Langbord Family Loses Lawsuit Over $80 Million Gold CoinsLan

Advertise with us
xelexo
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I saw the story yesterday and read it.

Seems to me that the government has the rights to the coins since they were 'stolen' from the mint, but they should be required to melt them immediately and sell for the value of the gold since that's all they were worth (plus the increase in the value of gold) back then. If the coins had not been stolen from the mint, they would have been melted anyway according to the article. The government should not benefit from the collectors foresight to stash the coins which is what increased the value so high when they became collectable due to their rarity.

If the government is not going to melt them, then the people should get the coins back in my opinion.

Steve
 
Here is another link to to this story --- http://abcnews.go.com/US/ten-rare-gold-coins-property-us-treasury-jury/story?id=14124595

I have read several articals on this case now & as far as I can see the government has followed "due process" in their accusition of the coins

Another words the Gov did not violate the constitutional rights of the Langbords - the Langbords had their day in court they were not able to convince the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the coins had been obtained legally - where as on the other hand the Gov was able to show "beyond reasonable doubt" they where obtained illegally --- if I had been on the jury - I would have had to decide on the side of the Gov

Due process is not yet over (the Langbords have the right to appeal) (though I doubt it will do them much good) but once it is over - & IF the coins remain in the hands of the U.S. Government I do not think that they should just be melted for there gold melt value

They are a piece of history that survived FDRs executive order to collect & melt gold coin to bullion durring the depression

Therefore these coins "belong" to the American people & it is my opinion that the U.S. Government should keep one coin (much the same as the original constitution &/or original bill of rights) & the rest of them should be put up for public auction to be bid on by collectors willing to pay there collector value so they go back into public circulation (as collector pieces) & there collector value is not lost.

It would be a shame to see there true value lost as melt gold &/or to see the government hoard all 10

Kurt
 
Kurt, I think you've got it right. I also was thinking what a great loss it would be to destroy these surviving pieces of numismatic history. They could also be museum pieces(Smithsonian). Just my 2 cents.
 
Statute of limitations any one? They had no grounds to seize them in the first place.
 
Honestly I still simply do not agree with removing them from the possession of the Langbord family.

There are so many examples of other items that were illegal, specifically in the 30s, that people are allowed to retain without the Government "reclaiming" or removing them from the possession of families.

What about all the historical items that were not seized, that are directly related to prohibition for example? The Government did about the same exact thing where the law was lifted and once again people were able to purchase what previously they could not. All the material that people kept, that the Government was never able to confiscate at the time, people have been allowed to keep.

Also, what about the Statute of Limitations? Most federal theft crimes fall into the general five year statute of limitations. Exceptions to the five year statute include art theft, which carries a 20 year statute of limitations, and theft offenses against a financial institution, which carry a 10 year statute of limitations. Because these coins are collectable, even at the time because most of them were destroyed, the statute of limitations seems like it would still be in effect.

I'm by far no expert in Law, and I would assume that the Fed must have made a very convincing case. But then again this only decided if the Government had the right to seize the coins, this latest trial had noting to do with who actually owns the coins. The family member was a jeweler whom purchased them from someone else. No criminal intent, no theft at least by the Langbord family and the US Government has already set precedence by allowing the sale of another one that came up for auction by splitting the profit with the people who auctioned it.

Scott
 
You guys forget: those who have the gold, make the rules. There are many esoteric reasons why the government wanted those coins back. Or it could just be because that's the law, and the people in law enforcement charged with finding stolen property of the US are very dedicated and true to their jobs. And I don't believe there's a statute of limitations on stolen property, especially when it's the government's property.

Beyond all that, this Langbord family should have known better. They are not dummies (er, I guess that's now debatable). They knew the origins of these coins enough to send them to the source for authentication. It's like a burglar who broke into my house a decade ago coming back to ask me if the paintings he stole that are purportedly valued at $X are in fact authentic. What do you think I'm going to do, tell him "yes" and then let him go on his way to rub insult into injury by selling them at an astronomical price? Be real.
 
The statute of limitations on stolen property ONLY applies to the criminal prosicution part of the law (which is why the Langbords have not been charged with "the crime" of theaft - recieving stolen property &/or possession of stolen property

There is no limitation on the question of ownership

another words although there is a limitation on time in which criminal charges can be brought against the person in possession of the property - the property its self does not cease to be the property of the original owner - meaning the property belongs to the victim (the person it was stole from) no mater how much time passes

Therefore the property can be recovered (confiscated) & returned to the original owner at any time but the person the property was recovered from may not face criminal charges if the statute of limitations has run out on the crime - so the person in possession of the property looses the property - but does not face criminal charges.

Is it a bummer that the Langbords lost their gold - yes it is - I would be bummed out if it were me - but they had their "day in court" - a JURY decided (not the government) & they lost

Kurt
 
SBrown said:
this latest trial had noting to do with who actually owns the coins. The family member was a jeweler whom purchased them from someone else. No criminal intent, no theft at least by the Langbord family and the US Government has already set precedence by allowing the sale of another one that came up for auction by splitting the profit with the people who auctioned it.

Scott
Click to expand...

The ONLY question in this court case was - "who actually owns the coins"

no criminal charges were brought against the Langbords - the statute of limitations has run out on that part of the law

As far as the precedent of splitting the profit - that is called a plea bargin - the Langbords may well have been offered such a plea bargin - if so & they turned it down then they decided to gamble in court for all or nothing

A plea bargin does not "set precidence" it only means that both parties in a legal action came to terms agreed on by both parties

Kurt
 
They haven't lost their claim to the coins, the latest court case was only based on the governments legal right to confiscate the coins, ownership has yet to be established according to the news story. I believe we are going to see this dragged through the court system for many years to come. If it can be proven that the coins left the mint legally, then they would have been sold to Mr Langbord, legally, and the coins will be returned to the family.

The government must first prove that the coins were stolen. Considering how many years have passed, I don't believe that is going to be very easy at all. It has to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the coins were stolen. Ever since they were reclaimed, and destroyed, in 1933 there have been stories about some that they were not able to recall. However, because of the nature of the order, being that it was the current President of the United States at that time, there might be issue with recording that all the coins were destroyed. This has already been proven based on the coin that was found, and sold at auction, that the government settles for have the proceeds on.

Regardless if the government had the right to confiscate the coins, I think later court proceedings will prove that there is no way to know for sure that the coins were ever stolen, or that illegal stolen property was received by Mr Langbord. As the story goes, he purchased them from an unknown person who brought them into his store. Because nobody knows who that person might be, the trail runs dead at that point. Regardless of the order to not circulate the coins and to destroy them instead, if some did make it out of the mint before and the government never recovered them, and then recorded that they did, which the records have shown that they claim they were all recovered. How then did these coins ever make it out?

I think it's disgusting, considering the historical value of these coins, that the US Government has the right to claim that because of the presidential order, that the coins are automatically considered to be stolen when it could very well have been the very people responsible for destroying the coins, misreporting their destruction because they couldn't recover all the coins and their job would be at risk to report otherwise.

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the years to come. This isn't over by a long shot. If I were the Langbords, I would fight tooth and nail for my rights, and these coins that very well could have been obtained legally.

Scott
 
Scott - If any coins from that coin mint run had been legally released from that mint run there would be a record of it - records say NO coins from that run were released.

If some had been released don't you think it would have been more the 21 coins & that therefore other people then the Langbord family would have some

Why is it that out of the 21 known missing coins (as a matter of mint records) when ever they do turn up - every one of them can be traced back to the Langbords.

When they do turn up - they are confiscated (with the exception of one - read the artical I posted a link to) but no criminal charges are filed in court - because the statute of limitations has run out on the theaft of the 21 coins taken from the mint.

Its a matter of records Scott - according to records - "no one" (including the Langbords) should have these coins - because "none" were ever legally released from the mint

Let me put it this way --- if someone stole your car & you reported it stolen & it changed hands 10 time before it was found - wouldn't you want it back - even though the person that had it was not the one that stole it - don't you think the person that had it would be bummed out because they have to give it back - even though they did not know it was stolen when they bought it --- & to top it all off the guy that stole it gets away because he can't be found or statute of limitations ran out on the crime.

Yes you would want the car back & records would show it belonged to you (the VIN number) that car might only have scrap value when you get it back - or it could be worth 10 time what you payed for it because it now has collector value - you would want it back on principle.

It is the same thing with these coins - its a matter of records - & the fact that it involves the government does not change the principle behind the law

As much as I may not like a lot of what government does I have to stand on the side of the principle of the law -& the principle here is that property should be returned to its rightfull owner

Kurt
 
And by the way - speaking of "reasonable doubt" --- yes it is true that the prosecution has to be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the flip side of that coin is that in court the defence has to bring the doubt into the prosecutions case by proving its own side of the case beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable doubt is a double edged sword in court - its the side that can put doubt in the other side of the story in the mind of the jury that wins or looses court cases

Kurt
 
kurt said:
And by the way - speaking of "reasonable doubt" --- yes it is true that the prosecution has to be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the flip side of that coin is that in court the defence has to bring the doubt into the prosecutions case by proving its own side of the case beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable doubt is a double edged sword in court - its the side that can put doubt in the other side of the story in the mind of the jury that wins or looses court cases

Kurt
Click to expand...

If this is a civil proceeding that the accused must prove their innocence. The Longbord family must prove the obtained them legally not the government proving they were stolen. Americans hate blaming the victim. If you get sue for something you didn't do and get a summons to court and you ignore it the accuser will win its called a summery judgement. you must be present to make your case and prove your innocence. If you don't show up they don't have to say a word the judge will find in there favor.
Unlike in a criminal case "reasonable doubt" must be proven by you the accused in civil cases.


Anyways they should have sold them fist and then sent a check into the mint.

Eric
 

Latest posts

Back
Top