Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Hobby acceptance appears no where in the case law, United States Code, or Code of Federal Regulations. It is also why I think ANACS and the ANA are irrelevant to Carr threads at least as far as the law is concerned. Apparently there is significant disagreement in the hobby or else these threads would not exist.

Dan wrote on the PCGS forums that he substantially flattened (and intentionally so) cull Peace Dollars prior to striking his 1964-D Peace Dollars. Whether it is accomplished with blank dies or another method, the end result is the same. You are also ignoring the case law cited concerning when a coin loses its legal tender status. I don't have my notes with me, but I think the case was Lissner.

Second, with regards to Wilson, you are not reading my argument carefully. I cited that case solely for the position that overstriking a genuine coin does not necessarily remove the resulting piece from the purview from the counterfeiting statutes or else Wilson and the other defendants would have obviously been exonerated. Instead the court found that the government could charge the offense under either or both 18 U.S.C. 331 and 18 U.S.C. 485. I see two potential differences from Wilson (other than that discussed in the previous paragraph): (1) intent and (2) the dates of the coins that are being struck over the existing coins. I fail to see either as meaningful because of other case law discussed in the next paragraph.

Case law shows that intent to defraud is not required to convict under 18 U.S.C. 485 for producing pieces in violation of that statute, so the intent distinction (in which the court in no way relies upon intent in arriving at its conclusion) is trivial. Case law also says that counterfeits need not be exact copies of the original to invoke the criminal counterfeiting statutes. Interestingly, in the FTC's opinion in In re Gold Bullion Int'l, it specifically analyzed counterfeiting cases and framed the discussion of what constitutes a counterfeit coin in arriving at its conclusion that merely changing a digit or other minor alterations are insufficient to remove a coin's status as a counterfeit, reproduction, etc.

I think you would better understand my argument if read through what I wrote and read the cases together and not in isolation. This is exactly the approach in drafting my arguments. I pulled each of his arguments and found cases to undermine each. When read together, it undermines all of his defenses.

The terms of the statute are defined by the legislature and through its delegated powers, the Federal Trade Commission. "We" decide and define nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Show me a single blank die that has ever ghosted? How much ignorance are you going to spread?

 

Is anyone on CT actually a lawyer? By that I mean attended 3 years of law school, graduated with a JD, passed the bar, and is or even was licensed to practice. Just curious. It especially would be great to here from a lawyer with expertise in copyrights, patents, etc. on this matter.

 

Any real lawyer that isn't just starting a propaganda campaign would understand nothing is final until the appeals process is finished and their feelings mean nothing. Are there people with law degrees here, sure. Are they the ones typing in over complicated responses to try and project a degree, no

 

Yes, there are bar admitted lawyers here. With regards to patent attorneys specifically, I cannot think of one here although I do recall there being a patent/IP lawyer on the NGC threads. I cannot recall whether the IP/patent lawyer ever commented on a Carr thread there.

In any event, the designs that Carr is emulating are in the public domain if that is where you are going with this.

 

I slept at a holiday inn, and watched a Perry Mason marathon. Dan's collectable restrikes are hereby deemed legal, and should no longer be discussed as anything but legal collector pieces.

 

So, Dan.... about those reverse proofs ? Up for the challenge ?

 

Actually would love a RP series from him

 

No kidding.

 

Selling counterfeit coins:
Not illegal, so long as there is no fraudulent intent. People openly buy, sell, and collect vintage counterfeits all the time.

producing items in the "resemblance or similitude" of official US coin designs issued as money is illegal:
Again, false. 18 USC 487 states that it is illegal to make or possesses molds or dies in the likeness of US coins, or dies with inscriptions that are in similitude to US coins. But it says nothing about the production of coins. 18 USC 487 was conflicted when the Hobby Protection Act (HPA) was later enacted. The HPA allows molds and dies to be manufactured and used, even when they have a likeness to US coins and are without the word "COPY" on them. If 18 USC 487 was the only relevant statute, then the maker of every reproduction coin (even those marked "COPY") would be in violation. The maker of every casino token that says "One Dollar" on it would be in violation. The maker of every silver round that has "Liberty" on it, regardless of the design, would also be in violation.

 

It's finally time for me to go back and answer some of the blocked posts. As for "ego," I meant the last line about great minds as a joke. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else on these forums thinks of me personally or professionally. I post not for you, but to correct blatant misinformation that is being spread. I will continue to do so without apology.

 

Okay so you apparently blocked me for under an hour and then it was time for you to grace me with your presence? As I said ego. Sorry if your fee fees are hurt

 

Dan you are absolutely correct that intent to defraud is required under the Title 18 statues for selling the counterfeit coins (but not for producing). I had selling on my mind from my other hypothetical and inadvertently used the wrong word. That's what I get for trying to water down the example for another poster... Sorry for any confusion generated.

I never denied that 18 U.S.C. 487 applies only to the coin dies. The coin statute is 18 U.S.C. 485. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I thought 18 U.S.C. 487 applies to the resulting coins and not the dies.

The HPA specifically announces Congress's intent not to repeal any existing law or otherwise restrict existing remedies. As a matter of statutory interpretation, I think that argument fails. The only problem I see is that the HPA federal regulations (written by the FTC) only apply to one side of the coin and not both. I think that is an issue that absolutely should and needs to be addressed. I do not think, however, that it exonerates someone who doesn't mark any dies or either side with the word copy. Even in the absence of Congress's express statement of intent not to repeal existing laws or regulations, it is well established that repeal by implication is not favored.

P.S. It is also established that when FTC rules conflict with Congressional provisions, the rules are void which would settle the matter but would not override 18 U.S.C. 487. The next time the FTC solicits public comments, I will be sure to bring up the issue. I know that at one time Coin World suggested that the word "COPY" be required on both sides, but it wasn't framed as a potential conflict with 18 U.S.C. 487.

 

If you're suggesting these threads sometimes resemble an asylum, never forget, all you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people.

 

I can only deal with a limited amount of poor logic in any short period. It makes my brain hurt.

 

@Coinchemistry 2012, remind me, what's the definition of insanity again? You should know it well

 

Won't happen this time, this thread Will die out after just a couple posts, as there have been numerous, argumentative, legality threads previously that got nowhere. I believe that we are well beyond being baited into another. I have Faith in the this forums collective intelligence, that this will not be the case this time for sure.​

 

These threads will drive you crazy sometimes.

 

Arguing with non-lawyers about the law on Coin Talk when you know that you are correct as a matter of law.

 

Such wisdom and optimism... I wouldn't hold my breath.

I would not post to DCarr threads if people would stop making false statements about the law or suggesting that the pieces have been legitimated. At best, his supporters can argue that it is an open/unsettled matter, but when I see people unequivocally proclaiming legality, it makes me sick.