New Daniel Carr Morgan Dollar

Sheer and utter nonsense. DC is not intending to defraud the public. He states that in his description of the coin/token. Others than Danial may try to defraud, but not Danial. Fantasy pieces fall under the jurisdiction of counterfeit? If the issue is pushed to the limit I can see it landing for considering by the Supreme Court. I think they'd decline to hear the case........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It didn't stop the Secret Service in one of the cases cited.

Intent to defraud is not required to convict for making counterfeit coins and currency. This is why Bernard Von Nothaus lost. Of course, Von Nothaus even sought private counsel before his operation (based on a post trial motion). SPOILER ALERT: The courts did not care.

 

If the coin/token never was, how can it be a counterfeit? It never existed. The deception may be perpetrated by others most unscrupulous, but certainly not Dan. You detractors trying to protect the fools who buy over priced mint issues on HSN? You can't protect everyone from foolish purchases......especially ones purported as genuine. That's not Dan's fault. Hobby collectors need to do their homewor\\\

 

Because the underlying statutes are written using incredibly broad language and speak to any coin made in similitude to design or inscriptions (e.g. to include mottos/inscriptions). Von Nothaus didn't even use "IN GOD WE TRUST" but used something similar and put a denomination on it. That was enough.

Insofar as SCOTUS is concerned, the statutory language is unequivocal. Insofar as a constitutional challenge, Article I, Section 8 expressly grants Congress the sole power to coin money and gives it broad powers to punish counterfeiters and those that emulate official coin and currency designs. I think SCOTUS would reject any appeal addressing the issue as there are no circuit splits (that I can find) that would be applicable. Modern federal courts are universal in their broad interpretations of the broadly written statutes.

Edited to add: Of course when Carr chimes in, he will attempt to distinguish based on Von Nothaus seeking to circulate his pieces as an alternative currency. Von Nothaus was convicting of uttering as well; however, there were separate counts for production of counterfeiting coins that address many of the arguments proffered in support of Carr's pieces (e.g. intent to defraud requirement, designs not really that similar, etc.). It is the latter that are instructive here, not the uttering counts.

 

But I think he has a responsibility to do just that, as we all do.

 

Broad language.....meaning that it's subject to interpretation and change?

 

Any interested parties can read the analysis posted in these threads. The law seems quite clear on the matter, even if it hasn't been prosecuted yet. These three threads are extremely lengthy, and they get somewhat hostile at times, but if you filter that out, there is a very strong argument to be made for one side:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9553204#Post9553204

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9557644#Post9557644

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9485031#Post9485031

 

No, broad language meaning that it can be applied to a wide variety of issues.

 

We can't police the foolish masses......

 

Courts have been in unison for more than a century. It would shock me if it would suddenly create an exception for him. I would look forward to reading the briefs for sure though.

Carr's argument that overstriking a genuine coin removes it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes has been rejected. There is case law regarding fantasy dates (in an HPA context that still discuss the pieces as counterfeits). There is case law saying that intent to defraud is not required for conviction for the production of the pieces. There isn't really much more to argue. Reading all of the cases together, I find it hard to believe that such statutes would be found inapplicable to him.

You really should research some of the successful counterfeiting prosecutions that have resulted. Some of them are absurd, and I would have thought well beyond the language in the statute (e.g. so called Black money scams have even been prosecuted as counterfeiting operations even though I believe that is stretching it). This one doesn't even look close to me.

 

It's not the same as policing. He is actively producing a product that can become the very instrument of a deception.

 

Then I question why the old boy hasn't been 'cuffed' and arrested . and thrown into the gulag......

 

You never know what might be in the works.

 

Oh, give me a break. He's not deceiving anyone. His mandate is straight forward........

 

Plenty of people have committed, or are currently committing crimes, who aren't in jail (I'm not sure that he would go to the gulag for this, probably just have the counterfeits seized and have to pay a fine). Just because he hasn't been prosecuted yet doesn't make what he's doing right, or legal.

 

Green. I said he is actively producing what can be the very instrument of a deception. Even if HE is not the one carrying it out, he is implicated because he created/altered it.

 

Deceptions for those who don't do their homework. Or those trying to deceive.......but it ain't Dan.

 

Eating 'Chinese' tonite, but don't read nothing into it......

 

It doesn't matter legally, and I think that is what really matters when it comes to this unusual fact pattern.

 

If you don't buy the legal argument, nor the guilty by association argument. Maybe you'll buy the karma argument that folks always throw around on CT.