HERITAGE NUMISMATIC AUCTIONS, INC. V. STIEL CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE On Appeal from the 162nd Judicia

I see this entire controversy as a situation in which plaintiffs desire things to be a way other than how they now are. They want auction houses to have the same rules as other financial asset dealers do. But they don't. They want the arbitration paragraph stricken. But it isn't. They want to have convenient jurisdiction and venue. But they don't. In short, they want to have financial asset analogous protections of Industry F to apply to Industry, ohh, let's call it H&S/B. Transparent enough?

Problem is, none of this presently exists. You have to get it from a court or a legislature. Some people like the idea, some don't. If antiques and collectibles were as liquid as mainstream financial assets, you'd probably already have all those things. But they aren't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interested to see where this case goes. Might be a long time coming. I've never consigned with Heritage, but I am about to next month. I HAVE used Stacks and Bowers before for about $15k in consignments. They did a nice job for me.

 

One of my three favorite tools for solving life's nagging problems, along with bacon and chocolate.

 

If you haven't tried this, you haven't lived.

 

A few years back I was at a gathering where we created Bacon S'Mores. They....did not live up to expectations.

 

Your observations are correct except with some anomalies as: http://www.coinweek.com/coin-clubs/...ly-2-million-under-federal-racketeering-laws/

I believe you'll find the State of Minnesota has had great success in reducing/eliminating? their interstate coin dealer problems by cooperative efforts with the "Feds". Although this doesn't allow civil individual redress, it partially eliminates/reduces the potential for future incidents.

MN allows? individuals to transact normal Numismatic business unless a formal complaint is filed. A believed reasonable approach to a relatively monumental past problem.

JMHO

 

What I hear you saying is you have lots and lots of allies who don't yet know they are - they only need to get burned as you have, in order to be "activated". Do you believe the super high end collectors/collections (the ones that get their own book or series of sales) are treated similarly, or much better?

 

What effect did chatrooms have on the Langbord/Switt double eagle case?

I believe that the case is still before the Federal Court of Appeals.

 

Yes, the Third Circuit was petitioned for an en banc rehearing, which was granted (by the way, this is very rare - it indicates a fairly high likelihood of a reversal of the panel decision). The hearing was held, we are awaiting the Third Circuit's opinion, which will almost certainly be appealed for a writ of certiorari to the SCOTUS, so the circuit judges have a high incentive to write extremely carefully. An en banc split decision at the Circuit Court of Appels is the stuff of Supreme Court nominee résumé building.

 

I'm a "big boy" who's responsible for his actions, having been educated in the school of reality, usually knowing what to expect in advance of premeditated adverse events perpetrated by the nefarious. I do what is necessary to present future arguments and generate a viable brief. My experiences/expenses are partially my cost of education, as in your Pro Se processes.

Part of my educational process is to share/warn others without jeopardizing a future action. From past experiences I've learned that few heed warnings, so I continue with a correction process in the most clandestine manner allowed.

As you appropriately surmised/summarized there isn't a simple direct path for civil redress, as those with power/money develop detours which will divert all but tenacious few who generally are defeated by overwhelming mental and other expense.

I suspect you understand the process which has been implemented to correct a societal problem rather than accomplish individual redress. It's believed this process will be advanced with time/efforts.

Personally. I don't care how others are benefited in life. I only exist in my shell, and have been blessed, received more than most. I've seen success by application of the "Golden Rule", rather than the Golden Ruler.

Someone says changes are coming, and I suspect many will be surprised.

JMHO

 

Some having brilliance and seeming candidacy, I believe, have learned there are "better ways": http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-sad-legacy-of-robert-bork/266456/

Oops! Sorry!!

 

There seems to a bit of a contradiction here...

 

I believe the question asked of me was whether I resent how others receive possibly more "beneficial" treatment. I only care that I provide equal compensatory effort. My enjoyment/satisfaction in life is derived when others learn/succeed from guidance/efforts provided in my Pro Bono services. "Paying Forward" isn't often rewarded even by acknowledgement, but is surely pleasurable when even a smile is realized.

JMHO

 

Nicely said.

 

YOU "Made" my day!! Thanks!!

 

RWB made some very strong arguments for the case that it was possible for the coin to have left the mint legally. Then the lawyers for the other side presented some of Roger some of his more flippant comments from the PCGS and NGC forums to discredit him as a reliable witness. Included was one comment to the effect of "pay me $300 an hour and I'll be happy to testify for you". It was said online as a joke, but presented to the jury out of context it made Roger look like someone willing to say whatever you wanted for money and I believe it caused them to discount his well researched testimony.

 

Interesting.

Be careful what you say here.

 

Why is any of this relevant to this case anymore? It is being decided in an en banc federal circuit court, based on a point of law, not the findings of the trial or any other jury. It's about Midge Rendell's imaginative finding of the government's need to file a forfeiture action to "get the coins back". The jury already decided they were stolen goods, stolen from the Mint, but Judge Rendell felt they needed to go back to the Langbords based on the lack of filing of a forfeiture petition of the government. The correctness, or lack thereof, of that decision written by Rendell (yes, Ed's ex-wife) in the panel case is what would go before the Supreme Court, if anything does.

 

Didn't say it was, but it was something that caused problems earlier in the case, and it relates back to an earlier post that asked how comments on a chatboard could case problems in a legal case.

 

​