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

[KMAG100]

So in short do I understand the government wants to keep the coins and ?

 

You say "some descendants of the coin's owners want them" I would say "some descendants of a jeweler who knowingly came into possession of stolen coin's through illegal means, now want to enrich themselves from that act."

 

Please show us some/any proof that the coin were stolen.

 

I guess my question would be, what would constitute proof to you that they were acquired through non-legitimate means?

 

I can't prove that a tree crashing to the floor of the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it, but I would still say it does make a noise.

 

After reading the PDF coinman posted I am even more convinced Switt acquired the coins through non-legitimate means, and I'm guessing he purchased them from the mint cashier. But hey that is just my opinion, and if people have others fine.

[coinman_23885]

The problem is that the Langboards had viable arguments for a window of opportunity to exist in which the pieces could have lawfully escaped through the cashier. The government admits that one existed, and it claims that government records indicate none were ever lawfully released; however, the proof is far from convincing IMO and is based on speculation and hearsay. Insofar as any Mint records were admitted under hearsay exceptions, I think there is a problem given the sloppy nature in which these were kept, as acknowledged by the court and preserved on the record that might make them open to attack for the trust worthiness.

 

For instance, other pieces obviously existed other than those held by Switt, no? Where did those come from? Moreover, RWB pointed to a shortage of gold on Mint accounts that could suggest that some were not accounted for. I found the court's dismissal of this point troublesome. I was also bothered by how the government's expert apparently changed its opinion on the cash register. That raises credibility issues IMO for the government's witness. Rather, the court choses to take out of context a post made by the Langboard's expert witness. Any putative credibility issues notwithstanding, the records offered by the Langboards speak for themselves. I understand that federal judges are reluctant to over turn jury verdicts, but I think it would be appropriate in this case. Moreover, I think much of the evidence was prejudicial and improperly admitted over the Langboards' objection, which should be grounds for the verdict to be vacated and the matter retried.

 

If the coins were in fact U.S. Mint property, then yes, the government should win; however, it has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it was their property. It cannot make broad claims of ownership based on hearsay and speculation, especially when there is a genuine question of fact as to whether the coins could have escaped lawfully. Allowing such a practice would allow the government to effectively seize private property without due process of law. I also am not convinced that the record is free of reversible error as to certain pieces of evidence that were admitted. I do not think the government met its burden of proving that the coins belonged to it.

[Lucky One]

there is one thing that I don't understand in this case- you keep quoting the EO that was issued pertaing to the recall. EO's, if I'm not mistaken, do not apply to the general public but only to federal employees, do they not? I mean, if Obama issued an EO today ordering us all to sell our cars or homes to the government, we are not obligated to do so. I am not a lawyer so if I'm wrong, please correct my assumption, but I read somewhere in my studies that this was the case. If it is true, and if this is the only thing being argued, then it is a non-argument imho...

 

An executive order has the binding effect of law. Supposedly, Presidents are limited to their constitutional powers or where Congress has authorized them to act; however, unfortunately, many presidents do whatever they want. You could always challenge an executive order in court and seek a judicial declaration that the President exceeded his constitutional powers or other authority, but to do so is a very costly proposition.

 

Either way, I agree with Condor that the legal tender status was not altered in anyway. The Executive Order applied to everyone and not just government employees.

 

I beg to differ, there are stipulations as outlined in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

Did the Congress delegate this authority because I know it isn't granted to the executive branch by the Constitution. I have always hated getting into debates about law because it is so convoluted that you need an advanced education in law just to understand it...

[Lucky One]

The problem is that the Langboards had viable arguments for a window of opportunity to exist in which the pieces could have lawfully escaped through the cashier. The government admits that one existed, and it claims that government records indicate none were ever lawfully released; however, the proof is far from convincing IMO and is based on speculation and hearsay. Insofar as any Mint records were admitted under hearsay exceptions, I think there is a problem given the sloppy nature in which these were kept, as acknowledged by the court and preserved on the record that might make them open to attack for the trust worthiness.

 

For instance, other pieces obviously existed other than those held by Switt, no? Where did those come from? Moreover, RWB pointed to a shortage of gold on Mint accounts that could suggest that some were not accounted for. I found the court's dismissal of this point troublesome. I was also bothered by how the government's expert apparently changed its opinion on the cash register. That raises credibility issues IMO for the government's witness. Rather, the court choses to take out of context a post made by the Langboard's expert witness. Any putative credibility issues notwithstanding, the records offered by the Langboards speak for themselves. I understand that federal judges are reluctant to over turn jury verdicts, but I think it would be appropriate in this case. Moreover, I think much of the evidence was prejudicial and improperly admitted over the Langboards' objection, which should be grounds for the verdict to be vacated and the matter retried.

 

If the coins were in fact U.S. Mint property, then yes, the government should win; however, it has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it was their property. It cannot make broad claims of ownership based on hearsay and speculation, especially when there is a genuine question of fact as to whether the coins could have escaped lawfully. Allowing such a practice would allow the government to effectively seize private property without due process of law. I also am not convinced that the record is free of reversible error as to certain pieces of evidence that were admitted. I do not think the government met its burden of proving that the coins belonged to it.

 

agreed, the govt never proved that the DEs in question couldn't have been released by mistake or in the course of normal business before it was realized by the issuing authority...

[coinman_23885]

I beg to differ, there are stipulations as outlined in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

Did the Congress delegate this authority because I know it isn't granted to the executive branch by the Constitution. I have always hated getting into debates about law because it is so convoluted that you need an advanced education in law just to understand it...

 

So laws, executive orders, and administrative regulations are all passed with a legal presumption that the provisions are valid and constitutional. You can freely debate this all you want, but without seeking a proper remedy, then you are out of luck (no pun intended). In the case of an executive order, Congress could have overridden Roosevelt, but it did not. That leaves you with a question of law for a judge as to whether Roosevelt had authority under the cited legislation or under the President's Article II constitutional powers. Absent a court order finding the executive order unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, you are bound to abide by it. Citizens are not free to ignore laws at will. If there is an issue; however, you can ask a court to strike down the law and enjoin its enforcement. That is the proper mechanism. Without it, the law is self executing.

[Lucky One]

So in short do I understand the government wants to keep the coins and ?

 

You say "some descendants of the coin's owners want them" I would say "some descendants of a jeweler who knowingly came into possession of stolen coin's through illegal means, now want to enrich themselves from that act."

 

Please show us some/any proof that the coin were stolen.

 

I guess my question would be, what would constitute proof to you that they were acquired through non-legitimate means?

 

I can't prove that a tree crashing to the floor of the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it, but I would still say it does make a noise.

 

After reading the PDF coinman posted I am even more convinced Switt acquired the coins through non-legitimate means, and I'm guessing he purchased them from the mint cashier. But hey that is just my opinion, and if people have others fine.

 

I think he got them that way too, so where is the fraud? If the mint employee made a mistake, it doesn't incriminate anyone. If it can be proved there was a conspiracy between the two, however, I'd agree the govt has a case. 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...

[MarkFeld]

So in short do I understand the government wants to keep the coins and ?

 

You say "some descendants of the coin's owners want them" I would say "some descendants of a jeweler who knowingly came into possession of stolen coin's through illegal means, now want to enrich themselves from that act."

 

Please show us some/any proof that the coin were stolen.

 

I guess my question would be, what would constitute proof to you that they were acquired through non-legitimate means?

 

I can't prove that a tree crashing to the floor of the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it, but I would still say it does make a noise.

 

After reading the PDF coinman posted I am even more convinced Switt acquired the coins through non-legitimate means, and I'm guessing he purchased them from the mint cashier. But hey that is just my opinion, and if people have others fine.

 

You and the U.S Dept. of Treasury maintain that the coins were stolen. The burden should be on you/it to prove it, not on someone else to prove they weren't.

 

If, as you are guessing, Switt purchased the coins, by definition, he did not steal them.

 

If coins or other valuables were left to you by family members, decades ago, and the items were seized, would you feel it was fair for you to have to prove they were not stolen? How could you prove that (other than through the extremely rare occurrence of having original purchase documentation)?

[jom]

So in short do I understand the government wants to keep the coins and ?

 

You say "some descendants of the coin's owners want them" I would say "some descendants of a jeweler who knowingly came into possession of stolen coin's through illegal means, now want to enrich themselves from that act."

 

Please show us some/any proof that the coin were stolen.

 

I guess my question would be, what would constitute proof to you that they were acquired through non-legitimate means?

 

I can't prove that a tree crashing to the floor of the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it, but I would still say it does make a noise.

 

After reading the PDF coinman posted I am even more convinced Switt acquired the coins through non-legitimate means, and I'm guessing he purchased them from the mint cashier. But hey that is just my opinion, and if people have others fine.

 

You and the U.S Dept. of Treasury maintain that the coins were stolen. The burden should be on you/it to prove it, not on someone else to prove they weren't.

 

If, as you are guessing, Switt purchased the coins, by definition, he did not steal them.

 

If coins or other valuables were left to you by family members, decades ago, and the items were seized, would you feel it was fair for you to have to prove they were not stolen? How could you prove that (other than through the extremely rare occurrence of having original purchase documentation)?

 

The presumption of innocence is fairly straightforward. I don't know so many seem to be confused by it.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

You and the U.S Dept. of Treasury maintain that the coins were stolen. The burden should be on you/it to prove it, not on someone else to prove they weren't.

 

If, as you are guessing, Switt purchased the coins, by definition, he did not steal them.

 

If coins or other valuables were left to you by family members, decades ago, and the items were seized, would you feel it was fair for you to have to prove they were not stolen? How could you prove that (other than through the extremely rare occurrence of having original purchase documentation)?

 

I agree, and was surprised by part of the analysis which concerns bona fide purchasers for value not being protected as a matter of state law. I should actually pull the cases and read them. Isn't it arguably distinguishable when the pieces were released by a government employee who traditionally holds authority to release them? Moreover, the government never proved that the pieces were stolen.

 

Coming finally to the merits of the claim, it is well-established that a bona fide purchaser from a thief gets nothing. Underhill Coal Mining Co. v. Hixon, 652 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (quoting Linwood Harvestore, Inc. v. Cannon, 235 A.2d 377, 380 (Pa. 1967)). “This is so because a converter has no title . . . and thus can convey nothing to a bona fide purchaser for value.” L.B. Foster Co. v. Charles Caracciolo Steel & Metal Yard, Inc., 777 A.2d 1090, 1095 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). This general principle of property law governs priority of title, regardless of how valuable the contested property may be….

 

It is also bizarre that the court held that the Langboards effectively never acquired title, but yet the District Court applies CAFRA which is a law for non-judical forfeiture. In that sense, the opinion is contradictory. If the Langboards never acquired title to the property, then the court erred in even applying CAFRA because there was nothing to "forfeit."

[Hard Times]

Coinman, after reading all of your posts here, it seems that any very good lawyer should have run circles around the feds in court and pointed out the flaws in their accusations convincingly. That suggests that perhaps the lawyers the Langboards have are not very good, or?

 

Best, HT

[coinman_23885]

Coinman, after reading all of your posts here, it seems that any very good lawyer should have run circles around the feds in court and pointed out the flaws in their accusations convincingly. That suggests that perhaps the lawyers the Langboards have are not very good, or?

 

Best, HT

 

I cannot blame it on the attorneys necessarily. I wasn't there nor did I read the hundreds of pages of testimony/the trial transcript. In fact, everything I pointed to was in the court's finding of fact, which basically summarized the trial. So the court acknowledged the issues and chose to uphold the verdict anyway. If anything, the Langboards' attorneys deserve credit for muddying the waters on the CAFRA stuff. It even managed to convince the three judge panel to their credit. Even though I disagree with their logic there, I think it was an interesting and clever angle.

 

In my opinion, the entire thing comes down to the jury's view of opposing expert witnesses. The government had expert testimony and the jury bought into the poorly maintained Mint records despite the obvious fact that they could not be correct (as other coins had escaped) and evidence of sloppiness. I think the jury was probably also swayed by the Secret Service investigation. Many jurors will falsely assume that the authorities are always correct. And finally, I think the government's attack on the Langboard's expert witness was probably influential as well and probably made the jury distrust everything else. This is an excellent reason why I hate jury trials and am distrustful of juries generally. In many cases, the jury's perception of you is just as important if not more than the law in some aspects. And judges are very hesitant to throw out a jury verdict. If it is even borderline, usually the judge will defer to the jury. Keep in mind this is all my opinion, and I am sure others might see it differently.

 

So in summary, I am not surprised by the jury's verdict, but am surprised by the court's handling of it on review. Not that it matters, but I would have thrown it out. Because of the evidentiary issues/other issues raised by the Langboards, I still don't think it is over, but it will be much harder for them to prevail unless the full court adopts the logic of the three judge panel regarding CAFRA. If CAFRA doesn't pan out and if the evidentiary issues don't work out, I think the government will ultimately prevail.

[Hard Times]

And finally, I think the government's attack on the Langboard's expert witness was probably influential as well and probably made the jury distrust everything else.

 

Good insight in the above post. I remember even in Coin World the attack on the Langboard's 'expert witness' by the Feds was a big deal and the fact that this witness was a regular poster on coin boards and some of his posts were dredged up against him. Really sad if this was the key influence on the feds win in the jury portion of this ordeal.

 

There is still the established time window where the 33 DE's could have been available for exchange at the mint with the public. I just can't see how the Feds had/have a case given this with the incomplete book-keeping records at the mint. Is it possible in future hearings that this will come back to haunt the feds?

 

Best, HT

[Raisethis2]

I have a question. Today it is commonplace for people "in the know" to buy stocks or commodities based upon information not generally available to the public. With this info these "speculators" make a killing.

 

Applying that angle to this case is it possible Switt had prior knowledge of Roosevelt's pending Executive Order, bought the coins legally through his mint sources then kept them once the Order was issued?

 

Was there a period of time prior to the Executive Order that the public may have known/suspected it was about to happen?

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Is it possible in future hearings that this will come back to haunt the feds?

 

It should, and I hope it does. Even accepting the finding of facts and viewing them most favorably to the government, I think the Third Circuit should reverse as I don't think the government met its burden as a matter of law. Beyond that, I think the court should use this as a reason to vacate the judgement and jury verdict, and order the trial court to re-examine the evidentiary issues. I just hope that the court doesn't become too caught up on CAFRA. As evidenced by the granting of the petition for rehearing, I am not convinced that a majority would adopt the 3 judge panel's version (which in fairness I wouldn't either).

[seventee]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

And yet, 1933 Eagles escaped from the Mint, undetected, as well. Those records weren't so perfect.

 

Additionally, even if the cashier's records were perfect, that would not preclude an exchange of coins with Switt at some point - one that would not amount to a theft.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

I interpret that your position would be that the burden of proof is met by an assumption of the correctness of an assumptive conclusion based on an assumption that the records are correct and not subject to error.

 

I guess SCOTUS would buy that.

[coinman_23885]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

A mere preponderance of evidence standard of evidence means that it is more likely than not. The correct standard is the more exacting and strict clear and convincing evidence. I guess by your post, you always assume that the government and federal agencies are correct (much like the jurors with the Secret Service investigation discussed at the trial).

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

A mere preponderance of evidence standard of evidence means that it is more likely than not. The correct standard is the more exacting and strict clear and convincing evidence. I guess by your post, you always assume that the government and federal agencies are correct (much like the jurors with the Secret Service investigation discussed at the trial).

 

I tried to say that. I have to improve my language skills

[Lucky One]

I beg to differ, there are stipulations as outlined in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

 

Did the Congress delegate this authority because I know it isn't granted to the executive branch by the Constitution. I have always hated getting into debates about law because it is so convoluted that you need an advanced education in law just to understand it...

 

So laws, executive orders, and administrative regulations are all passed with a legal presumption that the provisions are valid and constitutional. You can freely debate this all you want, but without seeking a proper remedy, then you are out of luck (no pun intended). In the case of an executive order, Congress could have overridden Roosevelt, but it did not. That leaves you with a question of law for a judge as to whether Roosevelt had authority under the cited legislation or under the President's Article II constitutional powers. Absent a court order finding the executive order unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, you are bound to abide by it. Citizens are not free to ignore laws at will. If there is an issue; however, you can ask a court to strike down the law and enjoin its enforcement. That is the proper mechanism. Without it, the law is self executing.

 

understood and agreed, wasn't so much disagreeing with anyone, just putting in my two cents worth. Regardless, the only thing thst bothers me is the motive of the govt- IF they were seeking to finish the job that was started in 1934, and that was to destroy all 1933 DE's, then I wouldn't think much of it, but my bet, and I'll take a bet, is that the govt wants to sell these DE's for a huge profit. If that is the reason- a hundred million dollars, if they brought that much, would put a dent in the 20 trillion dollar federal debt. It wouldn't even put a dent in the latest budget deficit. It is peanuts, and the federal govt is wasting taxpayer dollars to do it. More professinal integrity in the spotlight... sigh

 

Thanks for the clarification my friend. By the way- are you a lawyer? You seem to be very knowledgeable in matters of law.

[seventee]

Mark Feld:

And yet, 1933 Eagles escaped from the Mint, undetected, as well. Those records weren't so perfect.

 

Additionally, even if the cashier's records were perfect, that would not preclude an exchange of coins with Switt at some point - one that would not amount to a theft.

 

Mr. Feld and others:

 

"Much of the trial testimony focused on the Philadelphia Mint cashier and the records he kept. The Mint cashier is,for all practical purposes,the "gatekeeper" of the coins. (Tr. 208,at 132)...."

 

"Important to this case,the daily settlement is segregated into three (3) categories of coins: one for the current year's production,ie.,1933 Double Eagles;one for prior years' coins; and one for circulated coins (for example,coins that had been in commerce but later came back to the Mint as worn). (Id.) The daily settlement is a handwritten,8 unsigned document.9 (Tr. 213,at 165,179). The daily statements,on the other hand,are typed and signed,but they do not reflect the dates of the coins. (Tr. 213,at 165; 214,at 21-22). In addition to tracking gold coins,the cashier's records tracked such minutiae as a three (3) cent payout to a customer who evidently received his money in the form of two (2) 1932 pennies and one (1) 1933 penny. (Tr. 209,at 9-25). As should be apparent,the records are exquisitely detailed..."

 

"Relying primarily on the cashier's daily settlements and statements,Tripp reconstructed the day-to-day movement of the 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr. 209,at 26-36).10 Using these two documents in tandem,along with other Mint records,11 Tripp figurately followed the coins around the Mint every day from January of 1933 through November of 1934. (Id., Tr. 209,at 113-17). By doing so,Tripp accounted for each and every one of the 445,500 1933 Double Eagles and showed that not a single '33 Double Eagle was issued to the public. (Tr. 210,at 39)."

_______________________________________________________________

 

8 The Government's forensic accountant Wayne Geisser opined that a ledger is not necessarily less reliable because it is handwritten. (Tr. 217,at 51).

 

9 Tripp admits that he has seen no written rule or regulation requiring the Mint cashier to keep records having this level of detail,e.g.,records tracking coins by date. (Tr. 213,at 177-79). Regardless,these records do,in fact,exist. Furthermore, Mint employees were held personally responsible for missing money,which would have given the cashier an incentive to keep detailed records accounting for every last dollar. (Tr. 208, at 180).

 

In addition,Tripp conceded that he could not be sure that the daily settlements were audited. (Tr. 213,at 179). However,by rule,the Mint cashier's holdings were audited at least once a month,and Tripp believes such an audit would have likely entailed looking at both the daily settlements and the daily statements. (Tr. 213, at 179,182-85).

 

10In conducting his analysis,Tripp did not see any mistakes in the cashier's daily statements or settlements. (Tr. 209,at 37).

 

11In forming his opinion, Tripp also relied upon the Mint's daily process books, which detail the coining department's physical production of the coins; delivery books,which record the delivery of coins to the cashier; assay transmittal and report sheets;and basement vault records,among other things. (Tr. 208,at 117-18; Tr. 210,at 40-42). According to Tripp,the records fit together like a jigsaw puzzle,dovetailing with each other to paint a complete picture. (Tr 209, at 113-17).

 

MEMORANDUM (Document 233),pp.5-7,Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Judge Davis uses the terminology of 1933 double eagles as "having gone through unauthorized channels" for "stolen" is what one will get,or should get, as one reads Document 233. What are unauthorized channels? Pants pockets,lunch boxes,body cavities,etc. No one knows exactly how 1933 double eagles got out of the Mint.We just know that they did....through unauthorized channels.

 

CAFRA is for the lawyers.I'm not going to even pretend that I understand CAFRA.Arithmetic I do understand,however.

 

"Intellectually,it was amazing. You had to learn coining processes...and how the Philadelphia Mint worked in the 1930's."

Jacqueline C. Romero,Asst. U.S. Attorney

 

[MarkFeld]

Mark Feld:

And yet, 1933 Eagles escaped from the Mint, undetected, as well. Those records weren't so perfect.

 

Additionally, even if the cashier's records were perfect, that would not preclude an exchange of coins with Switt at some point - one that would not amount to a theft.

 

Mr. Feld and others:

 

"Much of the trial testimony focused on the Philadelphia Mint cashier and the records he kept. The Mint cashier is,for all practical purposes,the "gatekeeper" of the coins. (Tr. 208,at 132)...."

 

"Important to this case,the daily settlement is segregated into three (3) categories of coins: one for the current year's production,ie.,1933 Double Eagles;one for prior years' coins; and one for circulated coins (for example,coins that had been in commerce but later came back to the Mint as worn). (Id.) The daily settlement is a handwritten,8 unsigned document.9 (Tr. 213,at 165,179). The daily statements,on the other hand,are typed and signed,but they do not reflect the dates of the coins. (Tr. 213,at 165; 214,at 21-22). In addition to tracking gold coins,the cashier's records tracked such minutiae as a three (3) cent payout to a customer who evidently received his money in the form of two (2) 1932 pennies and one (1) 1933 penny. (Tr. 209,at 9-25). As should be apparent,the records are exquisitely detailed..."

 

"Relying primarily on the cashier's daily settlements and statements,Tripp reconstructed the day-to-day movement of the 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr. 209,at 26-36).10 Using these two documents in tandem,along with other Mint records,11 Tripp figurately followed the coins around the Mint every day from January of 1933 through November of 1934. (Id., Tr. 209,at 113-17). By doing so,Tripp accounted for each and every one of the 445,500 1933 Double Eagles and showed that not a single '33 Double Eagle was issued to the public. (Tr. 210,at 39)."

_______________________________________________________________

 

8 The Government's forensic accountant Wayne Geisser opined that a ledger is not necessarily less reliable because it is handwritten. (Tr. 217,at 51).

 

9 Tripp admits that he has seen no written rule or regulation requiring the Mint cashier to keep records having this level of detail,e.g.,records tracking coins by date. (Tr. 213,at 177-79). Regardless,these records do,in fact,exist. Furthermore, Mint employees were held personally responsible for missing money,which would have given the cashier an incentive to keep detailed records accounting for every last dollar. (Tr. 208, at 180).

 

In addition,Tripp conceded that he could not be sure that the daily settlements were audited. (Tr. 213,at 179). However,by rule,the Mint cashier's holdings were audited at least once a month,and Tripp believes such an audit would have likely entailed looking at both the daily settlements and the daily statements. (Tr. 213, at 179,182-85).

 

10In conducting his analysis,Tripp did not see any mistakes in the cashier's daily statements or settlements. (Tr. 209,at 37).

 

11In forming his opinion, Tripp also relied upon the Mint's daily process books, which detail the coining department's physical production of the coins; delivery books,which record the delivery of coins to the cashier; assay transmittal and report sheets;and basement vault records,among other things. (Tr. 208,at 117-18; Tr. 210,at 40-42). According to Tripp,the records fit together like a jigsaw puzzle,dovetailing with each other to paint a complete picture. (Tr 209, at 113-17).

 

MEMORANDUM (Document 233),pp.5-7,Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Judge Davis uses the terminology of 1933 double eagles as "having gone through unauthorized channels" for "stolen" is what one will get,or should get, as one reads Document 233. What are unauthorized channels? Pants pockets,lunch boxes,body cavities,etc. No one knows exactly how 1933 double eagles got out of the Mint.We just know that they did....through unauthorized channels.

 

CAFRA is for the lawyers.I'm not going to even pretend that I understand CAFRA.Arithmetic I do understand,however.

 

"Intellectually,it was amazing. You had to learn coining processes...and how the Philadelphia Mint worked in the 1930's."

Jacqueline C. Romero,Asst. U.S. Attorney

 

 

Again, so-called mistake-free records have been shown to be other than advertised. And if there was an exchange of coins involving 1933 Saints, it might have been deemed to be through "unauthorized" channels, but that would not necessarily make it through illegal channels.

[seventee]

 

Izzy might be giving us all a clue how 1933 double eagles got out of the Mint.

 

One of the 1933 double eagles that the Langbords found in the safety deposit box has wear,suggesting that it was used as a pocket piece for a time.

 

The pieces got out in the Mint thief's pants pockets.

 

[Lucky One]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

And yet, 1933 Eagles escaped from the Mint, undetected, as well. Those records weren't so perfect.

 

Additionally, even if the cashier's records were perfect, that would not preclude an exchange of coins with Switt at some point - one that would not amount to a theft.

 

I tend to side with your view of this Mark- improper is not the same as illegal, and if the 'improper' exchange of money for money resulted in the possession of coins that were later outlawed, at least $100 worth of that date were still legal if I read this case right. If I don't I'm sure someone will point it out, but I think you are calling it right, or at least the possibility exists. I believe that when the govt is calling someone a thief, they should prove something was actually stolen and how it was accomplished. I haven't been convinced of anything yet...

[Lucky One]

 

Izzy might be giving us all a clue how 1933 double eagles got out of the Mint.

 

One of the 1933 double eagles that the Langbords found in the safety deposit box has wear,suggesting that it was used as a pocket piece for a time.

 

The pieces got out in the Mint thief's pants pockets.

 

 

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...

[seventee]

Again, so-called mistake-free records have been shown to be other than advertised.

 

Government told the better story to the jury.That's how they won the jury over with a unanimous verdict.

 

"A lawsuit is not a search for truth. It's a storytelling contest with a highly particular protocol. The lawyer who constructs a better story,using selected evidence to satisfy the requirements of the law, wins."

 

Alison Frankel,Double Eagle

 

edited 8/5/15:first sentence deleted.

 

[seventee]

Simplistic? Maybe.

 

Plausible? Yes,my friend.

 

Anyone know if tests were done to determine the chemical composition of the grime on lady Liberty that is evident on some of the pieces?

 

[KMAG100]

The burden of proof should have been on the government, and I don't think it ever met its burden unless I am missing something.

 

Government meets burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) pretty much with this:

 

"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).

 

Wayne Geisser, the Government’s other expert witness and a forensic accountant, corroborated Tripp’s analysis and conclusions. (Tr. 217, at 38-39). Like Tripp, Geisser determined that the cashier’s records from 1933 and 1934 were reliable. In particular, Geisser found a “seamless” connection between the records of the coining department, to the “coins executed log,” to the cashier. (Tr. 217, at 100-01). 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. (Tr. 217, at 86-89, 102; G-337). Even the Claimants’ own expert conceded that the cashier’s daily settlement and the cashier’s daily statement “absolutely line up” from a mathematical standpoint. (Tr. 221, at 46-47)."

 

from Document 233, p8-9, Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

"Mathematically absolutely lining up" of the two cashier's records established the proof government needed.

 

 

And yet, 1933 Eagles escaped from the Mint, undetected, as well. Those records weren't so perfect.

 

Additionally, even if the cashier's records were perfect, that would not preclude an exchange of coins with Switt at some point - one that would not amount to a theft.

 

That is the whole idea or goal of stealing, getting goods out undetected.

 

Reading through the entire 54 pages of the Document that Coinman posted I can not see how any reasonable person can completely discount the evidence submitted by the Government. To name a few:

 

1. From my understanding all the coins can be traced back to Switt.

2. Caisher was arrested and spent prison time for embezzlement of silver coins

3. Bank withdraws from Switts account, and corresponding deposits in McCann's account match up closely with respect to amount and timing.

4. When McCann was questioned about missing 33's he pointed to other mint employees as possibly removing them, however never once indicated they may have been legally exchanged by accident.

5. Switt clearly was untruthful to SS on several occasions, from not remembering who he acquired the 33s from to suddenly remember 30-40 year later he acquired them through a mint exchange. Of course earlier he told SS that he acquired them from purchase of collections and had never acquired them from the mint. Further claiming he did not have anymore of the coins and clearly still possessing 10 additionally coins and it goes on and on.

 

Pages 29 - 33 of the document summarizes the evidence brought forth by the government to support their case. While some may still want to ignore this body of evidence and hold onto direct explicit proof, apparently there is case law that supports "explicit evidence is not required to support a finding of specific intent." United States v. Piekarsky pg.29. Further laid out in the second paragraph on page 29 it concludes that the Claimants argument of "window of opportunity" did not hold water and "the Government presented substantial evidence from which a jury could-and did- properly infer criminal intent." To each their own, but I am not sure how one can discount all the evidence presented regardless if most of it is circumstantial. In no way does it pass the smell test. Last I do not mean to offend or disrespect anyone by my opinion, and I say this because I realize some on the board was a part of this case and/or may be friend of the Claimants.

 

I do have a question, I have read in several posts that not all the coins were traced back to Switt, however the document claims all know survivors can be traced back to Switt, other than the two at the Smithsonian? how many others were there and who had them?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mark Feld:

And yet, 1933 Eagles escaped from the Mint, undetected, as well. Those records weren't so perfect.

 

Additionally, even if the cashier's records were perfect, that would not preclude an exchange of coins with Switt at some point - one that would not amount to a theft.

 

Mr. Feld and others:

 

"Much of the trial testimony focused on the Philadelphia Mint cashier and the records he kept. The Mint cashier is,for all practical purposes,the "gatekeeper" of the coins. (Tr. 208,at 132)...."

 

"Important to this case,the daily settlement is segregated into three (3) categories of coins: one for the current year's production,ie.,1933 Double Eagles;one for prior years' coins; and one for circulated coins (for example,coins that had been in commerce but later came back to the Mint as worn). (Id.) The daily settlement is a handwritten,8 unsigned document.9 (Tr. 213,at 165,179). The daily statements,on the other hand,are typed and signed,but they do not reflect the dates of the coins. (Tr. 213,at 165; 214,at 21-22). In addition to tracking gold coins,the cashier's records tracked such minutiae as a three (3) cent payout to a customer who evidently received his money in the form of two (2) 1932 pennies and one (1) 1933 penny. (Tr. 209,at 9-25). As should be apparent,the records are exquisitely detailed..."

 

"Relying primarily on the cashier's daily settlements and statements,Tripp reconstructed the day-to-day movement of the 1933 Double Eagles. (Tr. 209,at 26-36).10 Using these two documents in tandem,along with other Mint records,11 Tripp figurately followed the coins around the Mint every day from January of 1933 through November of 1934. (Id., Tr. 209,at 113-17). By doing so,Tripp accounted for each and every one of the 445,500 1933 Double Eagles and showed that not a single '33 Double Eagle was issued to the public. (Tr. 210,at 39)."

_______________________________________________________________

 

8 The Government's forensic accountant Wayne Geisser opined that a ledger is not necessarily less reliable because it is handwritten. (Tr. 217,at 51).

 

9 Tripp admits that he has seen no written rule or regulation requiring the Mint cashier to keep records having this level of detail,e.g.,records tracking coins by date. (Tr. 213,at 177-79). Regardless,these records do,in fact,exist. Furthermore, Mint employees were held personally responsible for missing money,which would have given the cashier an incentive to keep detailed records accounting for every last dollar. (Tr. 208, at 180).

 

In addition,Tripp conceded that he could not be sure that the daily settlements were audited. (Tr. 213,at 179). However,by rule,the Mint cashier's holdings were audited at least once a month,and Tripp believes such an audit would have likely entailed looking at both the daily settlements and the daily statements. (Tr. 213, at 179,182-85).

 

10In conducting his analysis,Tripp did not see any mistakes in the cashier's daily statements or settlements. (Tr. 209,at 37).

 

11In forming his opinion, Tripp also relied upon the Mint's daily process books, which detail the coining department's physical production of the coins; delivery books,which record the delivery of coins to the cashier; assay transmittal and report sheets;and basement vault records,among other things. (Tr. 208,at 117-18; Tr. 210,at 40-42). According to Tripp,the records fit together like a jigsaw puzzle,dovetailing with each other to paint a complete picture. (Tr 209, at 113-17).

 

MEMORANDUM (Document 233),pp.5-7,Legrome D. Davis,J.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Judge Davis uses the terminology of 1933 double eagles as "having gone through unauthorized channels" for "stolen" is what one will get,or should get, as one reads Document 233. What are unauthorized channels? Pants pockets,lunch boxes,body cavities,etc. No one knows exactly how 1933 double eagles got out of the Mint.We just know that they did....through unauthorized channels.

 

CAFRA is for the lawyers.I'm not going to even pretend that I understand CAFRA.Arithmetic I do understand,however.

 

"Intellectually,it was amazing. You had to learn coining processes...and how the Philadelphia Mint worked in the 1930's."

Jacqueline C. Romero,Asst. U.S. Attorney

 

 

All you state is not unknown to many that have replied.

 

It was considered by me, and is the foundation of my minor comments. Your presentation is nothing new, really, and has been mentioned by you before, albeit in slightly different phrasing.

 

I will retain my stated opinions, all of them.

[Conder101]

"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.