Poll - Who Wins Langbords v. United States

clackamas · July 12, 2011 2:04PM

Poll to see who everyone thinks will win. We are all reading the great updates, so we are fairly well informed, it is your call.

There was an old poll from back in 2009 but we have all been more educated on the case so a new poll, IMO is needed.

Coinosaurus · July 12, 2011 2:12PM

The house always wins!

DieClash · July 12, 2011 2:49PM

<< The house always wins! >>

Yeah, but occasionally the house loses......BIG!

ricko · July 12, 2011 10:13PM

I think the 'house' may take a loss on this one..... would not be surprised to see some 'deal' worked out (such as in the last case) prior to trial completion. Cheers, RickO

Banemorth · July 12, 2011 10:15PM

Rooting for the Langbords.

Caleb · July 12, 2011 10:20PM

The only ones guaranteed to win are the lawyers. There is a jury involved and I thought the general rule was “never second guess a jury”.

I would like to see the government loss this one but with the Judge, it might be a stacked deck

291fifth · July 12, 2011 10:23PM

It will be a sad day if the Langbords win.

OPA · July 12, 2011 10:34PM

Unfortunately, the only winners will be the tax payers & defendant footing the attorney fees.

DennisH · July 13, 2011 1:08AM

<< Rooting for the Langbords. >>

Me too, and my heart is with them. But my cynicism says the guy with the most lawyers usually wins, so I think the government will get its way.

SanctionII · July 13, 2011 1:15AM

The government lawyers are government employees who get paid a salary whether the government wins or loses the case.

The Langbords' lawyers will make money if they are billing hourly. If they are handling the case on a contingency basis, they will make money only if the Langbords win. If the Langbords lose, then they do not have to pay anything under a contingency arrangement.

SaorAlba · July 13, 2011 1:48AM

I am just glad with the mountainous budget deficits, and the USA government running out of money that they have time and the desire to prosecute something from 78 years ago.

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 2:00AM

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

From what little i've read it does appear these coins had to have been stolen.

BillJones · July 13, 2011 2:13AM

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

That's sort of like rooting for the lions to eat the Christians, isn't it?

Franklin Roosevelt stole your grandfather’s gold in the first place to fund one his failed economic experiments. I’m not saying the going off the gold standard was a bad thing, but there was a huge wealth transfer from the people to the Federal Government that resulted from the Gold Surrender Order of 1933.

At any rate I think that there will be an out of court settlement that will allow the government to take a big chuck of the money and let the coins to into collector circulation.

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 2:17AM

<< 

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

That's sort of like rooting for the lions to eat the Christians, isn't it?

Franklin Roosevelt stole your grandfather’s gold in the first place to fund one his failed economic experiments. I’m not saying the going off the gold standard was a bad thing, but there was a huge wealth transfer from the people to the Federal Government that resulted from the Gold Surrender Order of 1933.

At any rate I think that there will be an out of court settlement that will allow the government to take a big chuck of the money and let the coins to into collector circulation. >>

Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. So to be fair , if these Langbords wish to keep the coins they should do the same , give Uncle Sam the value of the coins.80 million isnt it ?

saintguru · July 13, 2011 2:32AM

Bill Jones...I am NO fan of FDR, but the call on gold was the advocacy of the then Sec. Treasurer, William H. Woodin, because tens of millions of dollars in gold was being sent to overseas banks from spooked US holders, many obviously wealthy. The original purpose of stopping this outflow was fear of the collapse of the dollar because of the expatriation of all this "hard" money. I think it was a good decision at the time. Dire times call for stringent actions.

messydesk · July 13, 2011 2:32AM

<< Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. >>

And then promptly revalued gold to $35 an ounce on the international market, effectively giving people 57c on the dollar for what used to be their private property. The ultimate "CA$H 4 G@LD!!!1111" rip.

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 2:37AM

<< 

<< Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. >>

And then promptly revalued gold to $35 an ounce on the international market, effectively giving people 57c on the dollar for what used to be their private property. The ultimate "CA$H 4 G@LD!!!1111" rip. >>

Thats as may be Sir , they still didn't steal it. Governments do it all the time , i was in the UK when they went decimal in the early 70's. Prior to that a pound was 200 pennies , it changed to 100.
12 pennies to the shilling went to 5. A florin was now worth 10 pennies etc.

BillJones · July 13, 2011 2:50AM

<< Bill Jones...I am NO fan of FDR, but the call on gold was the advocacy of the then Sec. Treasurer, William H. Woodin, because tens of millions of dollars in gold was being sent to overseas banks from spooked US holders, many obviously wealthy. The original purpose of stopping this outflow was fear of the collapse of the dollar because of the expatriation of all this "hard" money. I think it was a good decision at the time. Dire times call for stringent actions. >>

Not true.

FDR called the gold in because he wanted to inflate the value of the dollar artificially to $35 an ounce in hopes that a devalued dollar would spur U.S. exports. He called in the gold because he didn’t want those who were holding it to realize a windfall profit.

A lot of Roosevelt advisors thought people had money hidden under the mattresses. They thought all they had to do was to get them to spend it. When they didn’t realize or didn’t want to admit for ideological reasons was that many of their policies with regulations and high marginal tax rates were preventing the private sector from recovering from the Great Depression.

I’m not sure where Secretary of the Treasury Wooden figured in this. He was very sick and would soon resign from the government and shortly die.

saintguru · July 13, 2011 3:03AM

Bill...Woodin served in 1933 and died in May '34. So that's a starting point to your "not true" rebuttal.

It is true...and devaluing the dollar was another issue. But the outflow of gold was very disturbing to Woodin, and "why the Sec. of the Treasury wouldn't figure in" seems a rather illogical question. He was the MOST IMPORTANT person in this matter. Now history is not science, which means it's constantly being revised and rewritten, but the accounts I've read that I wrote about are indeed in history books. If you think Woodin was uninvolved in 1933 you better hit the books again. You go your way and I'll go mine.

streeter · July 13, 2011 3:40AM

When the Treasury had a policy of exchanging new gold for old gold and the mint records show that an amount of gold equivalent to the mintage of the 1933 saints was melted --but the records didn't reveal if the total melt was exclusively made up of 1933 saints.....

I just can't fathom how a conclusion could be drawn that the 1933 saints out there were stolen. In hindsight--you could draw a conclusion that there was a wicked plan to sneak out some 1933's but normal gov't employees would far more likely have just exchanged them as per policy. I do not give govt employees credit for devising a nefarious plan....I give them credit for just doing their job as they were instructed and their job was to exchange.

Izzy Swit was just into 'first strikes'

johnny9434 · July 13, 2011 4:48AM

ill go with what ricko said and say that there might be some sorta deal worked out

mozeppa · July 13, 2011 4:56AM

dewey did NOT beat truman!

PhillyJoe · July 13, 2011 5:16AM

A deal was worked out last time but the stakes are 10 times higher now.

The government settled on a unique item last time; now they are worried about opening the floodgates.

I don't think Barry Berke would have taken the Langbords case if he didn't think he could win/settle again. (If anyone could win, Berke could win - knowing there are no sure bets in court rooms.)

Batman23 · July 13, 2011 5:24AM

<< 

<< 

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

That's sort of like rooting for the lions to eat the Christians, isn't it?

Franklin Roosevelt stole your grandfather’s gold in the first place to fund one his failed economic experiments. I’m not saying the going off the gold standard was a bad thing, but there was a huge wealth transfer from the people to the Federal Government that resulted from the Gold Surrender Order of 1933.

At any rate I think that there will be an out of court settlement that will allow the government to take a big chuck of the money and let the coins to into collector circulation. >>

Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. So to be fair , if these Langbords wish to keep the coins they should do the same , give Uncle Sam the value of the coins.80 million isnt it ? >>

You say that FDR didn't steal the gold because he "paid" for it. But you claim Switt did steal the gold even though he "paid" for it with other gold. He paid the proper face value of the gold in 1933, why do the Langbords have to come up with the other $80 million now? I would call that a good investment with no victims. Can't say the same about FDR's move...

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 5:36AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

That's sort of like rooting for the lions to eat the Christians, isn't it?

Franklin Roosevelt stole your grandfather’s gold in the first place to fund one his failed economic experiments. I’m not saying the going off the gold standard was a bad thing, but there was a huge wealth transfer from the people to the Federal Government that resulted from the Gold Surrender Order of 1933.

At any rate I think that there will be an out of court settlement that will allow the government to take a big chuck of the money and let the coins to into collector circulation. >>

Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. So to be fair , if these Langbords wish to keep the coins they should do the same , give Uncle Sam the value of the coins.80 million isnt it ? >>

You say that FDR didn't steal the gold because he "paid" for it. But you claim Switt did steal the gold even though he "paid" for it with other gold. He paid the proper face value of the gold in 1933, why do the Langbords have to come up with the other $80 million now? I would call that a good investment with no victims. Can't say the same about FDR's move... >>

If it could be proved Switt paid for them and it's above board we wouldnt be discussing a trial would we ?

BillJones · July 13, 2011 5:47AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

That's sort of like rooting for the lions to eat the Christians, isn't it?

Franklin Roosevelt stole your grandfather’s gold in the first place to fund one his failed economic experiments. I’m not saying the going off the gold standard was a bad thing, but there was a huge wealth transfer from the people to the Federal Government that resulted from the Gold Surrender Order of 1933.

At any rate I think that there will be an out of court settlement that will allow the government to take a big chuck of the money and let the coins to into collector circulation. >>

Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. So to be fair , if these Langbords wish to keep the coins they should do the same , give Uncle Sam the value of the coins.80 million isnt it ? >>

You say that FDR didn't steal the gold because he "paid" for it. But you claim Switt did steal the gold even though he "paid" for it with other gold. He paid the proper face value of the gold in 1933, why do the Langbords have to come up with the other $80 million now? I would call that a good investment with no victims. Can't say the same about FDR's move... >>

If it could be proved Switt paid for them and it's above board we wouldnt be discussing a trial would we ? >>

But we would be unfortunately. If the double eagles were issued AFTER FDR's order, it would not matter if Switt replaced the coins with other gold. The government can claim that the coins were issued illegally.

My guess is he did replace it with other gold. But that may not count for anything.

The government has been obsessed with this issue for years. There was a twit in the Justice Department, and I don’t clutter my memory with the names of bureaucratic prigs, who made a career of prosecuting the collectors who owned the 1933 double eagles back in the ‘40s. With all the problems we face, it really galls me that the government has nothing better to prosecute this case in the name of old man Roosevelt.

And tell you this too. I’ll bet the government actually owes the one piece that is “legal.” We’ve never heard from the “collector” who supposedly bought it, and I doubt that we ever will. Remember the government was the only bidder who was going to get the double eagle for half price.

Batman23 · July 13, 2011 6:03AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< It will be a sad day if the Langbords win. >>

That's sort of like rooting for the lions to eat the Christians, isn't it?

Franklin Roosevelt stole your grandfather’s gold in the first place to fund one his failed economic experiments. I’m not saying the going off the gold standard was a bad thing, but there was a huge wealth transfer from the people to the Federal Government that resulted from the Gold Surrender Order of 1933.

At any rate I think that there will be an out of court settlement that will allow the government to take a big chuck of the money and let the coins to into collector circulation. >>

Two wrongs dont make a right , if they are stolen and it would seem so they should be returned. FDR didnt so much "steal" any gold , he traded fed notes for it did he not so the people still had the value of the gold. So to be fair , if these Langbords wish to keep the coins they should do the same , give Uncle Sam the value of the coins.80 million isnt it ? >>

You say that FDR didn't steal the gold because he "paid" for it. But you claim Switt did steal the gold even though he "paid" for it with other gold. He paid the proper face value of the gold in 1933, why do the Langbords have to come up with the other $80 million now? I would call that a good investment with no victims. Can't say the same about FDR's move... >>

If it could be proved Switt paid for them and it's above board we wouldnt be discussing a trial would we ? >>

When the 1933 DEs were inventoried, weighed and melted they did not find any missing gold. That would indicate to me that compensation was made. There may have been a few 192xs in the mix but that would be a gold for gold trade right? Where is the theft?

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 6:07AM

If i take someones CC silver dollar and replace it with an ASE , is that ok ? Can i take the mona lisa and replace it with a dot to dot ? I think we all know something occured out the ordinary for these coins to be in private hands. If they were stolen , illegally issued , doesn't matter.

JJM · July 13, 2011 6:12AM

in hand is 90% of the law, no?

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 6:20AM

<< in hand is 90% of the law, no? >>

No.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is not a
law at all, nor does it in reality point to nine specific issues of
law. It is only a fundamental truism that has been an obvious fact of
common knowledge since the advent of civilized law. Even then,
possession is only nine-tenths of the law if legal ownership is
established; otherwise possession is not nine-tenths of the law. . .
it is theft.

JJM · July 13, 2011 6:23AM

I stand corrected

Batman23 · July 13, 2011 6:29AM

<< If i take someones CC silver dollar and replace it with an ASE , is that ok ? Can i take the mona lisa and replace it with a dot to dot ? I think we all know something occured out the ordinary for these coins to be in private hands. If they were stolen , illegally issued , doesn't matter. >>

You are trying to compare items of different values and that is not what would have happened. He traded $20 for $20. In 1933 the value of the 1933 DE was $20.

If you were to have gone to the mint in 2000 and purchased $100 in Sacagawea dollars, paying $100 for the proper face value, then ten years later you find out you have a rare and limited run of bold tail feather variety does that mean that you stole them, that you now owe the government for difference in value?

PhillyJoe · July 13, 2011 6:36AM

<< If i take someones CC silver dollar and replace it with an ASE , is that ok ? Can i take the mona lisa and replace it with a dot to dot ? I think we all know something occured out the ordinary for these coins to be in private hands. If they were stolen , illegally issued , doesn't matter. >>

I think a better example is you go to your bank on January 2, 2012 and ask the friendly teller if they would exchange a 2011 quarter for a newly minted 2012. The teller doesn't know if it's OK to give out the new quarters yet but you're a good customer and they aim to please.The mona lisa - dot to dot example is not an even exchange.

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 6:37AM

<< 

<< If i take someones CC silver dollar and replace it with an ASE , is that ok ? Can i take the mona lisa and replace it with a dot to dot ? I think we all know something occured out the ordinary for these coins to be in private hands. If they were stolen , illegally issued , doesn't matter. >>

You are trying to compare items of different values and that is not what would have happened. He traded $20 for $20. In 1933 the value of the 1933 DE was $20.

If you were to have gone to the mint in 2000 and purchased $100 in Sacagawea dollars, paying $100 for the proper face value, then ten years later you find out you have a rare and limited run of bold tail feather variety does that mean that you stole them, that you now owe the government for difference in value? >>

In your honest opinion do you think Switt had knowledge that these coins would never be released into circulation , if not he then whoever it was that removed them ? It's akin to the $5 million nickel isnt it ? The mint employee that stole it to sell knew very well how rare it was did he not ? They didn't just swap gold because it was something to do , they had a reason and a bigger reason to keep quiet about it.Thats my own opinion.

JJM..yeah..it's that other 1 point of the law that gets'em everytime , that 1 point being proving ownership.

TorinoCobra71 · July 13, 2011 7:01AM

I WANT the Langbords to win, but EXPECT Uncle Sam to prevail.......

DeepCoin · July 13, 2011 7:09AM

I voted that the US would win, but I am rooting for the Langbords.

FYI, I was also in the UK when the money changed and NOTHING was affected other than to move from 12 Pence to a Shilling and 20 shillings to a Pound. The new money was decimal. Thus 50p was equal to 10 shillings. It was confusing at times, but the math was much more simple to those who were not used to the shilling and pence paradigm. The new p was worth 2.4 times as much as the old pence. Nice try JamesMurray, but no one was harmed in that shift to the decimal system.

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 7:15AM

<< I voted that the US would win, but I am rooting for the Langbords.

FYI, I was also in the UK when the money changed and NOTHING was affected other than to move from 12 Pence to a Shilling and 20 shillings to a Pound. The new money was decimal. Thus 50p was equal to 10 shillings. It was confusing at times, but the math was much more simple to those who were not used to the shilling and pence paradigm. The new p was worth 2.4 times as much as the old pence. Nice try JamesMurray, but no one was harmed in that shift to the decimal system. >>

Nothing of the kind nice try , beleive what they told you didnt you ? Try asking someone that actually lives there.How does NOTHING equate to losing 140 pennies from the pound ? 7 pence out of 12 from a shilling is NOTHING as you elequently put it.You'd have made a great politician over there.

Batman23 · July 13, 2011 7:22AM

<< 

<< 

<< If i take someones CC silver dollar and replace it with an ASE , is that ok ? Can i take the mona lisa and replace it with a dot to dot ? I think we all know something occured out the ordinary for these coins to be in private hands. If they were stolen , illegally issued , doesn't matter. >>

You are trying to compare items of different values and that is not what would have happened. He traded $20 for $20. In 1933 the value of the 1933 DE was $20.

If you were to have gone to the mint in 2000 and purchased $100 in Sacagawea dollars, paying $100 for the proper face value, then ten years later you find out you have a rare and limited run of bold tail feather variety does that mean that you stole them, that you now owe the government for difference in value? >>

In your honest opinion do you think Switt had knowledge that these coins would never be released into circulation , if not he then whoever it was that removed them ? It's akin to the $5 million nickel isnt it ? The mint employee that stole it to sell knew very well how rare it was did he not ? They didn't just swap gold because it was something to do , they had a reason and a bigger reason to keep quiet about it.Thats my own opinion.

JJM..yeah..it's that other 1 point of the law that gets'em everytime , that 1 point being proving ownership. >>

From what I read in previous threads about this issue I thought it common back then to go to the mint window and trade/purchase for the newest freshly minted coins. Just because 1933 came along with a special issue does that make it wrong for the same acts in 1932, 1931, 1930... If not wrong in previous years then why now in 1933. I do not see where one would expect the 1933s to NEVER be released, maybe stashed till later. That early in 1933 I doubt anyone knew what was happening, Switt just wanted to latest edition for his collection/inventory/clients.

If Switt had good relations with the clerk at the counter and there was a very short period of time they could trade these out and since Switt only worked a short distance from the mint, I could see where they could have communicated and made a legal purchase/trade, even if that legal window of time was just two hours long on one day.

llafoe · July 13, 2011 7:29AM

The poll is 60/40 Langbords... probably accurate odds.

JamesMurray · July 13, 2011 7:29AM

Its all guesswork and i doubt we'll ever know what really happened , at some point though whether before or after somebody or all knew those coins should not be where they were. I'm certainly no fan of the government but it doesnt mean i'd wish them any wrongdoing or support it in any way. If they are victims of theft they are in thier right,they seem to think so and being as how they made the coins ..well..kinda gives them much needed one point of the law,the ownership thing.Anyway...good chat man , i learned from you , thanks ...bbq needs lighting

Artist · July 13, 2011 7:34AM

Someone said in one of these threads a few years ago... "I wish there was a way for both sides to loose."

That sort of sums up my feelings too.

I think based on the evidence (or lack thereof) that the Langbords should prevail, but given that it will most likely come down to a government judge making the deciding call, I voted that the government will win this case.

llafoe · July 13, 2011 7:41AM

<< dewey did NOT beat truman! >>

That's gonna change history!

Flash · July 13, 2011 7:51AM

The Langbords to not have to prove they're entitled to ownership of the 1933 double eagles. The government has to prove they were stolen. I don't think that they can prove by preponderance of evidence that they were stolen. A reasonable jury should find for the Langbords.

TwoSides2aCoin · July 13, 2011 7:53AM

Whoever has more ink in their pen will win.

lcohen · July 13, 2011 9:09AM

I agree, and think the Langbord’s should win. I believe much of Tripp's book was based on the Bernard case back in 1947 and the Secret Service documentation from 1945. It has never been shown that the coins were stolen in a court of law and I believe RWB's research and additional documentation shows that it is very possible the coins were obtained fairly through a gold for gold exchange.

I feel like the governments confiscation of the coins and failure to file forfeiture immediately was unconstitutional and that the judge let them off too easy by giving them the chance to go back and refile. The whole idea that the judge also allowed the declaratory judgment is BS.

To me it is now less important how the coins were obtained almost 80 years ago then it is since the coins were rediscovered. I believe the government has acted in bad faith almost the entire time. If they had done the right thing back in 2005 maybe I would feel differently but at this point, the Langbord’s constitutional rights have been violated and they deserve the coins.

Does that long speech deserve two votes????

BXBOY143 · July 13, 2011 9:49AM

<< Rooting for the Langbords. >>

keyman64 · July 13, 2011 10:09AM

<< The Langbords to not have to prove they're entitled to ownership of the 1933 double eagles. The government has to prove they were stolen. I don't think that they can prove by preponderance of evidence that they were stolen. A reasonable jury should find for the Langbords. >>

I sure HOPE the Langbord Family wins this thing!

Steve27 · July 13, 2011 10:26AM

The gov has prevailed in all similar cases; they will win this one too.

clackamas · July 13, 2011 10:52AM

<< 

I feel like the governments confiscation of the coins and failure to file forfeiture immediately was unconstitutional and that the judge let them off too easy by giving them the chance to go back and refile. The whole idea that the judge also allowed the declaratory judgment is BS.
>>

I agree, to let that slide is a slap in the face to the Constitution, but I believe that the Langbords are actually using that to their advantage so I am not as outraged as I should be. I don't nor do any of us know all the facts, I do believe that they were probably acquired legally, but unethically, so they should remain in the family. I am on the Langbord side.

saintguru · July 13, 2011 11:52PM

Ya know, this is such a cluster-bump...The cashier, for personal gain, likely, very likely, swapped some '33s for some other date coins to give Switt what he wanted. The Mint never intended to release them. I think that's pretty clear. This is why the debate is so ambiguous. There's no really crystal clear answer.

The government had a crooked drunk as cashier, Izzy was a shrewd guy who smelled a profit. Who's guilty? Both parties are low-lifes.

Bajajim · July 16, 2011 1:23AM

<< Ya know, this is such a cluster-bump...The cashier, for personal gain, likely, very likely, swapped some '33s for some other date coins to give Switt what he wanted. The Mint never intended to release them. I think that's pretty clear. This is why the debate is so ambiguous. There's no really crystal clear answer.

The government had a crooked drunk as cashier, Izzy was a shrewd guy who smelled a profit. Who's guilty? Both parties are low-lifes.

>>

Agree. Everyone knows Izzy knew what he had and knew that he he shouldn't have had it. That is why they sat in the safe deposit box for 80 years and never appeared in any estate planning documents. If he got them based on a legitimate transfer it would have been great to hear that testimony...all witnesses are now gone. If he got them on a gold for gold trade, give him them the trade...10 double eagles from inventory.

Poll - Who Wins Langbords v. United States

Comments

Leave a Comment