Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Morgandude11, post: 2246499, member: 37839&quot;]State of mind is also inferential in law, as you know.&nbsp; Were it not for interpretative precedents, there would be no revision to laws, and that happens all the time.&nbsp; Appeals Courts interpret the INTENTIONS of law all the time--it is not only conduct, but the inferences and conclusions that can be drawn from said conduct--as in what was the intention of the person at the time of the action that is called into question. There are no absolutes--otherwise, legal decisions would never be reversed predicated upon precedent and previous case law. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; To me, this is the essence of how one sees Daniel Carr&#039;s work.&nbsp; The intention is clear--he&#039;s not attempting to deceive, and pass the coins off as anything other than what they are.&nbsp; Intent resolves the entire conflict, as I see it--there is simply no fraudulent intent.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in