• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1933 Double Eagle update in Coin World

17 posts in this topic

For those following the 1933 Double Eagles “soap opera,” there are two new research articles in the September 6, 2010 issue of Coin World (page 5) that might be of interest. (Edition available on-line.)

 

The new information not only shows that production of the coins began much earlier than thought, but that some were removed from initial production and probably put in the Cashier’s safe.

 

The research was conducted as objective investigation, and the documents “tell their own story.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Roger. I just read the story, and I think it makes the Langbord's side of the lawsuit even stronger.

 

Perhaps Izzy Switt obtained his coins in a surreptitious manner, but perhaps he didn't. It does not seem like a stretch to believe that he paid full value for them and obtained them in a perfectly acceptable/legal manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have my reference with me, but wasn't there a trial in the late 40s that lasted a few years over one of 1933 Double Eagles? If these records were prepared for that trial, then the Justice Department can be faulted for not properly handling a discovery motion by the defendant. I'm sure the statute of limitations have expired, but it brings up an interesting question as to whether the government acted properly in seizing the other coins and whether descendants who had the coins confiscated could take action against the government?

 

Perhaps Izzy Swift obtained his coins in a surreptitious manner, but perhaps he didn't. It does not seem like a stretch to believe that he paid full value for them and obtained them in a perfectly acceptable/legal manner.

When prosecutors bring a case to trial based on circumstantial evidence, one tactic they use is the defendant's integrity. Israel Switt was not exactly an angel in his business dealings. While it is possible that Switt could have obtained these coins legitimately, the circumstances of this business practices can suggest that the coins were not obtained legitimately.

 

Although we will never know whether Switt did or did not obtain these Double Eagles legitimately, the possibility of being able to do so creates a reasonable doubt, or in this case showing how the government has liked in the past about the potential provenance of these coins, does not look good for the government.

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have my reference with me, but wasn't there a trial in the late 40s that lasted a few years over one of 1933 Double Eagles? If these records were prepared for that trial, then the Justice Department can be faulted for not properly handling a discovery motion by the defendant. I'm sure the statute of limitations have expired, but it brings up an interesting question as to whether the government acted properly in seizing the other coins and whether descendants who had the coins confiscated could take action against the government?

 

Perhaps Izzy Swift obtained his coins in a surreptitious manner, but perhaps he didn't. It does not seem like a stretch to believe that he paid full value for them and obtained them in a perfectly acceptable/legal manner.

When prosecutors bring a case to trial based on circumstantial evidence, one tactic they use is the defendant's integrity. Israel Switt was not exactly an angel in his business dealings. While it is possible that Switt could have obtained these coins legitimately, the circumstances of this business practices can suggest that the coins were not obtained legitimately.

 

Although we will never know whether Switt did or did not obtain these Double Eagles legitimately, the possibility of being able to do so creates a reasonable doubt, or in this case showing how the government has liked in the past about the potential provenance of these coins, does not look good for the government.

 

Scott

I agree about Izzy. But, it's a civil case, and the burden of proof will be a preponderance of the evidence. However, the case will almost certainly be won (or lost) on the basis of which party is (pun intended) burdened with the burden of proof. That has yet to be determined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOH, OOH - some great material here!

 

It's always great to find some pertinant documents instead of just relying on hear-say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government should bear the burden of proof and to me, the idea that they should not have to is absurd.

 

To require the defendants to prove proper title 77 years later would be the equivalent of the absurd standards permitted under the "asset forfeiture" laws and tax disputes with the IRS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When prosecutors bring a case to trial based on circumstantial evidence, one tactic they use is the defendant's integrity. Israel Switt was not exactly an angel in his business dealings. While it is possible that Switt could have obtained these coins legitimately, the circumstances of this business practices can suggest that the coins were not obtained legitimately.

 

 

:applause: (thumbs u :applause:

 

hope the govt wins

 

the heirs knew about the coins and hid them years after izzys death

 

again hope the govt wins

 

 

but it does look doubtful maybe a split like the fenton case??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great article Roger, well written and exceptionally well researched!

 

 

 

Great article indeed. I just re-read the article again. Great information!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about Izzy. But, it's a civil case, and the burden of proof will be a preponderance of the evidence. However, the case will almost certainly be won (or lost) on the basis of which party is (pun intended) burdened with the burden of proof. That has yet to be determined.

Civil case... hmmm... good point! ;)

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When prosecutors bring a case to trial based on circumstantial evidence, one tactic they use is the defendant's integrity. Israel Switt was not exactly an angel in his business dealings. While it is possible that Switt could have obtained these coins legitimately, the circumstances of this business practices can suggest that the coins were not obtained legitimately.

 

 

:applause: (thumbs u :applause:

 

hope the govt wins

 

the heirs knew about the coins and hid them years after izzys death

 

again hope the govt wins

 

 

but it does look doubtful maybe a split like the fenton case??

Michael, how do you know that Switt's heirs knew about and hid the coins for years after hsi death? You don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When prosecutors bring a case to trial based on circumstantial evidence, one tactic they use is the defendant's integrity. Israel Switt was not exactly an angel in his business dealings. While it is possible that Switt could have obtained these coins legitimately, the circumstances of this business practices can suggest that the coins were not obtained legitimately.

 

 

:applause: (thumbs u :applause:

 

hope the govt wins

 

the heirs knew about the coins and hid them years after izzys death

 

again hope the govt wins

 

 

but it does look doubtful maybe a split like the fenton case??

 

If the government can prove that they were stolen and that the heirs knew about, I agree with you. Otherwise, the government deserves to lose and they should. Good luck on that account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When prosecutors bring a case to trial based on circumstantial evidence, one tactic they use is the defendant's integrity. Israel Switt was not exactly an angel in his business dealings. While it is possible that Switt could have obtained these coins legitimately, the circumstances of this business practices can suggest that the coins were not obtained legitimately.

 

 

:applause: (thumbs u :applause:

 

hope the govt wins

 

the heirs knew about the coins and hid them years after izzys death

 

again hope the govt wins

 

 

but it does look doubtful maybe a split like the fenton case??

 

If the government can prove that they were stolen and that the heirs knew about, I agree with you. Otherwise, the government deserves to lose and they should. Good luck on that account.

Actually, if the coins were stolen and the government can prove it, I don't think it should matter whether the heirs were unaware of it or not - they should lose ownership. But on a practical basis, I don't see any way that it can be proved the coins were stolen, and feel that the heirs should prevail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the government can prove that they were stolen and that the heirs knew about, I agree with you. Otherwise, the government deserves to lose and they should. Good luck on that account.
Actually, if the coins were stolen and the government can prove it, I don't think it should matter whether the heirs were unaware of it or not - they should lose ownership. But on a practical basis, I don't see any way that it can be proved the coins were stolen, and feel that the heirs should prevail.

One of the problems the government ran into when trying to litigate over the Farouk/Fenton piece is that not only could the government not prove provenance, they could not disprove it either. As Roger pointed out in his research, the records are so inconclusive that even in a civil case, the Langbord family can inject so much doubt in the government's assertions that the judge will have no choice but rule against the government.

 

Another fact in the Langbord's favor is that government prepared documents for one of the trials shows that the government lied to the court. It does not matter that none of the principals in this matter were involved in the 1940s. The government is the one constant and Langbord lawyers could say that the facts have been covered up since 1933 and ask for summary judgment against the government. They probably wouldn't get it, but they could make a strong argument!

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difficult to know what the judge will say --- it's been a long time since the last rullings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites