Langbords win latest round of 1933 Double Eagle lawsuit

[Kurtdog]

Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful if we understood, right off, this case isn't purporting to address any of that. It's rather purporting to address a very narrow statutory issue, that issue being, whether the Government could, to borrow from the language of the Court, "unilaterally ignore [the] seized asset claim." Is this a seized asset? Hmmm...

 

The District Court is now going to order the return of the Double Eagles, but the Government isn't going to do that. Read the Dissent. There's much more going on, here, issue-wise, than this Court credits. I'll let that go at that.

 

BTW, what are the Court's citations to "J.A.?" Is that a brief? What is "J.A.?"

You know the details a lot better than I do, as do many others here.

 

I know this isn't what the case is about, but to me the bottom line is that if the government can't prove they were stolen based upon the inventory records and they can't prove one way or another when the swap occurred since this seems the more logical outcome, then by default the coins were obtained legitimately.

 

So basically, it seems to me they are trying to use legal mumbo jumbo to steal property they cannot prove is theirs. I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent which is the way I see the government's position based upon my very limited knowledge of the case. This is IRS logic which I consider completely bogus.

 

I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe the coins were obtained "illegally" but since I consider FDR's executive order unconstitutional anyway, I don't care. I also don't think much of the Supreme Courts interpretation of many constitutional issues legitimate either and this goers back at least to the 1930's. The asset forfeiture laws which I understand are a consideration here are one of them.

 

So basically, I think the government deserves to lose this case because I think it is BS.

I still don't know what "J.A." means. Do you have any idea? I'll bet RWB knows. I know, let's ask J.A. at CAC what "J.A." means, he knows everything.

[BillJones]

I think J.A. means "Judicial Appeal".

[mommam17]

I think J. A. means John Albanese and he's PERFECT.........

[BillJones]

I think J. A. means John Albanese and he's PERFECT.........

 

I wrote about that before but changed it. No use poking the hornet's nest over a misunderstanding.

[mommam17]

You are a hornets nest over CAC. You have a beef with collectors who put too much faith in John. You have a beef because John has too much power. You have a beef because it will cost too much to send your coins to CAC. You have a beef because some say John is perfect. Maybe some of your coins didn't sticker and this is the reason for the beef??

 

[Kurtdog]

I think J.A. means "Judicial Appeal".

It's a citation to authority of some kind relied on by the Majority in the Opinion. Here's an example...

 

"The Mint’s attorneys stated that they “would be willing to discuss the matter” and that they were “amenable to a discussion” on that topic. (J.A. 142.) The Langbords, explicitly reserving their rights to the Double Eagles, made the coins available to the Government for the sole purpose of authentication. (J.A. 806.)"

[Kurtdog]

You are a hornets nest over CAC. You have a beef with collectors who put too much faith in John. You have a beef because John has too much power. You have a beef because it will cost too much to send your coins to CAC. You have a beef because some say John is perfect. Maybe some of your coins didn't sticker and this is the reason for the beef??

You seem to know a lot. What do you think it means?

[mommam17]

It's a citation to authority of some kind relied on by the Majority in the Opinion.

[wdrob]

 

I was under the impression that it referred to pre-trial preparation on part of the Judicial Assistant to the Judge(s).

 

i.e; The JA (Clerk) would in the course of performing all the mundane tasks associated with the case present a brief prior to trial that the Judge(s) could then rely on for evidence not in dispute, yet are required to be part of the court record in some manner.

 

 

 

 

[Kurtdog]

It's a citation to authority of some kind relied on by the Majority in the Opinion.

Now who's being smart? At least Bill had an answer. The Majority hangs on "J.A." as some sort of fact witness. Could it be witness transcript from the trial? If so, who is "J.A.?"

[mommam17]

I guess you did not read what Bill deleted......

 

[Kurtdog]

I guess you did not read what Bill deleted......

I don't know. Now if you'd have quoted him...

 

Really, "J.A." is all over that Majority Opinion. Again, I'll bet RWB knows.

[Nutmeg Coin]

You gotta love all those confusing abbreviations, in this case a legal one but the internet is full of them. YMMV FWIW.

 

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/textmessageabbreviations.asp

 

I didn't see the JA one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legal_abbreviations

 

Now that JA has achieved supremacy in the numismatic world why isn't he President or running for higher office?

[Kurtdog]

Now that JA has achieved supremacy in the numismatic world why isn't he President or running for higher office?

. I doubt he has any aspirations to be President, though, Nutmeg, much less the aptitude. But I wouldn't be surprised if this Opinion gets his green bean. I think Mark Feld ought to submit it.

 

[coinman_23885]

If the government held title as the declaratory judgment provided in accordance with the fact finders' verdict, then then how can the Langbords forfeit an interest they never legally had? That is why I find the whole application of CAFRA odd....[it] strikes me as absurd as it changes the meaning of what it means to "forfeit" something. And Section 683 is clear that the statutory scheme applies to non-judicial forfeiture. For the reasons above, I do not think this was a forfeiture as that term is legally defined and I think it was erroneous to apply CAFRA. This is why I think en banc review before the full Third Circuit is likely.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit published its en banc ruling on August 1, 2016. For those who want a summary, the passage quoted above and the bolded part summarizes the en banc majority opinion. CAFRA was held inapplicable because the seizure of government property did not implicate forfeiture. The Third Circuit also rejected the evidentiary challenges as harmless error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling in its entirety over dissent.