Dcarr over strike question. 1 1

[coinman_23885]

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

 

Enough said

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

We also note that of the provisions originally enacted in the 1948 Act, those requiring an intent to defraud were generally oriented toward a different purpose than those not requiring such an element....

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[Afterword]

“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? There must be factors involved like the number of pieces produced, whether said pieces resemble coins presently in circulation, whether they represent coins that have been produced by the United States, etc, that determine the level of threat to the government monetary system.

 

The government’s concern is not with numismatic interests, but with the concerns quoted above.

 

“…but it does not require intent for the production of the prohibited items.”

 

The fact that it does not require intent does not mean that intent cannot or is not considered.

 

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

 

 

[dcarr]

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

 

Enough said

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[dcarr]

“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.

[coinman_23885]

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

 

 

It is both.

[coinman_23885]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[coinman_23885]

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

 

Enough said

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

[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.

[dcarr]

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

 

Enough said

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Those cases from the currency and stamp realm you mention do not involve non-fraudulent over-printing of genuine currency and stamps.

 

The intent of Congress was not to prohibit non-fraudulent defacement of existing coins. Congress also did not appear to be concerned that the production of look-alike replicas of US coins could impugn the integrity of the Federal Government.

[coinman_23885]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[coinman_23885]

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

 

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

 

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

[coinman_23885]

 

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

 

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

 

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

[dcarr]

“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.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

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?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

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?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

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?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

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?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

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 )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this (more producer competition in the marketplace).

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

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 am not sure what you mean by this.

Edited September 9, 2016 by dcarr

[dcarr]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

See my reply in the post above this one.

[dcarr]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by dcarr

[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.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

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?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

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?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with 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?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

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?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

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 )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

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 am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......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?.............

[comicdonna]

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Yes, in your opinion.

It's my opinion, too.

[coinman_23885]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

[dcarr]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

I never wrote that I thought the text of the HPA "repealed" 18 USC 485 or other existing statutes. I said that the HPA provisions conflict with prior statutes.

 

The text of the HPA is a whole other argument, specifically as to what constitutes an "original numismatic item". A fantasy-date over-strike coin is an original numismatic item which has been altered. The result is a new item (which is not a dilution of any previously-existing original numismatic item) but on the other hand is a sort of original numismatic item in its own right. This is evidenced by the market acceptance, market prices, various articles, acceptance for certification (ANACS) and listing in reference catalogs (such as the Krause "Unusual World Coins" reference).

 

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

 

"His works ... were clearly not meant to simulate U.S. currency, impugn or cause concern to the integrity of U.S. coinage or currency..."

 

Where did you get that from ? Is that your own personal opinion ?

 

VonNothaus intended that his "Liberty Dollars" displace Federal Reserve currency in circulation. As such, I can see why the courts could certainly construe this activity as an impingement upon the integrity of the Federal Government and Federal Reserve currency. Without such impingement, there would not be any violation by VonNothaus' activities.

 

Edited September 10, 2016 by dcarr

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

 

I think with the latest response to Mr. coinman, you may be faltering, Mr. Carr.

 

I would also be interested, whenever you get the opportunity, to consider the questions I asked in my last post and if you care to, respond.

[MJ]

Now it's become a typing contest. My head hurts

 

Mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That was the plan all along....to make your head hurt.

[dcarr]

“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.

 

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

 

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?

 

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

 

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

 

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

 

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

 

 

 

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

 

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?

 

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

 

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with 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?

 

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

 

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

 

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?

 

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

 

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

 

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 )?

 

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

 

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

 

 

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

 

 

 

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 am not sure what you mean by this.

 

.......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.........

 

You are mistaken. Congress does not "interpret" laws. They legislate them.

My assertions as to what Congress intended come from court rulings (interpretations of said laws by the courts). You don't have to be in Congress or in court to read them.

 

Case law does favor my position. I previously quoted a ruling where it was clearly indicated that, for their to be a violation, there must be an intent to defraud or the activity must impugn the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither of those things has occurred in my activity.

 

.....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.

 

Simple, see my paragraph above this.

 

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think with the latest response to Mr. coinman, you may be faltering, Mr. Carr.

 

I would also be interested, whenever you get the opportunity, to consider the questions I asked in my last post and if you care to, respond.

[Hard Times]

Let's see if we can make 300 posts!

[Afterword]

There is some projecting going on as well. It is always a good sign when your opponent accuses you of faltering or being desperate, when that is obviously not the case.

 

Conversely, when someone blatantly makes comparisons that stretch credibility to the breaking point, accusations of desperation (for example) are tenable.

[Hard Times]

 

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

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

 

 

If he did call you that, he stated his opinion on an open forum among informed numismatists who are debating, and stating their opinions, on a topic of high interest. His opinion is likely not to change any minds or affect your buisness. Lawsuit? Really? Yikes.

 

Best, HT

Reason for edit: Corrected after the post by Robec below

Edited September 10, 2016 by Hard Times

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

 

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

 

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

 

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

[robec1347]

 

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

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

 

 

If he did call you that, he stated his opinion on an open forum among informed numismatists who are debating, and stating their opinions, on a topic of high interest. His opinion is likely not to change any minds or affect your buisness. Lawsuit? Really? Yikes.

 

Best, HT

 

If?

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think you need to read the disclaimer of the member. The small letters, not just the big letters.

 

Full disclosure: edited to change "mall" to "small".

Edited September 10, 2016 by Mr.Mcknowitall

[coinman_23885]

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

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

 

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

 

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