• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Langbord's have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
0

Started by Hard Times,

17 posts in this topic

coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

I wish the Langbords the very best, and hope that they prevail. Nevertheless, I think the petition is dead on arrival without a deep circuit conflict or conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. I hope I am wrong.

 

I also think the Langbords are wrong on the law when it comes to CAFRA, and the petition only presents questions on CAFRA. The Third Circuit sitting en banc was correct. If acquired by theft, the putative thief (and his heirs) never acquired a possessory interest. You cannot forfeit something that you never acquired a possessory interest in. Unfortunately, the district court and the jury found that the government owned the coins. Appeals courts will give deference to those findings, and SCOTUS does not typically grant certiorari to correct factual errors in cases. What the Langbords are asking is that SCOTUS rewrite a forfeiture law and expand the scope of CAFRA, and it misses the point that while all forfeitures involve seizures not all seizures are forfeitures.

 

I also do not think that this means that the government can seize property without any repercussions and that there are no procedural mechanisms to acquire an adjudication. The Langbords could have preemptively filed their own replevin or declaratory judgment action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hard Times

Hard Times

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The Langbords could have preemptively filed their own replevin or declaratory judgment action.

 

In layman's speak, what the heck is a replevin or declaratory judgement action? Lawyer talk doh!

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted (edited)
The Langbords could have preemptively filed their own replevin or declaratory judgment action.

 

In layman's speak, what the heck is a replevin or declaratory judgement action? Lawyer talk doh!

 

Best, HT

 

Sorry. My post was meant to say that there were procedural mechanisms that the Langbords could have used to have the coins returned to them and to obtain an adjudication. I would love to see CAFRA extended, but I do not think the statute supports the position they advocate insofar as I do not believe that this was a "forfeiture" case at all. Congress has a lot of work to do.

Edited by coinman_23885
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldFinger1969

GoldFinger1969

Posted
Posted

This made me sick....should have a contest for how many factual misstatements Stack's allows on this hit piece:

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-6TDFN/1933-saint-gaudens-double-eagle

I'm kind of disappointed that David Bowers appeared on a panel with Tripp, and also that Stack's allows this on their website.  This guy stabbed the entire numismatic community in the back with his half-truths and support for career bureacrats at the Mint and the U.S. Attorney's office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted

As far as I know, the information Mr. Tripp provided about mint coinage records was correct. Nothing was missing from the Philadelphia Mint and all gold and coins were accounted for in 1933.

Later year's information was only selectively presented, but that is what lawyers do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldFinger1969

GoldFinger1969

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, thebeav said:

Old thread alert !

I got sucked in.......

I think the Stack's link is new.  I never knew that was there, just found it.

Even if not, the fact that it's there with blatant errors of fact is just astounding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldFinger1969

GoldFinger1969

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RWB said:

As far as I know, the information Mr. Tripp provided about mint coinage records was correct. Nothing was missing from the Philadelphia Mint and all gold and coins were accounted for in 1933.

Later year's information was only selectively presented, but that is what lawyers do.

I get that....it just irks me that this guy is a celebrated as a numismatic expert.  Outside of his 1 book, I don't know that he is a prolific author or researcher like yourself or Bowers.

I remember when a piece of evidence came up during the DE trial and he called it an "orphaned" document or something like that.  He made it seem like the phrase "orphaned" was well-established and had been used before.  Turns out it was a CYA moment where he couldn't refute the contents of what I thought was a "smoking gun" and tried to lie his way past it.

Got an "F" on that Math test in school ?  Eh, the test and score are "orphans" -- only presents 1 side of how you did on that test. xD

Got arrested for robbing a bank ?  Hey, the surveillance tape is an "orphan" -- only presents 1 side of your 2 minutes in the bank with a gun. xD

Got a video tape of a murderer killing someone ?  Eh, it's an "orphan" video -- only presents 1 side. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebeav

thebeav

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think the Stack's link is new.  I never knew that was there, just found it.

Even if not, the fact that it's there with blatant errors of fact is just astounding.  

It is indeed just a link to an old thread ATS......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing