Langbord case: What are those 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagles worth?

What do you think they should do ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Goldfinger, with all due respect, I don't think you're thinking straight. For one, this expert you're citing as your authority on these "well-documented" "Mint exchange practices of the 1920s and 1930s" testified in front of this jury. But for some yet unexplained reason this Switt is the only dealer in the world who ended up with these 1933 Double Eagles? No other dealer in the world took advantage of these "well-documented" "Mint exchange practices of the 1920s and 1930s," but him? Are you able to understand a jury wondering at that? In some 80 years these Switt 1933 Double Eagles are the only 1933 Double Eagles in existence, every one traceable to him? Are you able to understand a jury wondering, "How the hell does that happen?"

The irony in this Opinion is this. The whole purpose of this CAFRA is to get this very trial on the issue of the "seized asset." They just had the trial, and it was in front of a jury, but because the Government didn't have the trial quick enough, this Court is holding the penalty is, vacate the judgment, throw the trial out, and return the coins this jury, after hearing all the evidence, found were "unlawfully smuggled out of the Mint." What happens, next, another trial? They just had the trial. No, disposition of ownership can't be the penalty for missing this CAFRA deadline, that doesn't make one lick of sense. There are problems in this narrow-minded Opinion, I'm telling you that. And this Mint returns these coins, and the next day they're "lost," and everybody sits around and goes, "Oops!" Ah, I don't know about that.

Look, this matter is messed up, enough, already. Let's sit back and see what happens. I'm getting tired of this. You want to continue to second-guess this jury verdict, by all means, have at it. I had enough.

 

Settle like they did with the Farook Coin.

 

Right, because he has extensively DOCUMENTED with hard physical evidence (Mint records) that these exchanges took place. He's just not reciting oral history.

That's not what happened.

Izzy Switt was in a unique position because he lived in Philadelphia, near the Mint. If you didn't have a contact at the Mint, they might tell you to get lost.

If the exchange policy was just for tours and Mint employees and Izzy know someone, then 'schmoozing' with that person gets him his coins. He asks for a favor...the Mint employee does the exchange...Izzy gets the coins. Nothing illegal, just a favor. If you or I show up at the Mint, they could tell us to get lost and wait for the official release.

Other coin dealers/collectors -- particularly over in Europe -- are rumoured to possess a 1933 DE. It's tough to say, because nobody is going to state it and have the Secret Service show up and confiscate the coin.

I don't think the government should lose on the CAFRA thing but I don't think they should win on the Stolen Merchandise Theory, too.

I wish the jurors had been asked about the exchange policies. Most jurors tend to be less-intelligent than the general population because they are the ones who can afford to take off weeks or months for a trial.

 

The CAFRA filing was part of the court records for the third circuit trial. but that filing was before the trial started. The appeals court seized on that and ruled that since the government failed to reply to the filing as the law required then they had to pay the penalty the law called for. The return of the property and no further action to recover the property allowed.

That is what the law requires. If the government couldn't have the trial within the 90 days they should have responded to the CAFRA filing and then they would have had plenty of time.

What trial? With this ruling there was no trial.

Shouldn't be, the penalty as applied by the law from the CAFRA is that they can't take further actions to recover the property.

May not make sense but that is exactly the penalty written into the law.

Who loses them the Langbords or the Treasury Dept? There is precedent for the Treasury Dept "losing" coins they have been ordered to return. See the 1969-S Doubled die cents they seized as fakes. (There were fake 69 P doubled dies and the seized those and double die 69-S cents as well. When the S mint coins were determined to be real they were ordered to be returned. "Opps, sorry we destroyed them."

 

Conder, those coins are worth so much $$$ and they have ALREADY been on display at the ANA Convention.

Nothing will happen to them.

 

Conder, the District Court extended the time for the filing of the complaint for good cause shown. Under CAFRA, it can do that, or upon agreement of the parties. It did it for good cause shown, and not upon agreement of the parties. Here's the relevant language, read it for yourself: "Not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for forfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the property pending the filing of a complaint, except that a court in the district in which the complaint will be filed may extend the period for filing a complaint for good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties." 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(3)(A). I'm telling you, this Court blew it. I have to let it go at that. That's just how it is. No hard feelings.

 

But we do love the drama

 

They ought to make a movie.

 

Charlie Chan The case of the 1933 disappearing gold coins

 

1-hour documentary "Hunt For The Double Eagle" on YouTube from cable:



Damn, the complete episode isn't there anymore, maybe someone will put it up. It airs often on Smithsonian, History, etc.

 

Did they? My understanding is that the government never asked for an extension, the district court suggested that they could have, but that was five years after the deadline expired. I believe even the appeals court rendered an opinion that waiting five years eliminated the "good cause" option. And that makes sense. If you have to wait five years after the deadline to ask for an extension, you don't have good cause for being granted one.

 

You're right, Conder, I read the Opinion, again. Landbords initiated the action in a common law replevin. Such an easy read, I don't know how I missed it first time around. This time I went slower, took an extra Bud to get through it.

 

Check this one out: http://www.coinworld.com/insights/1933-indian-head-gold-eagle-a-highlight-of-heritage-auction.html

 

I don't think the timing of that is any coincidence.

 

It just adds to to 1933 gold coins

 

FWIW, I believe the coins are worth about $30-$35 MM.

The moron U.S. Assistant Attorney who helped steal them back and trash the Langbord's and Burdette actually says on her resume that she helped get them back and that they were worth in "excess of $80 MM."

Once again proving she knows nothing about coins, either the law or market values.