| Author |
 Replies: 50 / Views: 5,901 |
|
Valued Member
United States
96 Posts |
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-government/"Federal officials, who had been "weighing our options" since 2015, as The Post noted, scored a win in Philadelphia on Monday. In a 9-3 vote, the appeals court ruled in favor of the United States once again. The majority opinion begins with promise: "This appeal presents a high-stakes dispute over ten pieces of gold." But like many legal skirmishes, the most recent argument does not shy away from the esoteric. (Such minutiae as whether or not the 1933 Double Eagles could be defined as coins became a point of contention between the Langbords and the government. The Langbords said yes. The government demurred, as the gold pieces had never been circulated. The judges decided "coins" was okay, simply because coin is easier to parse than "piece of gold.") More crucially, Judge Thomas Hardiman, writing for the majority, concluded in the opinion that the coins had been U.S. property all along. Therefore the 90-day deadline that normally pertains to forfeited items did not apply to the coins — the Langbords could not have forfeited U.S. property, the government argued, only surrendered it."
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
Fascinating legal case. I wonder what the Supremes will say? Probably a 4-4 tie, which would mean the Langbords would lose.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
968 Posts |
Any reason you think it would be a split vote? The Supreme Court does have a clear split on social issues, but a very large percentage of the less high profile cases that are decided by unanimous or heavy majority rulings. They get along more than they don't.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
51 Posts |
I think a split vote is very possible. The points of law that the Supremes parse are often pretexts for more fundamental biases, I think. In this case the nitty gritty issue at stake is whether or not the government will have its way with "we the people," rather than submit to those who by rights they should be serving.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
Along the lines of what drk1 wrote, I was thinking that the moderate-conservative wing would favor the plaintiffs, and the moderate-liberal justices would favor the government, but I'm really just speculating.
|
|
CCF Advertiser
United States
1533 Posts |
The government's position has always been that the coins were never issued. There are several other coins that were never issued either. Many actually, so it would seem a case of selective enforcement. I'm not sure how a coin struck with public assets by publically supported employees can be considered government property. Why not confiscate all the 1913 Lib Nickels? How about the numerous patterns in the mid 1800s that found their way into private hands? How about stupid looking dimes on nails that sell for $42,000? Are all mint errors subject to confiscation?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5239 Posts |
As @Andrew99 says, and I agree, it is not consistent that these gold coins must be seized, but everything else that came out of the mint but should not have, is left alone, and in many cases is sold openly.
Not that it matters to me personally, since I will never have one, but I have always found it peculiar that the government makes a big issue out of a small number of things, but hundreds of similar ones get ignored.
That being said
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1911 Posts |
Huh better make sure I hide my 1933 Double Eagle well then  |
|
New Member
United States
41 Posts |
With any luck the fed will eventually put these coins to use in the Natl Numismatic Collection. They've been collecting dust in Fort Knox for too long.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5393 Posts |
There are already two 1933 Saint Guadens 20 dollar gold pieces in the National numismatic collection at the Smithsonian.
All I will add , at the risk of getting involved in foreign politics..............WHAT a CIRCUS this story has become.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
513 Posts |
Even if they do ask the Supreme Court to review the case, the Supreme Court won't take it up. This is not exactly a wide-ranging case with issues that would affect many people or interests or that has caused a split in decisions around the various federal circuits that the Supremes need to reconcile. The Supremes take only a small percentage of cases they are asked to look at.
Edited by Garoyn
08/03/2016 1:10 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
666 Posts |
Andrew99 - Excellent points - thank you, I had not thought about the contradictions.
Garoyn - Ah, very good point as well that I did not consider. If Justice Scalia was still alive he might want to take it on, but alas he is gone. (I often did not agree with him, but gosh I love his trenchant prose and quick wit. Plus, if he and Justice Ginsberg were pals, he must have had some very appealing qualities.)
Edited by dd27
08/03/2016 2:07 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I always forget - is the Farouk specimen still legal and in a private collection?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
So who gets the coins? Do the feds just destroy them? Does the government sell them and pocket the money? It reminds of when people find sunken treasure and then a government claims the treasure. It is just theft which our government is pretty good at as are all the rest of them. I think the Supreme Court refuses to hear about 98% of cases.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2668 Posts |
Just a big whoop-de-doo to keep the asset hats busy rather than doing real work. If it leaves the mint, it has entered the public domain. Maybe some mint employees need a Gibbs head slap, but civilians should not be penalized. I have spoken. Jest sayin'.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5823 Posts |
@ Coinfrog,
The Farouk specimen is legal and in private possession, and they should have done the same in this case, split it between Langbords and The Government.
|
| |
Replies: 50 / Views: 5,901 |
Posted 08/02/2016 11:13 pm
