Langbord-Switt 1933 Double Eagle Case

Perhaps possession is 9/10 of the law. The government has them and refused to give them back.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is in the millions. I know that for a fact.

 

The government used NO outside counsel, all matters were handled in-house by (poorly) salaried lawyers who would have been paid the same trying some shlub for possessing a few grams of pot. The Langbords were represented by big gun lawyer Barry Berke. Their arrangement is a private matter.

As it pertains to lawyering, this is a case where the government was David and the Langbords were Goliath. Enjoy the win. The inexpensive lawyers beat the bejabbers out of the expensive ones.

 

If I take something that does not belong to me, with or without the help of another person, and I have to give it back, how many people will feel sorry for me?

 

"Possession" is a rebuttable presumption of ownership meaning that ring on your finger is yours and not mine until I can come forward with a requisite quantum of admissible evidence to rebut that presumption.

 

Amen, brother! I am actually a little annoyed that @spirityoda has decided to speak for me as "we the coin collectors protest". I sure as heck DO NOT PROTEST, and I've been an avid coin collector for over 50 years! I'm also a government employee and a law drafter, so I wear several hats here. Justice was finally done here and we need to celebrate that fact.

 

I see this issue being discussed on forums not so much as an issue of legality, but as an issue emotiionally fueld by an us vs. THEM.

Recent political events have only fueled Jon and Jane Doe's feelings about government winking depending on the level of status a person holds. Even the wording of a recent major report reads like an accusation (yes, I read it), but in the end ... .

In fact I recently saw a video where a well known former judge made the comment a soldier had been in the same type of circumstance, to a much lesser degree, and yet was tried and convicted.

So it is no wonder John and Jane are willing to see a crime oin the public level being punished as a wrong thing. If the playing field were level in pracvtice at all levels, I think this discussion would see more people being very glad justice was served in this case.

Another such issue to fuel the emotional side is the NORFED incident. THe FBI made an illegal seizure and have now been ordered to return what they took. Great! But... since the system spread rumors (even to saying it was illegal to sell NORFED on ebay), and made rumors of confiscation, land allowed this to go on for three years before any action was taken towards the appeal of the seizure, the true reason for the seizure was revealed. They wanted to kill the popularity of the NORFED medals as they were trying to re-introduce a base metal for money.

Sorry to divert a little - but the NORFED example is just another example of why I understand (did not say condone) the emotional cry of people that the government should have let these 1933s slide by - despite it being legally wrong to do so. Add to that the history of the con and some nostalgia is added in there.

I just wonder whether or not these will once again show up in around 50 years as having been given out as gifts to VIPS after being confiscated? Nowadays its hard to tell.

 

I didn't mean to claim he didn't have an opinion on which side was right. What I am saying is that I believe he knows the facts at the time as well as anybody else, to the extent it can be known. In other words, he didn't just make his claims up.

 

Huh. And yet I read his testimony and I am convinced that is precisely what he did - made it up out of whole cloth just like a novel. So did a unanimous jury.

 

There are posters on PCGS who I understand are attorneys and have read in detail, though I cannot confirm they read every single word as you did. I don't know whether they agreed with the decision or not.

And yes, I am "crystal" clear.

 

As @Earle42 wrote above, and I'll paraphrase here, if all you've got to hang your hat on is "yeah, stick it to the gummint", that's really pretty stinking sick, isn't it? Grow up.

 

In our politically correct society, we don't kill the messenger, we kill the guy that sold him his horse.

 

.

 

.

 

Keep politics out of this or I'll report you.

 

Maybe you missed that I think they are due the bullion value at least. Switt "paid" for the 1933 D.E.'s with other earlier date D.E.'s we all assume. They were worth SOMETHING, maybe a lot.

Just so we're clear, I've ALWAYS been "by the book", even as a kid. Maybe it's no accident I came to work for the government late in my career after over 25 years in traditional silver-based photographic imaging. [Reminder: my avatar is a "selfie" taken with a Hasselblad I rebuilt myself.][Before my stroke ruined my fine motor skills in my right hand.]

 

Kurt first I want to say thank you for your integrity in serving us, the people of the United States, in your capacity in government. and for the record I think it was a great decision.
I do wonder, now, what will the gov. do with the coins? will they melt them as per the law that ordered all of them melted? Is there some provision of subsequent law re gold and coin that would allow them to not destroy them?
I think most of us coin lovers would like to see them preserved in some way. Even put up for auction which would recoup (for us tax payers) some significant part of the cost of making and trying the case. I will point out that selling seized property is common place. Not sure if that can apply here.
I don't know the particulars of the people who had the coins and what their motive was in letting the gov see them (authenticate them) but if their intent was not criminal (unlike the family member who stole them) and they were in fact trying to do the right thing in handing them over to the gov, I would let them bid at auction too, along with all the rest of us. Perhaps then they could have a fair shot an owning them legally and all the coin collectors who are secretly (or not so secretly) wishing they could have one, could have their shot too.
Not asking a binding legal opinion or a position statement from the gov, but do you think there is a chance that there could be a legal bridge that could reach the shore of not melting them? What are some of the things the gov will have to consider re the outcome of these coins?

 

PS, just PLEASE don't let the Mint sell them online, limit 10 per household! (ref the gold merc dime sale)

 

I guess what we tolerate has changed. Have you been watching the TV news during the past four years...?

 

I may have 'walked off" with a ball point pen sometime in my life...

Oh, I forgot how it goes these days...Ah, I can't remember. Ah, I don't recall...!