Langbord's Win!!!

Iizzy was a jewelry designer and jewelry repair shop. Each year would order 10 just for Gold to make or repair.
January 1 1933 he picked up his order. That how each jewelry shop did each year.
Iizzy just didn't return them after the New Gold standard laws.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

They say possession is 9/10ths of the law. I don't know if you've heard that, but it's on the nose, in that it creates that compelling of a presumption of ownership. Thus, the ring on your finger is presumed to be yours. I'm saying it's mine, I'm the one with the burden of persuasion, coming forward with a requisite quantum of evidence to rebut the presumption.

The Government has the burden of proof, and that never changes. The burden of coming forward does change. I think in this case it's incumbent on the Langbord's to come forward and show they obtained them lawfully, simply because there's a compelling presumption the Mint never let any of these go. Read the Dissent, and I trust you'll see that.

 

I wonder why that didn't come out in any of the litigation and appeals. In this appeal it's noted the Government charged Switt conspired with a Mint employee to smuggle them out, and there's pretty strong evidence on that in the Dissent. Here's the link to the appeal I'm looking at; begin at around Page 16:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/124574p.pdf.

 

http://www.coinnews.net/2015/04/24/court-rules-1933-20-double-eagles-property-of-family/

 

Apparently, in the past, the government did NOT have the burden of proof. That's why the Silver Bullet in the Farook coin was the Export License for the coin.

I don't think the Langobord's can prove the coins were legally obtained...and I don't think the government can prove the coins were ever 'stolen.' In fact, if they were stolen (clearly not by Izzy Switt), they were stolen by the/a Mint employee who knew guys like Izzy...and the government should have gone after him decades ago and obtained the list of individuals he dealt with.

It's not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but I think it's pretty clear that Izzy got the coins via an exchange. This 'gray area' may have led him to believe HE did something wrong (he didn't, if anybody did it was the Mint employees for maybe taking liberties with early-release protocol) and that's why he hid the coins and clammed up all these years.

Obviously, if he got coins via early release for many years, just by saying that's how he got the 1933 DE's he escapes legal jeopardy. But he would have to give back the coins or tell who he gave them to.

 

I don't see the evidence on Page 16 as you state and I have to run out.

But I am unaware that there is hard, physical or testimonial evidence that McGann stole DEs after the prohibition of April 5th.....but there is plenty of evidence that exchanges were done before official releases for special clients, Mint employees, and folks taking tours of the Philly Mint.

Even if McGann did steal DE's, are they the same ones Switt got ? If Switt always got some new DEs early before the official release, it stands to reason he got some 1933 DE's the same way.

Remember: for a wealthy coin collector, getting a 'new' and 'mint condition' DE early (or without any circulatory or extra-handling wear) would be worth a few more $$$. Wealthy NY or Philly socialites would pay $30-$35 for a new DE. That's easy money for a guy like Switt, a couple of days pay for each DE.

 

Did you see my link?

Moot point..........

 

Aren't you paying attention? The Langbords don't have to prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt. That's the Government's standard of proof, the Langbords don't have a burden of proof. When it's met, they have to come forward. I'm saying, read the Dissent. It's met. A jury can conclude, beyond all reasonable doubt, just as one jury already did, for that matter, that the coins were owned by the Government, and were never lawfully released.

 

Ken, the Government isn't going to give these up. The District Court will order it to, but it will have a lawful response to that. If it doesn't, get out the salt and pepper, and I'll eat my hat.

 

Sorry guys. I thought my link was new news. I got an e-mail from Coin World a few days ago and just assumed that the e-mail I just received from Coin news.Net was an update on the situation. Moral? Never assume. You guys remember the odd couple with Tony Randall and Jack Clugman, right?

 

Inside man who like the post office.

 

Actually......

 

The Third Circuit did not reach any of the other legal issues raised by the Langbords because it saw it as unnecessary in light of its CAFRA holding. Under its holding, even if the coins were stolen, the Langbords would still win on a technicality (at least if you buy the reasoning of the majority opinion).

 

[QUOTE="GoldFinger1969, post: 2135372, member: 73489"]I don't think the Langobord's can prove the coins were legally obtained...and I don't think the government can prove the coins were ever 'stolen.' [/quote]

I agree but am surprised by the jury verdict. I think a lot of it came from the government's attack on the Langbords' expert witness, Roger Burdette, and some comments he made on the PCGS message boards which may have caused the jury to place less weight on his testimony.

This isn't a criminal proceeding, but a civil one. The reasonable doubt standard applies to criminal matters. Most civil matters of this nature are based on a clear and convincing evidence standard. I don't think that the Langbords can prove that they own the coins by this standard, but I don't think they should need to if there are plausible avenues for the coin to have been released legally. Once it made out a prima facie case, I believe that the burden should shift to the government to prove that the coin was not released legally. The jury found that it did, and I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Even if the Langbords cannot prove ownership, I don't think the government can prove its case either and is relying on hearsay and vague mint counts at best. I think the jury was wrong.

 

Roger has clammed up on that now, what specifically did he say on the PCGS or NGC message boards that he did NOT say in the trial that may have gotten the attention of the judge/government ?

I agree....I want to know what the jury thinks about the unofficial pre-release exchange policy and if it was possible/likely that Izzy Switt did this for years prior to 1932...but somehow did NOT do it in 1933.

Not definitive...but very likely, IMO.

 

But at the time they were seized there had never been a finding that they were illegally acquired, just a government accusation. But there was a way they could have gotten out legally. So since they could have gotten out legally, and the government had never proven that coins were stole from them, at the time of the seizure the Langbords should be given the benefit of the doubt that their possession WAS legal until such time as the government PROVES they were stolen.

It theory innocent until proven guilty. The government claims they were stolen and that Izzy stole them they have the burden of proving that he did. Until then he is innocent of the charges and the coins were "legally" acquired. The government case has mostly been "he stole them because we say they were stolen." Guilt by accusation.

 

Coin news said this today. http://www.coinnews.net/2015/04/24/court-rules-1933-20-double-eagles-property-of-family/

 

It doesn't matter. When the Langbords filed the CAFRA action, the burden shifted to the government to convince the fact finder that the pieces were stolen. It did so, and the jury/judge found for the government. Legally, this is what matters, not our interpretation of extrinsic evidence not before the court. This is the case that the Third Circuit has and it is not a trial court and does not engage in significant fact finding. We can discuss the merits of the jury verdict all day. In fairness, on that one point, I agree with you and the other posters on this thread. But I cannot agree that the Third Circuit opinion was correct as it fundamentally misunderstands forfeiture law. Did the government act unconstitutionally and illegally in the way it seized the coins? Yes. Does that mean that the Langbords have legal title in the items? No. Does this mean that CAFRA applies? Not necessarily.

 

The opinion says that the government seized the property [the court rejected the government's argument that it wasn't really a seizure]. And the government didn't file the CAFRA notice on time and so they can't seize the coins and they can't go back and reargue that point. And everything that happened after that is moot, gone, never happened.

But that's all it says... the opinion is silent on everything that we think of as the meat of the case. there is no jury finding that the coins were stolen - it never happened. More to the point it was never even argued in front of a jury - it never happened.

If they're stolen then they're the government's property regardless of any subsequent act [there's no such thing as possession being nine tenths of the law its called possession of stolen property and it's actually a crime]. And obviously the US government still believes this.

So put yourself in the shoes of the AUSA who is going to have to eat crow and return illegally seized property that the government believes is stolen. What would you do?

Me?

First off I'd trying an en banc motion - even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. I'd point out that the disent is such a different view of the law that any three other judges might have come up with a completely different answer.

If that fails - or the full court upholds the ruling, then if I believe the coins are stolen, I have to follow through on that. So then I would return the coins and have a cop in the next room arrest them and have the stolen property held as evidence. And I would drop the charges and believe justice is done if they would agree to return the stolen property and promise never to do such evil things again.

But I'm not a lawyer, I'm not in an AUSA, I'm just in it for the show, with lots of popcorn.

 

The jury verdict and declaratory judgment were vacated, but that is not the same as never existing as it could be reinstated upon further review. I presumed this thread was to discuss the likely legal trajectory of this case. As such, the verdict is relevant as I think the odds of reversal and reinstatement of the verdict are decent if en banc review is granted.

As to issue preservation, I think the government preserved all that should be necessary to secure reversal as long as the right judges are there.

This is an interesting thought, but I would think the issue would be res judicata. If the Langbords have an order giving them possession, I don't see a criminal case going anywhere either. Of course, the government enjoys sovereign immunity from tort claims, so you never know what might happen. I wonder why the Mint didn't just melt the pieces immediately when turned over?