Langbord's Win!!!

I hope the Langbords asked for "Court & Attorney cost" ....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It appears so, but the deadline wasn't caught by any of the Langbord attorneys until now. Maybe the lawyers should give them a 9-year refund.

Chris

 

Hopefully, they haven't been "lost" after all this time.

 

No they caught it, they sue to force the forfeiture proceedings that the government failed to file in time. And it was part of the grounds for their appeal. They knew about it.

If anyone is interested in reading the actual decision of the court
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/124574p.pdf

One interesting portion dealing with what happens if the government doesn't file the forfeiture complaint with the court within the 90 days.

(3)(B) If the Government does not—(i) file a complaint for forfeiture or return the property, in accordance with subparagraph [(3)](A) . . . the Government shall promptly release the property pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and may not take any further action to effect the civil forfeiture of such property in connection with the underlying offense.

This would seem to imply that they have to return them and then can't take any further action to get them back.


And Paul M is right this ruling has no effect on any further 33 double eagles that come out of hiding. The government can still confiscate them on the theory that they are government property. But maybe then they will follow the rules.

 

Not to worry.......they've got'em in the gobber warehouse right next to the Ark of the Covenant and a stuffed Dodo bird.

 

I agree 100% and SCOTUS is more interested in resolving circuit conflicts. An en banc appeal before the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals is a possibility though.

While theft and embezzlement are crimes covered by that forfeiture statute, I see this as applying to accessories and property used in the commission of the crime. If the person never held title to it, then the application of the statute makes no sense to me at all. How can you forfeit something you never owned? Two fact finders (judge and jury) determined that the government had title, and I think it was erroneous to have vacated that judgment. In short, while I think the result is correct, I would have ruled against the Langbords on the forfeiture argument.

 

Have all of them graded by PCGS with a specialty insert........."Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah - The feds lost!"

Then offer them for sale at 500x market value.

Chris

 

Coin Update, a daily email notification service, tag their worth at $80 million.

 

The government didn't file a CAFRA because they do not believe it is properly owned property. They claim that ownership of the coins is ILLEGAL so it was never the Langbord's property.

They will probably sell the coins but it will likely be at a discount to the coin sold for $6.6 MM last decade. The overall quality of the Langbord 10 is a bit below that of the other coin. There may be a few more stray 1933 DE's in this country and especially overseas.

It's possible that with increased liquidity that the price of a 1933 DE could hold its own or even increase but we have to see. It's such a rare coin and with such limited quantities it could increase in price. Like the 1927-D, you could see some super-wealthy collectors like Bob Simpson decide that their collections of Saint-Gaudens DE's must have a 1933 DE. The 1933 was never considered part of the set since it was essentially uncollectable.

 

But since the government didn't file the forfeiture case, the coins should have been returned in 2005 and the case never should have gone to trial. Since it shouldn't have gone to trial the results of the trial would not have occurred, so the judgement was vacated.

And as far as the government not believing they had to file under CAFRA because they believed the coins were government property, that doesn't matter. Under the law if an appeal of the seizure is made the government HAS to file for the forfeiture within 90 days or return the property. They don't have a choice on whether or not to file. They missed the deadline, they didn't request an extension of the deadline, so the law says they HAVE to give the coins back. (It also says that they can make no further attempts to seize them.) That was what the court decided, the government must obey the law and return the coins.

 

Except that I disagree that this is a forfeiture case. You cannot forfeit something you never had legal title to, and to hold otherwise changes the legal definition of what it means to forfeit something. My understanding is that CAFRA applies to non-judicial forfeiture actions only. If the statute doesn't apply (because it is not a non-judicial forfeiture) then neither does the arbitrary 90 day deadline.

And the statute also has a good cause/good faith exception. Under the circumstances, I do think the deadline should have been tolled for cause shown as it was not unreasonable that the U.S. Mint believed that it did not need to file a forfeiture action to reclaim what was theirs to begin with.

 

Won!

 

Watch this thing wind up before the Supreme Court some day..........

 

Some day. But probably not in my lifetime.

 

I think they filed suit in 2011, so more like 6 years.

 

1933 Iizz Gold
started 2009.

 

LOL

 

Get those babies out of the US and put them on the market!

The laws about owning gold are silly. They created this situation.

 

http://www.coinworld.com/voices/steve-roach/2015/04/langbord_case_what.htmlLangbord case: What are those 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagles worth?

 

Maybe I'm not understanding what non-judicial means. To me a judicial forfeiture (or seizure) would be one ordered by the courts. No court ordered the government to seize the Lanbord coins, there was no legal finding that the coins belonged to the government, which would allow the seizure. It was an arbitrary decision made with no apparent judicial oversight. Sounds like a non-judicial forfeiture to me.