Time for a new Langbord Thread - The next hearing is 10-14-2015
SanctionII
Posts: 11,660 ✭✭✭✭✭
The Court Of Appeal has scheduled a hearing before the entire panel of justices in the case for 10-14-2015 in Philly. The time of the hearing has not been set yet.
The hearing will be one where the attorneys for both sides present oral argument to the entire court.
With the large amount of posts to the 4-17-2015 "Langbords Win" thread (1150 so far) and the wide ranging topics covered in said posts it is time to put that thread behind us and to start a new one.
If anyone is close to Philly they should stop by on 10-14-2015 and sit in on the en banc hearing. Anyone want to volunteer?
Further, does anyone want to offer up an opinion on what points and issues will be discussed between the attorneys and the panel of justices at the 10-14-2015 hearing? Will it just be a rehashing of the arguments made at the last hearing in November, 2014? Or will the points and issues discussed be only some of what was discussed last time (i.e. the interpretation of and the application of the CAFRA death penalty?); or will there be some new points and issues brought up and discussed that were absent at the last hearing?
The hearing will be one where the attorneys for both sides present oral argument to the entire court.
With the large amount of posts to the 4-17-2015 "Langbords Win" thread (1150 so far) and the wide ranging topics covered in said posts it is time to put that thread behind us and to start a new one.
If anyone is close to Philly they should stop by on 10-14-2015 and sit in on the en banc hearing. Anyone want to volunteer?
Further, does anyone want to offer up an opinion on what points and issues will be discussed between the attorneys and the panel of justices at the 10-14-2015 hearing? Will it just be a rehashing of the arguments made at the last hearing in November, 2014? Or will the points and issues discussed be only some of what was discussed last time (i.e. the interpretation of and the application of the CAFRA death penalty?); or will there be some new points and issues brought up and discussed that were absent at the last hearing?
0
Comments
prevail.
bob
<< <i>it makes me wonder...what is it about that gold that is different? why does the government care so much to get those coins back? i say it's some space alien gold or something. >>
The coins are obviously extremely valuable, and my guess is that the government has plans to sell them and keep the money. If not, I don't see any real reason for them to care above and beyond the gold melt value.
<< <i>
<< <i>it makes me wonder...what is it about that gold that is different? why does the government care so much to get those coins back? i say it's some space alien gold or something. >>
The coins are obviously extremely valuable, and my guess is that the government has plans to sell them and keep the money. If not, I don't see any real reason for them to care above and beyond the gold melt value. >>
if you consider the whole story of these double eagles, it seems they have spent a lot of time, money, and resources over many years trying to get them back. it's strange, i think.
That said, since its the government, I'm not sure risk is ever considered. It's not their money being used.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Olive branch extended to Langbords along with $1M tax free as a REWARD for finding the government's stolen property. No criminal charges related to their possession of the ten pieces would ever be brought against Langbords.
$1M for Langbord reward comes from profits from Fenton/Gov partnership from sale of ex Farouk coin at auction in 2002.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
If ever there was a fight for government for a principle,this is the one. Government protects the nation's gold from swindlers and thieves.That's a pretty clear mission statement.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>if you consider the whole story of these double eagles, it seems they have spent a lot of time, money, and resources over many years trying to get them back. it's strange, i think. >>
Well, as has been said before, since it isn't their own money fighting this fight, they have no incentive to compromise or stop fighting. And with the courts being part of the government, their chance of winning is fairly high. It would seem to me to be very unusual for the government court to rule against the government in this case, because of the money involved.
It's also bizarre in that if the government had held onto these coins and they hadn't ever left the Mint, they coins would have been melted, and all they would have had is 9.675 ounces or so of gold, worth slightly less than $11,000 at the current market price of gold of $1,134 per ounce. So if the government wins, it would be unjustly enriched by whatever value the coins have vs. the $11,000 melt value they would have otherwise have had.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The Court Of Appeal has scheduled a hearing before the entire panel of justices in the case for 10-14-2015 in Philly. The time of the hearing has not been set yet.
The hearing will be one where the attorneys for both sides present oral argument to the entire court.
With the large amount of posts to the 4-17-2015 "Langbords Win" thread (1150 so far) and the wide ranging topics covered in said posts it is time to put that thread behind us and to start a new one.
If anyone is close to Philly they should stop by on 10-14-2015 and sit in on the en banc hearing. Anyone want to volunteer?
Further, does anyone want to offer up an opinion on what points and issues will be discussed between the attorneys and the panel of justices at the 10-14-2015 hearing? Will it just be a rehashing of the arguments made at the last hearing in November, 2014? Or will the points and issues discussed be only some of what was discussed last time (i.e. the interpretation of and the application of the CAFRA death penalty?); or will there be some new points and issues brought up and discussed that were absent at the last hearing? >>
Tempting, Sanction, tempting! So, this is the en banc oral argument? I have not been following this very closely during the last 6 months, nor have I followed your enormously popular thread, but I am interested in it. I remember being very troubled by the evidentiary rulings in the trial and feeling that those rulings certainly were reversible error. The Third Circuit's opinion, if I recall correctly, alluded to errors in the evidence, but ruled instead and firstly on the improper forfeiture issue, thus relegating those evidence comments to dicta. Of course, now that the decision is vacated, those issues and all issues will probably be re-briefed and re-argued. I thought the third circuit's opinion was correct, and so I think they'll get it right again. At a minimum, and even if they reverse on the seizure issue, they should be troubled by the evidence and it seems, at worst, it goes back for retrial. But my guess is that will not happen and that the opinion will be affirmed.
En banc hearings are unusual, so this is an important and pretty cool case for a law geek and coin collector. I'm 3 hours away, but it might be worth the loss of a day, just to see the argument. But I cannot commit. I suspect the courtroom may fill on this one and that folks may be denied access. Also, the Fed Cir has live feeds, but I don't think the third circuit does.
Thank you again, Sanction, for following this closely and for all of the updates.
Tom
The amount of time this case has been allowed to drag on is absurd.
SanctionII, Thanks again for keeping us up to date in this ongoing issue as well as beginning a new thread!!!
My hope for a Langbord victory is fading fast though...
<< <i>I've never understood the double-standard why the 1933 $20 Gold is illegal to own while the 1913 V Nickel is legal to own. Both left the Mint under similar "illegal" situations. Then again, I would think the federal government would have more important things to worry about than who has some gold coins. >>
I don't expect to ever get a good answer to that question - mainly, because there is no good answer. Any first year law student cross-examining a government representative on this point would make them look like an idiot.
<< <i>
<< <i>I've never understood the double-standard why the 1933 $20 Gold is illegal to own while the 1913 V Nickel is legal to own. Both left the Mint under similar "illegal" situations. Then again, I would think the federal government would have more important things to worry about than who has some gold coins. >>
I don't expect to ever get a good answer to that question - mainly, because there is no good answer. Any first year law student cross-examining a government representative on this point would make them look like an idiot. >>
Easy answer is : "it's legal to melt gold coins , but it's illegal to melt nickels ".
linky
Barry H. Berke,Esq.,of Kramer,Levin,Naftalis & Frankel argued for the Langbords,et al. Robert A. Zauzmer,Esq.,Office of the United States Attorney argued for The United States Department of the Treasury,et al.
Oral arguments-November 19,2014
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I've said this before, but I believe that the members of the court, after reading the briefs and history of this case, decided by majority that the panel's decision was WRONG for this case. Effectively, I believe that the majority on the court believes that CAFRA does NOT apply to this case. If that is correct, and both sides continue to argue as they have during the trial and the appeal, then I continue to believe the full court will rule in favor of the government in this case. I hope I am wrong, but I do believe that the court of appeals is not going to change their opinion AFTER RULING AGAINST THE PANEL'S DECISION. Steve
What we need is the correct decision,no matter who it favors or disfavors,Steve.As for the ex Farouk coin,the owner is anonymous and collects only the one coin,the 1933 double eagle once owned by King Farouk.Both Frankel and Tripp say this in their books.
I'm confident that the en banc panel will make the correct decision.Thirteen judge heads are better than three at this point.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Steve
I've said this before, but I believe that the members of the court, after reading the briefs and history of this case, decided by majority that the panel's decision was WRONG for this case. Effectively, I believe that the majority on the court believes that CAFRA does NOT apply to this case. If that is correct, and both sides continue to argue as they have during the trial and the appeal, then I continue to believe the full court will rule in favor of the government in this case. I hope I am wrong, but I do believe that the court of appeals is not going to change their opinion AFTER RULING AGAINST THE PANEL'S DECISION. Steve
What we need is the correct decision,no matter who it favors or disfavors,Steve.As for the ex Farouk coin,the owner is anonymous and collects only the one coin,the 1933 double eagle once owned by King Farouk.Both Frankel and Tripp say this in their books.
I'm confident that the en banc panel will make the correct decision.Thirteen judge heads are better than three at this point. >>
If there were 14 judges instead of 13 and the decision was 7-7 would the previous ruling of 2-1 prevail?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
No.The 4/17/15 decision was vacated,as if it never happened. Even though there may be an even number of judges on the en banc panel,there will be no tie.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Further, does anyone want to offer up an opinion on what points and issues will be discussed between the attorneys and the panel of justices at the 10-14-2015 hearing? Will it just be a rehashing of the arguments made at the last hearing in November, 2014? Or will the points and issues discussed be only some of what was discussed last time (i.e. the interpretation of and the application of the CAFRA death penalty?); or will there be some new points and issues brought up and discussed that were absent at the last hearing?
Rehashing,as you say,may be necessary since all the judges presumably aren't up to speed on the case.
The government was able to prove its case re: stolen using the evidence of the Cashier records.1933 double eagles,were accounted for each and every one thanks to the efforts of the Mint cashier preceding McCann and his assistant.
It is a myth that the 1933 double eagles were not kept track of by date. How can the Cashier records,keeping track of 1933 double eagle coins by date,be explained away when they show that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded to a member (Israel Switt) of the public? One can only conclude that 1933 double eagle found in private hands must be stolen if the written record,the Mint's evidence,shows that none were traded to the public in 1933-34.
Expect government attorneys to hammer this point to the panel of judges on October 14,CAFRA considerations notwithstanding.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Steve
I've said this before, but I believe that the members of the court, after reading the briefs and history of this case, decided by majority that the panel's decision was WRONG for this case. Effectively, I believe that the majority on the court believes that CAFRA does NOT apply to this case. If that is correct, and both sides continue to argue as they have during the trial and the appeal, then I continue to believe the full court will rule in favor of the government in this case. I hope I am wrong, but I do believe that the court of appeals is not going to change their opinion AFTER RULING AGAINST THE PANEL'S DECISION. Steve
What we need is the correct decision,no matter who it favors or disfavors,Steve.As for the ex Farouk coin,the owner is anonymous and collects only the one coin,the 1933 double eagle once owned by King Farouk.Both Frankel and Tripp say this in their books.
I'm confident that the en banc panel will make the correct decision.Thirteen judge heads are better than three at this point. >>
I don't really understand this concept of "correct decision". Correct according to whom? Sometimes legal conflicts are pretty clear cut, but often, such as in this case, they are not. "Correct" is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly the Langbords and Feds have different opinions of a correct decision.
You could make the argument that unless/until it is overturned, the latest official court decision is "correct".
<< <i>SanctionII
Further, does anyone want to offer up an opinion on what points and issues will be discussed between the attorneys and the panel of justices at the 10-14-2015 hearing? Will it just be a rehashing of the arguments made at the last hearing in November, 2014? Or will the points and issues discussed be only some of what was discussed last time (i.e. the interpretation of and the application of the CAFRA death penalty?); or will there be some new points and issues brought up and discussed that were absent at the last hearing?
Rehashing,as you say,may be necessary since all the judges presumably aren't up to speed on the case.
The government was able to prove its case re: stolen using the evidence of the Cashier records.1933 double eagles,were accounted for each and every one thanks to the efforts of the Mint cashier preceding McCann and his assistant.
It is a myth that the 1933 double eagles were not kept track of by date. How can the Cashier records,keeping track of 1933 double eagle coins by date,be explained away when they show that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded to a member (Israel Switt) of the public? One can only conclude that 1933 double eagle found in private hands must be stolen if the written record,the Mint's evidence,shows that none were traded to the public in 1933-34.
Expect government attorneys to hammer this point to the panel of judges on October 14,CAFRA considerations notwithstanding. >>
But none were missing either. Is a like for like exchange considered to be theft?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>The real key to this case can be found in the phrase "unjust enrichment." Let hope the appeals court sees it that way and rules against the Langbords.
The amount of time this case has been allowed to drag on is absurd. >>
What a lame argument. Millions of people and corporations have been "unjustly enriched" by the Government over the years, many with the help of said Government.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
The theft occurred after McCann became head Cashier in February 1934.When McCann became head Cashier four-hundred-seventy-one 1933 double eagles from two unsealed bags (opened for assay purposes) came under his direct control.
The records,once again,do not show that a single lawful exchange with a member of the public of old double eagle for new double eagle took place in 1933 during a "window of opportunity." A short window of opportunity may well have been there but the fact of the matter is the record does not show that a single old double eagle exchange for new double eagle took place at the Mint window at any time in 1933.Consider it an Izzy error for not getting a receipt for twenty or twenty-five pieces exchanged if it makes you feel better. Izzy wasn't big on keeping records. Did Izzy mention "the Coins" in his will and who should get them? Seems to me that as a lawful owner, Izzy would stipulate in his will what should happen with "the Coins" on his death.
It is unlikely that Izzy had any 1933 double eagles in his possession until 1936. By this time,it was thought by government that no 1933 double eagle escaped the melting pot except the two examples sent to the Smithsonian by none other than cashier George McCann in October,1934.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Receipt for twenty-five new double eagles obtained by old for new exchange at the Mint window in one transaction,April 3,a Monday,1933. Langbords win.The cashier records,of course,would not show that such an exchange took place but as long as all 1933 gold is accounted for in the final settlement there is no problem.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Whatever the panel decides,i will respect their majority opinion as correct. >>
Even if their decision is reversed by some other court?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Even if their decision is reversed by some other court?
I don't see any more decision reversals happening.What court other than SCOTUS would have the authority to reverse the en banc panel's decision?
The last stand is on October 14. It's crunch time. I wish the Oct. 14 hearing could be televised.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>If there were 14 judges instead of 13 and the decision was 7-7 would the previous ruling of 2-1 prevail?
No.The 4/17/15 decision was vacated,as if it never happened. Even though there may be an even number of judges on the en banc panel,there will be no tie. >>
Steven, Why do you say there will be no tie? In reality, one of the thirteen judges that will hear this case in October could excuse himself or herself or become sick. If the judges wind up at 6 for the Government and 6 for the Langbords, WHAT HAPPENS??? Any of our legal minds know? Thanks, Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
She will call her baby brother Donald.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
<< <i>
<< <i>If there were 14 judges instead of 13 and the decision was 7-7 would the previous ruling of 2-1 prevail?
No.The 4/17/15 decision was vacated,as if it never happened. Even though there may be an even number of judges on the en banc panel,there will be no tie. >>
Steven, Why do you say there will be no tie? In reality, one of the thirteen judges that will hear this case in October could excuse himself or herself or become sick. If the judges wind up at 6 for the Government and 6 for the Langbords, WHAT HAPPENS??? Any of our legal minds know? Thanks, Steve >>
In case of a tie, each of the 1933 eagles will be used in a series of coin tosses, where the government gets HEADS and the Langboards get TAILS.
In the event of yet another tie from the coin tosses, then a round of Rock Paper Scissors will be held with best 2 out of 3 to decide the winner.
Read your Constitution. It's all outlined there.
<< <i>In case of a tie, each of the 1933 eagles will be used in a series of coin tosses, where the government gets HEADS and the Langboards get TAILS.
In the event of yet another tie from the coin tosses, then a round of Rock Paper Scissors will be held with best 2 out of 3 to decide the winner.
Read your Constitution. It's all outlined there. >>
Excellent analysis, there is just one correction, the Rock Paper Scissors clause was changed to 3 out of 5 following allegations of doping during the Supreme Court "box-off" that concluded the 1985 session.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The actual decision to decide the fate of the Ft. Knox 10 will be made behind closed doors. No matter,whether twelve or thirteen judges hear the arguments. No tie will happen with the en banc panel is my prediction.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Before: MCKEE,Chief Judge,RENDELL,SLOVITER,Circuit Judges
Barry H. Berke,Esq.,of Kramer,Levin,Naftalis & Frankel argued for the Langbords,et al. Robert A. Zauzmer,Esq.,Office of the United States Attorney argued for The United States Department of the Treasury,et al.
Oral arguments-November 19,2014 >>
*****
The government was able to prove its case re: stolen using the evidence of the Cashier records.1933 double eagles,were accounted for each and every one thanks to the efforts of the Mint cashier preceding McCann and his assistant.
It is a myth that the 1933 double eagles were not kept track of by date. How can the Cashier records,keeping track of 1933 double eagle coins by date,be explained away when they show that not a single 1933 double eagle was traded to a member (Israel Switt) of the public? One can only conclude that 1933 double eagle found in private hands must be stolen if the written record,the Mint's evidence,shows that none were traded to the public in 1933-34.
Expect government attorneys to hammer this point to the panel of judges on October 14,CAFRA considerations notwithstanding.
*****
Mr. 1874--Thank you very much for posting the link to the oral argument. I listened to it last night and really enjoyed it. I was very impressed by both orators and really enjoy hearing a high level of argument and a panel that also appreciates that. I haven't read the briefs yet, but having listened to the argument, I have to say that, while both attorneys were excellent, the panel appeared to me at least, to clearly signal what their ruling was going to be. That ruling and the judges attitude toward the evidence in the appellate argument, is consistent with my view of the law of evidence, which I found very poorly applied in this case. That, together with what seems to be a pretty straightforward argument on CAFRA, confirm my feelings that the panel got it right. One of the best arguments for the government was the "floodgates" argument....still, the plain meaning of the statute seems pretty clear, and if there is a problem with that meaning, the solution is to fix the statute.
So, my view of the case is almost directly contrary to yours on the legal issues. If pressed, and from what I know and have read, I would likely opine that the coins were probably stolen. But between that and a final proof and decision is a set of rules and laws that don't appear in my view to have been followed. I intend to read the briefs and I am going to try to attend the hearing which, I assume will be in Philadelphia. I have never had an en banc argument and I've never even attended one. I do think that when a court decides to hear a case en banc, it signals that the court is troubled by the larger implications the case presents and this, perhaps, does not bode well for the Langbords. Great thread!
Tom
The argument is at 9:00 a.m. If anyone is going, pm me please.
Tom Powell
Tom
Do you think a new trial is in order not allowing the hearsay? If so,do you think the Langbords would be able to convince a jury that Izzy got his 1933 double eagles lawfully?
I've been hearing from legal people (lawyers) that CAFRA does not apply in the Langbord case. If CAFRA has been ruled by the judges to not apply in the Langbord case and the government can show,once again,that no 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully according to the Mint's 1933-34 cashier records,who should win "the Coins," in your opinion?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
I've been hearing from legal people (lawyers) that CAFRA does not apply in the Langbord case. >>
Gosh Steven, I'm not a lawyer, but I guess I nailed it when I said that the reason the whole court ruled against the panel was because they felt CAFRA did not apply in this case. Since the courts rarely rule against a panel I figured it had to be something like that causing the vacating of the panel's decision. As I've said before, I hope I'm wrong. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Mr. 1874--Thank you very much for posting the link to the oral argument. I listened to it last night and really enjoyed it. I was very impressed by both orators and really enjoy hearing a high level of argument and a panel that also appreciates that. I haven't read the briefs yet, but having listened to the argument, I have to say that, while both attorneys were excellent, the panel appeared to me at least, to clearly signal what their ruling was going to be. That ruling and the judges attitude toward the evidence in the appellate argument, is consistent with my view of the law of evidence, which I found very poorly applied in this case. That, together with what seems to be a pretty straightforward argument on CAFRA, confirm my feelings that the panel got it right. One of the best arguments for the government was the "floodgates" argument....still, the plain meaning of the statute seems pretty clear, and if there is a problem with that meaning, the solution is to fix the statute.
Do you think a new trial is in order not allowing the hearsay? If so,do you think the Langbords would be able to convince a jury that Izzy got his 1933 double eagles lawfully?
I've been hearing from legal people (lawyers) that CAFRA does not apply in the Langbord case. If CAFRA has been ruled by the judges to not apply in the Langbord case and the government can show,once again,that no 1933 double eagle left the Mint lawfully according to the Mint's 1933-34 cashier records,who should win "the Coins," in your opinion? >>
I printed out the briefs, and intend to read them this weekend. You and they may be right on CAFRA. If CAFRA doesn't apply, and then either on retrial, or without a trial, the government can prove, or has proven that they were stolen, or as you say, that no coins lawfully left the mint, I suppose they are the government's property and go back to the government. My thought initially was that the government could not show this, and I was surprised (and disappointed) with what I perceived to be expansive evidentiary rulings during the trial of the matter and with what I believe forms a portion of the many bases for the appeal.
I do think a new trial is in order on the hearsay issues. On re-trial, to me it's the government's initial burden to show that the coins were stolen, since they were in the possession of the Langbords. But I confess that if CAFRA doesn't apply it presents an interesting question of whose burden it is to prove ownership or rights of possession. It seems relevant to me that there was a "conditional transfer" discussion so those terms may dictate the burdens. If it is the government's burden, as I think it should be, I think that is the tough part given the time that has passed. Still, the burden is pretty light to get past a motion to dismiss and to a jury, if the Government goes first, so it's possible that the government could meet that burden. If it is the Langbord's burden, I suspect they could not present enough evidence to get to a jury. If it went to a jury, I believe its a preponderance standard, so it could go either way, but again, if it is the Langbord's burden of proof, I suspect that they could not meet that burden.
It is interesting that if CAFRA doesn't apply, the issue could really come down to whose burden of proof it is. My gut tells me that since the coins were originally in the possession of the Langbords, it should be the government's burden. But I'm not sure. Time to read the briefs and learn some of the details. I will say, that this is pretty high level legal work here....as a private litigator, who has never represented the government, I can't help but be impressed by the Langbords' attorneys. But I have litigated against the government and the United States Attorneys are almost always a "cut above." I have many friends in the Justice department and in the U.S. Attorney's office. I'm just really interested in seeing this process work.
Tom
If the government doesn't follow the rules, they can claim CAFRA doesn't apply? Then why is CAFRA part of the current law?
I guess it is consistent with the government's argument as to why the coins were stolen: Because we say so.
Why doesn't CAFRA apply? Because we say so.
Hard to believe this constitutes "due process".
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Langbords didn't win.
It is interesting that if CAFRA doesn't apply, the issue could really come down to whose burden of proof it is.
As a layman,I found Public Law 106-185 aka CAFRA to be a thoroughly confusing read. I'm confident that the judges working this case will come up with a "correct decision" regarding CAFRA and how it should apply in the Langbord case if it applies at all. Whatever the majority of judges decide after the October hearing will be correct in my book.
TPRC,have you read Judge Legrome Davis' amazing August,2012 MEMORANDUM ?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>TPRC
It is interesting that if CAFRA doesn't apply, the issue could really come down to whose burden of proof it is.
As a layman,I found Public Law 106-185 aka CAFRA to be a thoroughly confusing read. I'm confident that the judges working this case will come up with a "correct decision" regarding CAFRA and how it should apply in the Langbord case if it applies at all. Whatever the majority of judges decide after the October hearing will be correct in my book.
TPRC,have you read Judge Legrome Davis' amazing August,2012 MEMORANDUM ? >>
Nope...I'll pull that too. Thx
Tom
Tom