Langbord-Switt 1933 Double Eagle Case

Mostly Square Head here......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think there's a movie there........wasn't Matt Damon.

 

Just don't get too close on the downwind side, if you get my meaning. 90 degrees and no deodorant use is a wicked combo.

 

Poor dear puts up with me........

 

LOL.......I'm a country boy. I can take it.

 

Wait, that's Spagnola. Ivy League guy. I'm thinking Yale, maybe Princeton.

 

He was how shall I say "connected." That's why he had all the right lines. He wasn't "acting."

Ah, fazool. La vita e bella.

 

Scuza me, but you see, back in old Naploi, that's amore!

 

Loved him in 'Some Like it Hot'.............

And yes, it is 'amore'.......that's why she tolerates me.

 

Hate to break in here, but there are 2 crimes in which the statute of limitations does not apply. One being in possession of stolen property. Possession is an ongoing crime.
If someone broke into my home and stole a family heirloom, that may not carry a cents value with anyone else, I would want my property back, period. I wouldn't care what they replaced it with.

 

1. The victim of this crime was the United States of America, which has a right to protect its property and discourage stealing by its Mint employees.

2. At no time were the 1933s anything but government property. Unauthorized removal constituted a crime.

3. The exchange of gold for gold was probably designed solely to disguise the commission of a crime. If it wasn't, the government still had the sole property right over the 1933 coins and no one had the right to take possession of them.

4. The thief knew that 1933 coins would be extremely valuable. Otherwise, why would have he bothered at the risk of criminal charge (I refer you to his later history). If he didn't know they would be valuable, he still illegally took unauthorized possession of government property.

5. Anyone who has property stolen has the right to reclaim it -- regardless of whether someone else has possession of it and has paid a third party for the property.

6. Anyone possessing stolen property -- either willingly or unwillingly -- can be charged with a crime.

 

Me too, buddy. I have to be honest, I still don't know what she sees in me.

 

Ah, what the hell?

 

'Moonstruct'.....good flick.

 

George Raft conspicuously absent........

 

And I digress horribly bad...........

For the good

 

Actually, I was thinkin' Mark Wahlberg as Vince Papale.....

 

Things like this happen everyday in the Gov't and no one pays a cent to care... Coins ? Only important to us... [edited - "general" political comments]

This whole thing was just a show.... They got greedy, that's all, should have sold them off... And by the way, you as an employee dont fit into the Govt thieves I describe... You only have to watch HBO and the money pit Super Pac funding documentary to know just how corrupt of a country we are... Had the owner of these coins been related to a Senator, or past president.. It would hardly make news, never make it to the Superior Court because those at the Mint would be told to SHUT UP !
Who is buying a standing Liberty ?

 

It's possible the ten double eagles were a trial (no pun) balloon, and a bunch of others are now offshore. However, given their value, one would have sufficed as a legal test coin. I can't see how they or their legal team would think that the Farouk coin established a precedent. The Farouk case hinged on the government having provided an export permit. No such permit existed for other 1933 double eagles.

So, why did they announce their possession of ten coins rather than one? Could be lots of reasons. They may have felt the government did have a potentially valid claim and really did want it adjudicated. It may be that when the legal team was informed there were ten coins and knew that there was a possibility of them being stolen property, they faced an ethical dilemma. They could continue to represent the Langbords only if all ten coins were disclosed. The Langbords were then faced with either doing that or finding a new legal team. However, the legal team had been successful in the Farouk case, so they stuck with them.

Beyond the thirteen well known coins, there is at least one other in private hands. There is a picture of it in Frankel's book.

Anyone with 20th century pattern coins would do well to keep quiet about them unless they were known to leave the mint's ownership legally. This is especially true of patterns created after 1933. If there is a need to sell, do it privately through a dealer. Patterns from the 1700's and 1800's are probably on safer ground for private ownership as a lot of records were lost or are ambiguous, and many patterns appear to have been distributed legally.

Folks should keep in mind differences between criminal and civil cases. Statutes of limitation apply to some crimes, but if theft was involved, civil recovery of the property by the owners or their legal descendants may be possible long after the statutory period for theft expires. The key is supporting a claim to title by a preponderance of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt is not required!).

Cal

 

This is very obviously one of those cases where it's hard to apply our "If you wish to discuss politics and or religion, then go someplace else" rule. But please stay on topic - political comments that go beyond this case are not welcome here ...

Christian