Langboard v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, et al. - Rehearing

[seventee]

MrMcknowitall:

I will retain my stated opinions, all of them.

 

My opinion,as a one-time investigator of employee theft for a major retailer, is that if the Mint employee or employees responsible for "spiriting" those 1933 double eagles out of the Mint had not been so greedy by stealing an entire bag of 250,face value $5000, (not dated 1933) double eagles (discovered missing in the 1937 audit conducted prior to the great gold melt),the Mint might well have "looked the other way" about a few 1933 doubles that found their way into private hands by openly acknowledging,as early as 1937,that "yes,1933 double eagles could have been legally obtained at the Mint window.Those were chaotic times."

 

It's 1930's Mint employee greed that has ruined it for 2015 would-be collectors of 1933 double eagles,not the government,whose charge is to protect our nation's gold from swindlers and thieves.

 

mr1874

8/5/2015

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

"Because Tripp could account for all of the ‘33 Double Eagles and none were ever authorized for release, Tripp concluded that no ‘33 Double Eagles–including the coins in this case–could have been obtained through legitimate means. (Tr. 208, at 119-22; Tr. 211, at 149-52).

The problem is their records accounted for every single one of them, before they realized there were some in private hands. So clearly their records are wrong. You would probably find that they "accounted for them" by either weight or count and not by date. In other words the weiht was right and the count was right, but no one checked to see if they were all 1933's or if there were some other dates in there. That would mean ther records are faulty and they have no idea whether or not some were exchanged legally.

 

And like Tripp, Geisser found it possible to track all the 1933 Double Eagles and conclude that none had been issued by the cashier to the public. (Tr. 217, at 66-76). In Geisser’s words, there is a “closed circle” to account for each of the coins (from the coining department, to the cashier, to the vault); all of the components balance out perfectly.

 

Sure they balanced, by count and value, but did they check and record all of the dates of the pieces the Cashier turned back in? If not then everything can balance and 33 double eagles could still have been exchanged.

 

I still think the key to the whole question of whether the coins were released legally will be in the cash window records. When exchanges were made were they recorded by amount, by denominations and were the dates on the exchanged pieces recorded? f denomiations an dates were not recorded and an amount more than $20 was exchanged, then a 33 double eagle COULD have been legally exchanged.

 

What bothers me the most is that IF the govt does win, you can bet these coins WILL be sold, because the govt doesn't want to melt them, they want to profit from them.

If that is true why are they still holding onto the twelve gold Sac dollars? There is no question those are theirs, and there is no question they would brig a good price well above bullion if they sold them. Yet 15 years later they are still sitting in the vaults at Fort Knox.

 

This is a great summary. The records are only good if they are accurate and can be authenticated. We know that these cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared. I don't think the Farouk coin, for instance, was traceable to Switt or am I mistaken? The hallmark and guiding test for the admission of hearsay under exceptions is the trustworthiness of the source. The Langboards, in my opinion, impeached the records cited against them, and the hearsay exceptions should be ruled inapplicable to them. If not, due process and the right to have property free from government seizure and takings would mean very little if the government could make up documents that were unassailable in court. How hard would it be to win if you decide all of the rules? What would that mean for the rule of law?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

MrMcknowitall:

I will retain my stated opinions, all of them.

 

My opinion,as a one-time investigator of employee theft for a major retailer, is that if the Mint employee or employees responsible for "spiriting" those 1933 double eagles out of the Mint had not been so greedy by stealing an entire bag of 250,face value $5000, (not dated 1933) double eagles (discovered missing in the 1937 audit conducted prior to the great gold melt),the Mint might well have "looked the other way" about a few 1933 doubles that found their way into private hands by openly acknowledging,as early as 1937,that "yes,1933 double eagles could have been legally obtained at the Mint window.Those were chaotic times."

 

It's 1930's Mint employee greed that has ruined it for 2015 would-be collectors of 1933 double eagles,not the government,whose charge is to protect our nation's gold from swindlers and thieves.

 

 

mr1874

8/5/2015

 

 

 

In deference to your experience and opinion, I think I will stick with representation that offers an alternative plausible scenario.

 

Funny thing; I never did care for Victor Hugo. I always felt he was a little to coffee house intellectual.

 

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence.

[KMAG100]

I don't think the Farouk coin, for instance, was traceable to Switt or am I mistaken?

 

King Farouk's coin was traced back to Switt according to the document (pg. 23)

 

[seventee]

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence.

 

I fixed it for you by deleting the picture of the tree and quote by Hugo from my post.

 

To the poster who was asking about the ex Farouk coin:

 

All 1933 double eagles that are known to exist or once known to have existed,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,have been traced to Israel Switt.

[MarkFeld]

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence. ...

 

To the poster who was asking about the ex Farouk coin:

 

All 1933 double eagles that existence or once existed,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,have been traced to Israel Switt.

 

Would that include any/all others that are rumored to be in hiding in private hands?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence. ...

 

To the poster who was asking about the ex Farouk coin:

 

All 1933 double eagles that existence or once existed,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,have been traced to Israel Switt.

 

Would that include any/all others that are rumored to be in hiding in private hands?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence. ...

 

To the poster who was asking about the ex Farouk coin:

 

All 1933 double eagles that existence or once existed,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,have been traced to Israel Switt.

 

Would that include any/all others that are rumored to be in hiding in private hands?

 

If anyone is wondering, I re-posted that, because it is worthwhile doing so.

 

I recall a cyberspace exchange years ago, Mark.

I now regret I did not get the chance to discuss your question in person. You knew most of the issue anyway. Maybe in the future.......after the present federal distraction is concluded.

[seventee]

MarkFeld:

Would that include any/all others that are rumored to be in hiding in private hands? ;\)

 

I'm at a rare loss for words,Mr. Feld. Yes, No, Maybe; none of the aforementioned responses to your question are suitable as an answer.

 

I hereby nominate your post here for Collectors Society Message Board post-of-the-year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[font:Comic Sans MS]rare loss for words...how in the h did this happen?[/font]

 

 

[seventee]

What bothers me the most is that IF the govt does win, you can bet these coins WILL be sold, because the govt doesn't want to melt them, they want to profit from them. I am betting that IF the govt wins on the retry, it will likely be by agreement with the present owners (or should I say present owners by default) and a sharing of the proceeds, just like the last case was settled. Sad that our govt is so selfish and greedy. I think they should be left alone, but IF the govt says they should have been destroyed back in 1934, then they should still want them destroyed as prescribed by law. Just my opinion, you're welcome to disagree...

 

Government is on the record as "Never again will we participate in an auction for a 1933 double eagle" after the Fenton (ex Farouk) coin was auctioned in 2002,an auction in which the government shared in the proceeds.

 

"We do not intend to monetize,issue,or auction the recovered Double Eagles (the Fort Knox 10)," said acting Mint director David Lebryk in a 2005 press release.

 

What to do with them then? Rather than sock the pieces away in the Smithsonian,i think a good disposition of the coins would be to have a lottery.I have published details about my idea of having a scratch ticket style lottery for the pieces ATS.

 

Government should keep the pocket piece for itself. Izzy almost certainly carried this piece around in his pocket at times."Izzy's 1933 Double Eagle Pocket Piece," the Smithsonian exhibit sign could say. The other nine are up for grabs in the lottery. Proceeds from the scratch ticket lottery could go to worthy organizations across the land. I estimate that up to $40M,after expenses,could be netted by the lottery.

 

Lucky scratch winners would get one of the coins,its historic NGC holder and an ornate Certificate of Monetization notwithstanding Lebryk's remarks in 2005. Any Mint Director could be easily overruled by Congress.

 

It would probably take an Act of Congress to do the lottery but why not?

 

 

 

 

[CaptHenway]

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence. ...

 

To the poster who was asking about the ex Farouk coin:

 

All 1933 double eagles that existence or once existed,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,have been traced to Israel Switt.

 

Would that include any/all others that are rumored to be in hiding in private hands?

 

Correct. The wild card piece illustrated in the book has not been traced to anybody. I am pretty sure that I know who took the picture, but he never told me who for, and he's dead now.

[MarkFeld]

I don't do pictures very well. In my experience, when pictures are used to attempt to change an opposing opinion concerning a serious issue that essentially rests on an opinion, and not fact, but is presented as fact, the reason is to project superiority of position, and relays a sort of condescending commentary. I realize that is not what you intended. I am fairly certain the Court would not accept the pretty picture or beatnik advice as evidence. ...

 

To the poster who was asking about the ex Farouk coin:

 

All 1933 double eagles that existence or once existed,excepting the two in the Smithsonian,have been traced to Israel Switt.

 

Would that include any/all others that are rumored to be in hiding in private hands?

 

Correct. The wild card piece illustrated in the book has not been traced to anybody. I am pretty sure that I know who took the picture, but he never told me who for, and he's dead now.

 

I remember when I first saw that picture in the book and my reaction to its possible significance - it gave me goosebumps.

[seventee]

If such a piece actually exists and is proven to be authentic,the coin most probably was once held by Izzy.But what a colossal waste of time for the fact finder to be trying to figure out,that Izzy once owned,rather, had the piece in his possession.

 

It is said that Izzy boasted to dealer James Macallister of "owning" twenty-five 1933 double eagles.

 

If Izzy's boast is true,there are at least five more 1933 double eagles out there.These would be in addition to the twenty pieces that are known to exist or have existed,all showing up in private hands.

 

As a former investigator of employee theft,i learned to absolutely avoid chasing employee rumors. Rumor instigators in the workplace have a yapping little ankle-biter for a dog in the hunt to "get to the bottom of it."

 

........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

Which one was the alleged pocket piece again?

[MarkFeld]

Which one was the alleged pocket piece again?

 

Fun game! I'll guess #4?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

If such a piece actually exists and is proven to be authentic,the coin most probably was once held by Izzy.But what a colossal waste of time for the fact finder to be trying to figure out,that Izzy once owned,rather, had the piece in his possession.

 

It is said that Izzy boasted to dealer James Macallister of "owning" twenty-five 1933 double eagles.

 

If Izzy's boast is true,there are at least five more 1933 double eagles out there.These would be in addition to the twenty pieces that are known to exist or have existed,all showing up in private hands.

 

As a former investigator of employee theft,i learned to absolutely avoid chasing employee rumors. Rumor instigators in the workplace have a yapping little ankle-biter for a dog in the hunt to "get to the bottom of it."

 

........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am grateful you were not the investigator that was running down the rumors concerning the UBL location.

 

Ooops, just remembered...that was a woman. Their sense of rumor importance is much more devloped than males.

[seventee]

The "pocket piece" specimen of 1933 double eagle is the one with abrasion or wear. None of the other nine pieces were deemed to have circulation wear since they all received mint-state grades from our host here.

 

I had read somewhere that the NGC holders for the 1933 double eagles are

"recloseable." The coins can be removed from their holders for viewing, photographing or testing without destroying the holder,in other words.

[MarkFeld]

The "pocket piece" specimen of 1933 double eagle is the one with abrasion or wear. None of the other nine pieces were deemed to have circulation wear since they all received mint-state grades from our host here.

 

 

You stated the obvious. Which one is it from among the 10 that are pictured?

 

[seventee]

I am grateful you were not the investigator that was running down the rumors concerning the UBL location.

 

Please pardon my ignorance but what does UBL mean?

 

I believe that women,in general,have a more well-developed sense of intuition than men. Bigger gossipers? I don't think so.

 

I found that women in the workplace are more inclined to "blow the whistle." I once witnessed a hair-pulling,fist-flying fight,in the lunchroom, between two women after the one woman had blown the whistle (to another APS investigator,a woman) on the other woman's boyfriend who worked there.

Thankfully,some men there in the lunchroom took care of separating the two women.

 

Does anyone know how many women were on the jury for the Langbord trial?

 

Mr. Feld,i would need to see the labels on the NGC holders housing the coins matched up to the coins shown before rendering my opinion as to which coin is the purported pocket piece specimen. If you would do this,i will opine.

 

Pop Secret is the best.....

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I am grateful you were not the investigator that was running down the rumors concerning the UBL location.

 

Please pardon my ignorance but what does UBL mean?

 

I believe that women,in general,have a more well-developed sense of intuition than men. Bigger gossipers? I don't think so.

 

I found that women in the workplace are more inclined to "blow the whistle." I once witnessed a hair-pulling,fist-flying fight,in the lunchroom, between two women after the one woman had blown the whistle (to another APS investigator,a woman) on the other woman's boyfriend who worked there.

Thankfully,some men there in the lunchroom took care of separating the two women.

 

Does anyone know how many women were on the jury for the Langbord trial?

 

Mr. Feld,i would need to see the labels on the NGC holders housing the coins matched up to the coins shown before rendering my opinion as to which coin is the purported pocket piece specimen. If you would do this,i will opine.

 

Pop Secret is the best.....

 

 

You need to see NGC's grade opinion of the coin(s) before you are willing or able to provide your opinion? That seems rather pointless and not any fun. Why not be so bold as to offer your opinion, based on what the coins look like in the images provided?

[seventee]

You stated the obvious.Which one is it from among the 10 that are pictured

 

Yes I did.I also repeat myself a lot.I suspect that it has to do with closed loops or circuits in my brain.

 

I do believe that is broken luster I'm seeing on #4. Also,i'm seeing that piece #4 has no grime on it.

 

Seeing the NGC label for #4 would likely confirm it for me since I've found that I agree with TPG assessment (no matter which TPG) about 90% of the time.

 

At this point,my recommendation to gov would be to retain piece #4 for the Smithsonian 1933 double eagle pocket piece exhibit and scratch ticket the other nine pieces.

 

The MS 66 #2006684-062 piece is a $5M coin?

[seventee]

I should mention that I'm not cheating for this game of guessing which '33 is the pocket piece.

 

I happen to have an image of the MS 66 piece that I printed off. That's why I know the NGC number for it.The image turned out terrible and is of absolutely no help in identifying the MS 66 piece by comparing it to the images posted here.

 

Again,i'm not cheating by looking up the labels and trying to match them with the excellent images posted here.You have my word on it.

 

I'm going to take another look at the images and then guess which one is the MS 66 piece. Investigators like to have fun too,you know.

[seventee]

Piece #7 is my choice for the best one of the ten mainly from a strike quality standpoint. #7 jumps out at me and is probably the MS 66 piece although there are a few others that talk to me,vying to be #1. Coin #1 in the images is a NGC MS 65?

 

In David Bowers' Redbook of Double Eagle coins,Copyright 2004,there is an image of the ex Farouk coin to be seen next to page 193.

 

The ex Farouk piece appears to me to be the unquestionable finest known.

There are a few minor nicks on lady Liberty's left knee on the ex Farouk piece along with a nick halfway up the fourth ray on the right side of Liberty,from her perspective.The overall appearance of the ex Farouk piece is,in my opinion,stunning.

 

The ex Farouk piece is a superb gem or at least MS 67 coin,IMO.

 

I'm not that big on TPG numbers but totally realize that's what the coin industry uses to establish value.

 

In summary,

#4-Pocket Piece.About Uncirculated.

#7-NGC MS66 (select gem uncirculated).

ex Farouk-superb gem uncirculated (MS67 or higher).MS 67 assignment by either TPG would be right on,IMO.

 

The other 8 pieces shown in the images here should grade anywhere from MS 62 to MS 65,select uncirculated to gem uncirculated.

 

All ten of the doubles that the Langbords found in their safety deposit box #442 are captivating pieces as St. Gaudens double eagles go. I suspect that the "double 3's that shouldn't be" are responsible for most of the captivation with many,myself included.

[seventee]

coinman_23885 wrote:

The records are only good if they are accurate and can be authenticated. We know that these cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared. I don't think the Farouk coin, for instance, was traceable to Switt or am I mistaken? The hallmark and guiding test for the admission of hearsay under exceptions is the trustworthiness of the source. The Langboards, in my opinion, impeached the records cited against them, and the hearsay exceptions should be ruled inapplicable to them. If not, due process and the right to have property free from government seizure and takings would mean very little if the government could make up documents that were unassailable in court. How hard would it be to win if you decide all of the rules? What would that mean for the rule of law?

 

This post is dedicated to addressing "these records cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared."

 

You are totally disregarding the possibilities of "how the theft got pulled off" with your statement.

 

Even though analysis of the cashier records showed that no 1933 double was issued to a member of the public,we know for a fact that 1933 double eagles soon showed up in private hands after the great gold melt commenced in 1937. We can agree on this. However,

 

George McCann as Head Cashier supervised the melt. Remember,later McCann became a prime suspect in the theft of a bag of 1928 double eagles.

The theft of the bag of 250 doubles did not become known until the 1937 audit conducted just before the melt.

 

Exactly four-hundred- forty-five-thousand four-hundred-sixty-nine 1933 doubles should have been present ready to be melted and most probably there were this many ready to be melted.

 

Could George McCann,with a little help from his friends, have not swapped out some '28's (from the stolen bag,probably stolen in 1933 according to the Secret Service) for '33's in the last minutes before the loose '33's,four-hundred-sixty-nine of them directly in McCann's control since 1934,were to hit the melting pot?

 

McCann's pocket(s) full of '28's turning into McCann's pocket(s) full of '33's just before melt is not possible? IF the crime of theft of '33's went down this way,ie. "take old coins out of one pocket,swap for new coins and then put new coins into other pocket" does that still put a cloud in your mind ("cannot possibly be accurate") about the veracity of the "absolutely mathematically lining up," meticulous,well-detailed cashier records of 1933-34?

 

McCann was often seen weighing gold coins in the weigh room even though there was little reason,as cashier,for him to be doing this.David Tripp discusses McCann's weighing of coins in his book Illegal Tender.

 

There would be no weight discrepencies detected for "1933 gold" at melt given McCann had selected proper weight coins in the aggregate,say 25,among the '28's which he had a whole bag of to swap for '33's. Plus, there would have been plenty of extras to distribute to his helpers in crime. It seems $100 in gold coin (five '28 doubles) would buy at least one pair of zipped lips in 1937. Need two pair of zipped lips,spend another $100 of stolen government gold coin.

 

The crime didn't occur when the cashier records were made.The crime could easily have occurred just before the coins were to be melted.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

coinman_23885 wrote:

The records are only good if they are accurate and can be authenticated. We know that these cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared. I don't think the Farouk coin, for instance, was traceable to Switt or am I mistaken? The hallmark and guiding test for the admission of hearsay under exceptions is the trustworthiness of the source. The Langboards, in my opinion, impeached the records cited against them, and the hearsay exceptions should be ruled inapplicable to them. If not, due process and the right to have property free from government seizure and takings would mean very little if the government could make up documents that were unassailable in court. How hard would it be to win if you decide all of the rules? What would that mean for the rule of law?

 

This post is dedicated to addressing "these records cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared."

 

You are totally disregarding the possibilities of "how the theft got pulled off" with your statement.

 

Even though analysis of the cashier records showed that no 1933 double was issued to a member of the public,we know for a fact that 1933 double eagles soon showed up in private hands after the great gold melt commenced in 1937. We can agree on this. However,

 

George McCann as Head Cashier supervised the melt. Remember,later McCann became a prime suspect in the theft of a bag of 1928 double eagles.

The theft of the bag of 250 doubles did not become known until the 1937 audit conducted just before the melt.

 

Exactly four-hundred- forty-five-thousand four-hundred-sixty-nine 1933 doubles should have been present ready to be melted and most probably there were this many ready to be melted.

 

Could George McCann,with a little help from his friends, have not swapped out some '28's (from the stolen bag,probably stolen in 1933 according to the Secret Service) for '33's in the last minutes before the loose '33's,four-hundred-sixty-nine of them directly in McCann's control since 1934,were to hit the melting pot?

 

McCann's pocket(s) full of '28's turning into McCann's pocket(s) full of '33's just before melt is not possible? IF the crime of theft of '33's went down this way,ie. "take old coins out of one pocket,swap for new coins and then put new coins into other pocket" does that still put a cloud in your mind ("cannot possibly be accurate") about the veracity of the "absolutely mathematically lining up," meticulous,well-detailed cashier records of 1933-34?

 

McCann was often seen weighing gold coins in the weigh room even though there was little reason,as cashier,for him to be doing this.David Tripp discusses McCann's weighing of coins in his book Illegal Tender.

 

There would be no weight discrepencies detected for "1933 gold" at melt given McCann had selected proper weight coins in the aggregate,say 25,among the '28's which he had a whole bag of to swap for '33's. Plus, there would have been plenty of extras to distribute to his helpers in crime. It seems $100 in gold coin (five '28 doubles) would buy at least one pair of zipped lips in 1937. Need two pair of zipped lips,spend another $100 of stolen government gold coin.

 

The crime didn't occur when the cashier records were made.The crime could easily have occurred just before the coins were to be melted.

 

 

And what of the 1933 Eagles which left the mint, contrary to their perfect records?

[coinman_23885]

coinman_23885 wrote:

The records are only good if they are accurate and can be authenticated. We know that these cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared. I don't think the Farouk coin, for instance, was traceable to Switt or am I mistaken? The hallmark and guiding test for the admission of hearsay under exceptions is the trustworthiness of the source. The Langboards, in my opinion, impeached the records cited against them, and the hearsay exceptions should be ruled inapplicable to them. If not, due process and the right to have property free from government seizure and takings would mean very little if the government could make up documents that were unassailable in court. How hard would it be to win if you decide all of the rules? What would that mean for the rule of law?

 

This post is dedicated to addressing "these records cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared."

 

You are totally disregarding the possibilities of "how the theft got pulled off" with your statement.

 

Even though analysis of the cashier records showed that no 1933 double was issued to a member of the public,we know for a fact that 1933 double eagles soon showed up in private hands after the great gold melt commenced in 1937. We can agree on this. However,

 

George McCann as Head Cashier supervised the melt. Remember,later McCann became a prime suspect in the theft of a bag of 1928 double eagles.

The theft of the bag of 250 doubles did not become known until the 1937 audit conducted just before the melt.

 

Exactly four-hundred- forty-five-thousand four-hundred-sixty-nine 1933 doubles should have been present ready to be melted and most probably there were this many ready to be melted.

 

Could George McCann,with a little help from his friends, have not swapped out some '28's (from the stolen bag,probably stolen in 1933 according to the Secret Service) for '33's in the last minutes before the loose '33's,four-hundred-sixty-nine of them directly in McCann's control since 1934,were to hit the melting pot?

 

McCann's pocket(s) full of '28's turning into McCann's pocket(s) full of '33's just before melt is not possible? IF the crime of theft of '33's went down this way,ie. "take old coins out of one pocket,swap for new coins and then put new coins into other pocket" does that still put a cloud in your mind ("cannot possibly be accurate") about the veracity of the "absolutely mathematically lining up," meticulous,well-detailed cashier records of 1933-34?

 

McCann was often seen weighing gold coins in the weigh room even though there was little reason,as cashier,for him to be doing this.David Tripp discusses McCann's weighing of coins in his book Illegal Tender.

 

There would be no weight discrepencies detected for "1933 gold" at melt given McCann had selected proper weight coins in the aggregate,say 25,among the '28's which he had a whole bag of to swap for '33's. Plus, there would have been plenty of extras to distribute to his helpers in crime. It seems $100 in gold coin (five '28 doubles) would buy at least one pair of zipped lips in 1937. Need two pair of zipped lips,spend another $100 of stolen government gold coin.

 

The crime didn't occur when the cashier records were made.The crime could easily have occurred just before the coins were to be melted.

 

 

And what of the 1933 Eagles which left the mint, contrary to their perfect records?

 

And I will add to this, that the government has a history of keeping poor records especially with regards to the U.S. Mint. No 1964-D Peace Dollars supposedly existed either, and despite categorical claims that all had been melted, pieces showed up after the fact. The confiscated pieces were melted in the late 1960s to early 1970s. In evaluation evidence under hearsay exceptions, courts must look to the trustworthiness of the evidence/source.

 

Interestingly, my understanding is that there was evidence that Mint employees were given an opportunity to purchase 1964-D Peace Dollars at face value, but these were sought back. Despite this, the government maintains that these too are illegal. This should show other posters the danger of over reliance on the government's "trustworthiness."

[seventee]

Mark Feld wrote:

And what of the 1933 Eagles which left the mint, contrary to their perfect records?

 

1933 Eagles were struck starting in January,1933. All 1933 Eagles were struck and delivered to the Cashier by March 3,1933.My Redbook says 312,500 were minted with a note that nearly all were melted at the mint. It is true that the Mint records do not account for all of the 1933 Eagles that we know exist.

 

Lawful old coin for new coin exchange,$10 for $10,at the Mint window could have occurred up to April 5,1933 just as lawful exchange could have occurred at the Mint window for 1933 double eagles.

 

Government never has had a problem with 1933 Eagles in private hands because the '33 Eagle coins were all made prior to April 5,1933. Ultimately,the 1933 Eagles were deemed to have special interest for collectors by using a date for criteria. Most of the 1933 double eagles were struck after April 5,1933,so the government considered 1933 double eagles as not having special interest to collectors and to be valued only for what they could buy.

 

I acknowledge that there is inconsistency as to how these two different denomination 1933 gold coins' legal status has been regarded by government since the '30's.

 

It's not totally logical to me as to why possession of 1933 Eagles is legal and 1933 double eagles is not. What we have here is a specific date (April 5,1933) and some wide open for interpretation words (special value,special interest,rare and unusual) defining government's regard for coins made of the same composition (gold),and bearing the same date (1933).The 1933 gold coins are different only in denomination and design. What are you going to do,though.The law is the law.

 

Here's what Judge Davis says about the 1933 Eagles in Document 233:

 

"...In addition,Mint records reflect that only four (4) 1933 Eagles 27-not Double Eagles-left the Mint through authorized channels,but approximately twenty (20) to thirty (30) of these coins trade in today's marketplace. (Tr.214,at 103-04; Tr. 219,at 57). But this does not necessarily mean that the Mint kept shoddy records. It could also reflect that the '33 Eagles left through the back door." (Tr. 214,at 105-06).

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

27 An "Eagle" is a $10 gold coin-half of a Double Eagle,figuratively speaking.

 

Eagles leaving the Mint after April 5,would have left the Mint unlawfully but because all were struck prior to April 5, they have "special interest" to and "special value" for collectors as "rare and unusual" coins so government never had any interest in recovering any of them,even ones that may have left through the back door,as Judge Davis opines. Apparently,as long as there is "no gold missing" from 1933 Eagle activity,no matter the channel,we have no problem who might possess them sayeth the government.

 

"Law school taught me one thing;how to take two things that are exactly the same and show how they are different." Harry Pomerantz

 

Oddly enough,the Mint daily record shows that a Mr. J. Pomerantz exchanged an old Eagle for a bright and shiny new one,a 1933,on March 1,1933.The transaction was recorded by Assistant Cashier Hibberd Ott.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Mark Feld wrote:

And what of the 1933 Eagles which left the mint, contrary to their perfect records?

 

1933 Eagles were struck starting in January,1933. All 1933 Eagles were struck and delivered to the Cashier by March 3,1933.My Redbook says 312,500 were minted with a note that nearly all were melted at the mint. It is true that the Mint records do not account for all of the 1933 Eagles that we know exist.

 

Lawful old coin for new coin exchange,$10 for $10,at the Mint window could have occurred up to April 5,1933 just as lawful exchange could have occurred at the Mint window for 1933 double eagles.

 

Government never has had a problem with 1933 Eagles in private hands because the '33 Eagle coins were all made prior to April 5,1933. Ultimately,the 1933 Eagles were deemed to have special interest for collectors by using a date for criteria. Most of the 1933 double eagles were struck after April 5,1933,so the government considered 1933 double eagles as not having special interest to collectors and to be valued only for what they could buy.

 

I acknowledge that there is inconsistency as to how these two different denomination 1933 gold coins' legal status has been regarded by government since the '30's.

 

It's not totally logical to me as to why possession of 1933 Eagles is legal and 1933 double eagles is not. What we have here is a specific date (April 5,1933) and some wide open for interpretation words (special value,special interest,rare and unusual) defining government's regard for coins made of the same composition (gold),and bearing the same date (1933).The 1933 gold coins are different only in denomination and design. What are you going to do,though.The law is the law.

 

Here's what Judge Davis says about the 1933 Eagles in Document 233:

 

"...In addition,Mint records reflect that only four (4) 1933 Eagles 27-not Double Eagles-left the Mint through authorized channels,but approximately twenty (20) to thirty (30) of these coins trade in today's marketplace. (Tr.214,at 103-04; Tr. 219,at 57). But this does not necessarily mean that the Mint kept shoddy records. It could also reflect that the '33 Eagles left through the back door." (Tr. 214,at 105-06).

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

27 An "Eagle" is a $10 gold coin-half of a Double Eagle,figuratively speaking.

 

Eagles leaving the Mint after April 5,would have left the Mint unlawfully but because all were struck prior to April 5, they have "special interest" to and "special value" for collectors as "rare and unusual" coins so government never had any interest in recovering any of them,even ones that may have left through the back door,as Judge Davis opines. Apparently,as long as "no gold missing" from 1933 Eagle activity,we have no problem with 1933 Eagles and who might possess them sayeth the government.

 

"Law school taught me one thing;how to take two things that are exactly the same and show how they are different." Harry Pomerantz

 

Oddly enough,the Mint daily record shows that a Mr. J. Pomerantz exchanged an old Eagle for a bright and shiny new one,a 1933,on March 1,1933.The transaction was recorded by Assistant Cashier Hibberd Ott. Could Mr. J. Pomerantz be a relative of Harry?

 

I think I will put my younger brother to work on the Pomerantz question.He is expert in researching genealogical records.

 

 

 

 

I often disagree with you, but like your attitude and appreciate your tenaciousness and enthusiasm.

 

(thumbs u

[seventee]

LuckyOne wrote:

huh? I'm willing to bet that there were safeguards to prevent that. MAybe I'm wrong, it was a different time, but it IS the US Mint, charged with high security even at that time, so what are the chances that something as large as double eagles would be missed by security? Can't prove you're wrong, but the idea is too simplistic for me my friend...

 

There was no such thing as metal detectors or electronic article surveillance machines (EAS) or video cameras to help "security" catch sticky-fingered employees in the 1930's Mint.

 

George McCann was a trusted employee for about the first twenty years of his career at the Mint. McCann rose in the ranks and was made Head Cashier in 1934. McCann even had his own office in the Mint.

 

Greed is what did McCann in. I can see McCann stuffing his baggy pants with big pockets with 1933 double eagles after swapping with coins from the bag of 250 double eagles that he probably stole,with help, in March,1933.

 

Most likely McCann was caught in theft by Secret Service set-up after the gold melt in 1937 when the double eagle bag of 250 pieces ($5000 face value) was discovered missing from the basement vault. McCann was the prime suspect in the bag theft but was not convicted for it. No one was convicted for the bag theft and the bag was never recovered.

 

McCann was caught pilfering small change from the Mint,some $1200 over the course of the years after 1937. McCann won himself a $500 fine and a-year-and-a -day of time in Lewisburg PA penitentiary in 1940.

 

The Mint fired McCann and he left the employ of the Mint a disgraced man in 1941. McCann's behavior was not just improper,it was betrayal of trust that the People of the United States,the people of the Mint once had in him.

 

Those ten ladies of Liberty stand in mute testimony to the lawlessness and corruption that overtook some employees of the Mint in the 1930's."Crime really does pay" is what those ten 1933 double eagles found in a safety deposit box will be saying to me if the Langbords prevail.

 

Government prevailing in Langbord v. United States is as good as it will get from the standpoint of justice finally being done for the People,all the People,IMHO.

 

Forget putting them in the Smithsonian (except for the pocket piece).Let's have some fun,a scratch lottery for "The Coins" after government prevails.Those coins will find their way just fine into the channels of numismatic commerce after the lottery. Each collector with the cash who really wants one will be able to get one for his or her gold coin collection.I would bet my entire coin collection on it.

 

except for a couple pieces,i would bet my entire collection,that is....

 

 

[CaptHenway]

coinman_23885 wrote:

The records are only good if they are accurate and can be authenticated. We know that these cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared. I don't think the Farouk coin, for instance, was traceable to Switt or am I mistaken? The hallmark and guiding test for the admission of hearsay under exceptions is the trustworthiness of the source. The Langboards, in my opinion, impeached the records cited against them, and the hearsay exceptions should be ruled inapplicable to them. If not, due process and the right to have property free from government seizure and takings would mean very little if the government could make up documents that were unassailable in court. How hard would it be to win if you decide all of the rules? What would that mean for the rule of law?

 

This post is dedicated to addressing "these records cannot possibly be accurate based on the fact that other coins appeared."

 

You are totally disregarding the possibilities of "how the theft got pulled off" with your statement.

 

Even though analysis of the cashier records showed that no 1933 double was issued to a member of the public,we know for a fact that 1933 double eagles soon showed up in private hands after the great gold melt commenced in 1937. We can agree on this. However,

 

George McCann as Head Cashier supervised the melt. Remember,later McCann became a prime suspect in the theft of a bag of 1928 double eagles.

The theft of the bag of 250 doubles did not become known until the 1937 audit conducted just before the melt.

 

Exactly four-hundred- forty-five-thousand four-hundred-sixty-nine 1933 doubles should have been present ready to be melted and most probably there were this many ready to be melted.

 

Could George McCann,with a little help from his friends, have not swapped out some '28's (from the stolen bag,probably stolen in 1933 according to the Secret Service) for '33's in the last minutes before the loose '33's,four-hundred-sixty-nine of them directly in McCann's control since 1934,were to hit the melting pot?

 

McCann's pocket(s) full of '28's turning into McCann's pocket(s) full of '33's just before melt is not possible? IF the crime of theft of '33's went down this way,ie. "take old coins out of one pocket,swap for new coins and then put new coins into other pocket" does that still put a cloud in your mind ("cannot possibly be accurate") about the veracity of the "absolutely mathematically lining up," meticulous,well-detailed cashier records of 1933-34?

 

McCann was often seen weighing gold coins in the weigh room even though there was little reason,as cashier,for him to be doing this.David Tripp discusses McCann's weighing of coins in his book Illegal Tender.

 

There would be no weight discrepencies detected for "1933 gold" at melt given McCann had selected proper weight coins in the aggregate,say 25,among the '28's which he had a whole bag of to swap for '33's. Plus, there would have been plenty of extras to distribute to his helpers in crime. It seems $100 in gold coin (five '28 doubles) would buy at least one pair of zipped lips in 1937. Need two pair of zipped lips,spend another $100 of stolen government gold coin.

 

The crime didn't occur when the cashier records were made.The crime could easily have occurred just before the coins were to be melted.

 

 

And what of the 1933 Eagles which left the mint, contrary to their perfect records?

 

And I will add to this, that the government has a history of keeping poor records especially with regards to the U.S. Mint. No 1964-D Peace Dollars supposedly existed either, and despite categorical claims that all had been melted, pieces showed up after the fact. The confiscated pieces were melted in the late 1960s to early 1970s. In evaluation evidence under hearsay exceptions, courts must look to the trustworthiness of the evidence/source.

 

Interestingly, my understanding is that there was evidence that Mint employees were given an opportunity to purchase 1964-D Peace Dollars at face value, but these were sought back. Despite this, the government maintains that these too are illegal. This should show other posters the danger of over reliance on the government's "trustworthiness."

 

I am unaware of any 1964-D Peace dollars having been confiscated in the late 1960's or early 1970's. If you have evidence of this happening could you please share it with us.

 

There is no evidence that I know of that the Mint allowed employees to purchase 1964-D Peace dollars at face value but later required the employees to return them. I once spoke with a retired Denver Mint employee who told me that it happened, but I have no "evidence" of this conversation. I was merely there when it happened.

 

I have a letter from former Denver coin dealer Dan Brown that says that he had a conversation with Denver Mint Superintendent Fern Miller which says that she told him that coins were sold to employees and later recalled, which could become evidence in a trial someday if one were to surface and the owner were to sue the government for the right to sell it, but for now it remains hearsay on the part of Mr. Brown.

 

The U.S. Mint denies that such a sale ever took place, but the Mint has been known to lie when it suits their needs.

 

TD