Certainly about time this happened.

[coinman_23885]

If the government picks and chooses when and where to attempt to enforce the statutes, doesn't that constitute "selective enforcement" which a defendant could argue to their advantage ?

 

I'll answer because you asked.

 

No, not in this context. Lack of prosecution (even in a civil context) could be because the government doesn't care as you suggest, or it could mean that it lacked the time and resources and does not consider you a sufficient threat or violator to pursue anything at this time. Lack of prosecution under a statute does not generally constitute consent to an action or waiver of a right to enforce the statute in the future.

 

 

Mr. Carr I assume that you have never bothered to ask for nor have received an advisory opinion from the FTC. If you have please post it. If your counsel hasnt advised you that you can/should get one... shame on him/her. You really should. Not only because of you can quite these types of discussions but you would then know without question if you are operating on legally shaking ground...

 

Why not simply clear away any argument from anyone and ask the FTC issue an opinion ?

 

I absolutely think this would be a good idea and would be interesting, but I would caution against reliance for legal purposes on an informal advisory opinion that is non-binding. The staff at the FTC can change, and the opinion included the following:

 

"Please be advised that the views expressed in this letter are those of the FTC staff. They have not been reviewed, approved, or adopted by the Commission, and are not binding on the Commission. However, they reflect the opinion of the staff charged with enforcement..."

 

[Kurtdog]

Not to go too far off-subject but I'm curious how many pages of publicity he normally gets out of these threads. I think the last time he was here I recall we were good for some 12-15 pages. And how do they rate, ATS, are they as good? I'm just curious.

[Afterword]

!?!

[coinman_23885]

Not to go too far off-subject but I'm curious how many pages of publicity he normally gets out of these threads. I think the last time he was here I recall we were good for some 12-15 pages. And how do they rate, ATS, are they as good? I'm just curious.

 

37 pages. Define "good." I don't think they have opening statements, rebuttals, and closing statements over there yet.

[Kurtdog]

Not to go too far off-subject but I'm curious how many pages of publicity he normally gets out of these threads. I think the last time he was here I recall we were good for some 12-15 pages. And how do they rate, ATS, are they as good? I'm just curious.

 

37 pages

Holy cripes, I must have got out early! You mean you guys stayed there for 37 pages of this? ::

[dcarr]

Mr. Carr I assume that you have never bothered to ask for nor have received an advisory opinion from the FTC. If you have please post it. If your counsel hasnt advised you that you can/should get one... shame on him/her. You really should. Not only because of you can quite these types of discussions but you would then know without question if you are operating on legally shaking ground. And if by chance the FTC does find against your position you can change your business model so as to protect yourself & assets.

 

Why would you want to continue to operate on less than solid ground and risk what you have built so far ?

 

Litigation will cost you in excess of $100,000 and while I realize that your profits must be extraordinary (the US Govt would like to have the profits levels you have in regards to Seigniorage) that only makes you a target. And even if you succeed at trial in defending your position the likelihood of being reimbursed for your legal expenses are very low.

 

Here are some examples of FTC opinions. It appears this situation is ripe for an Advisory Letter from the FTC.

 

http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-opinions

 

These types of situations are exactly why the FTC allows such opinions to issue.

 

Why not simply clear away any argument from anyone and ask the FTC issue an opinion ?

 

I did ask the FTC.

Before I produced any over-strikes I wrote to the FTC. In the letter I outlined a potential scenario were I would take an ordinary Franklin half dollar and over-strike it to give it the appearance of a "1964" dated Franklin half dollar (which were never originally issued). They never replied. After a couple months I sent another similar letter, which also referenced the first letter. This second letter was sent over-night via FedEx and was marked urgent (I still have the FedEx receipt and a copy of the letters). I tracked it and they did get it. But they never responded.

 

Later on, after I had produced a few "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes, Coin World got wind of it and contacted the US Mint about it. The US Mint stated that they do not render opinions about such things and that Coin World should contact the Secret Service. So Coin World did. The Secret Service told Coin World that they do not render opinions for the public and that they only enforce the laws as directed by the US Attorneys office. So Coin World got me in touch with the Denver US Attorneys office. I told the gentleman at the Denver Office what I was doing and he said that they do not render opinions for the public, and that I should consult with my own lawyer. So I talked to a lawyer about it.

 

The only "opinion" on the matter that I could ever glean from the Government was this small post on the US Mint web page (note the underlining of the key word "fraudulently"): US Mint 18 U.S.C. 331

 

And these two more-elaborate posts on the US Mint web site:

DOs and DON'Ts for Businesses Interested in Altering U.S. Coins.

DOs and DON'Ts for Businesses Interested in Creating Replicas of U.S. Coins.

 

PS:

My "profits" are FAR from "enormous". It is hard work and there are a LOT of expenses. But I enjoy it.

[coinman_23885]

The only "opinion" on the matter that I could ever glean from the Government was this small post on the US Mint web page (note the underlining of the key word "fraudulently"): US Mint 18 U.S.C. 331

 

It's a different statute and a different violation. It is possible to violate more than one statute.

[TonerGuy]

Mr. Carr since you are a member of the ANA and this has apparently been made an issue with them based on RWB's complaint perhaps they can send in a request to the FTC. Obviously this isnt just a Moonlight Mint issue, there are others that are in your same position and this is an industry issue as evidenced by the civil lawsuit discussed.

 

The FTC might not want to address a specific issue in regards to a specific private business. However, they might be willing to address it as an advisory opinion when an industry's trade group requests such in a more general fashion.

 

I agree with Coinman that it wouldnt be controlling, so to speak, but it is certainly can be persuasive. And at least a) you would have as close to a final answer as possible without criminal prosecution or civil litigation b) you can quite your detractors and c) you can save a whole lot of money and heartache.

[coinman_23885]

Mr. Carr since you are a member of the ANA and this has apparently been made an issue with them based on RWB's complaint perhaps they can send in a request to the FTC. Obviously this isnt just a Moonlight Mint issue, there are others that are in your same position and this is an industry issue as evidenced by the civil lawsuit discussed.

 

The FTC might not want to address a specific issue in regards to a specific private business. However, they might be willing to address it as an advisory opinion when an industry's trade group requests such in a more general fashion.

 

I agree with Coinman that it wouldnt be controlling, so to speak, but it is certainly can be persuasive. And at least a) you would have as close to a final answer as possible without criminal prosecution or civil litigation b) you can quite your detractors and c) you can save a whole lot of money and heartache.

 

I think this is an excellent idea.

 

While the government will not provide legal advice or serve as Mr. Carr's counsel (which is the way it appears to be interpreting his request), they should be more than willing to respond to a disinterested third party.

 

[Kurtdog]

Mr. Carr I assume that you have never bothered to ask for nor have received an advisory opinion from the FTC. If you have please post it. If your counsel hasnt advised you that you can/should get one... shame on him/her. You really should. Not only because of you can quite these types of discussions but you would then know without question if you are operating on legally shaking ground. And if by chance the FTC does find against your position you can change your business model so as to protect yourself & assets.

 

Why would you want to continue to operate on less than solid ground and risk what you have built so far ?

 

Litigation will cost you in excess of $100,000 and while I realize that your profits must be extraordinary (the US Govt would like to have the profits levels you have in regards to Seigniorage) that only makes you a target. And even if you succeed at trial in defending your position the likelihood of being reimbursed for your legal expenses are very low.

 

Here are some examples of FTC opinions. It appears this situation is ripe for an Advisory Letter from the FTC.

 

http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-opinions

 

These types of situations are exactly why the FTC allows such opinions to issue.

 

Why not simply clear away any argument from anyone and ask the FTC issue an opinion ?

I did ask the FTC.

Before I produced any over-strikes I wrote to the FTC. In the letter I outlined a potential scenario were I would take an ordinary Franklin half dollar and over-strike it to give it the appearance of a "1964" dated Franklin half dollar (which were never originally issued). They never replied. After a couple months I sent another similar letter, which also referenced the first letter. This second letter was sent over-night via FedEx and was marked urgent (I still have the FedEx receipt and a copy of the letters). I tracked it and they did get it. But they never responded.

 

Later on, after I had produced a few "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes, Coin World got wind of it and contacted the US Mint about it. The US Mint stated that they do not render opinions about such things and that Coin World should contact the Secret Service. So Coin World did. The Secret Service told Coin World that they do not render opinions for the public and that they only enforce the laws as directed by the US Attorneys office. So Coin World got me in touch with the Denver US Attorneys office. I told the gentleman at the Denver Office what I was doing and he said that they do not render opinions for the public, and that I should consult with my own lawyer. So I talked to a lawyer about it.

 

The only "opinion" on the matter that I could ever glean from the Government was this small post on the US Mint web page (note the underlining of the key word "fraudulently"): US Mint 18 U.S.C. 331

 

And these two more-elaborate posts on the US Mint web site:

DOs and DON'Ts for Businesses Interested in Altering U.S. Coins.

DOs and DON'Ts for Businesses Interested in Creating Replicas of U.S. Coins.

 

PS:

My "profits" are FAR from "enormous". It is hard work and there are a LOT of expenses. But I enjoy it.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Carr. From the point of view of an assistant attorney general, I want you, you're dead meat. Let me translate that. I have more important things to do; I don't want you. The same goes for that joker in that NGC slab. The chances of those or your items circulating are remote, and you're small-time operations. Everything Kenny (coinman_23885) said in this thread is on the bullseye. You just don't don't understand him. FWIW, I admire your talents, I sincerely do. But one of them isn't the law.

[dcarr]

Let me tell you something, Mr. Carr. From the point of view of an assistant attorney general, I want you, you're dead meat. Let me translate that. I have more important things to do; I don't want you. The same goes for that joker in that NGC slab. The chances of those or your items circulating are remote, and you're small-time operations. Everything Kenny (coinman_23885) said in this thread is on the bullseye. You just don't don't understand him. FWIW, I admire your talents, I sincerely do. But one of them isn't the law.

 

Who/what is "joker in that NGC slab" ?

 

I understand coinman_23885, but I disagee on some points.

 

 

Hypothetically, what would be the ramifications if one of my fantasy-date over-strike coins ended up in circulation ? Who would be harmed (other than the person who paid more than face value for it and then spent it) ? These pieces are not like normal counterfeits in that they are struck over legal-tender coins of the same denomination. So the total amount of currency extant is not diluted by these. In other words, one legal-tender dollar is "consumed" for every dollar coin over-strike.

 

The only similar incidence that I can think of occurred a couple years ago. I received an email form a person who had searched on the internet and found me. This person had received some change at a coffee shop. Among that change was one of these:

It was a novelty Washington DC "state quarter" that I had designed for a marketing company (reverse side only) and it was minted in 2004 by someone else. Note that the "COPY" stamp on Washington's head didn't prevent this coin from entering circulation and it still fooled people into thinking it was legal tender. The piece had some circulation wear on it - it had been circulating for a while and nobody cared until this gentleman noticed it.

 

So what were the ramifications of this ?

I offered the finder $6 for it. But he declined and said that he wanted to keep it.

 

[coinman_23885]

Who/what is "joker in that NGC slab" ?

 

I won't speak for him, but I think he was referencing the Smithsonian pieces you posted.

 

 

[dcarr]

Who/what is "joker in that NGC slab" ?

 

I won't speak for him, but I think he was referencing the Smithsonian pieces you posted.

 

 

Ahh, yes - that must be it.

 

BTW, I previously forgot to post this picture showing the Smithsonian certificate that came with it. It says "This licensed product is approved by: Smithsonian Institution".

 

 

[dcarr]

Let me tell you something, Mr. Carr. From the point of view of an assistant attorney general, I want you, you're dead meat. Let me translate that. I have more important things to do; I don't want you. The same goes for that joker in that NGC slab. The chances of those or your items circulating are remote, and you're small-time operations. Everything Kenny (coinman_23885) said in this thread is on the bullseye. You just don't don't understand him. FWIW, I admire your talents, I sincerely do. But one of them isn't the law.

 

PS:

You're forgetting someone. What about NGC themselves ? They certified the thing, after all, which helped enable the marketing of it.

 

[coinman_23885]

Hypothetically, what would be the ramifications if one of my fantasy-date over-strike coins ended up in circulation ? Who would be harmed (other than the person who paid more than face value for it and then spent it) ? These pieces are not like normal counterfeits in that they are struck over legal-tender coins of the same denomination. So the total amount of currency extant is not diluted by these. In other words, one legal-tender dollar is "consumed" for every dollar coin over-strike.

 

The only similar incidence that I can think of occurred a couple years ago. I received an email form a person who had searched on the internet and found me. This person had received some change at a coffee shop. Among that change was one of these:

It was a novelty Washington DC "state quarter" that I had designed for a marketing company (reverse side only) and it was minted in 2004 by someone else. Note that the "COPY" stamp on Washington's head didn't prevent this coin from entering circulation and it still fooled people into thinking it was legal tender. The piece had some circulation wear on it - it had been circulating for a while and nobody cared until this gentleman noticed it.

 

So what were the ramifications of this ?

I offered the finder $6 for it. But he declined and said that he wanted to keep it.

 

The statutes I cited don't require damages in a strict sense so whether the person was made "whole" or not is not the issue for purposes of adjudicating liability or guilt. And I know that this might seem counter-intuitive to some. It is not uncommon for federal criminal statutes to require no actual damage be done in a strict sense. For instance, a defendant in a federal wire fraud case need not actually have acquired money and the "victim" need not have actually been defrauded. (And I am using that as an analogy and am not implying fraud on your part - again I don't think it is fraud). This is because it is a statutory crime, and the statute does not contain that as an element of the offense. The same thing applies here - the statutes don't actually require someone to have sustained a loss in order for the pieces to violate the statutes. The fact that the piece circulated illustrates my point about someone believing it to be part of a coinage as struck by the government.

 

On another note, I will be very direct with you. As long as you don't have political enemies or have angered someone within a federal district attorney's office, I do not think that the odds of the government pursuing you are that great (at least criminally). Nevertheless it is a realistic possibility, and one that I would advise you not to take. I am sure your attorney would tell you the same thing.

 

Also, to be clear, I have nothing against you personally. I respect the high craftsmanship of your pieces, and that is why I am so adamant in opposing them as a novice could actually be fooled. And I know many here take issue with that, but these statutes are not meant to protect the people on this forum that know better, but rather the larger public. Having dealt with the public often in a professional capacity, I can tell you that average intelligence isn't as extraordinary as you might think it is. Once the pieces leave your hands, you can no longer control their fate. And to this degree, I consider them dangerous. I engage in legal arguments with you with hopes of encouraging you to comply with federal regulations and/or to find other ways to make sure that your pieces don't have negative effects in the secondary market.

[coinman_23885]

PS:

You're forgetting someone. What about NGC themselves ? They certified the thing, after all, which helped enable the marketing of it.

 

Very interesting thought, but NGC didn't actually make it. And I don't think I would say that NGC certified or graded it. They encapsulated the piece on behalf of the Smithsonian. I do not know enough about the particular pieces to discuss them more in depth, but the fact that a government institution approved of them could change the calculus in analyzing the law. I would need to know much more to offer any opinions.

[dcarr]

PS:

You're forgetting someone. What about NGC themselves ? They certified the thing, after all, which helped enable the marketing of it.

 

Very interesting thought, but NGC didn't actually make it. And I don't think I would say that NGC certified or graded it. They encapsulated the piece on behalf of the Smithsonian. I do not know enough about the particular pieces to discuss them more in depth, but the fact that a government institution approved of them could change the calculus in analyzing the law. I would need to know much more to offer any opinions.

 

It says right in the holder "Numismatic Guaranty Corporation". A guarantee (warranty) is explicitly indicated. So I would say most definitely that NGC did "certify" it.

 

[dcarr]

The statutes I cited don't require damages in a strict sense so whether the person was made "whole" or not is not the issue for purposes of adjudicating liability or guilt. And I know that this might seem counter-intuitive to some. It is not uncommon for federal criminal statutes to require no actual damage be done in a strict sense. For instance, a defendant in a federal wire fraud case need not actually have acquired money and the "victim" need not have actually been defrauded. (And I am using that as an analogy and am not implying fraud on your part - again I don't think it is fraud). This is because it is a statutory crime, and the statute does not contain that as an element of the offense. The same thing applies here - the statutes don't actually require someone to have sustained a loss in order for the pieces to violate the statutes. The fact that the piece circulated illustrates my point about someone believing it to be part of a coinage as struck by the government.

 

For criminal statutes, yes, a "victimless" crime is still a crime.

For civil statutes, there has to be actual damages. And would a plaintiff in any such a case also have to have some standing as well (would have had to suffer damages themselves) ?

 

On another note, I will be very direct with you. As long as you don't have political enemies or have angered someone within a federal district attorney's office, I do not think that the odds of the government pursuing you are that great (at least criminally). Nevertheless it is a realistic possibility, and one that I would advise you not to take. I am sure your attorney would tell you the same thing.

 

The government is my friend

I was once summoned to jury duty. But I was not needed and was dismissed before entering the courtroom. That was the closest I've ever been to actually being in a courtroom.

 

Also, to be clear, I have nothing against you personally. I respect the high craftsmanship of your pieces, and that is why I am so adamant in opposing them as a novice could actually be fooled. And I know many here take issue with that, but these statutes are not meant to protect the people on this forum that know better, but rather the larger public. Having dealt with the public often in a professional capacity, I can tell you that average intelligence isn't as extraordinary as you might think it is. Once the pieces leave your hands, you can no longer control their fate. And to this degree, I consider them dangerous. I engage in legal arguments with you with hopes of encouraging you to comply with federal regulations and/or to find other ways to make sure that your pieces don't have negative effects in the secondary market.

 

Understood. But I think your characterization of the fantasy-date over-strike coins as being "dangerous" is grossly overstated. Bombs and motorcycles and tobacco are all "dangerous". Novelty "coins" not so much. "Dangerous" implies potential damages. Who might suffer significant damages from a fantasy-date over-strike coin ? All any potential buyer need do is a minimum amount of due diligence to learn about what they are spending money on. A quick internet search would reveal much information, including my own web sites which specify all the particulars. And even if someone down the road does spend a "lot" of money on one of my fantasy-date over-strikes, is there a problem if the amount paid is commensurate with the current market values of the thing ?

 

I have already gone to great lengths to prevent any potential "negative effects in the secondary market". This includes elaborate documentation on my web pages, numerous articles in "Coin World" and coin club journals, a mention in the "Red Book", and numerous listings in the Krause "Unusual World Coins" catalog. Every piece includes a certificate which states the full nature of the item. I have a deal with ANACS for certifying them. I was even awarded the "A. George Mallis Literary Award" for an article I wrote for the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors journal. That article was about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar project. And one of those same pieces was recently featured on an episode of the TV show "Pawn Stars". So they are becoming quite well known in the numismatic community (thanks in part to discussion threads like this one).

[coinman_23885]

For criminal statutes, yes, a "victimless" crime is still a crime.

For civil statutes, there has to be actual damages. And would a plaintiff in any such a case also have to have some standing as well (would have had to suffer damages themselves) ?

 

The FTC has standing to enforce civil statutes and its administrative regulations. Moreover, the HPA specifically allows private enforcement including, inter alia, injunctive relief and I think a private party would be awarded an injunction and attorney's fees. Actual damages would depend on the context. It is also not clear to me the extent that a court might impose punitive damages.

 

I have already gone to great lengths to prevent any potential "negative effects in the secondary market". This includes elaborate documentation on my web pages, numerous articles in "Coin World" and coin club journals, a mention in the "Red Book", and numerous listings in the Krause "Unusual World Coins" catalog. Every piece includes a certificate which states the full nature of the item. I have a deal with ANACS for certifying them. I was even awarded the "A. George Mallis Literary Award" for an article I wrote for the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors journal. That article was about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar project. And one of those same pieces was recently featured on an episode of the TV show "Pawn Stars". So they are becoming quite well known in the numismatic community (thanks in part to discussion threads like this one).

 

If there is anyone out there with a grudge against you, you are giving them more rope to attempt to hang you with. I appreciate you bringing awareness to the issue, but it does not remove potential danger. And it certainly doesn't immunize you legally.

[dcarr]

If there is anyone out there with a grudge against you, you are giving them more rope to attempt to hang you with. I appreciate you bringing awareness to the issue, but it does not remove potential danger. And it certainly doesn't immunize you legally.

 

Everything has been on the internet from the beginning. How is citing that here in this thread giving some potential person "more rope" ?

 

All this public domain information that I've produced certainly does increase the awareness of the issues and has the effect of minimizing any ill effects.

 

[coinman_23885]

Everything has been on the internet from the beginning. How is citing that here in this thread giving some potential person "more rope" ?

 

I was referring to the underlying actions, not necessarily this thread. With that said, the more you admit to and discuss here, the less of a chance you could conceal things and have plausible deniability. But the government letters, Coin World article, and internet publicity have probably precluded that possibility by this point anyway. So there is absolutely an element of truth to your interpretation there.

 

On another note, I wouldn't have admitted that at least one of your pieces circulated. That might be a problem depending on how the statutes are construed. And even though what the person may have said to you might be said to be hearsay as relayed in this thread, there are hearsay exceptions to statements against interest both in civil and criminal cases. I would caution you against arming or potentially arming your opponents.

 

In any event, should anything ever materialize in the distant future, good luck!

[TonerGuy]

The government is my friend

I was once summoned to jury duty. But I was not needed and was dismissed before entering the courtroom. That was the closest I've ever been to actually being in a courtroom.

 

The government is not your friend. And secondly, I suspect that you will become far more intimately aware of the inside of a courtroom if that other civil case is resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

 

Its very easy for an attorney to change the name of parties and a few facts here and there in a complaint in order to file a second class action lawsuit against a similarly situation defendant. The hard work is almost already done. The discovery is already done. The deposition questions are basically done as well.

 

Many of these types of class action lawsuits are cookie-cutter and very easy to replicate. It would almost be ridiculous for the firm handling the other case NOT to file against you and other private mints that arent complying with the black letter law of the US code. Once you have the first win you have a much easier time getting more reasonable settlements from Defendants #2, #3, and #4. And not to mention, the plaintiff now has the funding for more litigation. Its a business model most class action specialists employ.

 

Be very very aware of whats happening in the other case.

[dcarr]

Everything has been on the internet from the beginning. How is citing that here in this thread giving some potential person "more rope" ?

 

I was referring to the underlying actions, not necessarily this thread. With that said, the more you admit to and discuss here, the less of a chance you could conceal things and have plausible deniability. But the government letters, Coin World article, and internet publicity have probably precluded that possibility by this point anyway. So there is absolutely an element of truth to your interpretation there.

 

On another note, I wouldn't have admitted that at least one of your pieces circulated. That might be a problem depending on how the statutes are construed. And even though what the person may have said to you might be said to be hearsay as relayed in this thread, there are hearsay exceptions to statements against interest both in civil and criminal cases. I would caution you against arming or potentially arming your opponents.

 

To clarify, the piece I mentioned that was found in circulation was marked "COPY". And I only did the graphic illustration for the one side (the Capitol dome). I did NOT sculpt, engrave, mint, market, or sell it. It was sculpted, engraved, and minted by Sunshine Minting, and it was conceived, marketed, and sold by National Collectors Mint.

 

In any event, should anything ever materialize in the distant future, good luck!

 

Wouldn't the Statute of Limitations preclude "distant future" ?

 

[Kurtdog]

So the total amount of currency extant is not diluted by these. In other words, one legal-tender dollar is "consumed" for every dollar coin over-strike.

The same could be said for if you put Bozo the Clown on these. That rationale, while it may be appealing to you, doesn't carry the day. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to coin money, not the Moonlight Mint. There's your issue. This is the exclusive domain of the Congress.

[Afterword]

Will they surpass 37 pages? Keep checking back for the tantalizing answer to this must-know question!

[Kurtdog]

Will they surpass 37 pages? Keep checking back for the tantalizing answer to this must-know question!

I'll offer 8:5 odds on that. Just send me the cash, I'll book the bet. Oh wait, that's against the law!

[coinman_23885]

In any event, should anything ever materialize in the distant future, good luck!

 

Wouldn't the Statute of Limitations preclude "distant future" ?

 

The general statute of limitation for federal criminal statutes is five years from the date of the offense; however, there are a number of ways to toll or extend this under a number of circumstances that are well beyond the scope of this thread. Also you haven't carefully read the statutes I cited. If you did, you overlook the fact that the government has prohibited more than the striking of the pieces (under the legal argument assumed in this thread). There is also something called the continuing violations/offenses doctrine. If I was a prosecutor or other government attorney assigned to pursue your case, you can bet that would be part of my argument if you attempted to claim the statute of limitations as a defense.

 

For the same reasons, I don't see someone being time barred under the HPA. Moreover, it would seem to me that the equitable remedies (e.g. injunctive relief) would be subject more to the doctrine of latches than a strict statute of limitations. One could argue that the pieces continue to pose a threat that was meant to be cured by the HPA and relevant statutes. And the new statute that is supposedly the subject of this thread has enlarged the operation of the HPA to the sale of such items. Now, many courts have required explicit language to make a civil statute retroactive; however, courts have carved exceptions for amendments that are "clarifying" in nature. I offer no opinion on the application of this doctrine to your work. Suffice it to say, things are not always as clear cut as internet chat rooms make them out to be. And most importantly, if a court were to arrive at such a conclusion, the Supreme Court has already interpreted the Article I, Section 9 prohibition against ex post facto laws to apply only to criminal statutes and not civil statutes.

 

So far, we have been focusing on federal law. It is important to note that a number of states have civil and criminal statutes that are potentially applicable as well even when it addresses federal coins and currency. Whether selling the pieces to a resident of that state is enough would depend on the law of the state. I do not profess to know the laws of all fifty states as the laws can differ significantly. (That is the reason, after all, that in addition to the multi-state portion of the bar exam, each state has its own portion of the exam. For that reason, even a single attorney (i.e. one you may have consulted with) might not be able to give you a complete picture.) And with regards to personal jurisdiction, I could plausibly see residents of most states being able to reach you (civilly) through the long arm statute of each state. Selling your pieces in those states would arguably be enough in many circumstances to confer personal jurisdiction to courts of other states. And on one final note, not all states have statutes of limitations on all offenses be they civil or criminal.

 

As you can see, this is an area of law that is very complex especially given the nature and distribution of your work. As I have always maintained, I think you are opening a can of worms.

 

For legal purposes and in conclusion, everything I have stated in this thread is meant as opinion unless explicitly and unambiguously stated otherwise. All federal law and administrative regulations speak for themselves. And nothing in this post or any other post on the subject matter should be construed as legal advice.

[coinman_23885]

Will they surpass 37 pages? Keep checking back for the tantalizing answer to this must-know question!

 

I am optimistic. We are now talking about procedural ways to sabotage a case against him including standing and the statute of limitations. I think we might be on the verge of a break through. Stay tuned!

 

P.S. I see no harm in threads like this. They are instructive.

[coinman_23885]

The government is my friend

I was once summoned to jury duty. But I was not needed and was dismissed before entering the courtroom. That was the closest I've ever been to actually being in a courtroom.

 

The government is not your friend. And secondly, I suspect that you will become far more intimately aware of the inside of a courtroom if that other civil case is resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

 

Its very easy for an attorney to change the name of parties and a few facts here and there in a complaint in order to file a second class action lawsuit against a similarly situation defendant. The hard work is almost already done. The discovery is already done. The deposition questions are basically done as well.

 

Many of these types of class action lawsuits are cookie-cutter and very easy to replicate. It would almost be ridiculous for the firm handling the other case NOT to file against you and other private mints that arent complying with the black letter law of the US code. Once you have the first win you have a much easier time getting more reasonable settlements from Defendants #2, #3, and #4. And not to mention, the plaintiff now has the funding for more litigation. Its a business model most class action specialists employ.

 

Be very very aware of whats happening in the other case.

 

True words of wisdom...

[Afterword]

Will they surpass 37 pages? Keep checking back for the tantalizing answer to this must-know question!

I'll offer 8:5 odds on that. Just send me the cash, I'll book the bet. Oh wait, that's against the law!

 

 

 

 

Yes, and I have a feeling we are being watched!!!