Question about Daniel Carr offerings

NORFED "Liberty Dollars" are widely collected and are "original numismatic items" in their own right. As such, buying and selling of them is not restricted by the HPA.
Manufacturing of them was not an issue either. Uttering them as legal tender is what resulted in legal action.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Laughable to think that he or anyone one else arguing the coins should be marked are misleading people. I myself have continually posted the relevant excerpts to case law as well as provided links so people can go read the Int Gold Bullion case and the updated language of the hobby protection act for themselves. And those aren't just our opinions we keep stating they were also the opinions of the court. I'm starting to think that most people haven't read the HPA itself at this point let alone the HPA in combination with the ruling of the FTC case.

 

I am not going to argue with you either. You are incorrect to suggest that I am trolling this thread or that I am trying to impose my personal opinions on others. Ironically, the latter is exactly what Carr supporters do when they suggest that the issues have been settled, that his pieces are unequivocally legal, or that the FTC has legitimated Carr's works through a "new HPA" as some have erroneously suggested in other recent threads. This is about ensuring that new collectors have access to relevant information before making financial decisions to purchase one of his pieces.

New posters (and nonmembers who merely read but do not participate here) have the right to read the relevant statutes and case law for themselves before spending large sums of money on Carr's pieces, especially since the 2014 amendments to the HPA could make the pieces more difficult to sell in the future (at least openly in large coin sales venues). To suggest that it is unreasonable to respond to misrepresentations made by others or to allow those with obvious self-interest in the discussion to drown out relevant information is unreasonable. I will continue to post as I have until this matter is adjudicated by the FTC or a federal court. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore me; it will generate fewer replies and leave less fluff in Carr threads.

As for your other comments, I left the legal profession almost two years ago for personal reasons. My previous work focused on state and federal appellate advocacy (mostly state) including questions of statutory interpretation. My success rate in having petitions for appeal granted by my state supreme court was a bit above 70% (better than double the state average).

As for those demanding my CV/resume, I have ignored the request because I find it asinine. I do not feel the need to justify myself to individuals that have limited or no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. I don't care if you disagree with me. Carr supporters are not my target audience.

 

Then why does the trial judge spend time in his opinion discussing 18 U.S.C. 485 as it relates to the production of counterfeit coins while emphasizing that the prosecution is not required to prove an intent to defraud for production of counterfeits? Even dicta in court opinions has a purpose that is related to the case before the court.

 

It is beyond laughable. It is absurd and asinine. Since when do FTC opinions and court opinions qualify as my personal opinion? I already stated that if I was a legislature, I would work to ban all imitation numismatic items regardless of whether the pieces are marked or not. This would moot everything. That is not the argument that I have made in this thread.

 

Intent to defraud was an integral part of the GBI case, which the FTC cited. And the FTC, as the administrator of the HPA, apparently considers intent as an important factor.

* GBI struck the Wilhelm gold coin type on anonymous blanks, and then marketed them as official German Mint restrikes.

* I altered existing genuine coins and marketed them as privately-altered novelties that were not copies of original numismatic items.

The more you call that a trivial difference, the more trivial your opinion becomes.

 

Of course the judge would talk about 18 U.S.C. 485. Uttering was at the core of the VonNothaus trial. However, that entire case was severely flawed.
Ask yourself this question:
Why was Sunshine Minting Company (the outfit that actually manufactured the NORFED Liberty Dollars) never charged with any crime and never had any of their equipment or materials confiscated ?

 

Well the FTC disagrees with you, or at least more importantly, the record does not show a fraudulent intent:

There is no evidence in the record that they [respondents] have sought to mislead anyone, and one may presume that their violations resulted until January 10, 1975 or so from ignorance of the law, and thereafter, at most, from good faith disagreement with the views of the FTC staff that they were violating it.

In re Gold bullion at 92 F.T.C. 224 (1977)

Also, regarding your argument that you don't need to worry about what becomes of your wares on the secondary market:

Although respondents have repeatedly insisted that they cannot be responsible for the sharp practice of others, that is precisely their responsibility under the law. Congress when it enacted the Hobby Protection Act, was specifically concerned with the problem of unidentified copies of originals that might be sold initially with disclosure of their counterfeit status, but could then be resold without such disclosure.

Id. at 92 F.T.C. 226

 

So there it is.
You would deny your fellow collectors the freedom to collect what they want, simply because you crave the power to enforce your own opinions and views as to how things should be.

 

It is amusing that you ultimately conclude that all of the court opinions and FTC opinions are flawed when they disagree with you. You said the same thing about the Delmarco decision which slammed one of your designs. And yes, I know the actual producers of the WTC coins did engage in shoddy marketing, but the FTC and ultimately the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit analyzed YOUR design and found it to violate the HPA.

 

If I were a legislator, I would introduce legislation to ban all imitation numismatic items. Apparently the FTC lacks the resources to administer the HPA efficiently, and it is not functioning as Congress intended. It would end all of the shoddy imitation crap you see on TV and would stop others who serially abuse the HPA.

 

GBI clearly marketed their product as "German Mint restrikes".

My fantasy-date over-strikes are alterations to existing coins, not "counterfeits".
That makes your entire argument impotent.

 

The pieces are "reproductions, copies, or counterfeits" as those terms appear in the HPA, yes. And again, you ignore the FTC's opinion and are now trying to rewrite the facts of the case. The FTC expressly stated it found no evidence of an intent to defraud in the GBI case. That is fact or the only facts that matter to the precedential value of that opinion.

Will you try to frivolously distinguish the case next on the basis that the GBI coins were made of gold and yours are made of silver? That is as significant as the distinctions you are trying to make. There is no intent to defraud element in the HPA. The HPA applies to altered original numismatic items per the plain meaning of the definition before. Why is this so hard?

 

It is ridiculous to believe that Congress intended to ban the use of "In God We Trust" on private tokens and medals. Millions of casino tokens have "One Dollar" on them. Congress did not intend to ban that either.

It was the deceptive marketing that the case was all about. Lacking that, there never would have been any litigation.

 

A fantasy-date over-strike is not an "unidentified copy".

 

Hi, you obviously are trying to protect people's best interests, but I believe your efforts are needed much more on EBAY, whose sellers are outright deceiving people by selling counterfeit coins, blatantly attempting to deceive the public. At least Mr. Carr's restrikes are sold with all knowledge stating that they are Not a real U.S. Mint produced coin, rather, a restruck fantasy piece. Please use your knowledge to help the ones in immediate need of assistance. If that is your actual intention. Thanks.

 

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that a fantasy-date over-strike is an alteration to an existing coin and the result does not purport to be an original numismatic item (because it has a fantasy date on it) ?

 

That must be why the court spent time analyzing the coin/round specifically and found that the design violated the law.

Apparently it isn't enough to attempt to rewrite the law in your favor; you now seek to blatantly rewrite the facts of court cases to suit you. How do you contend that there was an intent to defraud that was important to the FTC (as you stated and excerpted below) when the FTC expressly said there was no intent to defraud? Maybe your supporters will wake up and see through your chicanery. Red flags should go up even for the most oblivious sycophant when you try to amend the factual record before a court or other tribunal to suit your argument.

 

Because the FTC says that fantasy dates are not sufficient enough to deprive the status of such pieces as imitation numismatic items. The only difference is the overstrike issue, but the HPA specifically states that it includes altered coins. As such, the overstrike distinction is more bunk.

 

EBay is on my radar too. That doesn't mean that I should ignore Carr.