“People of the United States of America have been vindicated.”
This utterance came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero, the government’s lead attorney in the case Langbord v. United States after the jury deliberation said that the ten 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle coins found by Joan Langbord is government property.
For years, the government has wasted taxpayer dollars on attorneys, staff, investigators, and expert witnesses (the government paid David Tripp $300 per hour) to deny the numismatic world the coins of legend. For what purpose? As a result, the jury set a precedence by saying that these coins “left the Mint illegally and were concealed.” It is an argument that can be used to confiscate any coin or pattern that has left the U.S. Mint.
What does this verdict say about the five 1913 Liberty Head Nickels? While the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles were legally struck before the order to cease their distribution and melt the coins, the five 1913 Liberty Head Nickels were not supposed to exist. The U.S. Mint was supposed to start striking Buffalo Nickels for circulation, yet someone at the Mint struck five coins using Charles Barber’s Liberty Head design and they left the Mint without any record of their existence.
What does this verdict say about the pattern coins that are in collector hands. None of these patters were supposed to leave the U.S. Mint. Yet there are records of patterns being given out as favors to “important people” to curry favor. Aside from being Secretary of the Treasury at the beginning of the first Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, William H. Woodin was a collector of coins and patterns he collected mostly while director of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Are those pattern now illegal since they left the Mint illegally and were concealed?
What does this verdict say about the 1974 Aluminum Cent? The U.S. Mint struck these patterns to show to try to convince congress to change the composition of the cent to save money. After they were distributed to congress as “demonstrations,” the U.S. Mint asked for their return. Not all of the congress members returned the coins and some ended up in collectors hands. Are these aluminum coins illegal since they were not legally issued coins?
With all due respect to Assistant U.S. Attorney Romero, I do not feel vindicated. I feel cheated!
5 comments:
I agree with you. Even though I would never be able to own one, I feel that no harm would be done to the government or anyone else if an agreement could be reached to allow these coins to be owned legally.
I think someone should file a FOIA request asking how much taxpayer money has been spent since 1933 on this case.
I absolutely agree with these sentiments. The only way I'll feel any better about this decision is if the government shows the good sense to monetize the coins and sell them at auction to help put a small dent in our national debt. In this way, the taxpapers would derive greater benefit from the government's win in court, while the collecting commmunity would still have access to more examples of this great numismatic rarity.
Of course, the government is too stupid to do such a sensible thing.
The only people stupider than the government are the plaintiffs in this case who were foolish enough to hand over the coins to the government for authentication. They should have spirited them out of the country and sold them abroad. After a few decades they would have acheived the same status as the 1913 Liberty nickels and the government would have ceased chasing these coins.
What really bugs me most, though, is the idiocy of the jury. You can't convince me, based on the evidence presented, that they could truly be certain that the coins were not obtained legally. Unfortunately, this was a civil court, and they only have to be 51% sure of what really happened to render a verdict. It's not like a criminal case where you have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. It's that lower standard that sunk the case for the plaintiffs because juries are largely picked for their LACK of intelligence in this day and age - not for their ability to understand complex issues. I'm quite sure that the jury found in favor of the government simply becuase they were jealous of the plaintiffs and did not want to see them enriched by many millions if they were allowed to keep the double eagles. Simple envy killed their case!
A great editorial commentary, Scott!!
Personally, I can't believe the precedent of monetizing and selling the single Farouk example didn't get greater attention during the trial. I know the Gov't established some legal mumbo-jumbo that said no other future examples could be monetized. But, quite simply, that one should not have been monetized either!! It was all about the pedigree.
With regards to apparent and/or actual unauthorized coin releases, there has been an even more recent example of these types of circumstances: The "Frosted Freedom" 2007 W $100 PR Platinum Eagle Coins.
Mint Officials have said publicly that these were test strikes; never "intended" for release or sale to the public.
Based on the results of the Double Eagle Trial, Romero and her staff have a professional obligation to start the forfeiture proceedings first thing Monday morning.
Then again, that would demonstrate a level of consistency within this or any other aspect of our Government's operations.
It is incredibly silly to say that this ruling will result in the government going after other patterns held by collectors. The government has maintained throughout the entire case, reaching back to the '30s when the case first began, that the 1933 double eagle was unique. It is unique in that this is the only coin that the government will seek the forfeiture of under all circumstances. The only exception is the Farouk specimen.
This ruling won't have any effect on collector patterns, that has been clear throughout the entire case.
I must respectfully disagree with Socrates as well. Having read a great deal of the literature surrounding the case, and following the case myself, I agree with the jury's decision. Claiming that the jury sided with the government out of greed and envy is baseless invective. The burden of proof in the case lay with the government, and they fulfilled their role, proving by a preponderance of evidence that the coins could not have left the Mint legally. If there is any blame to be assigned it should go to the Langbords' lawyers for failing to argue their case coherently.
Post a Comment