Langbords win latest round of 1933 Double Eagle lawsuit

[coinman_23885]

how many of the approx. 25-75 supposed to exist will come out of "hiding"?

 

and will these 1933 double eagles be legal to sell?

 

 

The appellate ruling does not legalize the others.

[coinman_23885]

So the matter is not settled at this point as to the Langbord's right to the coins to do with them as they please, I assume.

 

I saw this on another forum: "10 - Rare 1933 St. Gaudens Returned to Family by U.S. Appeals Court" with these article references:

 

http://www.windstream.net/news/read/category/General/article/the_associated_press-family_wins_back_seized_gold_coins_that_could_be_w-ap

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/family-wins-back-seized-gold-coins-worth-80m-30402574

 

Not so fast. When would they regain physical possession of the coins?

 

It depends on whether the government seeks a stay pending additional appeals. If the appellate court hands down its mandate and there is no stay, the district court is obliged to enter the order to effect the transfer. This could theoretically mean they obtain the coins back before the disposition is final. With that said, if the Langboards push the issue and the government asks for a stay, I would be very surprised if it doesn't get it.

[RWB]

From Sanction-II's consistently perceptive comments on the PCGS board:

 

"The reason I think further review could happen is that this case, at its core, deals with the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed with respect to how, when and under what circumstances can property owned and/or possessed by a person can taken by government."

[World Colonial]

Makes sense. The courts need to decide when it is legal to steal someone's property because that is exactly what asset forfeiture is about.

[Frank Provasek]

Amazing that the coins are being returned because of a technicality. . These 1933 coins were normal currency worth $20 at the time. Their extreme value is because the government melted almost all of them. "Even swaps" at the Mint's cashier window were common when tourists or collectors wanted to obtain pristine coins of the new year. The government hunting these coins down for over 80 years was more about sending the message "when we say you must use Federal Reserve paper currency instead of gold coins, we mean it!"

[Nutmeg Coin]

Coin World has an article on this today, I apologize if someone else posted it: https://www.coinworld.com/news/court-rules-in-favor-of-langbord-family-in-1933-double-eagle-case.html#

 

"When the family sought the coins’ return, the Mint replied that it “has no intention of seeking forfeiture of these ten Double Eagles because they already are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States; this makes forfeiture proceedings entirely unnecessary.”

 

"The appeals court said that the government was wrong in believing that it did not need to abide by CAFRA because it perceived the property as stolen government property. The opinion states, “The Government’s original argument that stolen government property falls outside the protections of CAFRA is incorrect for a simple reason: Congress has specifically enumerated theft or embezzlement of government property as one of the crimes to which CAFRA applies.” Rather, “The Government was required either to return their property or to institute a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding within 90 days of the Langbords’ submission of a seized asset claim.”

 

"The court reversed the district court’s July 29, 2009, order that denied the Langbords’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding the applicability of CAFRA and vacated all orders postdating the July 29 order, including the jury verdict.

 

"A dissenting opinion by Judge Dolores Sloviter agreed with many parts of the majority opinion, but disagreed that the Langbords are entitled to the return of the coins because there is no provision of CAFRA that requires the return of the property."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Amazing that the coins are being returned because of a technicality. . These 1933 coins were normal currency worth $20 at the time. Their extreme value is because the government melted almost all of them. "Even swaps" at the Mint's cashier window were common when tourists or collectors wanted to obtain pristine coins of the new year. The government hunting these coins down for over 80 years was more about sending the message "when we say you must use Federal Reserve paper currency instead of gold coins, we mean it!"

 

A question, if I may:

 

Would it have been just as amazing if the coins were not returned because of Government compliance with the technicality?

 

After all, the technicality is not the thrust of the issue, is it?

[$ilverHawk]

From Sanction-II's consistently perceptive comments on the PCGS board:

 

"The reason I think further review could happen is that this case, at its core, deals with the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed with respect to how, when and under what circumstances can property owned and/or possessed by a person can taken by government."

 

That is the heart of the issue. The Appellate Court is telling the government that they violated property seizure law, CAFTRA.

 

Here's the law. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ185/pdf/PLAW-106publ185.pdf

 

Property was possessed by the Langbords and the government moved to take possession of the property without regard to the regulatory filings dictated by CAFTRA. The decision was very clearly delineated by the court, the government erred in building a case upon "stolen" government property supposedly exempt from CAFTRA and in not filing a response in a timely manner.

 

Interesting that there are at this time many instances of local, state and federal property seizures that are very questionable. Government takes your property, you have to prove that there is no "criminal" use of the property.

 

Innocent until proven guilty? Not by current "legal" actions. Slight

 

Carl

 

 

 

[$ilverHawk]

Coin World has an article on this today, I apologize if someone else posted it: https://www.coinworld.com/news/court-rules-in-favor-of-langbord-family-in-1933-double-eagle-case.html#

 

"When the family sought the coins’ return, the Mint replied that it “has no intention of seeking forfeiture of these ten Double Eagles because they already are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States; this makes forfeiture proceedings entirely unnecessary.”

 

"The appeals court said that the government was wrong in believing that it did not need to abide by CAFRA because it perceived the property as stolen government property. The opinion states, “The Government’s original argument that stolen government property falls outside the protections of CAFRA is incorrect for a simple reason: Congress has specifically enumerated theft or embezzlement of government property as one of the crimes to which CAFRA applies.” Rather, “The Government was required either to return their property or to institute a judicial civil forfeiture proceeding within 90 days of the Langbords’ submission of a seized asset claim.”

 

"The court reversed the district court’s July 29, 2009, order that denied the Langbords’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding the applicability of CAFRA and vacated all orders postdating the July 29 order, including the jury verdict.

 

"A dissenting opinion by Judge Dolores Sloviter agreed with many parts of the majority opinion, but disagreed that the Langbords are entitled to the return of the coins because there is no provision of CAFRA that requires the return of the property."

 

Not sure what Justice Dolores Sloviter was referring to but read CAFTRA 106-185 "2465 (page 12), very clear on return of property.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

Not sure what Justice Dolores Sloviter was referring to but read CAFTRA 106-185 "2465 (page 12), very clear on return of property.

 

Carl

 

Part of the dissenting opinion is irrational to me, but it makes a good point about the good cause exception to the 90 day deadline provided for by the statute. The government could arguably be confused that it would need to bring a forfeiture action. If the government held title as the declaratory judgment provided in accordance with the fact finders' verdict, then then how can the Langbords forfeit an interest they never legally had? That is why I find the whole application of CAFTRA odd. And I am not convinced by the majority reasoning that theft of government property is among the crimes covered by the act. For items used in the commission of the crime such as vehicles and equipment used that belonged to the criminals, yes it would apply, but to say specifically that it also provides that a forfeiture action must be brought to return stolen government property (I.e. contraband) strikes me as absurd as it changes the meaning of what it means to "forfeit" something. And Section 683 is clear that the statutory scheme applies to non-judicial forfeiture. For the reasons above, I do not think this was a forfeiture as that term is legally defined and I think it was erroneous to apply CAFTRA. This is why I think en banc review before the full Third Circuit is likely.

 

On another note, this does not mean that the Langbords were helpless. The proper remedy, IMHO, would have been to file a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the pieces lawfully belonged to the Langbords and seek a writ of mandamus ordering the Treasury/Mint to return the items. I think the Langbords should have prevailed, but I cannot agree that they sought the proper remedy or that the Third Circuit was correct in its reasoning.

[$ilverHawk]

My question is does the Government of the United States hold "title" to US Government issued currency? Once currency is issued into the public domain what possible claim could the US Government have upon circulated or non circulated currency? The gold, silver whatever coin is placed into circulation as a legal medium of exchange for use by the possessor of the coinage.

 

There is no US Government title to legally issued US coins. Once issued the coins become property of the public. There could be a question regarding mintage and subsequent release for circulation for the 1933 Double Eagles. It would be interesting to know the laws regarding minting a coin intended for circulation that is not allowed to circulate. Is it still legal US currency? If so, the government has no legal title to the coin.

 

The obfuscation arises when Franklin illegally issues an edict to make legal US gold currency Illegal. I'm aware of the historical anecdotes regarding Franklin's maneuver. Yes there are many gaps in the history of the 1933 $20 gold pieces. The fact is, IMO that they were all legally issued currency.

 

IMHO the Langbords had possession of legally issued US Government coins.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

My question is does the Government of the United States hold "title" to US Government issued currency? Once currency is issued into the public domain what possible claim could the US Government have upon circulated or non circulated currency? The gold, silver whatever coin is placed into circulation as a legal medium of exchange for use by the possessor of the coinage.

 

There is no US Government title to legally issued US coins. Once issued the coins become property of the public. There could be a question regarding mintage and subsequent release for circulation for the 1933 Double Eagles. It would be interesting to know the laws regarding minting a coin intended for circulation that is not allowed to circulate. Is it still legal US currency? If so, the government has no legal title to the coin.

 

The obfuscation arises when Franklin illegally issues an edict to make legal US gold currency Illegal. I'm aware of the historical anecdotes regarding Franklin's maneuver. Yes there are many gaps in the history of the 1933 $20 gold pieces. The fact is, IMO that they were all legally issued currency.

 

IMHO the Langbords had possession of legally issued US Government coins.

 

Carl

 

But you are overlooking the standard of review. A federal appellate court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Only legal questions are reviewed de novo. As such, the trial court's finding of facts and declaratory judgment that the government held legal title to the pieces is dispositive unless the appellate court sets them aside as clearly erroneous. It did no such thing. Rather, it merely set them aside because of a faulty reading (IMO) of CAFRA. The declaratory judgment was in fact necessary in analyzing whether a non judicial forfeiture had actually occurred and whether CAFRA was even applicable. Casting aside the findings of fact and declaratory judgment in such a sloppy manner is reversible error IMO. The court also left unresolved the Langbord's challenges to the verdict and the legal questions implicated therein. In fact, if an appeal is awarded and the decision reversed, I fully expect a remand to address the issues that the court failed to address this time. Those may have provided a victory to the Langbords. While I like the result, I cannot agree with the reasoning of the court.

 

Many also forget the role of federal courts in adjudicating cases. The trial court is concerned with the rights of the parties while federal appeals courts are concerned with answering legal questions to make precedent that has implications well beyond the instant case. The Third Circuit has dealt a blow to forfeiture law that should be corrected. You may find this set of plaintiffs to be deserving of victory, but the precedent this sets could have implications for thieves and embezzlers.

[Conder101]

My question is does the Government of the United States hold "title" to US Government issued currency?

They seem to feel that they do which is why it is illegal to alter, mutilate, or render currency unfit to reissue. (This only applies to the paper currency, not the coins. You can mutilate your coins all you want. (except cents and nickel five cent pieces which you can mutilate, but you can't melt them.)

 

There is no US Government title to legally issued US coins.

That is the whole rub of the 1933 double eagle, were they legally issued? There was a time window where they COULD be legally obtained, and there were coins in a location where they COULD be legally exchanged during that time window. So the question becomes were any of them exchanged during that window? If there were they are legal. I don't now of those records have been closely examined or not, or if the record keeping was even precise enough to be able to tell for sure. For example when coins were exchanged did they keep track of denominations and dates, or just amounts? If it is just amounts, and the amounts are high enough then the 1933's could have been legally released and I think Izzy would have to be given the benefit of the doubt that the coins are legal, unless they can come up with some REAL evidence that they were stolen.

 

It would be interesting to know the laws regarding minting a coin intended for circulation that is not allowed to circulate. Is it still legal US currency(tender)? If so, the government has no legal title to the coin.

Yes they are still legal tender. Under the law coins become legal tender the moment they are recorded as made, even though they are still in the mints hands. If you pay the government for something with coins or currency they don't stop being legal tender just because they are in the governments possession. And the government would have legal title to those coins and/or currency. So if the government made a coin and did not release it it is legal tender and the government does have title to it.

 

The obfuscation arises when Franklin illegally issues an edict to make legal US gold currency Illegal.

The only gold currency he made illegal were the gold certificates. People could keep "rare or unusual" gold coins, which was defined as pretty much everything made before I think April 5, 1933. (the 1933 double eagles were made before that date, but were they released?) All of those gold coins remained legal tender. The gold certificates had to be exchanged though, and after a certain date they were illegal to own. (Possession of them was made legal again around 1960.)

[RWB]

The coins were never shown to have been stolen.

[BBMAN-migration]

The majority opinion addressed the "good cause exception." They found that making the Langbords wait ~5 years for a court order for the forfeiture filing was not "good cause." They also noted that failing to file in 90 days was not a mistake, but rather a calculation the government intentionally made. "At the insistence of the mint and against the wisdom of the Secret Service and multiple other agencies, the government opted to ignore CAFRA."

The govt also tried to make the claim you made about CAFRA not applying bc it was allegedly stolen govt property. The majority decision however did not agree. "The govts original argument that stolen govt property falls outside the protections of CAFRA is incorrect for a simple reason: Congress has specifically enumerated theft or embezzlement of govt property as one of the crimes to which CAFRA applies."

[coinman_23885]

The coins were never shown to have been stolen.

 

But unless I misunderstood the opinion, the jury made a finding that the coins were stolen (I.e. the Langbords never acquired title to the property) and the appellate court cannot ignore those without good reason. The proper way for the Third Circuit to have handled this would have been to reverse for some of the prejudicial and hearsay evidence admitted over the Langbords' objections and remand for a new trial. Alternatively, the Third Circuit could have held that the trial judge abused his discretion in not setting aside a jury verdict which was clearly erroneous and/or declare the finding of facts to be clearly erroneous. Under this scenario (voiding the finding of facts as clearly erroneous) then and only then would CAFRA be applicable and those provisions would be properly before the court. As it stands, from a legal/civil procedure prospective, the opinion is a mess that will only muddy an already contentious area of law. Had the court done this, it is likely that the case would have ended there with the grant of petition for en banc review or a writ of certiorari being very small. As it stands now, I would be surprised if the case isn't reviewed by the full Third Circuit.

 

[RWB]

"The coins were never shown to have been stolen."

 

The government demonstrated that there were no discrepancies in the coin or bullion accounts in 1933 or later until 1937....and that was a full bag of 1928 DE.

 

It's all in the trial record, so I am only pointing to public information.

[BBMAN-migration]

faFCoinman-

As I understand the decision (But I'm not a lawyer) the majority position is that whether the coins where stolen was (and is) a contentious, complex issue, and at the time the govt violated CAFRA no fact finders had ruled on this. If a fact finder had previously ruled the coins to be stolen I believe the govt would have been correct in their position they did not need to abide by CAFRA.

This decision threw out everything that happened after the district judge made the 2009 decision to force the govt to file the forfeiture claim. The district judge ruled that the govt violated the langbord's 4th and 5th amendment rights, but he called for the govt to file the forfeiture (nearly 5 years after the 90 day deadline passed) instead of awarding the langbord's the coins as the appeals court ruled. The district judge did so stating the govt "MIGHT" apply for the good cause exception, an opinion the appeals court addressed and debunked.

I am with you that this will probably go to the full 3rd district appeals court. Does the fact that the Chief Justice was in the majority opinion decrease the chances of the full court hearing the appeal, or decrease the chances the full court overturns the 2-1 verdict? Is this a case the Supreme Court would hear if it goes that far?

[coinman_23885]

I am with you that this will probably go to the full 3rd district appeals court. Does the fact that the Chief Justice was in the majority opinion decrease the chances of the full court hearing the appeal, or decrease the chances the full court overturns the 2-1 verdict?

.

 

Each judge's vote is treated equally both on the three judge panel and even through the en banc process, so titles don't really matter. The chief judgeship is rotating and usually entails more administrative duties and a reduced docket load, but doesn't come with any real power. The only real substantive difference is that the most senior judge in the majority is often given the ability to assign who writes the majority opinion. The chief is usually treated as senior for those purposes, but I am sure there are variations among the various circuits.

 

The fact that the court was divided makes en banc review more likely, but that is not a given either.

 

Is this a case the Supreme Court would hear if it goes that far?

 

So, there are a lot of misconceptions from the media and even among some attorneys who do not practice before the Supreme Court as to its role in the federal judiciary. It is not a court of error, meaning that its docket is purely discretionary and it can refuse a case even if the lower court clearly erred. While it is hard to craft a bright line rule, there are two circumstances where SCOTUS is most likely to take a case:

 

1) Issues of national importance that cannot wait for further adjudication among lower federal appeals courts to correct among themselves in future cases or through the en banc process - These are usually cases involving national security, separation of powers, etc. Issues that have already been addressed by multiple intermediate courts on important widely applied statutory schemes are also favorites.

 

2) Deep circuit conflicts - Circuit precedent is only binding in that circuit so when circuit courts of appeals differ, the Supreme Court is more likely to review the case to ensure consistency among the several circuit courts of appeal.

 

Having either of these increases the odds of SCOTUS review, but still provides no guarantee. Often SCOTUS will allow issues to percolate among lower federal courts before intervening.

 

There is no way to say for sure, but I don't think SCOTUS would touch this case even it it agrees with my interpretation of CAFRA and the other legal issues unless there is a circuit conflict that I am missing. Rather, it is more likely that the court would wait for other circuits to weigh in or allow the Third Circuit to correct in future cases.

 

 

[RWB]

...you mean a "Short Circuit" ...? Shocking.

[BBMAN-migration]

Thanks for your insight Coinman!

[Kurtdog]

I'll tell you my impression. These coins should have been melted. They're government property, and they should be confiscated, then melted. But, as everybody knows, there's no way that's going to happen, now. And, there's your issue. It's, both sides want to capitalize on this, what, in effect, is an embezzlement.

 

Good luck to both greedy sides. I could care less which one ends up with these.

[RWB]

If no coins were missing, how can these be stolen?

[Hard Times]

If no coins were missing, how can these be stolen?

 

Did the Langord's lawyer(s) pose this question to the feds at at time during any proceedings? If so, I would love to hear what they said.

 

Best, HT

[Kurtdog]

If no coins were missing, how can these be stolen?

Says who?

[World Colonial]

If no coins were missing, how can these be stolen?

Says who?

 

I don't know if I can find it, but there is a post either in this thread or on PCGS stating that the government kept inventory records during this period (which makes complete sense) and there were no shortages recorded. The inventory records weren't by date (which would have been a waste of time in my IMO) but by value.

 

If this is true, then this implies that a swap occurred though it wouldn't prove when it took place. That is, these records wouldn't conclusively prove it occurred before or after the executive order.

[Kurtdog]

If no coins were missing, how can these be stolen?

Says who?

I don't know if I can find it, but there is a post either in this thread or on PCGS stating that the government kept inventory records during this period (which makes complete sense) and there were no shortages recorded. The inventory records weren't by date (which would have been a waste of time in my IMO) but by value.

That's my understanding.

 

If this is true, then this implies that a swap occurred though it wouldn't prove when it took place. That is, these records wouldn't conclusively prove it occurred before or after the executive order.

That's true.

 

Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful if we understood, right off, this case isn't purporting to address any of that. It's rather purporting to address a very narrow statutory issue, that issue being, whether the Government could, to borrow from the language of the Court, "unilaterally ignore [the] seized asset claim." Is this a seized asset? Hmmm...

 

The District Court is now going to order the return of the Double Eagles, but the Government isn't going to do that. Read the Dissent. There's much more going on, here, issue-wise, than this Court credits. I'll let that go at that.

 

BTW, what are the Court's citations to "J.A.?" Is that a brief? What is "J.A.?"

 

[BBMAN-migration]

I think the "J.A" in question was referring to the oral arguments in the appeal hearing

I found a link to the oral arguments (below). If you listen is seems pretty clear from the hearing the court was not looking favorably on the governments arguments. Its about an hour long, but def worth a listen imo.

 

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/audio/12-4574Langbordv.USDeptTreasury.mp3

 

[Kurtdog]

I think the "J.A" in question was referring to the oral arguments in the appeal hearing

I found a link to the oral arguments (below). If you listen is seems pretty clear from the hearing the court was not looking favorably on the governments arguments. Its about an hour long, but def worth a listen imo.

 

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/audio/12-4574Langbordv.USDeptTreasury.mp3

Oooh, I didn't think of looking for that! I think I'll check it out later when I get some time. Thanks. Ought to in the least be entertaining.

[World Colonial]

Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful if we understood, right off, this case isn't purporting to address any of that. It's rather purporting to address a very narrow statutory issue, that issue being, whether the Government could, to borrow from the language of the Court, "unilaterally ignore [the] seized asset claim." Is this a seized asset? Hmmm...

 

The District Court is now going to order the return of the Double Eagles, but the Government isn't going to do that. Read the Dissent. There's much more going on, here, issue-wise, than this Court credits. I'll let that go at that.

 

BTW, what are the Court's citations to "J.A.?" Is that a brief? What is "J.A.?"

 

You know the details a lot better than I do, as do many others here.

 

I know this isn't what the case is about, but to me the bottom line is that if the government can't prove they were stolen based upon the inventory records and they can't prove one way or another when the swap occurred since this seems the more logical outcome, then by default the coins were obtained legitimately.

 

So basically, it seems to me they are trying to use legal mumbo jumbo to steal property they cannot prove is theirs. I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent which is the way I see the government's position based upon my very limited knowledge of the case. This is IRS logic which I consider completely bogus.

 

I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe the coins were obtained "illegally" but since I consider FDR's executive order unconstitutional anyway, I don't care. I also don't think much of the Supreme Courts interpretation of many constitutional issues legitimate either and this goers back at least to the 1930's. The asset forfeiture laws which I understand are a consideration here are one of them.

 

So basically, I think the government deserves to lose this case because I think it is BS.