Langbords win!

[seventee]

Hello,good morning everyone

 

Lately,I've been ATS doing quite a bit of posting in the Langbord's win thread over there.

 

It was stated by a poster over there,"Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4,1933."

 

Question:The Mint Cashier was provided with only forty-three 1933 Doubles a mere two days after production of 1933 Double Eagles commenced on March 2,1933?

 

According to David Tripp in his book,Illegal Tender,the first 1933 Doubles delivery of the Coiner to the Cashier was 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7.Twenty-five thousand 1933 Doubles in 100 sealed bags,250 coins each bag were delivered to the Cashier March 15,1933.

 

The fact that the first delivery of gold Doubles was made as described by Tripp is in the Mint's own written records.See Illegal Tender,p.61.

 

Question: Where is the Mint's written record that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, two days after production began?

 

Question: What does the record look like and is there a reason indicated on the record for the delivery of only 43 1933 Doubles to the Cashier on March 4,1933?

 

It was suggested by a poster ATS that I direct my questions about the alleged March 4 delivery to Mr. Burdette who posts here.

 

RWB care to respond?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Hello,good morning everyone

 

Lately,I've been ATS doing quite a bit of posting in the Langbord's win thread over there.

It was stated by a poster over there,"Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4,1933."

 

Question:The Mint Cashier was provided with only forty-three 1933 Doubles a mere two days after production of 1933 Double Eagles commenced on March 2,1933?

 

According to David Tripp in his book,Illegal Tender,the first 1933 Doubles

delivery of the Coiner to the Cashier was 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7.Twenty-five thousand 1933 Doubles in 100 sealed bags,250 coins each bag were delivered to the Cashier March 15,1933.

 

The fact that the first delivery of gold Doubles was made as described by Tripp is in the Mint's own written records.See Illegal Tender,p.61.

 

Question: Where is the Mint's written record that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, two days after production began?

 

Question: What does the record look like and is there a reason indicated on the record for the delivery of only 43 1933 Doubles to the Cashier on March 4,1933?

 

It was suggested by a poster ATS that I direct my questions about the alleged March 4 delivery to Mr. Burdette who posts here.

 

RWB care to respond?

 

 

Welcome. I have seen some of your posts on the other forum.

 

Regardless of the answers to your above questions, if the coins were exchanged for other Saints of a different date or dates, there was no theft involved.

 

There is no evidence or report that there was any shortage of Saints.

 

Such exchanges were legal and not particularly unusual. Additionally, it is known that not all of the exchanges were recorded.

 

After you have read Alison Frankel's book on the subject, I think you might have a different impression regarding what might have occurred. That is, if you're open minded about it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hello,good morning everyone

 

Lately,I've been ATS doing quite a bit of posting in the Langbord's win thread over there.

 

It was stated by a poster over there,"Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4,1933."

 

Question:The Mint Cashier was provided with only forty-three 1933 Doubles a mere two days after production of 1933 Double Eagles commenced on March 2,1933?

 

According to David Tripp in his book,Illegal Tender,the first 1933 Doubles delivery of the Coiner to the Cashier was 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7.Twenty-five thousand 1933 Doubles in 100 sealed bags,250 coins each bag were delivered to the Cashier March 15,1933.

 

The fact that the first delivery of gold Doubles was made as described by Tripp is in the Mint's own written records.See Illegal Tender,p.61.

 

Question: Where is the Mint's written record that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, two days after production began?

 

Question: What does the record look like and is there a reason indicated on the record for the delivery of only 43 1933 Doubles to the Cashier on March 4,1933?

 

It was suggested by a poster ATS that I direct my questions about the alleged March 4 delivery to Mr. Burdette who posts here.

 

RWB care to respond?

 

 

You have used the words "...a mere 2 days...".

I am curious if the use of "...a mere..." is in your opinion open minded or indicative of a smoking gun theory.

 

What would be unusual, in your opinion, of a 2 day delivery after production? Is there a timetable that is published or a Rule that is required to be followed for a certain number of days to pass?

 

Is it possible that Mr. Burdette, a very accomplished numismatic information researcher, could have found heretofore unknown information?

 

Does the fact of delivery you mention that is in the book by Mr. Tripp, rule out the fact that Mr. Burdette is also correct, or is there a suspicion, in your opinion, that Mr. Burdette is incorrect? is it your opinion that the Mint had and has perfect records and therefore anything to the contrary must be incorrect?

 

Does your use of the word 'alleged" form a preconceived notion of incorrectness of the position attributed to Mr. Burdette?

 

Do you know if the 4 March date has been addressed by the Parties involved? Has it been addressed by the Court?

[Kurtdog]

Hello,good morning everyone

 

Lately,I've been ATS doing quite a bit of posting in the Langbord's win thread over there.

 

It was stated by a poster over there,"Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4,1933."

 

Question:The Mint Cashier was provided with only forty-three 1933 Doubles a mere two days after production of 1933 Double Eagles commenced on March 2,1933?

 

According to David Tripp in his book,Illegal Tender,the first 1933 Doubles delivery of the Coiner to the Cashier was 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7.Twenty-five thousand 1933 Doubles in 100 sealed bags,250 coins each bag were delivered to the Cashier March 15,1933.

 

The fact that the first delivery of gold Doubles was made as described by Tripp is in the Mint's own written records.See Illegal Tender,p.61.

 

Question: Where is the Mint's written record that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, two days after production began?

 

Question: What does the record look like and is there a reason indicated on the record for the delivery of only 43 1933 Doubles to the Cashier on March 4,1933?

 

It was suggested by a poster ATS that I direct my questions about the alleged March 4 delivery to Mr. Burdette who posts here.

 

RWB care to respond?

I'm going to go with, "No."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hello,good morning everyone

 

Lately,I've been ATS doing quite a bit of posting in the Langbord's win thread over there.

 

It was stated by a poster over there,"Dec. 28, 2010, I noted that Burdette discovered that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4,1933."

 

Question:The Mint Cashier was provided with only forty-three 1933 Doubles a mere two days after production of 1933 Double Eagles commenced on March 2,1933?

 

According to David Tripp in his book,Illegal Tender,the first 1933 Doubles delivery of the Coiner to the Cashier was 1933 Gold Delivery Number 7.Twenty-five thousand 1933 Doubles in 100 sealed bags,250 coins each bag were delivered to the Cashier March 15,1933.

 

The fact that the first delivery of gold Doubles was made as described by Tripp is in the Mint's own written records.See Illegal Tender,p.61.

 

Question: Where is the Mint's written record that the Mint Cashier was provided with forty-three 1933 Double Eagles on March 4, 1933, two days after production began?

 

Question: What does the record look like and is there a reason indicated on the record for the delivery of only 43 1933 Doubles to the Cashier on March 4,1933?

 

It was suggested by a poster ATS that I direct my questions about the alleged March 4 delivery to Mr. Burdette who posts here.

 

RWB care to respond?

I'm going to go with, "No."

 

 

I happen to think the same thing. I don't know why though, since it was such a well meaning innocent request, with no position on the issue at all.

[CaptHenway]

Where did you see that the 43 replacement coins were delivered to the Cashier in exchange for defective 1932 coins "on March 4?" All I could find was that they were delivered to the Cashier sometime in March. Page number please.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Where did you see that the 43 replacement coins were delivered to the Cashier in exchange for defective 1932 coins "on March 4?" All I could find was that they were delivered to the Cashier sometime in March. Page number please.

 

Good Afternoon, Capt.

For point of clarification, and to not confuse the OP, I assume you are directing the question to the OP, and not me. He may think that you were replying to my Post.

[CaptHenway]

The question is directed to mr1874. Sorry for the confusion.

[Conder101]

You probably won't get an answer from RWB about it because until everything is settled he isn't supposed to speak on details of the case. The government is still considering their response to the appeal ruling so everything isn't over yet..

 

I do recall back when the trial was going on he did say that the coins were sent to the Cashier in exchange for flawed 1932's. Roger bases his research on document from the National Archives so he probably has found documentation of the transfer.

[CaptHenway]

Correct. RWB cannot comment on the case.

[RWB]

I refer the poster to a 2010 Coin World article on the subject .... August issue, I think.... for the answer. (The article was published before I became associated with the case in 2011.)

[dcarr]

Correct. RWB cannot comment on the case.

 

Here are two pertinent published accounts that I am aware of (both from the original trial):

 

19 July 2011:

1933 double eagle trial: Roger Burdette takes the stand

 

20 July 2011:

1933 double eagle trial: Sides finish their cases

 

 

From the 19 July 2011 article linked above:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Roger Burdette, with a staccato rhythm

 

Roger Burdette next took the stand as the Langbords’ expert numismatic witness to testify that 1933 double eagles could have left the Mint through authorized channels. Burdette, a prolific and well-respected numismatic researcher, perhaps best known for his book trilogy Renaissance of American Coinage, described his day job as a system information engineer and his thousands of hours spent fueling his passion for coin research.

 

His testimony covered much of the same ground as the government’s numismatic expert, David Enders Tripp, in describing the practices at the time. Tripp was in the courtroom to observe much of Burdette’s testimony.

 

There was a staccato rhythm to Burdette’s testimony as Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Rue frequently objected on the grounds that Berke’s questions strayed from the subject that Burdette wrote his report on and, as such, was an expert on: numismatics, numismatic research and historic Mint practices of the era. Judge Legrome D. Davis said Burdette’s expert report, which was filed on Feb. 14, “defines the territory on which conflict will be waged.”

 

Burdette expressed his opinion that 1933 double eagles could have left the Mint through proper and legitimate channels based on historic practice, the fact that gold coins went out March 7 to April 12, 1933, the fact that the cashier had a quantity of 1933 double eagles, and that the “Mint wasn’t doing anything different” and the fundamental operations of the Mint stayed the same during the time period.

 

Perhaps at the core of Burdette’s testimony was a 1945 memo between coiner William Bartholomew and Helen Moore, the assistant superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint, which Burdette interpreted to show that 43 1933 coins were substituted for 1932 coins and used to balance the books with regards to 458.1 ounces of gold. These 43 1933 double eagles were allegedly comingled with 1932 double eagles on March 4, 1933, and went to the cashier. At this point, Burdette speculated, the pieces lost their distinction as 1933 double eagles and could have been given out.

 

Many of the issues of the prior week were addressed, including the fact that just four 1933 $10 eagles were released, yet 20 to 30 are freely available to collectors today, along with the ongoing issues of “counter cash” and the absence of certain records which would aid in researching the issues.

 

A ferocious cross examination

 

Quite possibly the most spirited moments of the trial thus far came with the government’s cross examination of Burdette. Almost immediately, Rue brought up Burdette’s involvement with the U.S. Coins message board on the Collectors Universe forums, where he once described the government’s attempt to keep the 1933 double eagles as a “witch hunt.” The government read multiple messages out of the more than 8,000 that Burdette has posted at the CU forum under the user name RWB since April 2006.

 

An Aug. 18, 2008, thread was cited, titled, “Ok you fellow lawyers, what if Izzy Switt videotaped a ‘Dying Declaration’ telling his story of the 1933 Saints?” Burdette replied the next day to the posting, presenting a “Saturday Night Live” theme, writing, “Hmmm...now if Izzy died while trying to swallow one of the 1933s, and his last gasping breaths were videotaped by his daughter and three off-duty Secret Service agents (now living in Florida) as he related how he bought the coins from the Cashier’s window at the Philadelphia Mint in March 1933 for face value, and kept them because he was a coin collector, and they were highly desirable pieces of unusual numismatic significance.” This statement was read to the jury in its entirety.

 

Perhaps more problematic was a Feb. 10, 2009, posting that has since become inaccessible where Burdette wrote to the effect of mustering all the hearsay and innuendo required to obfuscate the facts; adding, “I’ll do it at $300 an hour.” Rue wasted no time in asking Burdette, “Isn’t that what you’ve done here today?” attacking the credibility of his findings. Burdette replied that his comments on the message board were sarcastic and didn’t reflect his research, frequently asking to be shown the statements as he didn’t remember them individually.

 

Rue was relentless in suggesting that Burdette was more creative than factual in his theory that 1933 double eagles might have been included in the March 4, 1933, shipment to the cashier as the 1945 statement that Burdette relied upon said “43 pieces” and not double eagles. She added that if Burdette’s interpretation that “43 pieces” meant 43 1933 double eagles was true, it would compromise each document provided to Mint officials afterwards.

 

Burdette was also questioned about his familiarity with his expert report, specifically statements addressing the relation of the number of coins struck versus the number of coins delivered, and the importance of this. When Burdette couldn’t recall what he stated on this in his 20-page expert report filed earlier this year, Rue read him his statement in his submitted report that it was “impossible” to know how many coins were struck in any one year. After the reading, Burdette added with a smile, “I appreciate knowing how nicely I wrote it.”

 

Rue at times seemed unprepared in her cross examination. This was likely due in part to the unexpectedly short direct examination of Burdette by Berke, especially in light of Berke’s two-and-a-half-day cross examination of Tripp, the government’s numismatic expert. She hammered the point that nothing in the documents explicitly say that any 1933 double eagles were sent back as 1932 double eagles. Burdette countered that it was “normal common sense” and Mint usage to assume that “43 pieces” represented 43 coins.

 

Court adjourned early at 3:30 p.m. after several long breaks while Rue went through files. Her cross examination of Burdette continues today, likely followed by a redirect by Berke that should provide some of the more interesting moments in the trial, as Berke fights to help Burdette regain his credibility with the jury.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

From the 20 July 2011 article linked above:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Burdette continues to defend his research

 

The ninth day started with the continued cross examination of the Langbord’s numismatic expert witness, Roger W. Burdette, by Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Rue. She asked Burdette for the specific language in the contemporary Treasury Regulations that authorized “gold coin for gold coin” exchanges. For several long minutes, Burdette read through the regulations before retorting that “payments for bullion” essentially meant the same thing.

 

She then turned to Burdette’s more than 8,000 postings to the Collector’s Universe U.S. Coin Forum — the prior day’s hot topic — reading to him a post in which he coined the term “Numismyth” to describe longstanding and unsubstantiated material such as opinions, guesses and rumors that are accepted until they’re true. Burdette’s participation and comments in the forums came into play several times throughout his July 18 testimony. Rue used various of his posts to show examples in which his statements in the forums — often posted years before Burdette was retained as an expert witness — conflicted with his expert report submitted to the jury.

 

As an expert, Burdette was asked to provide a complete list of publications with his report. Rue questioned him about an article published in Coin World under his byline titled “Documents help reconstruct 1929 half eagle distribution,” which was absent from his list. Burdette said at first that he had written it a “long time ago” but Rue alerted Burdette that it was published less than a year ago, in the Aug. 30, 2010, issue.

 

The last paragraph of the Coin World article cited many of the same Mint records as sources that are used in the current litigation, and Rue pointed out that the article’s assumption that coins leaving the Mint in 1929 were dated 1929 would contradict Burdette’s theory as to how 1933 double eagles could have left the mint lawfully with 1932 coins. She further pointed out that Burdette stated multiple times in the forums that 1933 double eagles were “nothing special” — implying that his research on the 1929 half eagles would have similar applications to the 1933 double eagle. She suggested that Burdette intentionally left this article off of his list of publications as it could be considered contradictory with his expert report.

 

Private little world brought into the light

 

Barry Berke, the Langbords’ attorney, wanted to begin his redirect by addressing Burdette’s Feb. 10, 2009, statement in the online forum, which threatened his credibility as an expert witness the prior day. The posting stated, “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!” In a conversation between the attorneys and Judge Davis, Berke said he wanted to bring it back up to show that Burdette was making a joke in writing in order to put the statement into context.

 

Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.”

 

Berke began by pointing out that the posting was written nearly two years before January of this year, when Burdette became an expert in this case and referred to David Enders Tripp, who was getting paid $300 an hour by the government. Burdette revealed that he was charging $154 an hour and that he had researched the 1933 double eagle prior to being retained as a witness. Rue declined to ask Burdette any more questions and with that, Burdette’s service was completed.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

[CaptHenway]

Ah, yes, the famous passage where the judge was defending my honor.............

[Nutmeg Coin]

"Witch hunt"? Probably a better phrase could have been used, that was what a local group of inside trading members of a hedge fund said about their investigation when they were caught. Maybe the government should be uncovering in the closet witches and sorcerers if they are breaking the law.

 

"Fishing expedition"? http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/witch%20hunt

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

There is nothing that is unusual or a smoking gun revelation. It is rather typical.

 

I did not and don't think Ms. Rue was particularly creative in her pursuit of the truth. The Government is held to a higher standard. It is not accomplished by petty smear campaigns for the purpose of discrediting a person.

 

I have always thought the position of the Government was defended by rhetoric and not scholarly pursuit of justice. The Government could have done better, I think. They chose not to, possibly due to a greater agenda need than fact.

 

Would that a person was allowed at the same time to review any public domain commentary by Ms. Rue, there is no doubt a person could find "fault".

 

I remember well the "tonal" inflections of past and present RWB Posts. Any person without an agenda would interpret a continuing humorous bent to his phrasing. I do not think sarcasm for the sake of superiority of thought or belittling of others was ever the driving intent of his words.

[seventee]

Thank you,Mr. Burdette.

[dcarr]

There is nothing that is unusual or a smoking gun revelation. It is rather typical.

 

I did not and don't think Ms. Rue was particularly creative in her pursuit of the truth. The Government is held to a higher standard. It is not accomplished by petty smear campaigns for the purpose of discrediting a person.

 

I have always thought the position of the Government was defended by rhetoric and not scholarly pursuit of justice. The Government could have done better, I think. They chose not to, possibly due to a greater agenda need than fact.

 

Would that a person was allowed at the same time to review any public domain commentary by Ms. Rue, there is no doubt a person could find "fault".

 

I remember well the "tonal" inflections of past and present RWB Posts. Any person without an agenda would interpret a continuing humorous bent to his phrasing. I do not think sarcasm for the sake of superiority of thought or belittling of others was ever the driving intent of his words.

 

Note that even the judge in the original trial reportedly commented as to the "extremely offensive" nature of the content in a RWB post.

 

Again, from the 20 July 2011 Coin World article:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Private little world brought into the light

 

Barry Berke, the Langbords’ attorney, wanted to begin his redirect by addressing Burdette’s Feb. 10, 2009, statement in the online forum, which threatened his credibility as an expert witness the prior day. The posting stated, “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!” In a conversation between the attorneys and Judge Davis, Berke said he wanted to bring it back up to show that Burdette was making a joke in writing in order to put the statement into context.

 

Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Personally, I think every person has an absolute right to free speech.

However, I don't find that posts about things like putting cats in meat grinders and eating them are in any way "humorous".

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

I didn't read his post about murdering cats and running them through meat grinders. Context?

 

It reminds me of what Edgar Allan Poe wrote in one of his short stories embarrassed as he was to tell the tale:

 

"This spirit of perverseness, I say, came to my final overthrow. It was this unfathomable longing of the soul to vex itself -- to offer violence to its own nature -- to do wrong for the wrong's sake only -- that urged me to continue and finally to consummate the injury I had inflicted upon the unoffending brute. One morning, in cool blood, I slipped a noose about its neck and hung it to the limb of a tree; -- hung it with the tears streaming from my eyes, and with the bitterest remorse at my heart; -- hung it because I knew that it had loved me, and because I felt it had given me no reason of offence; -- hung it because I knew that in so doing I was committing a sin -- a deadly sin that would so jeopardize my immortal soul as to place it -- if such a thing were possible -- even beyond the reach of the infinite mercy of the Most Merciful and Most Terrible God." http://poestories.com/read/blackcat

[dcarr]

I didn't read his post about murdering cats and running them through meat grinders. Context?

 

That was just a random example of "humor" that failed (in my opinion), unrelated to the 1933 Double Eagle case:

 

How about some Cat and Coin Pic's

 

There are many others that are similar.

 

[DaveG]

I went ATS and read the 2011 thread.

 

Perhaps the Judge thought CaptHenway's comments about Eleanor Roosevelt were more offensive than any cat comments?

 

Also, who among us has ever thought our comments on the boards here or ATS are "private"?

 

I mean, I do view this as our own little world, but only because any sane (i.e., non-coin collector) person would run away before they would spend time reading our posts.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

There is nothing that is unusual or a smoking gun revelation. It is rather typical.

 

I did not and don't think Ms. Rue was particularly creative in her pursuit of the truth. The Government is held to a higher standard. It is not accomplished by petty smear campaigns for the purpose of discrediting a person.

 

I have always thought the position of the Government was defended by rhetoric and not scholarly pursuit of justice. The Government could have done better, I think. They chose not to, possibly due to a greater agenda need than fact.

 

Would that a person was allowed at the same time to review any public domain commentary by Ms. Rue, there is no doubt a person could find "fault".

 

I remember well the "tonal" inflections of past and present RWB Posts. Any person without an agenda would interpret a continuing humorous bent to his phrasing. I do not think sarcasm for the sake of superiority of thought or belittling of others was ever the driving intent of his words.

 

Note that even the judge in the original trial reportedly commented as to the "extremely offensive" nature of the content in a RWB post.

 

Again, from the 20 July 2011 Coin World article:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Private little world brought into the light

 

Barry Berke, the Langbords’ attorney, wanted to begin his redirect by addressing Burdette’s Feb. 10, 2009, statement in the online forum, which threatened his credibility as an expert witness the prior day. The posting stated, “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!” In a conversation between the attorneys and Judge Davis, Berke said he wanted to bring it back up to show that Burdette was making a joke in writing in order to put the statement into context.

 

Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Personally, I think every person has an absolute right to free speech.

However, I don't find that posts about things like putting cats in meat grinders and eating them are in any way "humorous".

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

 

I note your level of intelligence and ability to convey your position and opinion, over the years. I am a little surprised, but saddened, that you would base a position on the hypothetical existence and demise of a cat, described on an internet forum.

 

I understand you may have an agenda. You may have a difference of opinion with Mr. Burdette. You have a heightened level of passion in your area of expertise, as does he. Mr. Burdette has a manner of conveying his thoughts using sarcastic humor. If one is appalled by this manner, then one should not marry, have children, watch TV, read comic books, go to Movies or the Theater, and certainly should never, never read Shakespeare.

 

But, (apology to Mr. Feld) the unfortunate result is that the rhetoric obfuscated the entire purpose of the legal pursuit, and turned the search for truth into a working Draft outline for a John Cleese Here Comes The Judge sketch.

 

The fact that you are of the opinion that the commentary by the Judge about Mr. Burdette is germane, illustrates the confusion caused by such commentary of what was actually being adjudicated.

 

I would ask as a Citizen of these wonderful United States,that the Judiciary and Legislative focus be as envisioned by our Constitution, and not be overly concerned about what happened to Felix the Cat.

[dcarr]

There is nothing that is unusual or a smoking gun revelation. It is rather typical.

 

I did not and don't think Ms. Rue was particularly creative in her pursuit of the truth. The Government is held to a higher standard. It is not accomplished by petty smear campaigns for the purpose of discrediting a person.

 

I have always thought the position of the Government was defended by rhetoric and not scholarly pursuit of justice. The Government could have done better, I think. They chose not to, possibly due to a greater agenda need than fact.

 

Would that a person was allowed at the same time to review any public domain commentary by Ms. Rue, there is no doubt a person could find "fault".

 

I remember well the "tonal" inflections of past and present RWB Posts. Any person without an agenda would interpret a continuing humorous bent to his phrasing. I do not think sarcasm for the sake of superiority of thought or belittling of others was ever the driving intent of his words.

 

Note that even the judge in the original trial reportedly commented as to the "extremely offensive" nature of the content in a RWB post.

 

Again, from the 20 July 2011 Coin World article:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Private little world brought into the light

 

Barry Berke, the Langbords’ attorney, wanted to begin his redirect by addressing Burdette’s Feb. 10, 2009, statement in the online forum, which threatened his credibility as an expert witness the prior day. The posting stated, “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!” In a conversation between the attorneys and Judge Davis, Berke said he wanted to bring it back up to show that Burdette was making a joke in writing in order to put the statement into context.

 

Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Personally, I think every person has an absolute right to free speech.

However, I don't find that posts about things like putting cats in meat grinders and eating them are in any way "humorous".

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

 

I note your level of intelligence and ability to convey your position and opinion, over the years. I am a little surprised, but saddened, that you would base a position on the hypothetical existence and demise of a cat, described on an internet forum.

 

I understand you may have an agenda. You may have a difference of opinion with Mr. Burdette. You have a heightened level of passion in your area of expertise, as does he. Mr. Burdette has a manner of conveying his thoughts using sarcastic humor. If one is appalled by this manner, then one should not marry, have children, watch TV, read comic books, go to Movies or the Theater, and certainly should never, never read Shakespeare.

 

But, (apology to Mr. Feld) the unfortunate result is that the rhetoric obfuscated the entire purpose of the legal pursuit, and turned the search for truth into a working Draft outline for a John Cleese Here Comes The Judge sketch.

 

The fact that you are of the opinion that the commentary by the Judge about Mr. Burdette is germane, illustrates the confusion caused by such commentary of what was actually being adjudicated.

 

I would ask as a Citizen of these wonderful United States,that the Judiciary and Legislative focus be as envisioned by our Constitution, and not be overly concerned about what happened to Felix the Cat.

 

I agree completely that the original case judgment should have been based only on the facts pertinent to the 1933 Double Eagles. I believe that the coins should have been returned to the Langbords. I was not on that jury. However, I suspect that jury was significantly swayed by the past comments.

 

To reiterate, no comments that I know of concerning cats were brought up in the original trial. I do not know what comments the judge found to be "extremely offensive". I brought up the cats post as an example of what I was aware of. RWB obviously hates cats. I get that. He has that right. But when posts are made about cruelty to animals, about grinding them up, scraping them off the street, or feeding kittens to a Doberman, I have the right to rebuke that. I would hope that RWB has never actually perpetrated any of these acts that he has "joked" about.

 

The DCarr-RWB feud started about five years ago when RWB wrote that I was engaging in a "disturbed perversion" by over-striking 2009 Silver Eagles to make a novelty item:

2009-DC over-struck "proofed" Silver Eagles

Some people hate them. Many people like them. Regardless, "disturbed perversion" is not an accurate description of them. Torturing animals for fun (if that has actually been perpetrated) is en example of what I would consider to be a real "disturbed perversion".

 

If RWB will state here for the record that he has only joked about such things and never committed any such acts, I will accept that and drop the matter.

 

Another strange comment (written by RWB about me) was this:

"Boy meets girl. Boy loses girl. Boy buys big press. Boy makes fake coins. Girl, who is now a Fed Judge, sentences Boy to 10-20 for counterfeiting. Press turns out to be friendly android.”

 

Basically, my point is this: RWB's research is likely to be very factually accurate. I haven't read any of the books but I assume they are more carefully worded and better filtered than the internet postings. The strange comments seem to me to detract from the message.

[Kurtdog]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

You're misunderstanding. The judge didn't say anything about that cat comment. That was Mr. Carr, not the judge.

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

Again, FWIW, you're misunderstanding. Those comments were between the attorneys and the judge outside of the presence of the jury.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

There is nothing that is unusual or a smoking gun revelation. It is rather typical.

 

I did not and don't think Ms. Rue was particularly creative in her pursuit of the truth. The Government is held to a higher standard. It is not accomplished by petty smear campaigns for the purpose of discrediting a person.

 

I have always thought the position of the Government was defended by rhetoric and not scholarly pursuit of justice. The Government could have done better, I think. They chose not to, possibly due to a greater agenda need than fact.

 

Would that a person was allowed at the same time to review any public domain commentary by Ms. Rue, there is no doubt a person could find "fault".

 

I remember well the "tonal" inflections of past and present RWB Posts. Any person without an agenda would interpret a continuing humorous bent to his phrasing. I do not think sarcasm for the sake of superiority of thought or belittling of others was ever the driving intent of his words.

 

Note that even the judge in the original trial reportedly commented as to the "extremely offensive" nature of the content in a RWB post.

 

Again, from the 20 July 2011 Coin World article:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Private little world brought into the light

 

Barry Berke, the Langbords’ attorney, wanted to begin his redirect by addressing Burdette’s Feb. 10, 2009, statement in the online forum, which threatened his credibility as an expert witness the prior day. The posting stated, “I can muster all the hearsay, innuendo, assumption, gossip, rumor, allusion and insinuation you want to obfuscate the facts … and, I can do it at only $300 an hour, too!” In a conversation between the attorneys and Judge Davis, Berke said he wanted to bring it back up to show that Burdette was making a joke in writing in order to put the statement into context.

 

Judge Davis warned that such a technique could be ill-advised, adding that there were some “extremely offensive comments in the post.” Judge Davis added that the dialogue from which the Feb. 10, 2009, comment came was a “remarkable document” that included comments from the “2009 Numismatist of the Year,” providing a window into “their private little world which they never thought would come to light.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Personally, I think every person has an absolute right to free speech.

However, I don't find that posts about things like putting cats in meat grinders and eating them are in any way "humorous".

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

 

I note your level of intelligence and ability to convey your position and opinion, over the years. I am a little surprised, but saddened, that you would base a position on the hypothetical existence and demise of a cat, described on an internet forum.

 

I understand you may have an agenda. You may have a difference of opinion with Mr. Burdette. You have a heightened level of passion in your area of expertise, as does he. Mr. Burdette has a manner of conveying his thoughts using sarcastic humor. If one is appalled by this manner, then one should not marry, have children, watch TV, read comic books, go to Movies or the Theater, and certainly should never, never read Shakespeare.

 

But, (apology to Mr. Feld) the unfortunate result is that the rhetoric obfuscated the entire purpose of the legal pursuit, and turned the search for truth into a working Draft outline for a John Cleese Here Comes The Judge sketch.

 

The fact that you are of the opinion that the commentary by the Judge about Mr. Burdette is germane, illustrates the confusion caused by such commentary of what was actually being adjudicated.

 

I would ask as a Citizen of these wonderful United States,that the Judiciary and Legislative focus be as envisioned by our Constitution, and not be overly concerned about what happened to Felix the Cat.

 

I agree completely that the original case judgment should have been based only on the facts pertinent to the 1933 Double Eagles. I believe that the coins should have been returned to the Langbords. I was not on that jury. However, I suspect that jury was significantly swayed by the past comments.

 

To reiterate, no comments that I know of concerning cats were brought up in the original trial. I do not know what comments the judge found to be "extremely offensive". I brought up the cats post as an example of what I was aware of. RWB obviously hates cats. I get that. He has that right. But when posts are made about cruelty to animals, about grinding them up, scraping them off the street, or feeding kittens to a Doberman, I have the right to rebuke that. I would hope that RWB has never actually perpetrated any of these acts that he has "joked" about.

 

The DCarr-RWB feud started about five years ago when RWB wrote that I was engaging in a "disturbed perversion" by over-striking 2009 Silver Eagles to make a novelty item:

2009-DC over-struck "proofed" Silver Eagles

Some people hate them. Many people like them. Regardless, "disturbed perversion" is not an accurate description of them. Torturing animals for fun (if that has actually been perpetrated) is en example of what I would consider to be a real "disturbed perversion".

 

If RWB will state here for the record that he has only joked about such things and never committed any such acts, I will accept that and drop the matter.

 

Another strange comment (written by RWB about me) was this:

"Boy meets girl. Boy loses girl. Boy buys big press. Boy makes fake coins. Girl, who is now a Fed Judge, sentences Boy to 10-20 for counterfeiting. Press turns out to be friendly android.”

 

Basically, my point is this: RWB's research is likely to be very factually accurate. I haven't read any of the books but I assume they are more carefully worded and better filtered than the internet postings. The strange comments seem to me to detract from the message.

 

Thank you.

A disclosure: RWB does not know me.

The cats.... :

I am aware. I was continuing the thematic you chose, to illustrate the questionable rhetoric of the Government that had no place in the legal procedure, and certainly effected the outcome.

 

As to your fued, I have observed from afar, and would only comment that inserting the fued in this particular Thread may not have been within the rule of fairness and equity, since RWB is not permitted to comment.

 

I don't have any comments or thoughts about your particular area of expertise, but then again I failed Art, which I assume is the driving force of your work.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

You're misunderstanding. The judge didn't say anything about that cat comment. That was Mr. Carr, not the judge.

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

Again, FWIW, you're misunderstanding. Those comments were between the attorneys and the judge outside of the presence of the jury.

 

Thank you.

I was using cats as a continuing thematic. I can understand that you may not have made the connection.

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome. The jury does not establish the decision of what can and can not be presented. It is possible that you may not understand the dynamic that a Judge choreographs and telegraphs and inserts into a Proceeding.

 

I am starting to feel that I will have to explain thematic cats until the end of the world.

[Conder101]

That was just a random example of "humor" that failed (in my opinion), unrelated to the 1933 Double Eagle case:

 

How about some Cat and Coin Pic's

I don't know, I thought it was funny.

[dcarr]

... As to your fued, I have observed from afar, and would only comment that inserting the fued in this particular Thread may not have been within the rule of fairness and equity, since RWB is not permitted to comment.

 

RWB may or may not be legally allowed to comment about the Langbord case - I don't know. It will be interesting (eventually) to find out if he has had any part in this new case or if the Langbords hired him for any work after the first case. But he can certainly comment here on other things.

 

I don't have any comments or thoughts about your particular area of expertise, but then again I failed Art, which I assume is the driving force of your work.

 

"Driving force" ?

I like coins.

Some say what I do is "art", some say it isn't. Either way it doesn't matter. I'll do what I like regardless.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

... As to your fued, I have observed from afar, and would only comment that inserting the fued in this particular Thread may not have been within the rule of fairness and equity, since RWB is not permitted to comment.

 

RWB may or may not be legally allowed to comment about the Langbord case - I don't know. It will be interesting (eventually) to find out if he has had any part in this new case or if the Langbords hired him for any work after the first case. But he can certainly comment here on other things.

 

I don't have any comments or thoughts about your particular area of expertise, but then again I failed Art, which I assume is the driving force of your work.

 

"Driving force" ?

I like coins.

Some say what I do is "art", some say it isn't. Either way it doesn't matter. I'll do what I like regardless. [/quote

 

If I offended you by assuming that Art was the driving force, I offer apology.

 

I certainly understand, by your comment that RWB can reply to other things, is a gauntlet of sorts.

It is not my place to judge either of you.

Your opinions are as valid as any other person, as is your passion.

[Kurtdog]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I choose not to decide the merits of a position based on my personal opinion of what constitutes "tasteful" commentary or phrasing and what does not in a Case of the nature that is being adjudicated. The Honorable Judge creates a dilemma: is he testifying and influencing the legal path of the decision (or future Appeals), based on dead cats? I would answer that it is always the cats. Would the Honorable Judge have been appeased if Mr. Burdette had chosen Zombies as the subject of the phrasing Mr. Burdette used to illustrate his humorous intent?

You're misunderstanding. The judge didn't say anything about that cat comment. That was Mr. Carr, not the judge.

 

In my opinion, the commentary by the Judge concerning the private little world that was thought by Mr Burdette would never come to light, was calculated to belittle and to intimate (wink wink nudge nudge) that Mr. Burdette was a social criminal, on the level of a Pimp hiding in the shadows of the alley when a Police Officer drives by, and the Pimp can't really hide because he suffers from flatulence and is discovered. It is inflammatory commentary designed to describe Mr. Burdette as a social deviate of some sort and is an excellent example of the rhetoric I refer to. Adding to the commentary the title of Numismatist of the Year was designed to attach a behavior level to Mr. Burdette that was expected and not fulfilled via internet commentary. I can picture the oohs and ahhhs of a Jury and the pointed look of the Mom stare directed at Mr. Burdette, via such hyperbole.

Again, FWIW, you're misunderstanding. Those comments were between the attorneys and the judge outside of the presence of the jury.

Thank you.

I was using cats as a continuing thematic. I can understand that you may not have made the connection.

The rhetoric certainly effected the outcome. The jury does not establish the decision of what can and can not be presented. It is possible that you may not understand the dynamic that a Judge choreographs and telegraphs and inserts into a Proceeding.

 

I am starting to feel that I will have to explain thematic cats until the end of the world.

I think I get this dynamic, now. Thank you for the explanation. It really helped in my understanding of what went on in this case. It's not that the trial judge didn't say anything about the cats comment in the presence of the jury. Hell, he wasn't even aware of the cats comment, so how in the hell could he say something about it? Your point is, he didn't have to say anything about it. Your description of what was going on in his mind in reference to the cats comment he never heard is the key to understanding that. If I understand you right, and, I have no reason to believe I don't, even though he was unaware of the cats comment, it was nonetheless choreographed and telegraphed by him to the jury, in much the same manner, let us just say, if you will, as was his side-bar admonishment on the proferred redirect of Mr. Burdette, which he also didn't say in the presence of the jury. The jury picked it up, and, understandably, that had a profound impact on the verdict. I understand that, now. If I'm misunderstanding it, of course, I trust you'll correct me. Thank you very much.

 

[RWB]

There seems to be a lot of idle speculation and confusion in this thread and the one on PCGS. A couple of suggestions, which do not violate confidentiality, might help.

 

1. A witness can only respond to questions asked by the opposing attorneys.

2. The Court may restrict the line of questioning by so instructing the attorneys, or by issuing rulings from the bench.

3. A witness is not party to any of the attorneys' plans, strategy or goals, and certainly not privy to anything said by the Court except during testimony.

 

Two useful sources of information are Alison Frankel's book "Double Eagle," and my articles about the 1933 DE in Coin World during 2010. Both were published long before my involvement in the case.

 

(I contributed a tiny bit to Frankel's book. It is recommended because she is an experienced legal writer and understands the subject matter better than other writers. She also included additional research Mr. Tripp's book does not have. Both "Double Eagle" and "Illegal Tender" rely very heavily on Secret Service investigation reports which are not balanced by other contemporary investigations.)