Langbords win latest round of 1933 Double Eagle lawsuit

[MarkFeld]

(thumbs u

 

Appeals court decision

[coinman_23885]

I'm glad to hear it.

[Matt_dac]

Interesting....

[BillJones]

It's good to hear, but they are long way from home.

[BKW]

 

"At the insistence of the Mint and against the wisdom of the Secret Service and multiple other agencies, the Government opted to ignore CAFRA. Now, the Langbords are entitled to the return of the Double Eagles. We will reverse in pertinent part the District Court’s July 29, 2009 order, which denied the Langbords’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment concerning the applicability of CAFRA, and will vacate all orders at issue on appeal that postdate the July 29, 2009 order, including the jury verdict and the District Court’s order entering judgment. We will remand for the District Court to order the Government to return the Double Eagles to the Langbords."

 

 

That's a pretty big win. The 3d Circuit basically told the district court to go screw itself.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Scotus next probably if they think that won't be too embarrassing.

 

Does anyone know how much the Langbords have in legal fees into the case?

[wdrob]

 

Does anyone know how much the Langbords have in legal fees into the case?

 

I was wondering about that too. I wouldn't be surprised if the next lawsuit is against them for not paying their legal fees.

 

 

 

[BKW]

Doubt the Supreme Court would grant cert. for this case.

 

Maybe the attorneys are getting a couple of the coins.

[World Colonial]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

[BKW]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

 

I'll admit that I am not an expert on the Fenton / Farouk coin that sold for $7.6M, but why do you think the 3d Circuit ruling breaks any agreement? Why would the government have to compensate this buyer?

 

If the 3d Circuit opinion stands, then probably yes, with more examples in the marketplace, the value will probably decline; but I bet we would still see 7 figure numbers if the coins were sold, especially with their history.

[dcarr]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

 

The prior agreement that the US Treasury entered into upon selling the Farouk coin stipulates that the US Mint would never sell any other 1933 Double Eagles.

 

That agreement does not cover other coins not sold by the US Treasury.

 

[wdrob]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

 

I'll admit that I am not an expert on the Fenton / Farouk coin that sold for $7.6M, but why do you think the 3d Circuit ruling breaks any agreement? Why would the government have to compensate this buyer?

 

It is in the court document. King Farouk of Egypt had one of the 1933's and sold it to an English dealer named Stephen Fenton for $200k. Fenton contacted a American dealer (who turned states evidence) and set Fenton up and the Secret Service met Fenton in NYC and seized the coin.

 

They later reached an agreement where the coin would be auctioned and the proceeds split even between the government and Fenton. It sold for $7.6mm of which Fenton got half. If this sets precedent then the government could owe Fenton the other half of the $7.6mm if he were to try to pursue it under this precedent.

 

 

[BKW]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

 

I'll admit that I am not an expert on the Fenton / Farouk coin that sold for $7.6M, but why do you think the 3d Circuit ruling breaks any agreement? Why would the government have to compensate this buyer?

 

It is in the court document. King Farouk of Egypt had one of the 1933's and sold it to an English dealer named Stephen Fenton for $200k. Fenton contacted a American dealer (who turned states evidence) and set Fenton up and the Secret Service met Fenton in NYC and seized the coin.

 

They later reached an agreement where the coin would be auctioned and the proceeds split even between the government and Fenton. It sold for $7.6mm of which Fenton got half. If this sets precedent then the government could owe Fenton the other half of the $7.6mm if he were to try to pursue it under this precedent.

 

 

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

[wdrob]

 

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

 

Well it may not but considering that the sale of the earlier mentioned 1933 took place in 2002 and CAFRA was enacted into law in 2000 - could that not possibly open the door for inclusion?

 

I have not read the entire ruling but it is my understanding that the Langbords are not challenging the US Govt for 'part' ownership in the coins but the whole enchilada.

 

If this were to be upheld and CAFRA being a basis of the argument then one portion of CAFRA also stipulates that the government has a heightened burden of proof to overcome to establish rightful ownership. However the government in the Fenton situation caved in because they had issued an export license for that coin, which would be construed as relinquishment of rights to ownership.

 

If the government later, after CAFRA had become law, entered into an agreement which allowed someone to have possession of something that was already theirs to begin with, then the agreement is not valid and the government took monies to which they were not entitled to.

 

Just an opinion. Don't get bent out of shape too bad.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

 

I'll admit that I am not an expert on the Fenton / Farouk coin that sold for $7.6M, but why do you think the 3d Circuit ruling breaks any agreement? Why would the government have to compensate this buyer?

 

It is in the court document. King Farouk of Egypt had one of the 1933's and sold it to an English dealer named Stephen Fenton for $200k. Fenton contacted a American dealer (who turned states evidence) and set Fenton up and the Secret Service met Fenton in NYC and seized the coin.

 

They later reached an agreement where the coin would be auctioned and the proceeds split even between the government and Fenton. It sold for $7.6mm of which Fenton got half. If this sets precedent then the government could owe Fenton the other half of the $7.6mm if he were to try to pursue it under this precedent.

 

 

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

 

Nothing, as far as I can tell. And King Farouk certainly didn't sell the coin to Mr. Fenton, or anyone else, for that matter.

[wdrob]

Will the US government have to compensate the prior buyer of the only currently owned coin?

 

If this court case stands, I understand it will break the agreement the US Government had with this buyer and I also presume that with many more coins now legal, the market price of the first coin will decline.

 

I'll admit that I am not an expert on the Fenton / Farouk coin that sold for $7.6M, but why do you think the 3d Circuit ruling breaks any agreement? Why would the government have to compensate this buyer?

 

It is in the court document. King Farouk of Egypt had one of the 1933's and sold it to an English dealer named Stephen Fenton for $200k. Fenton contacted a American dealer (who turned states evidence) and set Fenton up and the Secret Service met Fenton in NYC and seized the coin.

 

They later reached an agreement where the coin would be auctioned and the proceeds split even between the government and Fenton. It sold for $7.6mm of which Fenton got half. If this sets precedent then the government could owe Fenton the other half of the $7.6mm if he were to try to pursue it under this precedent.

 

 

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

 

Nothing, as far as I can tell. And King Farouk certainly didn't sell the coin to Mr. Fenton, or anyone else, for that matter.

 

 

Here, let me fix that for you. I did not intend to imply the "the dead" were personally selling coins.

 

King Farouk of Egypt had one of the 1933's and it was sold to an English dealer named Stephen Fenton for $200k in 1995

 

 

 

.

 

[World Colonial]

DCarr answered my question. I was making an assumption that was not correct.

[BKW]

Not getting bent out of shape at all. Your opinion just isn't legally sound. I probably should have been less abrupt and explained better.

 

CAFRA has no application to the Fenton piece either then or now. This decision has absolutely no effect on the agreement entered into by the US government regarding the Fenton piece. There was no fraud or bad faith on the part of the government when it entered into that agreement and it remains valid. Now, if one party defaulted on their obligations under that agreement then there would be a breach; but even that wouldn't make the contract invalid.

 

In the Langbords case there isn't even an agreement. The circuit court vacated the district court's ruling and jury verdict and remanded, directing the lower court to order the government to return the coins. That doesn't constitute any sort of breach by the government of its previous agreement in the Fenton case.

 

The two matters are completely unrelated.

[coinman_23885]

Doubt the Supreme Court would grant cert. for this case.

 

Maybe the attorneys are getting a couple of the coins.

 

I think it is more likely that the government will ask for en banc review before the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems more viable given that it was a split (2-1) ruling. I think it was the right result, but I am not sure I agree 100% with the majority's opinion. I do agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant certiorari even if there was legal error as there is no important circuit conflict at play.

[RWB]

The decision is much more important than the immediate case.

[coinman_23885]

The decision is much more important than the immediate case.

 

I agree to an extent as it touches upon forfeiture law more generally, but unless there is a circuit conflict, SCOTUS would probably allow the issue to percolate in future cases in intermediate federal appellate courts before issuing a writ.

[BKW]

Doubt the Supreme Court would grant cert. for this case.

 

Maybe the attorneys are getting a couple of the coins.

 

I think it is more likely that the government will ask for en banc review before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems more viable given that it was a split (2-1) ruling. I think it was the right result, but I am not sure I agree 100% with the majority's opinion. I do agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant certiorari even if there was legal error as there is no important circuit conflict at play.

 

Agreed. I was mostly responding to Nutmeg's post about the Supreme Court and was typing hastily as I was at work. I think the decision was right as well; and that's speaking as a lawyer, not just a coin collector. Hope the government drops this - I mean there are so many other fun ways to waste taxpayer money

[coinman_23885]

Doubt the Supreme Court would grant cert. for this case.

 

Maybe the attorneys are getting a couple of the coins.

 

I think it is more likely that the government will ask for en banc review before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems more viable given that it was a split (2-1) ruling. I think it was the right result, but I am not sure I agree 100% with the majority's opinion. I do agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant certiorari even if there was legal error as there is no important circuit conflict at play.

 

Agreed. I was mostly responding to Nutmeg's post about the Supreme Court and was typing hastily as I was at work. I think the decision was right as well; and that's speaking as a lawyer, not just a coin collector. Hope the government drops this - I mean there are so many other fun ways to waste taxpayer money

 

I need to read the opinion and underlying statutes more thoroughly, but I am not sure that I agree and am curious as to your thoughts. If the government is correct that it solely holds title to the coins, then why should the government be forced to file a forfeiture case to take back its own property? This seems distinguishable from other forfeiture cases and I am not 100% convinced that the statutory scheme should have been applied.

[BKW]

"If the government is correct..."

 

That's the rub! Since ownership of the coins was murky, at best, the government couldn't know if it was correct that the coins were its property; an unbiased party (i.e a court) would have to determine that.

 

The government ignored the procedures set forth in CAFRA, a statute enacted to prevent government overreaching (a fact noted in the first paragraph of the opinion). It made a unilateral decision that it had ownership, without regard to the purported property rights of the Langfords. If the government had just filed a forfeiture complaint under CAFRA, the results may have came out differently.

 

This argument is the gist of pages 12-14 in the opinion (PDF version Mark linked to).

[wdrob]

Not getting bent out of shape at all. Your opinion just isn't legally sound. I probably should have been less abrupt and explained better.

 

CAFRA has no application to the Fenton piece either then or now. This decision has absolutely no effect on the agreement entered into by the US government regarding the Fenton piece. There was no fraud or bad faith on the part of the government when it entered into that agreement and it remains valid. Now, if one party defaulted on their obligations under that agreement then there would be a breach; but even that wouldn't make the contract invalid.

 

In the Langbords case there isn't even an agreement. The circuit court vacated the district court's ruling and jury verdict and remanded, directing the lower court to order the government to return the coins. That doesn't constitute any sort of breach by the government of its previous agreement in the Fenton case.

 

The two matters are completely unrelated.

 

Thanks for that explanation. I am curious though as to the court documents related to Fenton v U.S. as I have never found them. Would you happen to have a link to that?

 

From what little I have read about it some characterize it as a "long legal battle", surely his legal team would have introduced the argument that the US Government violated his 4th Amendment rights?

 

I assumed since this recent ruling also affirmed the violation of the the Langbord's 4th and 5th Amendment rights it would provide precedence for follow up from the other party.

 

Some folks are under the impression (not implying you) that the US Constitution and its protections are only granted to US Citizens, however that is not the case at all. The 14th Amendment makes this clear as well as the 5th Amendment that non citizens, within all US Territories are afforded the same protections.

 

If during the court proceedings in the Fenton case, the judge overruled a motion to dismiss based upon the government violating his 4th Amendment rights, then the subsequent agreement would be subject to contest since it was entered into contrary to the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. This view was not only held by the district court but affirmed by the circuit court of appeals in the Langbords case.

 

That is why I could see a relation, a stretch, but none the less a possibility.

 

But as you can see, I would not even qualify as a 'jailhouse lawyer' -- but I enjoy reading case law.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Not getting bent out of shape at all. Your opinion just isn't legally sound. I probably should have been less abrupt and explained better.

 

CAFRA has no application to the Fenton piece either then or now. This decision has absolutely no effect on the agreement entered into by the US government regarding the Fenton piece. There was no fraud or bad faith on the part of the government when it entered into that agreement and it remains valid. Now, if one party defaulted on their obligations under that agreement then there would be a breach; but even that wouldn't make the contract invalid.

 

In the Langbords case there isn't even an agreement. The circuit court vacated the district court's ruling and jury verdict and remanded, directing the lower court to order the government to return the coins. That doesn't constitute any sort of breach by the government of its previous agreement in the Fenton case.

 

The two matters are completely unrelated.

 

Thanks for that explanation. I am curious though as to the court documents related to Fenton v U.S. as I have never found them. Would you happen to have a link to that?

 

From what little I have read about it some characterize it as a "long legal battle", surely his legal team would have introduced the argument that the US Government violated his 4th Amendment rights?

 

I assumed since this recent ruling also affirmed the violation of the the Langbord's 4th and 5th Amendment rights it would provide precedence for follow up from the other party.

 

Some folks are under the impression (not implying you) that the US Constitution and its protections are only granted to US Citizens, however that is not the case at all. The 14th Amendment makes this clear as well as the 5th Amendment that non citizens, within all US Territories are afforded the same protections.

 

If during the court proceedings in the Fenton case, the judge overruled a motion to dismiss based upon the government violating his 4th Amendment rights, then the subsequent agreement would be subject to contest since it was entered into contrary to the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. This view was not only held by the district court but affirmed by the circuit court of appeals in the Langbords case.

 

That is why I could see a relation, a stretch, but none the less a possibility.

 

But as you can see, I would not even qualify as a 'jailhouse lawyer' -- but I enjoy reading case law.

 

 

 

As I understand it, the government did not appeal the constitutional rulings and that constitutes a waiver on appeal. With that said, any comments on the constitutional stuff would seemingly be dicta which carries no precedential value. I see this opinion as focusing predominantly on statutory law.

 

Edited: Moreover, opinions of federal district court judges are persuasive at best and are not binding. The non-dicta portions of the Third Circuit are binding only in that circuit. It is possible that another circuit would reach a different conclusion, and then, given the important questions of forfeiture law involved, I would see the other case as potentially obtaining a writ of certiorari from SCOTUS. Circuit conflicts are favorites for the Supremes. As it stands for this case, I don't see any important circuit conflicts.

[BKW]

Not getting bent out of shape at all. Your opinion just isn't legally sound. I probably should have been less abrupt and explained better.

 

CAFRA has no application to the Fenton piece either then or now. This decision has absolutely no effect on the agreement entered into by the US government regarding the Fenton piece. There was no fraud or bad faith on the part of the government when it entered into that agreement and it remains valid. Now, if one party defaulted on their obligations under that agreement then there would be a breach; but even that wouldn't make the contract invalid.

 

In the Langbords case there isn't even an agreement. The circuit court vacated the district court's ruling and jury verdict and remanded, directing the lower court to order the government to return the coins. That doesn't constitute any sort of breach by the government of its previous agreement in the Fenton case.

 

The two matters are completely unrelated.

 

Thanks for that explanation. I am curious though as to the court documents related to Fenton v U.S. as I have never found them. Would you happen to have a link to that?

 

From what little I have read about it some characterize it as a "long legal battle", surely his legal team would have introduced the argument that the US Government violated his 4th Amendment rights?

 

I assumed since this recent ruling also affirmed the violation of the the Langbord's 4th and 5th Amendment rights it would provide precedence for follow up from the other party.

 

Some folks are under the impression (not implying you) that the US Constitution and its protections are only granted to US Citizens, however that is not the case at all. The 14th Amendment makes this clear as well as the 5th Amendment that non citizens, within all US Territories are afforded the same protections.

 

If during the court proceedings in the Fenton case, the judge overruled a motion to dismiss based upon the government violating his 4th Amendment rights, then the subsequent agreement would be subject to contest since it was entered into contrary to the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. This view was not only held by the district court but affirmed by the circuit court of appeals in the Langbords case.

 

That is why I could see a relation, a stretch, but none the less a possibility.

 

But as you can see, I would not even qualify as a 'jailhouse lawyer' -- but I enjoy reading case law.

 

 

 

You won't find any legal authority on Fenton because the case settled before trial. This effectively left the matter "in limbo." Since the case settled without a clear verdict the door remained open for the government to seize other coins, which happened in the Langbord case. However, the 3d Circuit decision was mostly procedural in nature; namely the government didn't follow the due process rights of the Constitution or the requirements of a federal statute, CAFRA. It didn't settle whether it is legal to own, buy or sell any 1933 double eagle that may be discovered. And, of course, the decision is only binding precedent in the 3d circuit (NJ, PA, DE and the Virgin Islands).

 

Oh, and of course, the Langbords' attorney was the same as Fenton's, Barry Berke.

[Nutmeg Coin]

So the matter is not settled at this point as to the Langbord's right to the coins to do with them as they please, I assume.

 

I saw this on another forum: "10 - Rare 1933 St. Gaudens Returned to Family by U.S. Appeals Court" with these article references:

 

http://www.windstream.net/news/read/category/General/article/the_associated_press-family_wins_back_seized_gold_coins_that_could_be_w-ap

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/family-wins-back-seized-gold-coins-worth-80m-30402574

 

Not so fast. When would they regain physical possession of the coins?

[WoodenJefferson]

WOW...just wow!

[michael]

how many of the approx. 25-75 supposed to exist will come out of "hiding"?

 

and will these 1933 double eagles be legal to sell?