Langbords win!

[CaptHenway]

Appeal COurt rules that the government missed the deadline to file for forfiture and must return the 10 1933 $20's to the Langbords!

 

Their attorney is a genius!

[jom]

MUHAHAH! The government just cannot get out of its own way. What a bunch of clowns.

 

The decision was wrong IMO so I guess it worked out the right way nonetheless.

 

jom

 

[CaptHenway]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/17/goldcoins-ruling-idUSL2N0XE19F20150417

[physics-fan3.14]

Ha! Got off on a technicality. Just like OJ!

[CaptHenway]

That technicality is there to keep the Government from ignoring people's rights.

[MorganMan]

.

 

I am not so sure it is over yet.

 

Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger in Philadelphia, said: "We are weighing our options."

[BillJones]

That technicality is there to keep the Government from ignoring people's rights.

 

I think that the Federal Government has become a bully, not the protector of our rights.

[MarkFeld]

.

 

I am not so sure it is over yet.

 

Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger in Philadelphia, said: "We are weighing our options."

 

I'm not either, but not because of an obligatory comment like that.

[BillJones]

.

 

I am not so sure it is over yet.

 

Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger in Philadelphia, said: "We are weighing our options."

 

I'm not either, but not because of an obligatory comment like that.

 

The government has infinite resources to spend on this case, and that might be their way to win the it via legal exhaustion if not on the merits. If the case does go to a jury trial again, I'm sure that the government can pick a panel full of stooges who will vote the government's way again.

 

This country is now full of people are green with envy at anyone who has considerable assets, whether they have worked and saved for them or not. The political landscape has really changed with the passing of the World War II "best generation" who believed in hard work, saving and property rights.

 

As for the Langbords winning, that is far from certain. This legal battle is a 15 round prize fight. The Longbords lost the first 13 rounds and won on points in the 14th round. The government is ready to deliver the knock-out blow in the 15th with all the money and might it can muster.

[casman]

.

 

I am not so sure it is over yet.

 

Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger in Philadelphia, said: "We are weighing our options."

 

I'm not either, but not because of an obligatory comment like that.

 

I'm not either, but only because my appellate guru told me so.

[GoldFinger1969]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

 

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I would not have had a problem if the family had moved the coins outside US jurisdiction when the query was made. And at least one of the two major grading services have said that they keep all submissions confidential, so submitted coins don't get turned over to the authorities unless you are dealer with a major theft, etc., and this is in a different category.

[Kurtdog]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

They tried to cash off the coins with the Mint. They asked for $40,000,000, then said, "Just give us $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, and we won't ask for anything else, ever again!"

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

They tried to cash off the coins with the Mint. They asked for $40,000,000, then said, "Just give us $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, and we won't ask for anything else, ever again!"

 

So? What is dishonest about being a Capitalist?

 

What is wrong with bargaining? What is the duty to disclose?

 

They do not have the Right to protect their position?

 

How much do you think the Government spent of your tax dollars on this fiasco? The Government may have been better off taking the deal

 

What Law was broken?

[CaptHenway]

The Mint has never justified the charge that the coins were "stolen."

[Prethen]

I bet the owner of the original "single legal' 1933 is ticked off!!!

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Mint has never justified the charge that the coins were "stolen."

 

Exactly my point. Goldfinger has the thought that they should have been a little more honest and forthcoming...sort of an implication that the Langbords were dishonest. Mr. Kurt is somewhat indicating a degree of dishonesty and implying a sinister action by the Langbord bargaining posture.

 

A Feld Hypothetical: the Government is able to prove the coins were stolen. So? How does this transfer to dishonesty on the part of the Langbords? Did they steal them? Is it guilt by association?

 

This is the Bond Case of Numismatics. It almost borders on spiteful action by the Government. The Government has failed to prove anything, since not one witness or document supports the Government position, yet the Government pursues the issue. It is malicious. Yes, one could make the argument that the Government is using this as a springboard test case because it would have far reaching implications in other issues (ahem....the Art work hanging in MOMA/Smithsonian/Philly....cough,cough). My problem with that is it is our dime being spent, without any beneficial result. It is still a quagmire. It is still going to cost all of us, because the Government can't let this go. Bigger issues in the mind of the Feds compels a continuation of the Case. It is career building/destroying territory.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

They tried to cash off the coins with the Mint. They asked for $40,000,000, then said, "Just give us $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, and we won't ask for anything else, ever again!"

 

So? What is dishonest about being a Capitalist?

 

What is wrong with bargaining? What is the duty to disclose?

 

They do not have the Right to protect their position?

 

How much do you think the Government spent of your tax dollars on this fiasco? The Government may have been better off taking the deal

 

What Law was broken?

I'm just stating a fact. When they surrendered custody of the coins they were looking for a quick paycheck based on the presumption their possession equals ownership.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

They tried to cash off the coins with the Mint. They asked for $40,000,000, then said, "Just give us $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, and we won't ask for anything else, ever again!"

 

So? What is dishonest about being a Capitalist?

 

What is wrong with bargaining? What is the duty to disclose?

 

They do not have the Right to protect their position?

 

How much do you think the Government spent of your tax dollars on this fiasco? The Government may have been better off taking the deal

 

What Law was broken?

I'm just stating a fact. When they surrendered custody of the coins they were looking for a quick paycheck based on the presumption their possession equals ownership.

 

So? Again, exactly what is wrong with that approach to the Government? How is it an implication of dishonesty or hint of guilt? The presumption so far seems to be working in their favor. They do own the coins, until the Court rules differently.

 

The previous one coin wonder owner certainly bargained and negotiated with the Government. Why is the original Langbord approach any different? After all, the Government sort of encouraged such an approach by the Langbords, via the Government action with the one coin wonder. Ooooppppps.....

[RWB]

Not one person posting knows anything about discussions between the parties; even if they did, disclosure would violate privilege and or Court rules.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Not one person posting knows anything about discussions between the parties; even if they did, disclosure would violate privilege and or Court rules.

 

I think I might have touched on that.....

[Kurtdog]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

They tried to cash off the coins with the Mint. They asked for $40,000,000, then said, "Just give us $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, and we won't ask for anything else, ever again!"

So? What is dishonest about being a Capitalist?

 

What is wrong with bargaining? What is the duty to disclose?

 

They do not have the Right to protect their position?

 

How much do you think the Government spent of your tax dollars on this fiasco? The Government may have been better off taking the deal

What Law was broken?

I'm just stating a fact. When they surrendered custody of the coins they were looking for a quick paycheck based on the presumption their possession equals ownership.

So? Again, exactly what is wrong with that approach to the Government? How is it an implication of dishonesty or hint of guilt? The presumption so far seems to be working in their favor. They do own the coins, until the Court rules differently.

 

The previous one coin wonder owner certainly bargained and negotiated with the Government. Why is the original Langbord approach any different? After all, the Government sort of encouraged such an approach by the Langbords, via the Government action with the one coin wonder. Ooooppppps.....

Oh, mess, do I have to answer those questions? Let me see if I can throw you one better. There were two jury verdicts in the District Court case, are you familiar with those? If not, tell you what, start here. This was all brought out in the Dissent. See if this helps you understand better. If you come away thinking, "Wow, this Opinion just disturbed two jury verdicts supported by the facts adduced at trial on a technicality that's questionable in its application, at best," I'll tell you, I think you're onto something, finally:

 

As to the Langbords’ knowledge, the Government presented evidence that in 2002, after reading a New York Times article about the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle (which mentioned Switt), Roy Langbord called Joan Langbord to ask if Switt (his grandfather) had kept any more of the coins. Joan Langbord admitted to looking into the safe deposit box that contained the Double Eagles many times over the years, including the day before the Fenton coin was auctioned, but maintained that she knew nothing about the coins until she discovered them at the bottom of the same safe deposit box in 2003. As the District Court noted,

 

“the evidence supports an inference that Joan Langbord knew her father had stolen the coins and hidden them in the family’s safe deposit box; she found the coins well before the Fenton ’33 Double Eagle went up for auction and continued to conceal them; her son Roy also knew of the questionable provenance of [the] 1933 Double Eagles, at least after reading the New York Times piece in 2002; and the Langbords decided to reveal the coins to the Government only after learning of their immense monetary value, hoping to cash-in like Stephen Fenton did.”

 

Thus, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and the District Court’s declaratory judgment that the coins left the Mint illegally, that Switt was involved, that his relatives knew that the coins’ acquisition was illegal and continued to conceal them, and thus, that the coins should be forfeited. None of the evidence discussed above relies upon the Secret Service reports, the admissibility of which, as the majority references, was contested on appeal on hearsay grounds.

 

On Count II (declaratory judgment), the District Court declared:

 

“The disputed Double Eagles were not lawfully removed from the United States Mint and accordingly, as a matter of law, they remain the property of the United States, regardless of (1) the applicability of CAFRA to the disputed Double Eagles, (2) Claimants’ state of mind with respect to the coins, or (3) how the coins came into the Claimants’ possession.”

 

Though the majority’s entire objection to the Government’s position in this case stems from the Government’s failure to file a forfeiture suit, and its failure to do so within the 90-day period that CAFRA fixes for that action, the majority gives no credit to the result of the judgment.

[Conder101]

and the Langbords decided to reveal the coins to the Government only after learning of their immense monetary value, hoping to cash-in like Stephen Fenton did.”

So she "concealed" them before she knew they were valuable. Is it possible in the times when she saw them in the box she just thought they were plain ole common double eagles and nothing special?

 

Then Fenton sells his, makes headlines, and she gets asked about them they look again ad lo and behold these are 1933 double eagles as well!

 

Though the majority’s entire objection to the Government’s position in this case stems from the Government’s failure to file a forfeiture suit, and its failure to do so within the 90-day period that CAFRA fixes for that action, the majority gives no credit to the result of the judgment.

Because with the finding on the CAFRA deadline (Which occurred before the circuit case), there IS no judgement to give credit to.

[World Colonial]

How can the coins have been "stolen" if the inventory records did not disclose a shortage?

 

The possibilities I can see are these:

 

Not being aware of the inventory records, they might have believed they were stolen.

 

They knew they were not stolen but concurrently knew they had been obtained after FDR's executive order, making ownership "illegal".

 

They didn't know whether they had been obtained before or after FDR's executive order but apparently, cannot prove they were obtained before or else they would have done so.

 

Your posts indicates it is either #2 or #3. In any event, their "guilty" behavior can be explained by concurrently knowing the petty spitefulness (my description) of the government based upon the prior instances such as with Eliasberg. If they knew about the coins, it seems reasonable to me they also knew about the precedents and had a valid reason to believe the government would act as it did.

 

Like I said in my prior post, others here know more about this case than I do. At the same time, their supposed "guilty" behavior can be explained by many people's fear of the government whether others think it makes sense or not.

[CaptHenway]

It is very dangerous for a governmental agency to be able to declare something "illegal" without a basis in fact. What might they declare "illegal" next?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am glad that the Langbord's won (at this point) and wish that the Treasury had accepted a similar settlement to the other 1933 Double Eagle.

 

However, I wish the Langbord's had been more honest and open about the coins over the years. I do believe that they knew (or Mrs. Langbord at least) about the 10 coins all those years. There is no proof that Izzy Switt 'stole' the coins and the submitted evidence by many (including RB) is that swaps and exchanges probably accounted for all the 1933 coins sneaking out into general circulation.

What is dishonest/less than honest about non-disclosure, considering the action of the Government previously in similar type issues? I would think it was not in their interests to disclose until circumstances were such that it was the correct legal position. I would think the actions/inaction taken/not taken were with adequate legal advice.

 

So they knew about the coins. It was not settled that a Law was broken, or that there was a duty to disclose.

They tried to cash off the coins with the Mint. They asked for $40,000,000, then said, "Just give us $7,000,000 or $8,000,000, and we won't ask for anything else, ever again!"

So? What is dishonest about being a Capitalist?

 

What is wrong with bargaining? What is the duty to disclose?

 

They do not have the Right to protect their position?

 

How much do you think the Government spent of your tax dollars on this fiasco? The Government may have been better off taking the deal

What Law was broken?

I'm just stating a fact. When they surrendered custody of the coins they were looking for a quick paycheck based on the presumption their possession equals ownership.

So? Again, exactly what is wrong with that approach to the Government? How is it an implication of dishonesty or hint of guilt? The presumption so far seems to be working in their favor. They do own the coins, until the Court rules differently.

 

The previous one coin wonder owner certainly bargained and negotiated with the Government. Why is the original Langbord approach any different? After all, the Government sort of encouraged such an approach by the Langbords, via the Government action with the one coin wonder. Ooooppppps.....

Oh, mess, do I have to answer those questions? Let me see if I can throw you one better. There were two jury verdicts in the District Court case, are you familiar with those? If not, tell you what, start here. This was all brought out in the Dissent. See if this helps you understand better. If you come away thinking, "Wow, this Opinion just disturbed two jury verdicts supported by the facts adduced at trial on a technicality that's questionable in its application, at best," I'll tell you, I think you're onto something, finally:

 

As to the Langbords’ knowledge, the Government presented evidence that in 2002, after reading a New York Times article about the Fenton 1933 Double Eagle (which mentioned Switt), Roy Langbord called Joan Langbord to ask if Switt (his grandfather) had kept any more of the coins. Joan Langbord admitted to looking into the safe deposit box that contained the Double Eagles many times over the years, including the day before the Fenton coin was auctioned, but maintained that she knew nothing about the coins until she discovered them at the bottom of the same safe deposit box in 2003. As the District Court noted,

 

“the evidence supports an inference that Joan Langbord knew her father had stolen the coins and hidden them in the family’s safe deposit box; she found the coins well before the Fenton ’33 Double Eagle went up for auction and continued to conceal them; her son Roy also knew of the questionable provenance of [the] 1933 Double Eagles, at least after reading the New York Times piece in 2002; and the Langbords decided to reveal the coins to the Government only after learning of their immense monetary value, hoping to cash-in like Stephen Fenton did.”

 

Thus, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and the District Court’s declaratory judgment that the coins left the Mint illegally, that Switt was involved, that his relatives knew that the coins’ acquisition was illegal and continued to conceal them, and thus, that the coins should be forfeited. None of the evidence discussed above relies upon the Secret Service reports, the admissibility of which, as the majority references, was contested on appeal on hearsay grounds.

 

On Count II (declaratory judgment), the District Court declared:

 

“The disputed Double Eagles were not lawfully removed from the United States Mint and accordingly, as a matter of law, they remain the property of the United States, regardless of (1) the applicability of CAFRA to the disputed Double Eagles, (2) Claimants’ state of mind with respect to the coins, or (3) how the coins came into the Claimants’ possession.”

 

Though the majority’s entire objection to the Government’s position in this case stems from the Government’s failure to file a forfeiture suit, and its failure to do so within the 90-day period that CAFRA fixes for that action, the majority gives no credit to the result of the judgment.

 

I think you are reading inference as proof and fact of guilt.

I am not sure why you have a frustration, but, the dispute remains open ended, any dishonesty you personally as believe occurred is not proved, any guilt you personally believe is not proved, the Langbords were not involved physically in the original exchange.

 

Thank you for your Post, and while I have a passing familiarity with the dispute, I lack the personal ability to assign guilt of any action or dishonest intent, without proof of same.

 

Inference is not proof.

 

We will agree to disagree, and hope that you never have to experience the power of the Government if they want to take what you have.

[Nutmeg Coin]

The discussion of this topic has been more thorough here than elsewhere IMO. There is a good reason the Langbords went with NGC to get the coins graded.

[Hard Times]

The discussion of this topic has been more thorough here than elsewhere IMO. There is a good reason the Langbords went with NGC to get the coins graded.

 

Where else would they go, why not go with the best! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

[CaptHenway]

I thought that the U.S. Mint submitted them.