Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Yes, Dan should begin to make fantasy bank notes and then send a few to the Secret Service. I think fantasy $100 bills will generate a lot of attention.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Their opinion expresses no view of the HPA or counterfeiting issues, but merely interprets a provision of the ANA charter. What does the ANA charter have to do with the statutes cited? The only discussion of legal implications involves the ANA stating that the authorities haven't charged Carr yet. That is hardly a reasonable or persuasive basis for interpreting the statutes here. Remember, prior to conviction and indictment, all of the people in federal prison hadn't been indicted/convicted of offenses either. Should we have construed all of those statutes to exonerate those people?

 

So in your world everything is illegal until proven legal in court?

 

I remember reading the first reply saying this was gonna get messy quick hahahaha

 

No. A court merely declares what the law is/always was. If adjudicated legal, the pieces were always legal. If adjudicated illegal, the pieces were illegal even before the order adjudicating them as such. Things that violate law are illegal even in the absence of a conviction/court order. That is my point and one I thought should be obvious.

The presumption of innocence merely means that the government shouldn't throw Carr in prison without due process or in a kangaroo court trial. In other words, the government would need to prove criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt to throw him in prison. It doesn't mean that his pieces are legal until proven illegal in court. That is ludicrous.

 

Yeah but at least the "forum few" are limiting it to this thread and not thread bombing other show & tell threads which is nice

 

I admit that I have not read this entire thread simply because I know it's a rehash of what has been said so many times before.

Therefore, I offer a link to an auction page of a fully recognizable and collectible piece that was not minted by an official government agency, is in fact an unauthorized copy yet is in complete defiance of the Hobby Protection Act.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/colonials/...328003.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Nothing more need be said.

 

The HPA is not retroactive.

 

Actually it does. Your feelings give you the opinion it is illegal. This isn't selling crack, if you could predict courts and the law as well as you claim I assume you have never lost a case in your life and would be happy to post your resume?

Your hatred of him has led you to a very dangerous position you are taking with criminal law. You literally just said everything is illegal until proven legal in court

 

Either you didn't read what I wrote in its entirety or your reading comprehension sucks. If the latter, there are remedial courses to help. The cited statutes are in effect now. If he is violating those statutes, then his pieces are illegal even without a court order. Why is that so difficult to understand? Do you subscribe to the belief that you must have a special invitation (in the form of a court order) to comply with the law?

 

Yeah. Let him keep digging his own hole though

 

The criminal system is set up where something has to be proven illegal. If you googled some more you would have found that. Again your hatred of him has led you to opinions that you think it would be some slam dunk. At this point you are actually just proving your lack of knowledge and getting angry that people don't agree with you

 

You are conflating concepts here and are confusing the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings with the canons of statutory interpretation. The two are separate. If Congress passes a statute prohibiting "X" creations or activities, and a person engages in "X" activity or makes "X" product, then the resulting product or activity is illegal per the plain meaning of the statute. That is a question of statutory interpretation. The criminal conviction of the person engaging in "X" is a separate matter.

The criminal system is set up such that criminal court proceedings presume that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the defendant has certain procedural protections and must be afforded a fair/impartial trial in accordance with tenets of due process of law. Nothing is assumed. The defendant need not prove innocence to escape conviction. Inevitably guilty people are exonerated by this system, but the activities are just as illegal in the absence of a conviction (e.g. crack dealer "A" engaged in illegal activity in selling crack cocaine even though he may have won on a technicality or because a crumby prosecutor failed to meet his burden).

In other words, while the law creates a presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, this does not mean that all products/activities are illegal or legal in the absence of a court order. Is that clearer?

 

Here's a simple way to determine legality: if it wasn't legal, he would have long ago been shut down.
The fact that he's still doing well and fine is a testament to the legality of the situation.

 

Hmm... Carr has been in operation for about 8 years, although some of his most controversial fantasy coins didn't occur until later. In the legal system, this isn't very long. Let's look at a parallel example:

1998 - Bernard Von Nothaus and NORFED begin exchanging Federal Reserve Notes for silver "Liberty Dollars"
2006 - U.S. Mint issues press-release declaring the pieces counterfeit
2009 - Von Nothaus is indicted
2011 - Von Nothaus is convicted and Liberty Dollars officially adjudicated as counterfeits

Notice that it took 8 years for the press-release and 11 years for the indictment. It took approximately 14 years for the final adjudication.

 

The only confusion is you confusing your opinion with fact. Just so you know I don't need the elementary google searches of the legal system either. You have done nothing but state your opinion and that is all it is your opinion

 

You are the one that cannot separate opinion from reality. Let's go back to my example. Defendant "A" is a crack dealer who sells crack cocaine. He is indicted, but wins on a technicality and/or the prosecution failed to secure enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Does this mean that defendant "A" did not engage in illegal activity in selling the aforesaid crack cocaine? There is no court order/conviction. All we have is a statute that says that selling crack cocaine is illegal. When you say that everything is legal until proven illegal in court, this is exactly what you are saying. To Carr's supporters, every element of the fact pattern must be exact or they ignore controlling case law.

I am saying that the STATUTE controls, and announces what is legal and illegal. The court order merely applies the existing statute/law.

 

So to you even in your own example where "and/or the prosecution failed to secure enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. " AKA they didn't have the evidence to prove something he is still guilty got it. Me I prefer not to live in totalitarian states where peoples feelings is all that is necessary to take away peoples freedoms.

 

I am saying that what defendant/dealer "A" did is illegal even in the absence of a court order convicting him. This says nothing about legal presumptions in the criminal proceedings against him. You are conflating/mixing up things here.

Is Carr entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding (i.e. in court) should the government choose to pursue him? YES. He would not need to prove his innocence and is entitled to due process- that is all the law presumes.

Is there a legal presumption that Carr's works are legal except as it relates to the criminal proceeding (i.e. a presumption that presumes his pieces do not violate the Hobby Protection Act or counterfeiting statutes)? NO.

 

I'm sorry, Earl, but the only thing this is a testament to is that you haven't thought this through. Again, just take a look around and tell us if you can think of anything, even something clearly illegal, that hasn't been "shut down" or stopped, even if it's been taking place over long periods of time. Your suggestion "determines" nothing and simply confuses assumption with fact.

I get your point, and perhaps that's how it should/would be in an ideal world, but that's not the world we live in and things simply aren't so easy or cut and dry.