Langbord v. U.S. Department of Treasury - En Banc Decision is Here

[coinman_23885]

I bumped up another thread in the Numismatic General section, but thought that this would be worth starting a new concise thread at the last minute.

 

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/124574p2.pdf

 

Summary: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit published its en banc ruling on August 1, 2016. CAFRA was held inapplicable because the seizure of government property did not implicate forfeiture; you cannot forfeit something that you never acquired a possessory interest in. The Third Circuit also rejected the evidentiary challenges as harmless error. The court affirmed the district court's ruling in its entirety. There was a dissenting opinion. The Langbords lost.

 

The ruling was 9-3 for the government (counting the separate concurring judge).

 

What Now?:The Langbords can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the en banc decision. Unfortunately, I do not think that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant certiorari if the Langbords seek further review. Unfortunately, there is no circuit conflict that I am aware of, and the court sitting en banc adopted the position articulated in the other thread about CAFRA being inapplicable since no forfeiture occurred. As a matter of law, I think the forfeiture portion of the ruling is correct. In the other thread, many were focused on the facts and whether the Langboards' position was meritorious; however, it is important to remember that federal appellate courts merely review the factual record prepared by the trial court. Findings of fact are entitled to deference unless the findings were clearly erroneous. Based on the record, the court found no clear error and did not find the Langbords' evidentiary objections as worthy of a reversal.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Are there any Scotus judges who would be interested in reviewing this case? Clarence Thomas? I don't think any of the others would have any interest in questioning the government's logic on this case, Scalia might have.

[coinman_23885]

Are there any Scotus judges who would be interested in reviewing this case? Clarence Thomas? I don't think any of the others would have any interest in questioning the government's logic on this case, Scalia might have.

 

I don't see this as a case where ideological leaning would in any way be reflected in the vote. The opinion actually cites a Scalia opinion on federal forfeiture law, and on questions of statutory interpretation, Scalia and Thomas were usually very close in their reasoning.

 

Unless I have missed a circuit conflict, I think the odds of SCOTUS touching this are small. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. While I agree with the legal conclusions (as to CAFRA), I am concerned about the fairness of the trial and had hoped that district court judgment would be vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial. Unfortunately, SCOTUS review is completely discretionary and it does not see its primary job to be engaging in error correction. As such, I think if review were granted, it would be on the statutory interpretation stuff but again, I think the odds of success at SCOTUS are limited.

[physics-fan3.14]

Well, that's unfortunate.

[numisport]

As an outsider with no legal background I just have to chuckle at the notion that these 10 Double Eagles were "found" in a bank box. If anyone thinks that they just came across these one day and decided to have U.S. mint officials authenticate them ....... Certainly they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor and not legal to own. These coins were never released for circulation and yes I know these coins didn't circulate anyway but were exchanged in a clandestine manor. I think the fact that these coins were held so long by family is criminal at the start.

[MarkFeld]

As an outsider with no legal background I just have to chuckle at the notion that these 10 Double Eagles were "found" in a bank box. If anyone thinks that they just came across these one day and decided to have U.S. mint officials authenticate them ....... Certainly they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor and not legal to own. These coins were never released for circulation and yes I know these coins didn't circulate anyway but were exchanged in a clandestine manor. I think the fact that these coins were held so long by family is criminal at the start.

 

 

Regardless of how strongly you might believe it to be so, you have no way of knowing "they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor"(manner). You don't know what they knew or that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate/clandestine manner. And the length of time the coins were held has nothing to do with any "criminal" activity.

[MJ]

Well, that's unfortunate.

 

+1

 

mark

[Kurtdog]

As an outsider with no legal background I just have to chuckle at the notion that these 10 Double Eagles were "found" in a bank box. If anyone thinks that they just came across these one day and decided to have U.S. mint officials authenticate them ....... Certainly they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor and not legal to own. These coins were never released for circulation and yes I know these coins didn't circulate anyway but were exchanged in a clandestine manor. I think the fact that these coins were held so long by family is criminal at the start.

Regardless of how strongly you might believe it to be so, you have no way of knowing "they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor"(manner). You don't know what they knew or that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate/clandestine manner. And the length of time the coins were held has nothing to do with any "criminal" activity.

I told you guys this district court would be reversed on appeal. Do us all a favor, Mark, stick to coins, you're in over your head.

[MarkFeld]

As an outsider with no legal background I just have to chuckle at the notion that these 10 Double Eagles were "found" in a bank box. If anyone thinks that they just came across these one day and decided to have U.S. mint officials authenticate them ....... Certainly they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor and not legal to own. These coins were never released for circulation and yes I know these coins didn't circulate anyway but were exchanged in a clandestine manor. I think the fact that these coins were held so long by family is criminal at the start.

Regardless of how strongly you might believe it to be so, you have no way of knowing "they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor"(manner). You don't know what they knew or that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate/clandestine manner. And the length of time the coins were held has nothing to do with any "criminal" activity.

I told you guys this district court would be reversed on appeal. Do us all a favor, Mark, stick to coins, you're in over your head.

 

Thank you, Mr. all knowing legal expert, who has taken it upon himself to speak for everyone.

[VKurtB]

Well Mark, as a professional who works in writing laws, I am willing to have him speak for me in this. The trial court and the en banc Circuit got it right; Midge Rendell writing for the vacated panel got it wrong.

 

I've read every word of all three opinions. Have you?

 

Could someone associated with Heritage perhaps have an unhealthy personal financial rooting interest here? Hmm?

[brg5658]

As an outsider with no legal background I just have to chuckle at the notion that these 10 Double Eagles were "found" in a bank box. If anyone thinks that they just came across these one day and decided to have U.S. mint officials authenticate them ....... Certainly they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor and not legal to own. These coins were never released for circulation and yes I know these coins didn't circulate anyway but were exchanged in a clandestine manor. I think the fact that these coins were held so long by family is criminal at the start.

Regardless of how strongly you might believe it to be so, you have no way of knowing "they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor"(manner). You don't know what they knew or that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate/clandestine manner. And the length of time the coins were held has nothing to do with any "criminal" activity.

I told you guys this district court would be reversed on appeal. Do us all a favor, Mark, stick to coins, you're in over your head.

 

Thank you, Mr. all knowing legal expert, who has taken it upon himself to speak for everyone.

 

Here we go....

 

[MarkFeld]

Well Mark, as a professional who works in writing laws, I am willing to have him speak for me in this. The trial court and the en banc Circuit got it right; Midge Rendell writing for the vacated panel got it wrong.

 

I've read every word of all three opinions. Have you?

 

Could someone associated with Heritage perhaps have an unhealthy personal financial rooting interest here? Hmm?

 

I made no comment on the en banc Circuit court ruling. Please re-read what I posted in response to poster numisport and let me know in what way(s) you disagree with me.

 

Edited to add:

 

No, I haven't read every word of all three opinions. And I don't claim to undestand the inticacies of the forfeiture aspect of the case. However, among other things, I do believe that there could have been a legal exchange of gold for the 1933 $20's, and that the absence of mint records to that effect, proves nothing. For the record, I felt the same way, long before I (re)joined Heritage.

 

[VKurtB]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset regarding the penumbra of the intersection of commerce and law.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. The trial court jury so found and the Circuit found their verdict reasonable. None whatsoever. It's a tough slog of a read, but it's all in there. I promise.

 

By the way, I will have the entire decision at the Message Center (voice from above) at the ANA show in Anaheim. I am an ANA National Volunteer (blue shirt).

 

I deeply hope a large portion of Steve Roach's Money Talk will be devoted to this subject. I suspect it will, as he attended the jury trial personally.

[MarkFeld]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. None whatsoever.

 

Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange.

 

With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown.

[VKurtB]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. None whatsoever.

 

Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange.

 

With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown.

 

How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934 AT THE VERY EARLIEST, perhaps as late as 1937, but not likely, after he became the Mint cashier. QED.

 

The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy! Otherwise we need an ADDITIONAL crooked Mint cashier.

 

FWIW, for the thread title, it's 'Langbord', not 'Langboard'.

[MarkFeld]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. None whatsoever.

 

Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange.

 

With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown.

 

 

 

How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934, after he became the cashier. QED.

 

The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy!

 

"Unknown" as in the circumstances under which the 1933' Double Eagles were actually obtained.

 

Are you claiming that Switt didn't have legitimate dealings with the Mint prior to 1934?

 

Again, others disagree with you and my guess is that they know as much as or more than you do about business at the mint during that time period. We will have to agree to disagree.

[VKurtB]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. None whatsoever.

 

Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange.

 

With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown.

 

 

 

How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934, after he became the cashier. QED.

 

The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy!

 

"Unknown" as in the circumstances under which the 1933' Double Eagles were actually obtained.

 

Are you claiming that Switt didn't have legitimate dealings with the Mint prior to 1934?

 

Again, others disagree with you and my guess is that they know as much as or more than you do about business at the mint during that time period. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Two points. The jury found (and at the end of the day, that's all that counts) that the "coins" were stolen from the Mint. There is even a dispute that they were legally ever "coins" per se, since they were never monetized.

 

Second, there is no record of Switt having ILLEGITIMATE dealings with the Mint until 1934, which he continued to have quite a bit, according TO THE RECORD. He may have had legitimate dealings in and before 1933, but that's hardly at issue. He got one Mint cashier to do "dirty dealings" from 1934 on. Is FWB or anyone else willing to "finger" a second Mint cashier during the winter of 1933?

 

Is FWB suggesting that a Mint cashier put the 1933's in the holder in which Ms. Langbord just happened to find them coincidentally in the immediate aftermath of the sale of the Fenton/Forouk specimen's sale? C'mon, Mark, you're brighter than that! These coins were known to have been stolen and were carefully secreted away for decades until what looked like an opportune moment. I'll tell FWB he's full of horse droppings to his face, if you like. Actually, I'd rather enjoy doing it.

[MarkFeld]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. None whatsoever.

 

Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange.

 

With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown.

 

 

 

How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934, after he became the cashier. QED.

 

The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy!

 

"Unknown" as in the circumstances under which the 1933' Double Eagles were actually obtained.

 

Are you claiming that Switt didn't have legitimate dealings with the Mint prior to 1934?

 

Again, others disagree with you and my guess is that they know as much as or more than you do about business at the mint during that time period. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Two points. The jury found (and at the end of the day, that's all that counts) that the "coins" were stolen from the Mint. There is even a dispute that they were legally ever "coins" per se, since they were never monetized.

 

Second, there is no record of Switt having ILLEGITIMATE dealings with the Mint until 1934, which he continued to have quite a bit, according TO THE RECORD. He may have had legitimate dealings in and before 1933, but that's hardly at issue. He got one Mint cashier to do "dirty dealings" from 1934 on. Is FWB or anyone else willing to "finger" a second Mint cashier during the winter of 1933?

 

What the jury "found" does not necessarily equate with "known".

 

There is no "record" of Switt having illegitimate dealings with the Mint at any time. And one or more numismatic experts have stated that the term "monetized" didn't even exist back then. This will be my last post to this thread.

[VKurtB]

Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset.

 

The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. None whatsoever.

 

Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange.

 

With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown.

 

 

 

How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934, after he became the cashier. QED.

 

The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy!

 

"Unknown" as in the circumstances under which the 1933' Double Eagles were actually obtained.

 

Are you claiming that Switt didn't have legitimate dealings with the Mint prior to 1934?

 

Again, others disagree with you and my guess is that they know as much as or more than you do about business at the mint during that time period. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Two points. The jury found (and at the end of the day, that's all that counts) that the "coins" were stolen from the Mint. There is even a dispute that they were legally ever "coins" per se, since they were never monetized.

 

Second, there is no record of Switt having ILLEGITIMATE dealings with the Mint until 1934, which he continued to have quite a bit, according TO THE RECORD. He may have had legitimate dealings in and before 1933, but that's hardly at issue. He got one Mint cashier to do "dirty dealings" from 1934 on. Is FWB or anyone else willing to "finger" a second Mint cashier during the winter of 1933?

 

What the jury "found" does not necessarily equate with "known".

 

There is no "record" of Switt having illegitimate dealings with the Mint at any time. And one or more numismatic experts have stated that the term "monetized" didn't even exist back then. This will be my last post to this thread.

 

Then one or more numismatic experts are mistaken as a point of law, because the Farouk specimen needed to be, and the Third Circuit court's footnote in the August 1 decision referred to it early on, recognizing that the government disputes that 1933 double eagles are even legally coins at all. The Court used the term "coins" as merely a convenient shorthand. Remember, the Federal Reserve was in full flower in1933. We're not talking pre-1913.

 

Numismatic "expertise" is an ephemeral, mercurial and ill-defined thing. Today's "knowledge" is tomorrow's myth. It certainly implies nothing regarding knowledge of legal status, in fact it may work to the detriment of knowledge of law. Numismatists tend to be quirky beasts, often beset by non-mainstream political viewpoints that put them out at the skinny end of the bell curve. Their "expertise" needs to be taken with TRUCKLOADS of salt.

[coinman_23885]

I told you guys this district court would be reversed on appeal. Do us all a favor, Mark, stick to coins, you're in over your head.

 

Actually the en banc opinion affirms the district court ruling.

 

Well Mark, as a professional who works in writing laws, I am willing to have him speak for me in this. The trial court and the en banc Circuit got it right; Midge Rendell writing for the vacated panel got it wrong.

 

Since he thought the district court remained reversed, are you sure you want him speaking for you?

[Conder101]

Second, there is no record of Switt having ILLEGITIMATE dealings with the Mint until 1934, which he continued to have quite a bit, according TO THE RECORD.

They have records of illegitimate deals?

 

He may have had legitimate dealings in and before 1933, but that's hardly at issue. He got one Mint cashier to do "dirty dealings" from 1934 on.

It isn't? If he did have legitimate dealing in 1933 then why could he not have obtained them then? Why would he have to wait until the "illegitimate " deals in 1934?

 

Is FWB or anyone else willing to "finger" a second Mint cashier during the winter of 1933?

Why winter of 1933 when the coins were available in the spring of 1933? The coins were struck in the spring, we know they were in the cash window at the mint during a time when I believe gold coins could be exchanged for other gold coins. So why do we assume that a legal exchange couldn't have taken place. If in fact there was a window of opportunity then they may not be stolen property and the government should have had to prove they were stolen. Instead everything seems to start from the assumption that they were stolen. I believe even this recent decision on the fact that forfeiture proceeding weren't required is based on the fact that you don't have to do forfeiture for stolen property. But at the time the coins were seized, and the request for forfeiture proceeding was initiated the coins had NOT been determined by the court to be stolen. They were merely someones property seized by the government.

 

Now I admit I am not a lawyer, but the forfeiture law as I read it states that if the government doesn't respond to the forfeiture request by a certain period, the property has to be returned and the government can no longer try to reclaim the property by later action. The government never responded to the forfeiture request, so under the law the coins should have been returned and the later court trial should never have taken place.

 

Of course all this is moot now as there is not really any avenue for appeal any longer.

[BillJones]

The big fat all powerful Federal Government decides in its favor once again. What a surprise!

 

These pigs will not be happy until they own and control everything. If you think that statement is over the top, see me in ten years. The court system is soon going to be nothing but rubber stamp for whatever the Excutive Branch of the Federal Government wants.

 

Now they are going to waste a bunch of tax payers' money taking these things to coin shows to let "the people see their money."

 

To hell with it! Melt 'em down and stick the bar in Fort Knox.

[numisport]

As an outsider with no legal background I just have to chuckle at the notion that these 10 Double Eagles were "found" in a bank box. If anyone thinks that they just came across these one day and decided to have U.S. mint officials authenticate them ....... Certainly they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor and not legal to own. These coins were never released for circulation and yes I know these coins didn't circulate anyway but were exchanged in a clandestine manor. I think the fact that these coins were held so long by family is criminal at the start.

 

 

Regardless of how strongly you might believe it to be so, you have no way of knowing "they knew full well that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate manor"(manner). You don't know what they knew or that the coins were obtained in a less than legitimate/clandestine manner. And the length of time the coins were held has nothing to do with any "criminal" activity.

I was under the impression that the Secret Service tracked down and confiscated the remainder of the '33's in a manner that would certainly incriminate anyone holding such coins in the 40's.

[dcarr]

If the US Mint was planning to melt those 10 coins, and if I owned the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle (the one that the US Mint "legitimized" and sold for 7 million some years ago), I would offer the US Mint some amount of money to trade the Farouk specimen for my pick from the 10 confiscated specimens. One or more of those 10 are certainly better quality than the Farouk coin.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

If the US Mint was planning to melt those 10 coins, and if I owned the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle (the one that the US Mint "legitimized" and sold for 7 million some years ago), I would offer the US Mint some amount of money to trade the Farouk specimen for my pick from the 10 confiscated specimens. One or more of those 10 are certainly better quality than the Farouk coin.

 

 

That would be an amazing deal, but I am sure the government wouldn't do it for free. I think some also like the Farouk pedigree, but it is a VERY interesting idea.

[BillJones]

Do we know for sure that a private collector actually owns the Farouk coin? Since the government got a 50% discount in the auction, and makes its own money anyway, I have suspected that the government bought it.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Innocent unless proven guilty with enough evidence to back it up beyond a shadow of a doubt? The Saddle Ridge hoard surfaces and though there were initial suspicions, no proof of theft/fraud came up, so the hoard got distributed, grading services made money, the finders keepers made fully taxed money, the government got its due. Too bad a happy ending is not happening here. It looks like the Langboards are losing a lot of money in legal fees, etc..

[EleMint Man]

This post goes back to March of this year. As far as I'm concerned, if it weren't for Swift, there wouldn't be any 1933 Double Eagles. The Feds should be more appreciative of the Langboards "Generosity" in turning them in and rescind the them their legal fees. Yeah I know...the chances of that happening are as good as King Farouk showing up at the Smithsonian with the 20th Double Eagle in a slab!

 

.....................................................................................................................................

 

Re: Is $4,194,800 too much for a !907 PR69 $20 St. Gaudens? [Re: EleMint Man]

 

GoldFinger1969 Offline

 

The Post-man always rings twice. Uhm... ring ring?

 

 

Registered: 01/03/14

Posts: 1561

 

Originally Posted By: EleMint Man

Exactly how Israel Swift managed to "Collect" 10 Double Eagles is beyond me:

http://www.inquisitr.com/324028/rare-dou...nt-judge-rules/

 

Wonder if he's still appealing the court ruling.........

"On October 28, 2010, United States District Court judge, Legrome D. Davis, released a 20-page decision, which led to a trial in July 2011.[9] On July 20, 2011, after a 10-day trial, a jury ruled unanimously in favor of the United States government concerning ownership of the ten additional double eagles. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence proved that Israel Switt had illegally obtained the coins from the United States government, and that they are thus still government property.[10] The decision was affirmed on August 29, 2012, and the plaintiffs planned to appeal.[11]"

 

Swit may have gotten the coins via a legal exchange of older Saints.

 

The Langbord's recently won their appeal and now the government is deciding if they want to appeal. RWB was a consultant at one time to the Langbord's.

 

...