coinman_23885

When you sign up to bid, Heritage indicates that house bids are permitted. You agree to those terms. Since it is disclosed, it is legal. I predict any suit you reference would be dismissed very quickly.

This buffernick has been SLABBED! proof-63

behold the 1917 matte proof buffalo nickel!

 

Post the slab.

 

I'm not calling you a liar, but in this case I don't believe you.

Maybe the NNC guy slabbed it as a proof or the NTC guy or even the ACG/MAC guy. I don't think a mainstream grading service would call it proof; I wouldn't.

I thought it would be appropriate to post this stuff here for good measure (although it is already included in the companion HPA thread).

A federal appeals court has also indicated that the coins need not be exact copies or replicas to violate the HPA and such items must be marked. See DeMarco v. Nat'l Collector's Mint, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 73 (2d Cir. 2005) (under the HPA "imitation numismatic items" need not be exact reproductions of existing coins). The Demarco court found that a commemorative Freedom Tower Silver Dollar coin depicting the September 11th attacks was an "imitation numismatic item" even though the coin did not resemble any previously minted or presently circulating U.S. coinage. Id. at 78. The coin was inscribed with the phrases "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "One Dollar." The court concluded that although the "characteristics [of the coin] might not fool a sophisticated coin collector... they could lead an usophisticated purchaser to believe that the [commemorative] was indeed legal tender issued by the Government." Id. The court found that that the commemorative purported to be "coinage used in exchange" and was subject to the regulations of the HPA.

And finally regarding intent that the DCarr is so fond of, "[n]either knowledge nor intent to deceive need be shown on the part of the business to prove that the HPA has been violated." See Styczinski v. Westminister Mint, Inc., No. 14-cv-00619 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2014) (quoting In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1977)).

And CaptainHenway found an interesting FTC response to public comments seeking advice on potential revisions to the HPA. The HPA empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the HPA. In response to comments that the rules be amended to address fantasy coins, the commission rejected the need for amendments and made clear that it believed such coins were required to be marked with the words "COPY" and were legal as long as properly marked.

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15] Several commenters also reported an increase in imports of unmarked replica coins from Asia, and urged that the Rules cover such sales.[16] One commenter specifically suggested expanding the Rules' scope to incorporate the provisions of the CCPA before Congress adopted it and sent it to the President for his signature.[17]

 

C. Analysis

 

...Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223. By contrast, the federal statute prohibiting the alteration of U.S. coins requires fraudulent intent. 18 U.S.C. 331. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins.

Re: ANA Complaint

I am curious as to why RWB fixates on your one silver eagle issue as opposed to some of your other issues. Although I am not saying that I agree with you in any way, that piece seemed like the least questionable of the batch to me for some reason.

...[T]he worst of it occurred outside this forum. For example, I received actual death threats from two different individuals for making my first Union of North America "Amero" coins in 2006. I've made Amero coins every year since.

The death threats are insane. You should absolutely report those to the authorities. I knew your pieces generate criticism and disdain, but I had no idea that some took the matter that seriously. That is beyond crazy.

So you don't see a problem with someone making a "counterfeiting" claim against a person who has never been convicted or even charged with that offense ?

 

What if a member of this forum made a post wrongfully claiming that another member was a pedophile or something ? Would that be ok with you ?

First, this is an issue of interest to the hobby (it relates to the Hobby Protection Act and counterfeiting after all, the latter of which is a threat to this hobby especially with the influx of material from China), and we are discussing laws that apply well beyond this set of facts. By producing these pieces, you have turned yourself into a public figure within the numismatic community, and criticism is to be expected. Why do you think the libel/slander standard is so high for issues of public importance or against public figures? It is because there is a genuine public interest that and the chilling effect on free speech necessitates a very strict standard.

Second, if you think the criticism is limited to you, you are wrong. I myself have also sloppily referred to the issue as Pro-fantasy strike/pro-Carr or Anti-fantasy strike/anti-Carr; however, this also misses the larger picture. You may be unique in the level and degree to which you overstrike the coins or imitate official designs, but you are hardly the only one that is imitating U.S. coins and currency. As you like to point out (and correctly I might add), there are a number of bullion round producers producing pieces that also seem problematic under the plain meaning of the statutory language cited in these threads. As a hobby, these issues should be confronted. You even allege an HPA conflict; are you telling me that you do not think that is an issue of interest to the hobby? Assuming arguendo that you are correct, this is something that requires discussion and legal clarification whether it is through legislative changes or case law. The intersection between the HPA and Title 18 statutes is one worthy of discussion.

Third, I am not commenting on any specific poster or post/comment, but the vast majority of the posts I have seen are the honest expression of opinion.

Fourth, I would be opposed to wrongly labeling a forum member with a pejorative term; however, your question assumes that it is wrongful. As you admit, no one has adjudicated your specific case. There are also more than enough resources to reasonably argue that your pieces are prohibited.

Fifth, the legal stuff aside, no one compared you to a pedophile nor would anyone classify you in the same realm. I don't think anyone here thinks you are a bad person, have nefarious intent, etc. I also think the vast majority of the criticism is targeted towards your pieces and not you as a person. I see a talented engineer who, in my opinion, has tunnel vision and fails to appreciate the consequences of his productions (just like the plaintiff in the Boggs case I frequently reference). I think you also believe that you are acting within the confounds of the law, but we will have to disagree on that point. While I do believe that your pieces are contrary to law, I would not place you in the same category as people intentionally committing fraud or violent crimes.

Sixth: As for your adjudication point, generally it depends on whether there is enough evidence to support the claim in the absence of an adjudication. To go back to your pedophilia analogy (and no extrapolation or implication is meant towards you), but it would depend on the circumstances. Calling a person a pedophile without evidence would be problematic. If there is strong evidence (witnesses coming forward, pictures, etc.), then that would change the calculus and the label may be accurate even in the absence of an adjudication. Those are two VERY different scenarios.

Oh and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say "informed numismatists" debating their opinion is a bit of a stretch for some on here ? (Myself included)

"Informed numismatist" or collector does not mean an expert as used in this context. It means someone that has some basic understanding of U.S. coin issues (i.e. anyone who has spent more than an hour reading the Red Book/coin books or that actively participates in a coin forum, etc.) as opposed to the general public who does not collect and has limited exposure to numismatics.

For the record, I also do not remember identifying you or any specific poster as an informed numismatist or collector. For all I know, you may very well be in the target demographic that the HPA was enacted to protect. With this said, I suspect that most of the members here on the U.S. forum are familiar with Peace Dollars, design elements, the 1964-D pieces, and DCarr's work and meet the very broad/general definition that I intended.

PhysicsFan3.14 blatantly called me a "counterfeiter" in this thread.

I have very good grounds to sue for defamation if I want to. And I might want to.

This is exactly the type of post that made me start posting to DCarr threads, and it certainly explains why I do so fervently even though I may look foolish to keep posting replies to the same fallacies posted over and over again. In fact, when you made threats, express or implied, to RWB and others in the past, it pushed me to actually do the research that would arm any would be defendant.

As for a defamation/libel suit, I do not think you have a case. In fact, I think an intelligent defendant would countersue you for malicious prosecution. As for the law (1) truth is an absolute and good defense, so a lawsuit by you would absolutely involve an adjudication of your pieces which has the potential to burn you very badly; if a judge agrees with the defendant on the civil case concerning the legality of your pieces, you open Pandora's box and have pissed off someone who will make sure that it goes well beyond a civil case; (2) honest expression of opinions are protected (this is a general comment and not geared towards any one post or poster); and (3) you put yourself in the numismatic lime light so absent actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (and given the coin case law - even if unsuccessful in a HPA, Title 18 context, it would certainly undermine your claims), you are basically out of luck.

When passing the HPA Congress didn't seem to be concerned that tens of thousands (or more) pieces in similitude to US coins (but with "COPY" stamped on them) could end up in circulation and "create confusion or cause concern and lost confidence in official U.S. issues". A look-alike Washington quarter could work in a vending machine even if it has "COPY" stamped on it. And how many people would actually bother to look at their pocket change and notice a "COPY" stamp ? Not a high percentage, probably.

 

One can easily question the soundness of the policy implications; however, what I think of the policy considerations is irrelevant. It is Congress that passes the laws, and the plain meaning of those statutes is controlling and any question of interpretation is left to the federal courts.

 

The appellate court case you bring up involved fraudulent intent. And it was also prior to enactment of the HPA. So it is inapplicable in this situation.

 

The HPA does not help your case at all. In fact, it reaffirms what I have been saying all along, and explicitly provides that it wasn't meant to repeal other statutes or limit the government's remedies. See 15 U.S.C. 2105 ("The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law of the United States or of the law of any State.")

 

With regards to your other note, it is true that the intent of the defendants in one of the federal appeals court cases was to commit fraud. Indeed, the defendants were convicted of both counterfeiting (18 U.S.C. 485) and fraudulent alteration (18 U.S.C. 331) and the latter includes an intent to defraud element in the text of the statute. Had Congress wished to add an intent element to the portion of 18 U.S.C. 485 in question, it could have done so just like it did for 18 U.S.C. 331 (or even the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485 for the distribution offenses).

 

You also seem not to understand the way that federal appeals courts operate. Appellate courts are presented with legal questions that are then extrapolated to other cases and factual patterns. In the opinion that you are referencing, there was one separate section of the opinion, isolated from the rest of the text, that clearly addressed the question of whether the overstriking of existing coinage removed the conduct from the purview of the counterfeiting statute, 18 U.S.C. 485, and meant that prosecution could only result under the alteration statute, 18 U.S.C. 331. The court held that it did not and that the government could prosecute under either or both. It did not look to the intent of the defendants to dispose of that specific question/issue. The fact that the defendants had intent in that one case does not render its ruling inoperable on the large question of overstriking of genuine coinage with new designs. That was the sole point of citing that case - the intent element question is resolved by other cases.

 

Some provisions of the HPA are contradictory to previous laws. Those contradictions have not been tested in court. However, the court may interpret Congressional intent and give greater weight to the HPA previsions since that was more recently enacted.

 

I brought up that other court ruling which found that, for there to be a violation, there must be either fraudulent intent or the activity must impugn the integrity of the Federal Government. That much is clear.

 

The latter is what we are arguing and is the core of the issue. Do the fantasy-date over-strikes impugn the integrity of the Federal Government ?

 

If large quantities of tokens, medals, replica coins, and defaced coins (often in similitude to US coins) do not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government, then neither does a relatively small number of fantasy-date over-strike coins.

 

As for your HPA argument, no sane federal judge is going to rule that the HPA repealed 18 U.S.C. 485 for non-HPA compliant pieces when (1) one of the HPA statutes, 15 U.S.C. 2105, specifically announces that Congress does not intend to repeal or substitute any previous law; (2) any putative conflict would only be between the Title 18 statutes and HPA compliant pieces (as opposed to HPA non-compliant pieces); (3) you obviously lack standing to challenge any alleged conflicts which is no way would affect the disposition of an adjudication of your pieces (which do not comply with the marking requirements of the HPA); (4) it is well established that repeal by implication is disfavored and will only occur when necessary and only to the extent necessary to harmonize conflicting statutes and give both meaning. If a judge were to buy your argument, it is the type of case I could see a federal appeals court reversing by a one line summary disposition order. It really is that clear.

Here is a fun mental exercise for you: Under your interpretation of the law, would VonNothaus have demonstrated the requisite intent to be convicted of counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. 485? Did his works, which were clearly not meant to simulate U.S. currency, impugn or cause concern to the integrity of U.S. coinage or currency? Guess what? Federal courts didn't care one iota. His conviction under 18 U.S.C. 485 was upheld largely because courts recognized that no intent to defraud was required to convict for production of the prohibited items in the statute (as opposed to uttering, possession, etc.). As such, wouldn't you be open the possibility that you may be wrong?

 

If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? ...

 

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not?

These are excellent questions. If his argument is that the nature of the host coin means that the pieces are not counterfeit and never lose their legal tender status (as he appears to maintain explicitly or impliedly through the years), then it really shouldn't matter if someone spends one of his pieces. That is a logical inconsistency. Why warn someone not to spend a "genuine" coin?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

 

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

Part of me wonders if he enjoys the publicity and free advertising.

When passing the HPA Congress didn't seem to be concerned that tens of thousands (or more) pieces in similitude to US coins (but with "COPY" stamped on them) could end up in circulation and "create confusion or cause concern and lost confidence in official U.S. issues". A look-alike Washington quarter could work in a vending machine even if it has "COPY" stamped on it. And how many people would actually bother to look at their pocket change and notice a "COPY" stamp ? Not a high percentage, probably.

One can easily question the soundness of the policy implications; however, what I think of the policy considerations is irrelevant. It is Congress that passes the laws, and the plain meaning of those statutes is controlling and any question of interpretation is left to the federal courts.

The appellate court case you bring up involved fraudulent intent. And it was also prior to enactment of the HPA. So it is inapplicable in this situation.

The HPA does not help your case at all. In fact, it reaffirms what I have been saying all along, and explicitly provides that it wasn't meant to repeal other statutes or limit the government's remedies. See 15 U.S.C. 2105 ("The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law of the United States or of the law of any State.")

With regards to your other note, it is true that the intent of the defendants in one of the federal appeals court cases was to commit fraud. Indeed, the defendants were convicted of both counterfeiting (18 U.S.C. 485) and fraudulent alteration (18 U.S.C. 331) and the latter includes an intent to defraud element in the text of the statute. Had Congress wished to add an intent element to the portion of 18 U.S.C. 485 in question, it could have done so just like it did for 18 U.S.C. 331 (or even the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485 for the distribution offenses).

You also seem not to understand the way that federal appeals courts operate. Appellate courts are presented with legal questions that are then extrapolated to other cases and factual patterns. In the opinion that you are referencing, there was one separate section of the opinion, isolated from the rest of the text, that clearly addressed the question of whether the overstriking of existing coinage removed the conduct from the purview of the counterfeiting statute, 18 U.S.C. 485, and meant that prosecution could only result under the alteration statute, 18 U.S.C. 331. The court held that it did not and that the government could prosecute under either or both. It did not look to the intent of the defendants to dispose of that specific question/issue. The fact that the defendants had intent in that one case does not render its ruling inoperable on the large question of overstriking of genuine coinage with new designs. That was the sole point of citing that case - the intent element question is resolved by other cases.

... the United States Mint cannot issue interpretations of criminal statutes such as this, which fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice...."

 

Enough said

 

If you are not a judge hearing such a case then neither can you.

 

But I never claimed that my message board posts were binding legal opinions either as you suggested (either expressly or impliedly) that the U.S. Mint's FAQ page was.

 

The point is, until now, your sole legal citation has been to a webpage addressing one specific statute that is inapplicable here, the web page seems to acknowledge the existence of other potential statutes at play, and the agency admits that it lacks jurisdiction to make binding interpretations of law. Your link, then, is no more valuable or controlling than that of anyone else. And assuming we afford it any weight, it does not contradict anything that I have said. No one disputes that 18 U.S.C. 331 requires an intent to defraud. This says nothing about the applicability of other statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 485.

 

 

 

Fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331.

I think we both agree on that, and that there is not fraudulent intent with my activity.

 

Absolutely, we agree that 18 U.S.C. 331 requires an intent to defraud. There is no question that your work does not violate 18 U.S.C. 331. The question is whether your work violates the other statutes (including 18 U.S.C. 485-489, the HPA, and similar statutes).

 

U.S. v. Reich (2nd Cir. 2007)

We also note that of the provisions originally enacted in the 1948 Act, those requiring an intent to defraud were generally oriented toward a different purpose than those not requiring such an element....

 

[One category] criminalized activities likely to impugn the reputation or integrity of the federal government regardless of whether the perpetrator intended to defraud private citizens...

 

[A second category enumerates] separate but related crimes and assigning different intent requirements to each, those crimes most likely to defraud private citizens were the ones containing an intent-to-defraud element. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §485 (requiring an “intent to defraud” to “pass, utter, publish, [or] sell” counterfeit coins or bars, but not to “falsely make, forge, or counterfeit]” such coins or bars (emphasis added))....

 

Now we are getting somewhere. The decision explicitly concedes that 18 U.S.C. 485 requires an intent to defraud for the distribution, possession, etc., of prohibited items but it does not require intent for the production of the prohibited items. This is what I have argued all along. This is consistent with the language in Von Nothaus and the other circuit court case I cited regarding intent (that says nothing about government reputation).

 

As for impugning the integrity or confidence in a government function, your pieces certainly do so. There is a reason that the Constitution grants the federal government the exclusive power to coin money and to produce items in the similitude of official government coin and currency (by giving Congress the ability to pass laws punishing counterfeiting). Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.

 

 

Again, I think you fail to appreciate the legal difference between striking on anonymous pieces of metal versus striking over existing coins of the same basic design and type.

 

If I were to strike on anonymous metal blanks then I would be, in effect, coining new (apparent) money.

 

By over-striking existing coins of the same basic design and denomination (without melting or adding or removing any metal), I am not "coining money" - I am not creating anything which appears to be new legal tender.

 

If Congress felt that non-fraudulent defacement of coins was a crime, they would have passed laws stipulating that. But Congress has not indicated that non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins is a crime or that it impugns the integrity of the Federal Government.

 

All the laws relating to defacement of US coins have a definite aspect of fraudulent intent required. And that is what Congress intended - non-fraudulent alterations to coins is not a crime.

 

But there are cases from the currency and stamp realm with similar language that provide that actual harm to the government is not necessary. While coining your own money from scratch is a huge no-no, allowing private individuals to make coins, tokens, or fantasy strikes in the similitude of U.S. coinage could in fact create confusion or cause concern and lost confidence in official U.S. issues.

As for the overstrike issue, it is not that I fail to appreciate your attempt to distinguish the statute and cases; it is that federal appellate courts have rejected this distinction. This federal case law trumps whatever any of us think the law should be. Moreover, my concern with your piece is that your method effectively obliterates the host coin so as to (1) lose its legal tender status, and (2) it is not meaningfully distinguishable from any other planchet.

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

 

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

 

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

 

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Congress chose to allow for the production of certain coins to satisfy collectors as novelty items, and it therefore passed the Hobby Protection Act. The Hobby Protection Act sets out very clear criteria including the font, size, and certain inscriptions that must be made on these items so as to thwart confusion and counterfeiting. HPA compliant pieces would obviously be excepted from 18 U.S.C. 485; however, there is no such protection for non-HPA compliant pieces.

Is Carr’s fantasy pieces truly a threat to our government, or is it just a perceived threat to some in the numismatic community?

 

It is both.

... the United States Mint cannot issue interpretations of criminal statutes such as this, which fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice...."

 

Enough said

 

If you are not a judge hearing such a case then neither can you.

But I never claimed that my message board posts were binding legal opinions either as you suggested (either expressly or impliedly) that the U.S. Mint's FAQ page was.

The point is, until now, your sole legal citation has been to a webpage addressing one specific statute that is inapplicable here, the web page seems to acknowledge the existence of other potential statutes at play, and the agency admits that it lacks jurisdiction to make binding interpretations of law. Your link, then, is no more valuable or controlling than that of anyone else. And assuming we afford it any weight, it does not contradict anything that I have said. No one disputes that 18 U.S.C. 331 requires an intent to defraud. This says nothing about the applicability of other statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 485.

Fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331.

I think we both agree on that, and that there is not fraudulent intent with my activity.

Absolutely, we agree that 18 U.S.C. 331 requires an intent to defraud. There is no question that your work does not violate 18 U.S.C. 331. The question is whether your work violates the other statutes (including 18 U.S.C. 485-489, the HPA, and similar statutes).

U.S. v. Reich (2nd Cir. 2007)

We also note that of the provisions originally enacted in the 1948 Act, those requiring an intent to defraud were generally oriented toward a different purpose than those not requiring such an element....

 

[One category] criminalized activities likely to impugn the reputation or integrity of the federal government regardless of whether the perpetrator intended to defraud private citizens...

 

[A second category enumerates] separate but related crimes and assigning different intent requirements to each, those crimes most likely to defraud private citizens were the ones containing an intent-to-defraud element. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §485 (requiring an “intent to defraud” to “pass, utter, publish, [or] sell” counterfeit coins or bars, but not to “falsely make, forge, or counterfeit]” such coins or bars (emphasis added))....

Now we are getting somewhere. The decision explicitly concedes that 18 U.S.C. 485 requires an intent to defraud for the distribution, possession, etc., of prohibited items but it does not require intent for the production of the prohibited items. This is what I have argued all along. This is consistent with the language in Von Nothaus and the other circuit court case I cited regarding intent (that says nothing about government reputation).

As for impugning the integrity or confidence in a government function, your pieces certainly do so. There is a reason that the Constitution grants the federal government the exclusive power to coin money and to produce items in the similitude of official government coin and currency (by giving Congress the ability to pass laws punishing counterfeiting). Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

Fair enough, but if Carr would comply with the law, then his fantasy pieces would not exist (in my opinion, of course ) so there would be no need to make collectors aware of anything.

PCGS currently certifies few, if any, modern privately-minted pieces.

So the "Carr" over-strikes are not treated any differently. It is still possible that the status might change at some point.

 

On the PCGS submission of one of my fantasy-date "1964" Peace Dollars, note that PCGS did NOT label it as "counterfeit" or "not genuine" or "questionable authenticity". They labeled it "ineligible for service".

That was to protect themselves from a potential law suit.

Interestingly PCGS slabs these:

http://www.pcgs.com/cert/33847152

Acceptance of Carr’s work by the two top grading services would go a long way toward this end. Using these message boards as a means to make collectors aware of Carr’s pieces, in such a negative and slanderous fashion, does not. It achieves very little good when weighed against the ill-will, contempt and not-founded-in-fact accusations that it creates.

It is not slander or libel; it's not even close.

(1) Truth is a good and absolute defense. If it is true, it is not slander or libel by definition.

(2) Sincerely held opinions are protected; note the distinction between representation of fact and expression of opinion.

(3) Even if wrong, voicing concern over questionable behavior that is of interest to the hobby lacks actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (especially in light of all of the case law) and Carr has placed himself in the numismatic lime light by producing the pieces...

I could go on, but why bore every one?

P.S. Here is another interesting legal question: Do Carr pieces infringe upon the copyrighted designs imparted on the planchets especially given the commercial use of the designs? Of course government works generally are in the public domain, but what if the Mint is only licensed to use the image and does not own the copyright? What other designs has Carr produced other than the Peace Dollars (the latter of which would be in the public domain)?

...is this the monthly D.Carr thread where the topic is foisted upon us to keep the fuel fed to the fires so we don't forget?

 

No. I think it's actually pretty relevant to both sides of the argument here. I think it's pretty telling that PCGS is grading these pieces. I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I highly doubt PCGS would touch these if they felt in any way they were counterfeit. That to me is worth a discussion.

Actually, from the thread ATS, it appears that PCGS is refusing to encapsulate Carr overstrikes at all. Do you still think the decision to slab or not is "telling"?

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

I have a feeling there may be an interesting presentation by you, shortly. It may or may not include Boggs and a few other interesting scenarios. Might you throw in a racketeer nickel or 2, just to lighten things up? I will throw in some Belize knockoff philatelic items, if it helps.

I wonder if I could put together an interesting ANA exhibit of counterfeits and HPA violations throughout the years, with discussions of the law and its current evolution. I'm sure I would be labeled as the Grinch of numismatics.

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

Generally speaking, charges for offences are not brought unless the prosecution has a pretty good certainty of conviction. As such, it is naturally expected that there would be some convictions and few, if any, acquittals.

 

But the court cases you mention are not applicable since none of them involve the non-fraudulent production of novelty items made from genuine US Coins.

 

My fantasy-date over-strikes essentially "incorporate" an original genuine US coin into each final product. The US Mint has guidelines posted concerning this activity:

US Mint info for businesses incorporating US Coins into products.

From your link:

"If you are going to modify the coins you are using in any way, you should be especially careful to consult with your attorneys on the applicability to your activities of criminal laws... While the United States Mint cannot issue interpretations of criminal statutes such as this, which fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice...."

Enough said.

Courts have also said that intent to defraud is not required for production of pieces in violation of 18 USC 485; thus, your attempt to distinguish based on intent is misguided. Courts have also said that overstriking genuine coins with unauthorized dies in the likeness of U.S. coinage can violate 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 331, or both. FYI: No one here has ever opined that you violated 18 U.S.C. 331 so your reliance on this statute is misplaced.

Mr. Carr has made it clear that everything is OK. Only a few will be swindled and it's all their fault. I feel much better knowing that.

 

Been away and looking at what I missed. I goes ta Africa for 10 days and see what happens? After perusing all of the posts since I left I think this terse post by Larry says it all and is the real point. One can argue fantasy vs. counterfeit all day, but really, one can't argue about what Larry says above - folks are going to be swindled into buying what they think is a rare US coin. I personally like the fantasy offerings by Mr. Carr, but I have a problem with the swindle issue which is why I brought it up.

 

A side note, I saw lots and lots of diamonds - cut and raw, big and small, held fortunes in high pressure carbon crystals in my hands last Friday. But never managed to get to a coin shop to buy a Krugerrand to commemorate the visit even though there was one 2 blocks from my hotel. Looks like I will have to go back oh darn..........

 

Another side note (okay call me a troll I deserve it), looks like the boards are lit up in a McAfter sparring match. Carry on!

 

Best, HT

I'm glad you had a nice trip; it sounds like a lot of fun.

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

... the questions have no probative value whatsoever ...

 

Well of course the questions I posed had no probative value, since they didn't consist of evidence in court proceedings. An absurd expectation for questions.

 

On the contrary I freely admitted they were leading questions. To hopefully lead anyone interested in the subject to delve into the implausible ramifications of their accusations.

So it is implausible that the United States would some day actually enforce its own laws as interpreted by federal appeals courts? If that is implausible, then this country has far more problems (legally) than just the HPA/18 USC 485-490 statutes.