PDA

View Full Version : 1933 double eagle trial: At long last, a conclusion




mrsat_98
04-27-2013, 01:43 AM
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/viewarticle/1933-double-eagle-trial-at-long-last-a-conclu?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=paidoutbrain

A 10-member jury unanimously decided that the 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 double eagles allegedly found by the Langbord family of Philadelphia in 2003 belong to the U.S. government. The verdict was rendered July 20, the 10th and final day of the Langbord trial, after about five hours of deliberation.

satchelmcqueen
04-27-2013, 07:12 AM
fucking sad

ghengis86
04-27-2013, 07:14 AM
Like the government courts will rule against the government

mrsat_98
04-27-2013, 04:27 PM
wonders about statute of limitation

jclay2
04-27-2013, 11:16 PM
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/viewarticle/1933-double-eagle-trial-at-long-last-a-conclu?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=paidoutbrain

A 10-member jury unanimously decided that the 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 double eagles allegedly found by the Langbord family of Philadelphia in 2003 belong to the U.S. government. The verdict was rendered July 20, the 10th and final day of the Langbord trial, after about five hours of deliberation.


So if the family would have been aloud to keep the coins, they could have sold them and paid millions in taxes to the government. Now the government gets nothing? Seems that this whole crusade is based on jealousy and hate for the rich.

Anti Federalist
04-27-2013, 11:42 PM
Just us

Kregisen
04-28-2013, 01:36 AM
This story is 2 years old....

RonPaulFanInGA
04-28-2013, 04:06 AM
1933 double eagle trial: At long last, a conclusion

"The verdict was rendered July 20"? Oh, this story is from 2011.

"At long last, someone posts this nearly two-year old article here." Thanks for the closure.

enjerth
04-28-2013, 08:13 AM
He reminded the jurors that they must judge the facts, and pointed out that the word “verdict” is Latin for “speak the truth.” Judge Davis described the standard of proof — “Fair preponderance of evidence” — as “more probably true and accurate than not.” He told the jury to envision a scale and that if the scale tipped “ever so slightly” in favor of the government, then the government should win. But he also reminded the jury that the burden of proof fell on the government.

Of course that's all that they would need, to ever so slightly tip the scales in favor of the government. After all, they've got their hands in all the scales and have the power to tip the scales themselves, exercising it frequently.

Would this be a good time to shamelessly spam my blog post about this case?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?808-80-Million-Heist