Mint being Sued

[MAULEMALL]

By JOANN LOVIGLIO, Associated Press Writer

Tue Dec 5, 8:12 PM

 

PHILADELPHIA - A family is suing the U.S. Mint, saying it illegally seized 10 gold coins that are among the rarest and most valuable in the world that the family found among a dead relative's possessions.

 

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, accuses the Mint of violating the Constitution and breaking federal forfeiture laws by refusing to return the 1933 "double eagle" coins to the family after it handed the coins over to have their authenticity confirmed.

 

Plaintiffs Joan S. Langbord and her sons, Roy and David, are seeking the immediate return of the coins, said their attorney, Barry H. Berke.

 

Defendants named in the suit include the Mint, the Treasury Department, and officials in those agencies.

 

A Mint spokesman declined to comment, saying that the Mint had not yet been officially served.

 

Double eagles were first struck in 1850. They are so named because they had a face value of $20, twice the amount of gold coins known as eagles.

 

The coins, which Mint officials have said are so rare that their value could not be calculated, feature a flying eagle on one side and a figure representing liberty on the other. There were 445,500 minted in 1933, but they were melted down before being released into circulation when President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard.

 

A handful escaped, however. Two were deliberately set aside and are at the Smithsonian Institution. The Mint has said any others in existence were obtained illegally, but agreed after a lengthy court battle to allow one of the coins to be sold at auction in 2002 for $7.59 million _ the highest price ever paid for a coin _ after its owner agreed to split the proceeds with the Mint.

 

Langbord, who discovered the coins in 2003 in a safe deposit box belonging to her deceased father, longtime Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, was aware of that case and contacted the Mint to disclose the coins' existence and "attempt to reach an amicable resolution of any issues that might be raised," the lawsuit states.

 

She handed the coins over to the Mint to be authenticated, but the Mint refused to give them back, saying they must have been stolen from the Philadelphia Mint in the early 1930s because they had never been in circulation, according to the lawsuit.

 

Switt, who died in 1990, told Secret Service agents in 1944 that he had possessed and sold nine 1933 double eagles, according to the Mint. All were tracked down by the government and destroyed between 1944 and 1952.

 

"The Mint's lawless position is that by merely claiming the coins were somehow removed from the Mint unlawfully in the 1930s, they can take the Langbords' property without proving it in a court of law," Berke said.

 

The coins at the center of the lawsuit were briefly displayed this summer for an American Numismatic Association's convention in Denver. They have been secured at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky.

[cladking]

"She handed the coins over to the Mint to be authenticated, but the Mint refused to give them back, saying they must have been stolen from the Philadelphia Mint in the early 1930s because they had never been in circulation, according to the lawsuit."

 

 

Interesting terminology which I've never seen before. Perhaps they fear a new line attack and are attempting to forestall it.

[DC Dawg]

"She handed the coins over to the Mint to be authenticated, but the Mint refused to give them back, saying they must have been stolen from the Philadelphia Mint in the early 1930s because they had never been in circulation, according to the lawsuit."

 

Interesting terminology which I've never seen before. Perhaps they fear a new line attack and are attempting to forestall it.

To understand this, you may have to read any of the accounts of the King Farouk 1933 Double Eagle. One very good book is Illegal Tender: Gold, Greed, and the Mystery of the Lost 1933 Double Eagle by David Tripp, the former cataloger for Southebys. Southebys sold the only 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle coin that is considered legal tender for $7.5 million in 2002. That is the most money spent for a single coin.

 

In summary, the government considers the coins chattel until the coins are transfered from the Mint's cashier. That did not happen with the 1933 Double Eagles and the government was able to confiscate several examples found over the years. The last lawsuit before the Farouk coin was settled in 1952 with the government winning.

 

The Farouk coin was different. As part of King Farouk trying to accumulate the world's largest and finest coin collection at the expense of the Egyptian treasury, Farouk bought the coin using an emissary in the United States. As part of the transaction, the State Department issued the appropriate papers for export to Egypt. Although the coin was not issued by the Mint cashier, the papers issued by another federal agency made the case questionable. The case was settled with the parties involved agreeing to split the proceeds from the sale.

 

Unlike the Farouk coin, the 10 coins that were confiscated from the family of Israel Switt, who has been accused of illegally obtaining the coins in 1934 probably from the cashier or his assistant, does not have any legal paperwork or other proceedings to declare the coins legal in any way. In fact, the precedence of the dozen confiscated coins prior to 1952 strengthens the government's case.

 

Unless congress intervenes, the Langbords are going to loose these coins the way others have done so in the 1940s and 1950s.The courts are replete with precedences acknowledging the government's right to follow it's procedures even when not codified in law or via the Code of Federal Regulations. In fact, the Mint's coining and distribution policies and procedures extend beyond the law and into policies that now date to the reforms of James Ross Snowdon in the early 19th century.

 

I know I started the third paragraph with "In summary..." but there are no simple answers. It has to be one of the strangest and most entertaining story in Mint history.

 

Scott

[shirohniichan]

She handed the coins over to the Mint to be authenticated, but the Mint refused to give them back, saying they must have been stolen from the Philadelphia Mint in the early 1930s because they had never been in circulation, according to the lawsuit.

 

Langbord, who discovered the coins in 2003 in a safe deposit box belonging to her deceased father, longtime Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt, was aware of that case and contacted the Mint to disclose the coins' existence and "attempt to reach an amicable resolution of any issues that might be raised," the lawsuit states.

 

Big mistake!

[LuvToCollect]

The allure of these coins will surely remain forever.

[JJSingleton]

Barry H. Berke was the attorney who handled the $7.5 million deal and was already working this case when the coins were handed over to the US Mint. He is no fool. This has all been planned out and is only the second of a series of steps to legalize the sale of these coins. Until the Treasury Dept confiscated the coins, and this suit was filed there could be no negotiations. The handing of these coins to the treasury was not a mistake, it was necessary to make millions.

[MAULEMALL]

Barry H. Berke was the attorney who handled the $7.5 million deal and was already working this case when the coins were handed over to the US Mint. He is no fool. This has all been planned out and is only the second of a series of steps to legalize the sale of these coins. Until the Treasury Dept confiscated the coins, and this suit was filed there could be no negotiations. The handing of these coins to the treasury was not a mistake, it was necessary to make millions.

I think you nailed it...No one is just going to hand over that amount of Money and not have a Plan...

 

 

Oh yea ...Welcome to the boards FM

[MorganMan]

One other thing that no one has mentioned is that by handing over the coins, they can now not be arrested for "possession of stolen property". If they had had them authenticated by a TPG, and the mint wished to do so, they could have had an arrest warrant issued to whoever was holding the coins.

 

I also think that they (the Switt family) figured that maybe a chance of getting half of the sale would be better than none. I just wonder what portion of it the greedy attorneys will pocket.

 

And the story keeps unfolding.......

 

MM