Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2135674, member: 28107&quot;][QU<span style="color: #000000">OTE=&quot;GoldFinger1969, post: 2135372, member: 73489&quot;]<b>I don&#039;t think the Langobord&#039;s can prove the coins were legally obtained...and I don&#039;t think the government can prove the coins were ever &#039;stolen.&#039; </b></span>[/quote]</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><b>I</b> agree but am surprised by the jury verdict.&nbsp; I think a lot of it came from the government&#039;s attack on the Langbords&#039; 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. </span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This isn&#039;t a criminal proceeding, but a civil one.&nbsp; The reasonable doubt standard applies to criminal matters.&nbsp; Most civil matters of this nature are based on a clear and convincing evidence standard.&nbsp; I don&#039;t think that the Langbords can prove that they own the coins by this standard, but I don&#039;t think they should need to if there are plausible avenues for the coin to have been released legally.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The jury found that it did, and I wonder how they came to that conclusion.&nbsp; Even if the Langbords cannot prove ownership, I don&#039;t think the government can prove its case either and is relying on hearsay and vague mint counts at best.&nbsp; I think the jury was wrong.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in