-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Mr.Mcknowitall
-
Posts
14,297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
NGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Mr.Mcknowitall
-
-
“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.
Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.
If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? 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? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?
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? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?
If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?
If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?
Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?
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.
-
I won again.
-
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.
-
All of the questions are useless speculation and designed to encourage and foment discourtesy.
They are excellent though, for a scandal magazine.
IMHO, of course.
-
Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.
Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?
The essence of having an opinion:
"Contrasting opinions are wrong."
This applies to everyone and everything.
You imply that I am the only one that has an opinion in contrast to yours. That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the demand and resale value of the fantasy-date over-strikes. So your use of the term "singular" does not fit.
From the Random House Dictionary, the definition of "righteous":
"Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful."
That's cool.
My private discussions with attorneys are just that: private.
Thanks.
Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.
As to the rest of your professorial musings, I don't mean this to be harsh, but I do not have any idea what the point is that you are attempting to convey. I do understand the deflection, though.
-
Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.
Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?
-
Your name and contact information would be sufficient to conduct an investigation if it were determined that there was a need to do so.
Take from that what you will.
The longevity and success of your enterprise, combined with the support of many, if not most of the numismatic community, and the full disclosure of exactly what it is that you do, and the fact that there has been not one reported instance of fraud related to your products in all of this time....
You can also take that for what it is worth.
And even if I hadn't provided my contact information during that phone call, every major numismatic publication ran articles about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars in 2010. All of those articles included my name.
As for me, if I were you, I would not give the time of day to a few detractors on a message board.I come to the message boards to look around anyway. So if I see what I think is misleading or incorrect information, I may as well set the record straight.
That is a little bit disingenuous on your part. Are you implying that persons that have concerns about the legality of the pieces you produce and that is incorrect? You suggest this, yet have not formally presented the issue to the U.S. Government via your Attorney, and have continuously avoided the questions concerning whether your Attorney reviewed you business plan and activities and advised you your pursuits were in accordance with present U.S. law.
If your activities have not been adjudicated, how would an Attorney be able to advise you that you are in compliance?What is misleading or incorrect and what record has to be set straight, other than your formally approaching the U.S. Government via your Attorney to set the record straight?
Differences of opinions are one thing. Your declared Righteousness and implying that those with questions and different opinions are incorrect or wrong or misleading, without any proof of the correctness of your opinion, except your own declarations of correctness and statements of previous public awareness because of your activities is somehow indicative of the legality of your methods and pieces, is silly.
-
Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?
No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces.
Right. The St. Gaudens nickel was never originally produced. So the carved nickel can't reasonably purport to be one because they don't exist (other than the carving).
The same goes for all the various fantasy-date pieces. They can't reasonably purport to be originals of that date because the dates don't originally exist.
Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.The Liberty figure on that example does closely follow the original Double Eagle.
We also know for a fact that the government has stated that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.
What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.
Here is the RWB post you referenced:
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"
This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.
Two points:
1)
According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.
2)
Long after the above statute was legislated, Congress passed the Hobby Protection Act, which allows (with some restrictions) the production of privately-minted pieces in similitude to US coins.
Note that RWB's one foray into the legal realm was a disaster for his "clients" (the Langbords). So consider that regarding any legal commentary.
More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?First, I reject your implied premise that the fantasy-date over-strike coins are not legal to produce.
It is my position that if someone is intent on perpetrating a fraud, they will find some coin to do it with. Such as adding a "D" to a 1916 Mercury dime and selling it as a genuine rare 1916-D. Or substituting a 1995-P proof Silver Eagle for the rare 1995-W proof Silver Eagle in the 10th anniversary set and then selling the set to an unsuspecting buyer letting them assume the set has the proper coins in it.
Is the US Mint to blame for the latter example ? They enabled the scam by producing two different proof Silver Eagles in 1995, one of them being rare and issued only in the expensive set. Are you concerned that a senior citizen could be scammed by a 1995 Eagles proof set with a swapped "P" mint Silver Eagle in it ?
No, the Mint is not responsible of course. The person actually perpetrating the fraud is to blame.
With all the scams being perpetrated against senior citizens (of which I am technically one), I would like to see more action taken against boiler-room telemarketing scammers and the like.
.
What you reject is not the issue and is of course what you would state. That is not the issue.It is an issue when someone words a statement in such a manner so as to seemingly present it as a forgone conclusion that wrongdoing has occurred.
The RWB foray is not the issue.With all the legal opinions being tossed about here, the past legal experiences of the poster are noteworthy.
Your position on defining intent to perpetrate a fraud is interesting.Could you please describe how your activity couldn't possibly be interpreted in any manner as an intent to perpetrate a fraud and/or is not fraudulent?
The actual fraudulent activity described in various scenarios in this thread all have one thing in common: an intent to deceive. Synonyms for "fraudulent" are: "deceitful"; "deceptive"; "crooked"; "underhanded".
I have been very clear in all my statements and marketing that my fantasy-date over-strikes are just that - genuine coins that I defaced for novelty purposes.
And, for example, when asked by the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors (SSDC) to write an article about the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-striking for their newsletter, I obliged of course because I'm always in favor of more information getting out there. I was awarded the A. George Mallis (of "VAM" fame) literary award for that article.
Thank you. The question is, is that the same definition of fraud that the law states. What has been described in this and other threads is not the issue. It is what the law states is fraud.
Stating publicly what a person is doing is not the test of compliance and/or non-compliance with the law. There can be honest intent and still be fraud under the law. There can be honest intent and still be counterfeiting under the law.
-
Yeah sorry, I missed your response Mr.mcknowitall. These threads tend to be like the wheels of a school bus so I don't check in on them frequently. Plus any response I can give, Dan can, has and wiil, ad naseum, dish out much proper retorts than I could.
As to your last paragraph, if said person(s) can do it on Dans level of skill and uses authentic coins as planchet then more power to them. Nothing like compitition to spur greater advances. And I would defiantly be a buyer. That's like saying because I have a Banksey on my wall I wouldn't buy an Alec monopoly or Shepard Fairey. If their skill is on par with Dan's then bring it on but I doubt that's going to happen. The only caviot is that if they flooded the market I would probably pass as rarity is a big key, and Dan knows this. He could pound out gazillions and take the money and run but doesn't and for good reason.
This all boils down to one thing, Art. If you see him as an artist you're a fan, if you erroneously see him as a counterfiter you're not. What irks me though is the incessant vitriol being rehashed over and over by the "haters". I think Dan should bring defamation suits to all the ad naseum haters but then again that would be counter intuitive
Thank you for your response.
Try to leave room in your heart for the hobbyists that genuinely question the legality of the pieces, that are not, using your description, haters.
This issue should be discussed until resolved. Of course there may be persons that would not be entirely supportive of whatever the resolving of the issue is, but it would elevate the issue from questionable legality to settled legality (or settled illegality as the case may be).
Mr. Carr could very easily put this matter to rest. He has not decided to do so at this time.
Concerning your answer to my last paragraph question, you are indicating the copying of the work or using the pieces produced by Mr. Carr would not be illegal and would not warrant any civil action on the part of Mr. Carr if somebody uses his pieces and /or design and slightly modifies either and sells the pieces to the public. Is that a correct interpretation of your answer?
-
So you have contacted the U.S. Attorney General on the issue being discussed. the issue of whether or not your creations/pieces are legal, and can be publicly sold legally? You just stated you know from experience.
I've posted several times the experience I had in that regard. But I will summarize it here again:
When I first produced the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes, Coin World contacted me for a story about them. I freely provided whatever information they desired. They also contacted the US Mint to get their take on the situation.
The US Mint told Coin World that the US Mint does not interpret such laws and suggested that Coin World contact the enforcement agency, the Secret Service.
So Coin World contacted the Secret Service. The Secret Service told Coin World that they do not interpret the laws, they only enforce them as directed by the US Attorney, and suggested that Coin World should contact the US Attorney.
At that point, Coin World obtained a phone number for the Denver US Attorney office and provided it to me suggesting that I call them if I want. So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.
Thank you. Yes, you have related the story in the past, and this time in a brief manner.
My thoughts on the matter are no different. Guidance.
Have your Attorney contact the U.S. Attorney General via U.S. Mail Certified Return Receipt.
Explain your position in depth, as you have done on this and other threads.
I would have expected the Asst. U.S. Attorney General to answer accordingly, to protect your Rights. But you know this. You have decided not to formally contact the U.S. Attorney General.
Since you informally contacted the Asst. U.S. Attorney General once, according to your story, it seems you do not have an objection to contacting the U.S. Attorney General. Why not elevate the matter to a formal on the record communication using U.S. Mail Certified Return Receipt, via your Attorney?
-
Don't rob the bank and walk home in the snow.
-
After reading your post, it sounds like you've been around here, and posting for years.I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping
Joined 8/27 but at first fought tooth and nail. I thought I may have been the only person that wondered about this, hence my original answering post in reply.
-
I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.
Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping
You have assumed any person in the hobby that questions the legality/status of the work is in some manner belittling the person or questioning his morals or integrity and ethic(both work and personal).
I have not seen heard or read where one person did so. Nor have I seen or heard or read a condemnation of the artistic talent and skill.
What is the unwarranted vitriol that offends you? Hobbyists are questioning the legality of the pieces. This is not unwarranted vitriol, in my opinion.
You use the term over strike. Fair enough. What, in your opinion,supports and anchors the over strikes to be in compliance with the language of the present laws that exist? There must be some thought that gives you confidence to declare the legitimacy of the pieces. For all I know, and I freely admit I don't know much, the producer of the pieces and/or you have received assurances from the U.S. Attorney General. However, at this particular point in time I have not seen heard or read of any such instance.
If this has not happened, I would think the producer would do so. Why not present the situation to the U.S. Attorney General? We are all as good citizens interested in compliance, are we not?
After all, using the term "while walking a fine line" would indicate you personally recognize the not so clear aspect of the question of legality, does it not?
What would be your position if a similarly talented person copied the original pieces with a slight modification and manufactured them in large quantities at a reduced price? What would the producer of the original pieces think? What would be his reaction? What would you think? Would it not just be another talented person taking hobo nickels to a higher order, in that there would be more availability at a lower price? What if another talented person then did the same to that producer's work?
Mr. Chris, you may have not seen this post, as I have not seen a response. I am still interested in your thoughts on the last paragraph.
-
Oh God. Tell me you're not actually a judge. I'd hate too see the sentence you would hand down to a 10yo that steals a pack of gum
I think he may have been attempting to be humorously satirical.
-
None of those are even close to what you are doing.
Both are artist modifications to existing genuine coins for non-fraudulent novelty purposes.
Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?
What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?
The threshold is fraud, pure and simple.
It is not illegal to deface money. If there is no fraudulent intent, then defacing coins can not be "counterfeiting".
Has the U.S. Attorney General clarified that fraud is the threshold and that is pure and simple?
Has Congress been alerted to this, so the existing wording of the law can be changed?
-
Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?
No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces.
Right. The St. Gaudens nickel was never originally produced. So the carved nickel can't reasonably purport to be one because they don't exist (other than the carving).
The same goes for all the various fantasy-date pieces. They can't reasonably purport to be originals of that date because the dates don't originally exist.
Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.The Liberty figure on that example does closely follow the original Double Eagle.
We also know for a fact that the government has stated that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.
What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.
Here is the RWB post you referenced:
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"
This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.
Two points:
1)
According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.
2)
Long after the above statute was legislated, Congress passed the Hobby Protection Act, which allows (with some restrictions) the production of privately-minted pieces in similitude to US coins.
Note that RWB's one foray into the legal realm was a disaster for his "clients" (the Langbords). So consider that regarding any legal commentary.
More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?First, I reject your implied premise that the fantasy-date over-strike coins are not legal to produce.
It is my position that if someone is intent on perpetrating a fraud, they will find some coin to do it with. Such as adding a "D" to a 1916 Mercury dime and selling it as a genuine rare 1916-D. Or substituting a 1995-P proof Silver Eagle for the rare 1995-W proof Silver Eagle in the 10th anniversary set and then selling the set to an unsuspecting buyer letting them assume the set has the proper coins in it.
Is the US Mint to blame for the latter example ? They enabled the scam by producing two different proof Silver Eagles in 1995, one of them being rare and issued only in the expensive set. Are you concerned that a senior citizen could be scammed by a 1995 Eagles proof set with a swapped "P" mint Silver Eagle in it ?
No, the Mint is not responsible of course. The person actually perpetrating the fraud is to blame.
With all the scams being perpetrated against senior citizens (of which I am technically one), I would like to see more action taken against boiler-room telemarketing scammers and the like.
What you reject is not the issue and is of course what you would state. That is not the issue.
The RWB foray is not the issue.
Your position on defining intent to perpetrate a fraud is interesting.
Could you please describe how your activity couldn't possibly be interpreted in any manner as an intent to perpetrate a fraud and/or is not fraudulent?
-
All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.
Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).
For those who haven't seen the prior discussion about that case on these forums (by now that is probably a small number), I want to reiterate that the Wilson case has important and significant differences from the situation in question. The differences are sufficient enough to invalidate it as any sort of precedent here.
The defendants in the Wilson case had altered genuine coins with a blatant intent to defraud. They took random-year silver Roosevelt dimes and over-struck them as "1955" dimes. They then sold the dimes representing them as genuine original US Mint 1955-dated dimes. And at the time they did this, genuine original 1955 dimes already existed, and they were selling for a significant premium in the collector market.
Other parts of that same case involved the defendants adding fake "D" mint marks to 1932 Washington quarters and selling them as genuine originals.
Has the U.S. Attorney General given you guidance concerning the important and significant differences?
-
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins
"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"
This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.
So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.
From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):
(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331
You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".
The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.
Is this according to the office of the U.S. Attorney General?
-
All of the commentary could have been avoided, in my opinion, if Mr. Carr had contacted the U.S. Attorney General for guidance.
The U.S. Attorney General does not interpret laws for the public.
If you contact them, they will likely just tell you to consult with your own lawyer.
I know this from experience.
Guidance. Guidance. Guidance.
Correct. The U.S. Attorney General prosecutes when the laws are defied. The U.S. Attorney General also provides guidance in the public interest. You know this. You are simply playing word games, but there is nothing wrong with that. It is America. You are free to do so. It is your Right.
So you have contacted the U.S. Attorney General on the issue being discussed. the issue of whether or not your creations/pieces are legal, and can be publicly sold legally? You just stated you know from experience.
I have contacted the U.S. Attorney General in the past on 4 occasions. None of the responses received were "consult your own Attorney". The topics were in the public interest. The U.S. Attorney General was most helpful and very open and provided guidance. The U.S. Attorney General prefers the poop not to hit the fan.
If I recall correctly, you stated you had contact with some person in some other agency either Treasury or I believe the U.S. Mint, some individual with zero authority. You were even invited by a members of this chat board that are well versed (as I recall 3 members made the offer) in the matter to assist you in the methodology of approach.
Have you ever contacted the U.S Attorney General, via certified return receipt U.S. Mail stating the issues you seek guidance about and/or (preferably) had an Attorney do so on your behalf?
Are you stating you have done so, and that is the "experience" you mention? What was the answer from the U.S. Attorney General?
Contacting the proverbial anonymous Kilroy is not a substitute for contacting the U.S. Attorney General. All Kilroy does is leave a little cartoon that he was there.
-
-
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.
If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.
Tunnel vision abound
mark
That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.
So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?
If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?
If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?
Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?
Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?
I would think the creators of the original would want to protect their intellectual property and prevent misrepresentation of their goods. Just because it has the same fabric as the original doesn't mean it has any relation to the original.
Nowhere in the examples you gave, were representations made that the altered items had any relation to the originals. Or that there was any misrepresentation.
Good afternoon, Mark.
I mentioned in an earlier post a scenario: a similarly talented individual slightly modifying the original pieces of the original producer, and selling these modified pieces. Would this be a legal action, or would it invite legal action from the original producer of the original pieces? I understand the somewhat difficult point you are attempting to convey to Mr. Physics. Maybe contemplating the scenario I am presenting can assist.
On a somewhat related scenario, would you buy the pieces under discussion, and would you sell the pieces to another person?
-
"Nor were you accused of doing so, in either of your paragraphs above."
Too bad you did not make this clear in your original post. It would have saved us both some unnecessary typing.
"I take note of your lack of response concerning who you intended to reply to."
Just as you say yourself, "As to the rest, I cannot comment on any self righteous crusade you may be interpreting from the member that did state what you are commenting on."
It was very clear, but as long as you feel a little better now.
You made a mistake about who you were replying to, and did not have the courtesy to correct your assumption. It is hard to admit and it is easier to be silly on a chat board and discourteous. I understand. -
"This is well known, and should not be used as an example of all other responses, in my opinion."
I made no such broad claim.
"Once the pieces are sold to the public, questioning the legal validity of the pieces under the current laws is certainly understandable and is proper for the owners of such pieces, for the hobby and for future purchasers."
I did not say otherwise.
Nor were you accused of doing so, in either of your paragraphs above.
I take note of your lack of response concerning who you intended to reply to. Again, if you meant the reply to be to me, you misattributed what was stated, concerning the harassment comment. It was not me.
-
"No one is harassing him."
So no one has called him a counterfeiter on this public forum based on their interpretation of law? No one has been calling him the "Colorado Counterfeiter" at every given opportunity? Accusing someone of being a criminal based solely on your interpretation of law repeatedly on a public forum does not constitute harassment?
It is like your neighbor accusing you of stealing his rake, though he admits to not actually witnessing the act, and he and his buddies standing in your front yard shouting for all to hear that you are a theft. You have no more proof of wrong doing on Carr’s part than your hypothetical neighbor does on your part. All you have is your interpretation of the law and all he has is the fact that your rake looks an awfully lot like his.
Educating people is admiral, but doing so at the expense of a man who has not been proven guilty of any crime is not. Would the actions of those hypothetical men in your front yard be justified simply because they were showing their children how to handle a thief?
I will say nothing further on the subject. Continue your self-righteous crusade if you must.
Just to clarify, I assume you are not addressing me, and your post just follows my post.
If not, and you are directing your comments toward me, you are mistaken, as I did not make such a statement.
You of course are referring to the eternal banter between Mr. Carr and Mr. RWB.
This is well known, and should not be used as an example of all other responses, in my opinion. Each gives as good as they get from each other.
As to the rest, I can not comment on any self righteous crusade you may be interpreting from the member that did state what you are commenting on.
If, by the off chance you indeed meant to respond to me, and have the belief that I have a crusade, you are incorrect. It is certainly your Right to interpret as you like, though.
All of the commentary could have been avoided, in my opinion, if Mr. Carr had contacted the U.S. Attorney General for guidance. I would have done so. If he chooses not to, so be it. But, members questioning the pieces as to their legality, is well within the fair territory lines. Once the pieces are sold to the public, questioning the legal validity of the pieces under the current laws is certainly understandable and is proper for the owners of such pieces, for the hobby and for future purchasers. It may even be very helpful to the future endeavors of the business model.
)?
Dcarr over strike question.
in US, World, and Ancient Coins
Posted
.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........
.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.
As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............