Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
Daniel Carr ?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3316257, member: 96749"]Fine.</p><p><br /></p><p>1. Yes. RWB submitted a poorly written ANA complaint based on the ANA Code of Ethics. It was dismissed based on the grounds that there had not been a legal adjudication. The ANA Code of Ethics is not the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. It is an opinion of a private hobbyist group interpreting its own charter. Some people apparently value its opinion. That too is fine. Some opinions are more persuasive and even have the binding force of law like the FTC.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. Fair enough. It is reasonable to argue whether an adverse action<b> <i>will ever occur</i></b> against him, and it may not. That is a different issue than whether an adverse action is <i><b>possible</b></i>. As we have established, not every prohibited or criminal action is prosecuted. I think I'll take the word of the Department of Justice manual for prosecutors on this over yours or anyone else on this forum: <a href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.270" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.270" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-270 00-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.270</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some may even argue that arguing about the point is frivolous and that the discussion has become academic. Perhaps it has become academic, but it is still very relevant to the hobby insofar as the HPA and other statutes are amended and the regulations reviewed every few years. Thinking through the implications of existing laws and regulations can be useful in making any changes that are necessary or desirable. I think that is a healthy discussion.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. ANACS calls them tokens. Tokens are not exempted from the HPA or the other statutes discussed. The word "token" is explicitly listed. I don't see how this is a legal opinion and more importantly why I should care about its legal opinion when the FTC has already addressed the fantasy date and intent issues.</p><p><br /></p><p>Overstrikes are fun, but if mere alteration of an original coin can trigger the marking requirements of the HPA as it does under the cited CFR section, then the overstrike issue is seemingly irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3316257, member: 96749"]Fine. 1. Yes. RWB submitted a poorly written ANA complaint based on the ANA Code of Ethics. It was dismissed based on the grounds that there had not been a legal adjudication. The ANA Code of Ethics is not the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. It is an opinion of a private hobbyist group interpreting its own charter. Some people apparently value its opinion. That too is fine. Some opinions are more persuasive and even have the binding force of law like the FTC. 2. Fair enough. It is reasonable to argue whether an adverse action[B] [I]will ever occur[/I][/B] against him, and it may not. That is a different issue than whether an adverse action is [I][B]possible[/B][/I]. As we have established, not every prohibited or criminal action is prosecuted. I think I'll take the word of the Department of Justice manual for prosecutors on this over yours or anyone else on this forum: [URL='https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.270']https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-270 00-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.270[/URL]. Some may even argue that arguing about the point is frivolous and that the discussion has become academic. Perhaps it has become academic, but it is still very relevant to the hobby insofar as the HPA and other statutes are amended and the regulations reviewed every few years. Thinking through the implications of existing laws and regulations can be useful in making any changes that are necessary or desirable. I think that is a healthy discussion. 3. ANACS calls them tokens. Tokens are not exempted from the HPA or the other statutes discussed. The word "token" is explicitly listed. I don't see how this is a legal opinion and more importantly why I should care about its legal opinion when the FTC has already addressed the fantasy date and intent issues. Overstrikes are fun, but if mere alteration of an original coin can trigger the marking requirements of the HPA as it does under the cited CFR section, then the overstrike issue is seemingly irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
Daniel Carr ?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...