'33 Double Eagle

Here Coin World report.
:kewl:
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/jury-seated-in-1933-double-eagle-trialattorne/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My 2 cents


How can Evidence in a Court Case go to all Major coin shows of 2006?How the jury going to know there giving back the real 1933.
hex they been to Ngc all the major coin shows of 2006.hex someone could have switched them out for a VERY go copy?
I am glad this was in court before the Patriot act. No one would have known.

 

There have been similar cases involving NASA "moon rocks" and the US government has won all of them.

The US government is currently suing one of the Apollo astronauts to get back a "moon landing" camera.

 

wow...what I think is crazy is that the Langbords sued in 06...that sucks to wait 5 yrs just to walk into the courtroom (speedy trial right/??)

 

The Fed courts are so backed up with criminal cases that civil cases often take this long to come to trial.

 

Like a lot of you I would really like to see the Langbord's win this.

Maybe some shady stuff occurred. But I figure if the gov't can't prove theft than it deserves to lose. Fix your record keeping, damn it. And your staff that handles transactions.

In all likelihood the Mint's lowlife, unscrupulous clerk -- the guy later convicted of stealing coins -- exchanged new '33 double eagles for earlier ones. Just taking care of a buddy, you know? Lots of us like the latest stuff from the Mint.

But I worry about a jury verdict. I've been a juror on a couple of cases. They're nincompoops, really. It's all about emotion and little to do with the law. The team with the best lawyers will win.
Lance.

 

You'd think with $30-$50mm at stake, the family would have some fantastic lawyers.

 

You betcha. And the expert testimony is coming from the BEST (like RWB).

But look at the results from jury trials in the news. Jurors have gotten totally unpredictable and highly irrational. They may vote against giving $20 million to highfalutin, nouveau riche.
Lance.

 

I think the Family turn them in 2004 I recall Ngc getting a look at them in 2005.but then in 2006 they made a tour.the Government has been dragging there feet so long they wore out 15 pair of shoes I think there hoping family die's or runs out of money.
:kewl:

 

The case is now in front of a jury. Unless the gov't makes a deal, the gov't will get all 10 (and would melt them) or the Langbord's will get all 10. In the Fenton case [when the export license to Egypt became known and the gov't realized it had a very good chance of losing], the gov't agreed to split the auction proceeds.
The jury doesn't have the option to split them. If the gov't wins, the gov't can't sell them as the arrangement with the sale of the "Farouk" specimen was that it would be the only legal 1933 double eagle in existence (apart from the two that were saved from the melting pot by the Treasury and given to the Smithsonian).

As far as value (if the Langbord's win), I would guess 25M$ to 35M$ for all 10 combined.

as far as attorney fees, I would bet that the Langbord attorney is on contingency (35%?).

 

One of the dirty little secrets of contingency representation is the "plus expenses" which is overinflated beyond what any normal person would consider honest. They charge like $2-$5 per page for every copy they make on work they are already producing. The expenses alone will eat up the entire value of whatever award they MIGHT get.

 

Personally, I think the government has a strong case none were released to the public, and think it screwed up letting the other one be auctioned. Personally, I would like to see all of them locked up in a museum and unable to be privately owned. The dealer who had them had a reputation of having shady mint products, and I personally do not think his family should benefit by his actions.

Of course, I think the 1913 Liberty Head nickels should be impounded as well. I guess I am just a hard case. To me, the law is the law, and if the government can prove they never legally issued these, then no matter how long ago it happened it was theft of US government property. Yes, the statute of limitations prevents criminal prosecution, but there is no statute for retrieving stolen property.

Lets say someone breaks into the Smithsonian and steals the 1849 double eagle. 100 years from now is it ok for their heirs to sell it? To me its the same.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

I think you are right..:thumb::thumb:

 

This case presents some unique circumstances regarding theft. For example, I would imagine that a decent number of coin collectors, myself included, own a coin that was at one point or another stolen from someone else. Is that coin legally property of the person it was originally stolen from (or that person's descendants)?

Either way you choose to answer, it is still extremely unlikely for such an issue to come to trial, given that it would be almost impossible to prove that it was *my* coin that was stolen from person X one hundred years ago. However, this case eliminates that burden, as the origin and story of the 1933 double eagle is much easier to figure out. Still, it is curious that the government seems to focus on this one coin. It is certainly not the only coin that has leaked into circulation illegally.

Hopefully the coins escape destruction. The history to those pieces is remarkable - they deserve a book, not a furnace.

 

Right.

"Exactly when did you notice that that some of the 1933 double eagles were missing and exactly how many of them were missing?"

"Well we never actually noticed that there were any missing, and we don't know exactly how many were taken."

"If you never noticed any missing, how can you say that these are stolen?

"We don't have any records of having distributed any."

"Does the government have ALL of their records from back then? None at all missing, from any department?"

"Well no. There are some records missing from back then."

"So there might be some chance that there could have been records of distribution at one time but they don't exist anymore?"

"Maybe"

Or if he answers that there are no records missing.

"Then where are the records reporting the number of coins missing?"

 

Looking at it logically, it is theoretically easier to figure out the history of ten coins - all of which were allegedly stolen from the government, than it would be for a private citizen to identify one specific coins out of millions minted in the same year.

However, that conclusion is based on the assumption that the government would actually document a discrepancy between the number of coins minted and the number of coins melted, and try to resolve said discrepancy.

I can see my assumption was bad. Carry on.

 

But I thought, (going on memory), that the coins had never been transferred to any area allowed to sell them. That was the documentation they have. They know they sent the $10 coins to a distribution point, so they have never fought those, (even though many probably left the mint after just like the $20's did). The fact that the $20 we never legally transferred to a sales outlet is the proof that any outside the mint control must have been stolen.

 

Right, but going off of what conder said, the fact that none were distributed is based on documentation which may be incomplete. As such, it is impossible to prove that no 1933 double eagle was ever, at any point, by any person, legally removed from the mint. That puts a huge hole in the government's stance that these coins were stolen. Their argument seems to be: No 1933 Double Eagle was authorized to leave the mint. These 1933 Double Eagles left the mint. Therefore, these 1933 Double Eagles left the mint illegally. If they cannot prove that first assumption, their conclusion, and with it their argument, falls apart.

 

I agree. I just remember they had paperwork that had to be completed to transfer to sale window. That paperwork was completed for both sides of the transaction for the $10, and neither side for $20, and they have sworn statements from the clerks that no 1933 $20 were ever received into their window.

You are right, if people do not beleive that proves it, then the gov't has a weaker case.