -
<<As a testifying expert, Tripp works for the government and Berke worked hard to establish that the payment provided as an expert was a substantial part of Tripp’s income for the past five years, with a total of $350,000 to $400,000 emerging as the likely amount that Tripp has been and will be paid by the government for his expertise.>>
I must be naive, that seems like an awful lot of money.
this is why the government is in such trouble. Ridiculous spending for a case they shouldn't pursue.
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems to me that Tripp's testimony could be problematic for the government. His comments regarding the "gold for gold coins" wire being an "orphan document" and later saying he had never been able to find its place in the context of other documents seems to highlight the fact that records from the time are incomplete. I would be interested in knowing what other "orphan documents" exist and to what extent (if any) his conclusions are based on any of them, or if he discounted the content of any such documents in reaching his conclusions. >>
This could indeed be the proverbial "smoking gun."
How did he treat it in his book?
TD >>
I wonder about that also but I haven't read his book. It would seem like another area for the Langbord side to look into. I also wonder how much the issue of missing documents might impact the jury's perceptions of Tripp's conclusions and testimony regarding them. Many things that once seemed clear based on the available evidence at the time have been disproven by later discoveries. Just my 2¢, but personally I think I would tend to view any conclusions reached from a partial knowledge of the facts as an opinion. More of a matter of "based on available evidence, I believe..." rather than something presented as "it must have been..."
This court ruling has seriously minimized the importance of the jury trial on the CAFRA forfeiture claim by allowing the government to have a "Plan B", or "do over".
<< <i>$400,000 over five years doesn't seem like much to me. >>
True, but it would put you in the top 15% of all wage earners.
<< <i>Keep in mind that due to the court's 7-5-2011 ruling that denied the Langbords' motion to toss out the declaratory relief claim, the jury verdict on the CAFRA claim will end the case only if the jury rules in favor of the government [in which case the coins would be forfeited to the government]. If the jury rules in favor of the Langbords, the judge would then decide, separately, the declaratory relief claim to determine who wins ownership and possession of the coins.
This court ruling has seriously minimized the importance of the jury trial on the CAFRA forfeiture claim by allowing the government to have a "Plan B", or "do over". >>
It seems crazy to me that the government is going through all the expense of a trial, and if the Langbords win, it just goes back in front of a judge to decide. Is this something that happens right away at the end of the trial?
If the Langbords win on the forfeiture claim, would the judge really go against the jury verdict on the declaratory relief claim?
<< <i>Keep in mind that due to the court's 7-5-2011 ruling that denied the Langbords' motion to toss out the declaratory relief claim, the jury verdict on the CAFRA claim will end the case only if the jury rules in favor of the government [in which case the coins would be forfeited to the government]. If the jury rules in favor of the Langbords, the judge would then decide, separately, the declaratory relief claim to determine who wins ownership and possession of the coins.
This court ruling has seriously minimized the importance of the jury trial on the CAFRA forfeiture claim by allowing the government to have a "Plan B", or "do over". >>
That stinks to high heaven.