Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2574344, member: 28107&quot;]But again, you are cherry picking the record and not telling the full story.&nbsp; Von Nothaus was&nbsp; convicted of uttering, but he was also convicted of designing and producing the coins which are separate offenses even under the same statute.&nbsp; That is clear legally. The court then analyzed his arguments under the production/design portion of the statute and rejected arguments that are on par with your arguments especially regarding intent and the items not looking like genuine issues.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for Delmarco, again, yes, they did other stuff, but it wasn&#039;t the only violation in the proceeding.&nbsp; If you look at that decision, the court specifically addressed your design for the coin and found that the design itself was a violation of the HPA.</p><p><br /></p><p>Overstriking a coin doesn&#039;t meaningfully distinguish Delmarco either as the plain meaning of the language of the HPA and the relevant Code of Federal Regulations sections unequivocally provide that alterations of this nature are also imitation numismatic items so as to invoke the marking requirement, and then there is the case law that you ignore that says that overstriking genuine coins is not enough to remove the resulting pieces from the counterfeiting statutes IF the remainder of the elements of the offense are there.&nbsp; You can argue about the other elements all you want, but overstriking a genuine coin itself does not in and of itself render the resulting coin legitimate and not-counterfeit.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit:</p><p>Wait a minute... How did I end up being baited into responding to your works again in this thread?&nbsp; I was trying to be nice to the OP, but cannot allow you to spread misinformation.[/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