The Langbord and Gorsuch Connection

On this coming Thursday, April 13, 2017, the newly full United States Supreme Court will consider the Petition for Certiorari of the Langbord family to possibly overturn the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision effectively making the government the undisputed owner of what has been known as the 10 Langbord/Switt 1933 Double Eagles. This is accomplished during what is known as a Judicial Conference.

Please note: this will not be to comprehensively get into the full merits of the case. This is to decide whether the Supreme Court will fully take up the case at all. The usual standard is four Justices must agree to take the case, and must, among other factors, decide that the case presents a significant federal question that merits certiorari.

Stay tuned. We will soon know whether the last full chapter in the saga has been written about these 10 Double Eagles, or if another is still to come.

For those interested in reading the filings submitted by the parties to the SCOTUS, the link is here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/langbord-v-department-treasury/

Under the custom of the Supreme Court, if anyone knocks on the door of the Judicial Conference, the newest Justice, in this case Neil Gorsuch, must answer the door.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Inasmuch as I believe there was government, ie mint employee collusion to sell the 1933 $20s to Izzy Switt, this case just doesn't beg enough merit to be heard in the highest court in the land. I read an article where one of the Langbords implied that it was a mistake to turn the coins over to the mint for authentication.

 

Far beyond an implication -- it WAS a mistake to turn them over to the Mint. The world is more forgiving when you keep a low profile, or as the colonial Fugio coppers suggest:
"Mind Your Business".

One of my favorite proverbs: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

hammer = Feds?
nails = 1933 double eagles?

 

This case should be a good indicator at where the current court sits on a lot of important issues

In your opinion. Most believe that this case is much more about governmental power and forfeiture law than the coins themselves.

 

Not "more about". More like "all about". This case presents an interesting question to me. How can the government, in dual roles as both "prosecutor" and "victim of" an alleged crime keep those two roles separate?

The coins will barely be mentioned, trust me.

 

Exactly and the scary part is if the case is completely rejected given the history of opinions and the far reaching implications if the last one stands

 

That's where we part company. I fully support the en banc decision below, based both on the law and the practical result.

 

Just to give you an idea what this case is up against at conference, the conference docket has well over 250 cases on it. Maybe 4 to 6 will be accepted. I strongly suspect that clerks do a lot of this prep work and the most time will be spent on cases for which they have 3 solid votes for certiorari and in which Gorsuch might make the difference as the fourth.

This particular conference will almost certainly result in "rehearing orders" for cases in which the 8-member Court was deadlocked, further reducing the Langbord case's chances.

What you need to understand is that the SCOTUS doesn't necessarily take cases where a court below "got it wrong". They are much more likely to take cases where a significant federal issue is involved (this case HAS that element), and for which the Circuit Courts below have split on a key finding. Because this is a uniquely Philly case, and ONLY the Third Circuit has ever considered it, there is no Circuit split.

 

You are right they take cases that generally shape policy or clarify interpretations of preexisting law. You were also right we part ways on the last decision. I do hope they take this case and at the very least undo a lot of that decision even if the coins ultimately end up confiscated (which I would disagree with) they could do it in a way that makes it clear this is not precedent for those tactics to be widely applied. Sadly I think this case is going to get punted

 

I've always been amazed that they turned all 10 over to the mint for authentication. I would have expected one would have been submitted after the other nine were safely offshore. Must have been hubris on the part of their lawyer, who won the earlier case. My main concern though is that the coins be preserved, and apparently, the mint has said they won't melt them if they win.

Cal

 

"What's a double eagle"?

 

Three under par.

 

The standards of two Roman legions?

Cal

 

"You mean that an Egyptian Pharaoh is involved in this case?"

 

The government often acts as prosecutor and victim. Just go check into any federal criminal matter. The victim of the crime is the United States of America.

 

Yes but here it's not just in the usual metaphorical sense. Here it's quite literal and factual.

 

The "peace and dignity" of the USA is one thing. Swipe their gold coin and they really get mad.

 

I think you are coming dangerously close to condoning the decriminalization of "receiving stolen goods", aren't you? After all, the trial-proven fact that these ARE stolen goods is no longer an issue at controversy legally - they ARE, period.

Do we really want to be caught saying we support RSG, as long as they're coins? I assume you are aware of the concept of "fruit of a poisoned tree."

 

The simple fact is this: If we were talking about a stolen car or TV, there wouldn't be any debate about who owns it. Why this stolen coin is different, I can't fathom.

 

You KNOW I can answer that, right? When it comes to coins, gold coins in particular, a good many coin people, those who "traffic" in them especially, completely lose their ability to behave rationally. Quite simple really.

Whether you call it "gold fever" or "gold sickness", or if you're Dan Fogelberg and call it "The Power of Gold", the fact that the stuff corrupts the human mind is pretty close to indisputable.