Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Non-lawyers? Now hold on. I watched that one guy on that one show, so I feel very confident in my legal expertise. I rest my case!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Remind me to hire you for my future wife if I ever get future divorced

 

The leading numismatic organization in the country has stated their opinion: Lacking any attempt to deceive, there is no problem. This is very relevant to the discussion. It would also be relevant evidence if there was ever a trial.

Outlines of the original host coin are visible on the over-strikes. That would not be the case if the host coins were completely flattened.

A coin loses its legal-tender status when it is no longer accepted as a form of payment.

Take a dollar coin and flatten it with a hammer until all the details are gone. You can legally go out and present the coin as one dollar legal tender and as payment. You have violated no laws in doing so. However, the other party has no legal obligation that they must accept that particular form (or any other form) of payment. They may refuse the flattened coin, at which point it has become an unacceptable coin. But you can still legally take it around and see if anyone would accept it as a legal tender dollar. As a last recourse, you could submit it to the US Mint via their mutilated coin redemption program. If the Mint can determine the legitimacy of the coin (by weight and composition), they will redeem it for a dollar (although you may need to have some minimum quantity of such things to submit at once).

Regarding 18 USC 485:
In producing fantasy-date over-strikes I am altering existing coins for novelty purposes. I am not "falsely making", "forging", or "counterfeiting".

When read together, everything as a whole (including statutes, court cases, professional opinions) points to:
Fraudulent intent -> Illegal.
No fraudulent intent -> Not illegal.

You have not cited a single relevant case that did not involve fraudulent intent.

 

This seems to prove Carrs work is just fine, the norfed dollars are legal to own.

 

I can understand about your limited processing ability. Your opinions have been contradicted by yourself.

 

I have a hard time believing you are a lawyer. But since you "are" please give us your resume so we can contract the perfect never lost a case ever lawyer for our needs.

 

It seems to me that is your opinion/interpretation of the law.

 

That's not consistent with the Lissner case cited before. Your response in the other thread (it may have been on another coin forum) was that you didn't agree with the court's decision, and that it should be revisited. There is a difference in arguing for what the law should be and then ignoring existing case law.

Your process destroys the host coin. You are in fact striking a brand new coin without authorization from the government. Only the federal government has the power to coin money; therefore, I don't see how you can contend that you are not falsely making pieces in the resemblance or similitude of U.S. coinage.

As for intent, did you read the court's opinion in Von Nothaus on the defendant's motion to acquit? Although there were uttering charges, Von Nothaus was also charged with designing and the court opinion goes to great lengths to explain that intent is not required for the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485. There are also the two court of appeals cases that were discussed in other threads (NOT Wilson).

 

Reality check, when did your opinion ever make a difference....the answer is never.

 

"As a matter of statutory interpretation, I think that argument fails."

This seems to be the central point? I do not doubt your opinion or thoughts.

 

Try this:
Take a genuine series 1996 $100 note and print a little "1998" over the 1996.
Then send it to the Secret Service and see if they care.

PS:
I've asked you before, please address me as "dcarr" or "Sir" or "Mr. Carr". We are not on a first-name basis, unless you are willing to tell everyone here your actual name and all other pertinent details about yourself.

This goes for the moderator as well.

 

As an owner of a single Carr piece (the regular Morgan) and now considering the prooflike Morgan, my main concern is whether it is legal to own them.
As a buyer, I am confident that they are legal to own. For the sake of this thread that is all that I think is relevant.

 

So much for your prior claim that you wished no "ill will" towards me. Yea right.

And when would "ignorance of the law" be a defense anyway ?

 

I will not call you "Mr. Carr" or "sir." I will call you Carr or some generic adjective as the context requires.

 

I didn't initially. As I see more and more people producing counterfeits and/or HPA non-compliant pieces and parroting your arguments, my views of you have changed. My views also changed when you wrote that you felt unconcerned about people that could be fooled or cheated by others using your pieces in the future. Your mentality is basically caveat emptor, which I think is cold and heartless, especially given the close attention to detail that you used when making your pieces. I do not think it is unreasonable that people will be fooled by your pieces and harmed in the future. Whether they are naïve or not, I don't want to see anyone cheated. I do wish that the relevant government authorities would do their jobs and shut down your business.

 

That is not actually correct. I have never been contacted in any way about my activities by the Secret Service or any other government agency.

 

The pieces are legal to own as long as you don't have an intent to use the pieces for fraudulent purposes. Ditto for contemporary counterfeits (like Henning nickels and Omega gold pieces) discussed in other threads.

 

You just exposed yourself as a googler. Lawyers would never make something so personal

 

Your argument is absurd, how is anyone going to be cheated? Seems to me that you just don't like Mr Carr personally for whatever reason. Which is very mean spirited and bad for our hobby.

 

So then what is the point of arguing as you do here? If the pieces are legal to own, you are arguing law which has nothing to do with owning them, or anyone's desire to collect them.