Try to keep the noise down

Yes, right?!? Go back and read the full link on DC'S website. Pettiness abounds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is a link to a well known coin blog wherein this EXACT issue is discussed (and the writer is none too happy, either), and it, in turn, links to the FTC's rules in the Federal Register. This IS the Dan Carr "get out of jail free" card.

http://coinsblog.ws/2016/11/ftc-update-hobby-protection-act-and-fails.html

 

I currently feed or house (the first number is WAAAAY higher) 17 of the little beasties.

 

I prefer the blind, dumb, needy love of dogs.

 

Again, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of how federal appellate courts work. They answer federal questions to set precedent for future cases. One of the questions presented in that case was whether an overstruck coin could be considered a counterfeit. The court held that it could, and did not look to intent to make the determination. As for intent, there are other cases, but you will refuse to take those at face value too.

 

Go pull the Minnesota case and read the opinion. The latter is neither here nor there. The court's reasoning was the court's reasoning.

 

The only fundamental misunderstandings here are yours, and at least two moderators on this site (Who else is not surprised by that?).

 

This doesn't say anything that wasn't already addressed here. Moreover, since when do coin blogs written by non-lawyers qualify as precedential sources?

 

Dan is using the design from original government works that are in the public domain. Dan does not own any rights to the design from his fantasy coins, and has no cause of action against others based on his non-existent intellectual property rights. Please tell me that they didn't forget to teach you intellectual property law in legislative administrative assistant boot camp.

 

The first two pages show that old FTC case is still relevant as a legal precedent and they specifically reference the exact same FTC case as being valid precedent and again state that coins must be marked.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/do...ces/2016/10/frn_hobby_final_rule_10-14-16.pdf

'Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. 21 Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.'


I mean going even further they even specifically address the comments on the matter and then notate it was Daniel Carr making those comments.

 

You miss the key point that Dan Carr was one of the few commenters on the FTC regs. He lobbied strongly about his pieces and the FTC refused to make what he does fall under the counterfeiting rules, because they're LEGALLY NOT COUNTERFEITS; they are ALTERATIONS/ And while the FTC was asked by OTHER commenters to make Fantasy ALTERATIONS (what Dan does) illegal, they DECLINED TO DO SO. So you can just keep on whistlein' Dixie, @Coinchemistry 2012 , because that's all you're doing.

Does Dan violate the SPIRIT of the HPA and/or counterfeiting? Perhaps.

Does he violate the LAW? Not only 'no', but heck 'no'!

 

There have been rebuttals that you missed. There is no "new HPA" and no new rules that affect the production of Carr's works. Here is what happened: Congress added new provisions in 2014 that targeted the sellers of HPA non compliant pieces and those who provide material assistance. The FTC acted in kind by adding a new rule. None of the previous marking requirements or definitions have changed. There is no "new ruling."

 

Are you sure they will understand this? This thread is like explaining to a group of petulant first graders that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist. (This is not directed at all those who support Carr's works, and I respect those who can have an intellectually honest exchange while disagreeing.)

 

@Coinchemistry 2012 probably not, as I first dug up that case, took a look at it and then posted it in a similar thread years ago after Doug @GDJMSP brought it up and I thought it was pretty clear cut back then.

Also here's that original FTC case which is still being used and referenced as setting precedent on the matter for anyone interested.

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/f...july_-_december_1978pages_171-273.pdf#page=26

And from page 53..

 

Yes, were Daniel Carr indeed using fresh virgin blanks, then this so-called and mis-called precedent would hold:
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/f...july_-_december_1978pages_171-273.pdf#page=26
However, since Daniel's source blanks are fully legal and monetized coins, no physical counterfeiting is being done, and we have morphed from the counterfeiting laws to the coin altering laws. Clap twice if I'm going too fast for you.

Now, since we are in the coin altering legal framework, we have a new factor - fraudulent intent is now required for a violation to occur. Inconvenient to the whiners, and moderators, here but true nonetheless. Just incidentally, if this were not true, altered 1944-D cents held by "counterfeit collectors" that were turned into 1914-D cents would be subject to confiscation, and they are not. They are absolutely legal to own, as long as they are not used with fraudulent intent.

As it is, as opposed as how @Blissskr would like to have us believe it is, all his citations to that case are misplaced. There IS NO PRECEDENT with this combination of facts. It simply does not exist!

The FTC was asked both to make what Carr does illegal, and to make it explicitly legal, and they have declined both requests, stating that they will handle them on a case by case basis, and pointing to a case that does NOT involve altered actual legal coins. So let the games begin.

So, to review:

a) Made from fresh blanks - illegal to make.
b) Altered from actual legal coins - okay to make as long as there's no fraudulent intent.
b') Avoiding fraudulent intent requirement follows each subsequent owner.

 

Burdette reminds me of the Asylum Chef from Young Einstien...

 

Underrated movie.

 

All I can find on the Minnesota case is a Denial of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and a Settlement Order. Is there anything else? Nothing binding there, except to enforce the Settlement.
14-cv-00619 (SRN/HB)

 

Remind me to "accidentally" trip him at the next ANA show. Not many people deserve the "Roy Horn Experience", but Burdette is one.

 

From your link: "Sources I contacted were not encouraged by the FTC action. It was noted that when Carr’s 1964-D Peace fantasy dollars were reported, the FTC did not take action." Hmmm