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

Russian Hackers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Never thought I'd say it, but god bless them...

 

In the original Langbord case, the jury was swayed against the Langbords by the Government's presentation of past comments made by the Langbord's expert witness Roger W. Burdette ("RWB"). Whether the jury's decision was appropriate or not, there is no denying that RWB's past comments didn't help the Langbords.

Here are the two Coin World articles about it:

"Perhaps more problematic was a Feb. 10, 2009, posting that has since become inaccessible where Burdette wrote to the effect of mustering all the hearsay and innuendo required to obfuscate the facts; adding, “I’ll do it at $300 an hour.” Rue wasted no time in asking Burdette, “Isn’t that what you’ve done here today?” attacking the credibility of his findings."

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-roger-burdette-takes-.html

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/07/1933-double-eagle-trial-sides-finish-their-ca.html

 

never mind wrong case

 

I think RWB is very bright, but that was a very unfortunate and stupid thing for him to say. I still cannot believe he made such a careless joke.

 

Essential intelligence doesn't necessarily prepare one for the viciousness of court testimony. A good lawyer needs to practice a form of psychopathy in court to successfully defend or prosecute, a total lack of care about the damage being done to the witness. And a good witness needs to be laser-focused and equally cold-blooded.

 

I don't have to practice

 

Daniel,

The fact remains that the jury's phase of this matter (Langbord) is now well behind us. The court is not even considering reversing the trial jury at this point. The ONLY matter before the en banc Third Circuit (my home circuit with judges on it I know well) is whether the U.S. government had to file a forfeiture action to retain the coins the jury said were stolen (A point with which I agree wholeheartedly, by the way). The three judge panel said 'yes" and its decision was written by Midge Rendell. The U.S. attorney's office said 'no", and the entire Third Circuit reheard the case. No decision has yet been released. It is clearly a split decision, because the panel decision itself was 2-1.

 

I was in shock too! Every dealer with 5 or more years can tell my story without any assistance. I think. What say you?

 

I don't understand. Did you get a $550,000 advance from Heritage and then your coins sold for less than that?-So now you owe them money for selling your coins?

 

RWB's comment may have been made long before he was requested to testify for the Langbords. When you make a comment or joke on a forum do you consider what it's effect might be on something that might be asked of you two years from now? Once he was asked to testify he became very guarded on his comments and he still is on comments related to the case because it is still ongoing.

 

Weren't there objections by the Langboards on the trial court admitting certain pieces of evidence? If so, the 3 judge panel wouldn't have reached those issues because it had already ruled in favor of the Langboards based on the forfeiture argument. This does not preclude the full en banc panel from revisiting the other arguments presented in the appeal (if applicable). It is still very possible for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to vacate the verdict and remand for a new trial.

 

@Hugh Stiel I am really sorry for what has happened to you in recent times. I do hope that you never have to go through anything like this again. I'm a fan of your collection, and whenever you post a coin I am always there in a second to admire its beauty.

I really hope that you win this case.

 

That would be silly

 

Thanks I have found peace after almost 3 years. They never called back ... Not yet since the 1000 coin auctions in 2014. The coins are still circulating in auctions. Upgraded and stamped in most cases. Which was promised for ME

 

I can talk to anyone individually

 

The ruling was published on 8/1/16. The court did address the other evidentiary challenges by the Langboard and found any error to be harmless. The CAFRA ruling was rejected. The majority held that CAFRA was not implicated because there was no forfeiture. http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/124574p2.pdf

 

It turns out that RWB's comments were worth millions of dollars. The Langboards lost at the District Court. A divided en banc panel affirmed yesterday.

 

My apologies, but you didn't respond to the question. Let's break it down into questions that are yes/no, so we can formulate why you found it silly.

Did you receive the $450k & $100k advances from Heritage?
Did your coins sell for more than $550k+7%, assuming you did get said advances?

Simply because it's been so long since I saw Heritage's consignment and bidder ToU/ToS, could someone refresh my memory: Doesn't Heritage disclose that they reserve the right to bid on their own behalf on any lot in any of their auctions?

I always thought that, since it's disclosed, that's not shill bidding. After all, they're bidding to acquire the item for their corporate collection/inventory, not merely to raise the final price.

Hugh, you can ignore this if you wish (and it seems the consensus is that you should):

Do you have the original consignor agreement and correspondence stating that Heritage would allow you to bid on your own items? *That* is usually expressly forbidden in consignor agreements, so that's actually quite surprising. If you have that entered into evidence, could you post it? I'd love to see the wording.

Edit: I just saw the page one linked thread. This topic was closed by mods. Why has a new thread about a closed topic been created? I'm going to report my own post on this one so mods can decide what to do with the thread.