Battle over ownership of rare gold "double eagles" again in court
A federal appeals court was asked again Wednesday to weigh in on a decadelong, flip-flop legal battle over who owns a cache of rare gold coins that could fetch more than $80 million at auction.
A federal appeals court was asked again Wednesday to weigh in on a decadelong, flip-flop legal battle over who owns a cache of rare gold coins that could fetch more than $80 million at auction.
On one side, the federal government argues that the 10 rare 1933 $20 "double eagle" gold coins were stolen from the U.S. Mint, and never put in circulation.
On the other, the heirs of Philadelphia jeweler Israel Switt say that the Treasury Department improperly took property that had been handed down in their family since the 1940s.
Barry Berke, a lawyer representing Switt's heirs, implored the court to return the coins to their rightful owners and send a message so the government knows "that when it acts unconstitutionally and unlawfully . . . they will be held to every consequence the law allows."
But in making his argument before a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Berke was retreading well-worn legal ground.
Three times before the dispute has made its way before a federal court and each time resulted in a different outcome.
In 2009 - five years after Switt's daughter Joan Langbord says she found the coins in a safe-deposit box and took them to the Secret Service for authentication - a judge ruled the government improperly seized the gold pieces.
Two years later, a jury was swayed by government arguments that the coins were stolen U.S. property and were thus taken legally.
The Secret Service investigated Israel Switt in the '40s after seizing nine other double eagles he sold to coin dealers, though the jeweler was never charged. Switt said he couldn't recall how the coins ended up in his possession.
Then in April, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit flipped the outcome again, ruling once more in favor of the Switt family.
As the full appeals court took up the question again Wednesday, the circuit judges offered two hypotheticals through which to view the case.
If a group of drunken college students took the USS Constitution for a joyride, would anyone question the government's efforts to take the battleship back, Judge Thomas Hardiman asked.
Yet other judges likened the government's actions to taking a $20 bill from a person's wallet. Technically, the Mint holds title to all currency, but in that case it would have to go through the court system's civil forfeiture process, the judges theorized.
The court is expected to render its decision in the coming months. When that day comes, the Switt family hopes it favors the latter comparison.
Then again, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Zauzmer, "that's what you would say when your father stole property from the government."
215-854-2608@jeremyrroebuck