ProfHaroldHill

I'm guessing pretty much everyone else reading the thread, but you, realizes that that was the very point I was making up above.

Or perhaps it was when I defined delineations, I'm not sure. Either way, after a time we weren't on the same page anymore.

In the past 27 years I have initiated multiple civil causes, filed thousands of documents and pleadings and have not once "settled" or lost. Above I was simply trying to help those who didn't understand that the civil and criminal courts are different, even tho they're often conducted in the same rooms. You haven't refuted what I have clarified to you, only disagreed with it. I think you're not grasping the full purport of my words when I delineate definitions, dude.

The authorization to issue is very specific to the coin being issued; composition, quantity, weight, design(s) etc. Also, the coins can only be issued from the mint by an authorized agent; the mint official(s). Once the Sacageweas were altered by being overstruck with the cent dies, they no longer met the specs required to be issued. Every other coin in the bin (or ballistic nylon bag,) still 'fit the billing', and as they were released they all became lawful US money, but the altered coins immediately became counterfeits. If the counterfeiters had pulled 500 $1 coins out of a bag, and then only used 200 of them, tossing the others back, those 300 tossed back would still be legally issued coins once they were shipped out of the mint. It would make no difference that someone had handled them for bit while the coins were sitting, waiting to be release. If you and I broke into the mint, (or if we were employees in there legally,) and we struck up a bunch of coins, using all the proper equipment, and we managed to have them slip through the usual release channels, so that they left the custody of the mint, we'd still be charged with counterfeiting when we were caught. In this case the coins would even "met the design specs" for authorized release, but we were not authorized as agents of the issuing authority to manufacture and release into circulation, the 'extra' coins that we struck. (Counterfeiting would be the charge even if we never got our hands on the extra coins after they left the mint.)

Here, the authority gave you the option, as victim, to say 'yes or no' to a prosecution they had already decided they would do, if you wanted them to. But nevertheless, in a true, literal sense, you have indeed shown my earlier statement was too broad and therefore, in the situation you described, it is incorrect. Mea culpa. But keep in mind they *gave you* that authority, (via the choice to file or not,) because you were the victim. If they had offered you a 'yes or no', to a charge of battery against someone who hit you, and you said, 'No, charge them with attempted murder..." they're not going to do it, and you can't sign a sworn statement that will force them too. I was responding to Moxie15's scenario where I was portrayed as handling the prosecution of a counterfeiter. That's a crime against the USA, not against me. If an individual really did have the authority to compel another to stand trial, without requiring a local agency of government to act as a sort of 'gatekeeper' to the court, and based solely on their sworn statement, imagine what it would be like... Someone is murdered in a town and six people are SURE they know 'who done it', (each has a different suspect in mind, tho,) so they each go down and swear out a statement, thereby forcing six people to stand trial for capital murder, even tho only one of them could be guilty, (and maybe it wasn't even one of the six!)

A warrant is an order that is issued by the court. You couldn't craft one yourself and then use it to try and imprison someone via a criminal court, solely on the authority of the oath you took, when swearing that your charge was true. Only the government whose legislative branch codified the criminal law, can bring an executive action in the name of the people, against the violators of that law. Criminal accusations made in the name of the people are reserved to the authorized representatives of the issuing authority.

Thank you for the opportunity for me to clarify some common misunderstandings. I could not appear, as you portray in your scenario, (nor could any other individual acting on their own, for themselves,) in a criminal court prosecuting charges of counterfeiting against any person(s). In criminal cases, where the liberty of a person may be in jeopardy, the evidentiary standard for conviction is not, "what can be proven", but that which is made evident "beyond a reasonable doubt". The criminal justice system is where the agencies of government seek to maintain justice by penalty against the violators of statutory criminal codes. I, or anyone, can indeed appear before a civil court seeking not justice, but redress of grievance and just compensation for the aggrieved. The evidentiary standard for judgement in the favor of a litigant in a civil trial is a, "preponderance of the evidence." Regarding the success of your first year law student? Not one of the arguments you/they make would provide a defense against a counterfeiting charge (Re USC Title 18) The crime of counterfeiting occurs when a person(s) utters an unauthorized rendition of US money. (Today it's only 'current money', the rest are seen legally as civil violations of the Hobby Protection Act.) Understand that there has never been a successful defense against counterfeiting charges based on judicial limitation of the term "utter" ('utters' 'utterance', etc.) There has been no narrowing of the legal definition of the term by the courts in response to the pleadings of any individual so charged. Simply explaining that they were struck at the mint, by an employee, with all the right stuff, etc, does not refute the charge of uttering a counterfeit. They uttered the counterfeits by causing them to leave the custody of the US Mint. The legal authorization to issue coins is only for coins that meet the criteria of the order authorizing issuance. These pieces were removed from the legal chain of issuance in order to alter them. Once altered, they were no longer authorized by law to be issued from the Mint as coins. Their production and removal from the Mint readily establishes an "utterance" of the pieces. If the Govt wished to obtain an authorization to seize these particular counterfeits, all they would need in order to secure the order, would be a presentation to the court of evidence of the 'coins' authentication by a recognized expert of a prominent professional coin grading/authentication service. It doesn't matter 'who' made them or 'how' the pieces got out of the US Mint without authorization. That they reside in PCGS holders, certified as genuine US Mint products, and can be seen to have been altered inside the US Mint, (rendering them unlawful issues, as explained above,) would be amply sufficient to establish their counterfeit status in order to obtain the authority to seize. This isn't particularly complicated really, as law goes.

I judge thee noble and loyal, if misguided. But know this, oh best among the Spartans... the Centurions shall seize that which is Caesar's, if it not be given unto Caesar!

PCGS error coin expert Fred Weinberg, a few years ago, said publicly that: (August 19, 2017 10:13AM CU/PCGS) "There are about eight known of the Cent struck on to a Sac Dollar, and a proxy the same number of cents struck onto struck New Hampshire quarters. There are also a few other single pieces of a similar nature" Well, unless the person(s) who made them is a fool, they struck a few hundred, (including things 'wilder' than what has surfaced,) then threw a couple of dozen into the 'bins' to be released into circulation. Once they had been discovered, and PCGS began attempting to 'legitimize' them via authentication, certification, and the use of the term "error" to categorize them, the maker(s) then, VERY slowly, start to sell off their contraband, at first only the 'tame' items, such as we've seen, eventually bizarre creations designed to fetch the highest bids at auction. Legally speaking, you could call that an, 'organized criminal enterprise'. These items required the intentional bypassing of safety mechanisms and the temporary alteration of components of the coinage press in close proximity to the striking chamber. They are not "mistrikes", they were intentionally overstruck. Genuine errors that leave the Mint via lawfully authorized 'channels', are legal to own and sell. These and the other items referenced by Mr Weinberg, are not.

'Render that which is Caesar's unto Caesar', and thus cleanse your hands of the sins of others.

That these pieces are legally subject to seizure is evident. Whether the Feds will be motivated in that direction is unknowable at the moment. I'm not under the impression that the US Govt is very likely to act, as can be seen in my mention previously of the possibility that it will have to be collectors pursuing justice. The HPA violation involves the Lincoln Cent over stamping, imitating an error coin. The counterfeiting was the utterance of the renditions of the US dollars. The biggest blow to market acceptability would be struck by the feds publicly noting the pieces for seizure. Barring that, the HPA offers the possibility of a civil legal battle. Not as desirable a battlefield, in my opinion, but definitely an alternative one.

These were not accidentally released. The fact that PCGS has authenticated and encapsulated the counterfeits will lend a false cachet to the items in the minds of many. It's that perception that is being fought here, the false notion that somehow they are indicated as legal, and 'okay', by being certified by PCGS. The only way you can fight the perception is by going after the coins. The 'violations' of the certifiers are only ethical issues, but the issues surrounding the Sacagawea pieces are criminal matters.

The Department of the Treasury is an executive agency of the US federal government. No officer of the Treasury can either countermand the anti-counterfeiting laws crafted by the legislative branch of government, or dictate, (or otherwise make,) any law whatsoever. Any such proclamation was legally moot from the moment it was uttered. These items, the Sacagawea pieces, were intentionally produced and were intentionally made to leave the US Mint without legal authority. Once they had left the mint those who caused their release were guilty of uttering counterfeit US Dollars and the items at that same moment attained the status of counterfeit. These are legally incomparable to either the 1913 Liberty nickels or any US pattern coinage.

This is a thread where you, the reader, get to follow along as the works of ne'er-do-wells and scoundrels are exposed and attacked by the relentless forces unleashed by my keyboard and smartphone/cam etc. It's not a thread to make accusations of grave impropriety and/or criminal activity against any person or company, and I hope none will do so. Tomorrow, before lunch, I have a teleconference scheduled where I will be speaking to someone from the US Secret Service. Not a receptionist-type person, but a person who knows the law regarding counterfeits and the judicial history of their enforcement. The result of this discussion will likely determine whether the primary pursuers of justice will be federal agents or non-agent coin collectors. (This item is a counterfeit US coin, and it is also an item in violation of the US Hobby Protection Act.) My target tomorrow is the counterfeit US Sacagawea Dollar coin seen below, and all its 'cousins', (publicized over at CU/PCGS.) I will update the thread after the discussion, sometime tomorrow. This 'coin' was not legally produced even though it was made at the US Mint. It was never issued by the US Government, it could not have been accidentally made, and removal of it from the US Mint was a criminal act. This item is not lawful to possess or to sell. It is subject to seizure as an item of US federal contraband. By taking down the public perception of a growing acceptability of flagrant violations of criminal law and the Hobby Protection Act, we can not only help the collectors of today and tomorrow financially, we can also work to restore some dignity to a hobby too often tainted by the greed-driven actions of a few.

"Eerily"? Well, I was going for "ominously", so I guess I better work on my intonations! Today there are many investors who want to do more than look at balance sheets and ledgers. People who want to know more about the way the company acts as a corporate person, if you will. They are called, "ethical investors", and they do not ignore 'values' when doing an evaluation of a company. Their values are as diverse as they themselves are as people, but they base their decisions on where to put their $ on more than profit alone. They/we believe that the future worth of any company cannot be determined with precision without looking carefully at current and past corporate behavior. NGC established the "Water Cooler" so that some conversations could be reserved for a more or less, 'private audience', generally involving non-coin matters, such that the overall public presentation of this forum would be nicely focused on coins, etc. Hobby stuff. The issues that may arise from the discussions of the two main points of my Water Cooler thread, (and the things that may be said by those expressing their opinions on those issues,) might slightly upset some die-hard fans of one or more 'TPG's. I'm pretty sure the 'mods' would prefer that discussion to go on wholly within the realm of the Water Cooler, so you'll forgive me for not discussing them openly here, (though certainly others might choose to do so.)

The edge anomalies are raised from the otherwise normal surface, which means they appeared post striking, and probably "post mint". The question is, did the deformation cause the separation of one or both of the laminations(?) Judging from the different levels of wear, I think the obverse lamination fell away soon after striking, while the reverse lamination, I believe, was forced from the coin during the deformation event. The coin, laid flat, has a slight 'tweak', corresponding to the two areas of deformation of the edges. @Moxie15 may be correct in that the metal lamination could well have been knocked off the surface when the coin jammed in a machine. In my opinion, this is a damaged error coin. I'm hoping the crew at ICG confirms that indeed the obverse and reverse missing metal is due to an inferior quality planchet, (a lamination error,) regardless of whether or not one of the laminations separated due to damage later in the coin's 'life'. But why the curved line on the reverse, at the point of lamination? Could another nickel, wedged against it, being subjected to a powerful blow, sever the thin laminate layer of metal on the surface of this coin? Or are those curved lines evidence of something as yet not deciphered, so to speak?

The Salmon People are my neighbors, both upriver and by the saltwater below. A couple of them are good friends of mine, including one who made a gift of a half dozen kewl ball cap hats, the last of which is seen in the back of my car. This part of Raven's story I hadn't heard before, but Raven and the Star Child are my favorite characters in local legend. Great thread, RWB!

All of the pro CLCT posts are still active on that thread. All of your posts are still publicly viewable, Mr Field, but part of the thread is censored from public view. But it's definitely not Kool aid that led to the public censorship of posts unfavorable to the company. My guess is that it was a combination of greed, anger, and fear. I'm going to add links to my thread in the Water Cooler, if you, or anyone else, has an interest in becoming better informed regarding the "value" of a company like CLCT - PCGS.

And now we know why Raven always announces his presence before he arrives. He's very proud of his task, bringing light to the universe.

You've got a frosty, well-struck 97-S with nice eye appeal. Definitely at the top of the grade range, (assuming the Rev is typical or better.) If it were in a 64 holder it would be viewed as a 'low-end' coin and knowledgeable buyers would want a discount. As a 63 a seller would be justified in asking a fair premium. That 2nd coin is almost certainly not Choice BU/MS63. The hits on the cheek are far too deep, and tho it looks like it may be semi-PL, that only serves to highlight the scruffiness in the fields. It's got, 'negative eye appeal', and that defies the very notion of a "Choice" BU coin. Unless that 2nd coin has a beautifully toned Rev, it doesn't deserve a 63 grade, and that pic is definitely all I need to make that assessment. You weren't bamboozled, you've just got a 'sight-seen' coin that was graded using a system designed to facilitate the "sight unseen" trading of coins.

And the winner is... Morpheus 1967! Thanks to everyone for helping to make this a lot of fun.

I can't Link the thread from where I am right now, but I started a thread ATS about my 1911 Lincoln Cent, (also posted here in another thread,) and most agree that it's very likely an 'incomplete punch' flaw. I'll be sending it in soon. I think the OP may well have one too, as others suggest.

Most at CU PCGS forum agree that my cent is indeed an 'incomplete punch' flaw/error. This quarter has indications of the same. Perhaps @Annabell would be better served with a thread ATS?

The drawing will be later today, I'll post the result here tonight or early tomorrow morning, and PM the winner for shipping instructions. Good luck to everyone!

Just a little over three hours left to enter this grand giveaway! The PCGS rattler 38-D Buffalo Nickel and September 1930 Numismatist are 'up for grabs'!