<< <i>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???? >>
By requiring them to refile CAFRA the judge also puts the burden of proof on the Government. If they had proof, this whole thing would have been over long ago. OTOH the Langbords can't prove they were obtained legally. Perhaps Izzy also knew that proving legal ownership would be difficult.
<< <i>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???? >>
By requiring them to refile CAFRA the judge also puts the burden of proof on the Government. If they had proof, this whole thing would have been over long ago. OTOH the Langbords can't prove they were obtained legally. Perhaps Izzy also knew that proving legal ownership would be difficult. >>
Izzy knew he couldn't prove legal ownership, and he knew he couldn't sell them in the states. That is why he was looking for an overseas buyer. Family probably knew about the coins and waited until all the witnesses, or at least Izzy was gone before sending them out for authentication. This scenerio would best suit them in court where the burdens seems to shift to the government to prove a negative. If the daughter did have access and visit the safe deposit box to view the mother's jewelery, it doesn't seem logical that those coins would escape her attention. Who knows? Clearly unclean hands on both sides.
If a jury can let a woman who murdered her daughter walk after she went out partying to celebrate her "new freedom," another jury can just say “NO!!!” to the government. The government has been a bully on this issue since they forced a couple of innocent collectors to surrender their coins back in the 1940s. This case has nothing to do with economic policy or anything else that contributes to the public welfare. It is waste of public resources to prosecute this case. Let the family keep the coins.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i> The Mint never intended to release them. >>
HMMMM. I don't think that's true at all unless you believe that the mint employees were short of work so they struck some coins so they'd have something to melt.
That was not true on March 4, 1933, when the coins already existed and could have been swapped legitimately.
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>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???? >>
By requiring them to refile CAFRA the judge also puts the burden of proof on the Government. If they had proof, this whole thing would have been over long ago. OTOH the Langbords can't prove they were obtained legally. Perhaps Izzy also knew that proving legal ownership would be difficult. >>
Izzy knew he couldn't prove legal ownership, and he knew he couldn't sell them in the states. That is why he was looking for an overseas buyer. Family probably knew about the coins and waited until all the witnesses, or at least Izzy was gone before sending them out for authentication. This scenerio would best suit them in court where the burdens seems to shift to the government to prove a negative. If the daughter did have access and visit the safe deposit box to view the mother's jewelery, it doesn't seem logical that those coins would escape her attention. Who knows? Clearly unclean hands on both sides. >>
It's likely the coins weren't put into the SDB until the day before the Fenton coin was auctioned off. IMO, the SDB has no bearing on how the coins were obtained from the mint. It wouldn't be unusual for someone in the jewelry business to keep expensive inventory in a SDB.
That was not true on March 4, 1933, when the coins already existed and could have been swapped legitimately. >>
And as we learned this week 1933 $10 eagles were minted and some were released and the government never went after those people. If you put yourself back then, before the surrender order, you wouldn't think it unusual at all to have a gold for gold coin exchange with the Mint cashier who kept coins in his desk vault just for that purpose.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I would be extremely surprised if the government wins. From what I've read, there is evidence the government made the 1933's available at the cashier's window for a brief time period, among other things. And there's no direct evidence Switt stole them, despite innuendo to the contrary. There plainly were legal ways these could have left the mint. I just don't see how the government meets its burden.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
<< <i>From what I've read, there is evidence the government made the 1933's available at the cashier's window for a brief time period, among other things. >>
If there was believable evidence to support this statement, the Langbords would have the coins.
"I would be extremely surprised if the government wins. From what I've read, there is evidence the government made the 1933's available at the cashier's window for a brief time period, among other things. And there's no direct evidence Switt stole them, despite innuendo to the contrary. There plainly were legal ways these could have left the mint. I just don't see how the government meets its burden."
------------------------- www.second-republic.com Coins of Poland 1919-1939
Comments
<< <i>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???? >>
By requiring them to refile CAFRA the judge also puts the burden of proof on the Government. If they had proof, this whole thing would have been over long ago. OTOH the Langbords can't prove they were obtained legally. Perhaps Izzy also knew that proving legal ownership would be difficult.
<< <i>
<< <i>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???? >>
By requiring them to refile CAFRA the judge also puts the burden of proof on the Government. If they had proof, this whole thing would have been over long ago. OTOH the Langbords can't prove they were obtained legally. Perhaps Izzy also knew that proving legal ownership would be difficult. >>
Izzy knew he couldn't prove legal ownership, and he knew he couldn't sell them in the states. That is why he was looking for an overseas buyer. Family probably knew about the coins and waited until all the witnesses, or at least Izzy was gone before sending them out for authentication. This scenerio would best suit them in court where the burdens seems to shift to the government to prove a negative. If the daughter did have access and visit the safe deposit box to view the mother's jewelery, it doesn't seem logical that those coins would escape her attention. Who knows? Clearly unclean hands on both sides.
You never know what can happen when the Government is involved.
<< <i>The gov has prevailed in all similar cases; they will win this one too. >>
What sort of proof of theft were they able to offer in those cases?
<< <i> The Mint never intended to release them. >>
HMMMM. I don't think that's true at all unless you believe that the mint employees were short of work so they struck some coins so they'd have something to melt.
<< <i>The Mint never intended to release them. >>
That was not true on March 4, 1933, when the coins already existed and could have been swapped legitimately.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>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???? >>
By requiring them to refile CAFRA the judge also puts the burden of proof on the Government. If they had proof, this whole thing would have been over long ago. OTOH the Langbords can't prove they were obtained legally. Perhaps Izzy also knew that proving legal ownership would be difficult. >>
Izzy knew he couldn't prove legal ownership, and he knew he couldn't sell them in the states. That is why he was looking for an overseas buyer. Family probably knew about the coins and waited until all the witnesses, or at least Izzy was gone before sending them out for authentication. This scenerio would best suit them in court where the burdens seems to shift to the government to prove a negative. If the daughter did have access and visit the safe deposit box to view the mother's jewelery, it doesn't seem logical that those coins would escape her attention. Who knows? Clearly unclean hands on both sides. >>
It's likely the coins weren't put into the SDB until the day before the Fenton coin was auctioned off. IMO, the SDB has no bearing on how the coins were obtained from the mint. It wouldn't be unusual for someone in the jewelry business to keep expensive inventory in a SDB.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Mint never intended to release them. >>
That was not true on March 4, 1933, when the coins already existed and could have been swapped legitimately. >>
And as we learned this week 1933 $10 eagles were minted and some were released and the government never went after those people.
If you put yourself back then, before the surrender order, you wouldn't think it unusual at all to have a gold for gold coin exchange with the Mint cashier who kept coins in his desk vault just for that purpose.
Apparently there were signs that were conveniently ignored or someone failed to grasp what was happening.
<< <i>Rooting for the Langbords. >>
Me too - big time! I think that they will win.
Lafayette Grading Set
<< <i>From what I've read, there is evidence the government made the 1933's available at the cashier's window for a brief time period, among other things. >>
If there was believable evidence to support this statement, the Langbords would have the coins.
Uh, then why did they mint them?
"I would be extremely surprised if the government wins. From what I've read, there is evidence the government made the 1933's available at the cashier's window for a brief time period, among other things. And there's no direct evidence Switt stole them, despite innuendo to the contrary. There plainly were legal ways these could have left the mint. I just don't see how the government meets its burden."
-------------------------
www.second-republic.com
Coins of Poland 1919-1939