dcarr suggestion

[dcarr]

 

I see no meaningful difference between Mr. Carr's "fantasy" strikes and the pieces produced by the Chinese.

 

What's more, Carr has even admitted in other threads on other forums that he reports Chinese produced 1964-D Peace Dollars on eBay as "counterfeits."

 

That is FALSE !

Please get it straight...

 

In a post on Coin Talk, you posted the following:

 

I'm not sure what legal recourse there is, but there have already been various Chinese fakes of some of my original-design coins. I have been able to get eBay to cancel such auctions when I see them, however. Here is my webpage where I document the Chinese fakes:

http://www.moonlightmint.com/fakes.htm

 

The linked web page takes us straight to a discussion of the 1964-D Peace Dollars. "Fake" is a synonym for "counterfeit." If the , but again, Wilson Chinese 1964-D Peace Dollars are "fake" (i.e. counterfeit) then so are yours. The only difference is that your fantasy pieces are struck over U.S Peace Dollarsstands for the proposition that overstriking a genuine coin does not de jure remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes if the other elements of the statute are met. I don't see how else (other than overstriking them on a Peace Dollar) you can legally distinguish your coins. Do you claim to know Alibaba's intent? Or is it that you know deep down that your critics are correct: The only intent relevant is that you intended to strike coins that strongly resemble original coin designs?

 

Screenshot of post in question.

 

Did you not read the part where I wrote "my original-design coins" ?

 

In that paragraph you quoted, I was writing about the Amero coins that were my original-design coins which were being copied by Chinese makers (a copyright violation since I hold the copyright for those designs). I was not writing about the Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars in that paragraph because that is not my original design (other than the "64" font style).

 

The web page that was linked shows various Peace dollar design items at the top, but most of that page is devoted to showing the Chinese Amero copies.

 

Below is the reasoning behind the judge's ruling in the Wilson case, which I will dissect here:

 

5

However, we agree with the government that although a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331 for mutilating or defacing a coin probably occurred when the coin was made into a blank, at which time it was no longer a coin at all, counterfeiting within the meaning of Sec. 485 took place when the blank was restruck with the counterfeit dies. United States v. Lissner, 12 F. 840 (C.C.Mass.1882); Reg. v. Hermann, 4 Q.B.D. 284. Therefore, the United States could charge the defendants with a violation of either Sec. 331 or Sec. 485, or both, as it saw fit. United States v. Hancock, 441 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1971).

 

First, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331:

US Mint web page, text for 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331

There MUST be fraudulent intent, or an intent to deceive, for there to be a violation of this statute. Turning a coin into a flat washer is not illegal. But if you deface a coin with the intent to use it to defraud later, then there is a violation.

 

Second, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485:

Text of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485

A violation of the first paragraph of this statute, requires a situation where a person either "falsely makes", "forges", or "counterfeits" a legal tender coin or bar.

"Falsely Makes": Arguably, this does not apply because the act of over-striking is a defacement of an existing coin, not a making of a new coin. More importantly, the qualifier "falsely" indicates a necessary element of deceptive intent. "False" is the opposite of "True". "Untrue" is equivalent to "False". By substitution, "Untruthfully Makes" also requires an element of deception, as in not being truthful concerning the origins of the coin. A fantasy date is not deceptive to collectors because the date is a focal point in determining the value of a coin.

"Forges": This requires forgery, an intentional deception, for their to be a violation. THIS is what Wilson was in violation of.

"Counterfeits": See "Falsely Makes" above.

The second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485 clearly indicates that fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of that paragraph.

 

Notes:

In the Wilson case, the Judge wrote that once the coin was made into a blank, it ceased being a coin. It certainly seems logical that such an item would cease to be an acceptable coin, since no one is under the obligation to accept a form of legal tender that they don't want to accept. The judge did not indicate that the flattened [former] coin ceased to be legal tender, only that it ceased to be an acceptable "coin".

 

In other words:

A legal-tender coin will remain legal-tender for the original face value, no matter what has happened to it, but only so long as someone is willing to accept it as legal tender.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

 

First, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331:

US Mint web page, text for 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331

There MUST be fraudulent intent, or an intent to deceive, for there to be a violation of this statute. Turning a coin into a flat washer is not illegal. But if you deface a coin with the intent to use it to defraud later, then there is a violation.

 

We agree, and I have never argued your pieces violate 18 U.S.C. 331.

 

Second, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485:

Text of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485

A violation of the first paragraph of this statute, requires a situation where a person either "falsely makes", "forges", or "counterfeits" a legal tender coin or bar.

"Falsely Makes": Arguably, this does not apply because the act of over-striking is a defacement of an existing coin, not a making of a new coin. More importantly, the qualifier "falsely" indicates a necessary element of deceptive intent. "False" is the opposite of "True". "Untrue" is equivalent to "False". By substitution, "Untruthfully Makes" also requires an element of deception, as in not being truthful concerning the origins of the coin. A fantasy date is not deceptive to collectors because the date is a focal point in determining the value of a coin.

"Forges": This requires forgery, an intentional deception, for their to be a violation. THIS is what Wilson was in violation of.

"Counterfeits": See "Falsely Makes" above.

The second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485 clearly indicates that fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of that paragraph.

 

 

I simply cited Wilson for the proposition that using a planchet derived from a genuine coin does not render 18 U.S.C. 485 inoperable, which seems to be the basis on one of your key defenses. There is no question that the defendants in Wilson had a nefarious intent; I agree. The court never addressed in Wilson whether intent was required under 18 U.S.C. 485. My intent arguments were predicated on other cases that state that the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485 (the production offenses) do not require intent for a conviction but that the second paragraph (the uttering offenses) do require an intent.

 

Notes:

In the Wilson case, the Judge wrote that once the coin was made into a blank, it ceased being a coin. It certainly seems logical that such an item would cease to be an acceptable coin, since no one is under the obligation to accept a form of legal tender that they don't want to accept. The judge did not indicate that the flattened [former] coin ceased to be legal tender, only that it ceased to be an acceptable "coin".

 

In other words:

A legal-tender coin will remain legal-tender for the original face value, no matter what has happened to it, but only so long as someone is willing to accept it as legal tender.

 

Not exactly. I cited a case in the last Carr thread (linked somewhere above) concerning when a coin loses legal tender status that would seem to apply to fantasy pieces and the coins in Wilson. I don't think your pieces are legally distinguishable from those in Wilson if a question of legal tender status comes into play.

[dcarr]

 

First, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331:

US Mint web page, text for 18 U.S.C. Sec. 331

There MUST be fraudulent intent, or an intent to deceive, for there to be a violation of this statute. Turning a coin into a flat washer is not illegal. But if you deface a coin with the intent to use it to defraud later, then there is a violation.

 

We agree, and I have never argued your pieces violate 18 U.S.C. 331.

 

Second, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485:

Text of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485

A violation of the first paragraph of this statute, requires a situation where a person either "falsely makes", "forges", or "counterfeits" a legal tender coin or bar.

"Falsely Makes": Arguably, this does not apply because the act of over-striking is a defacement of an existing coin, not a making of a new coin. More importantly, the qualifier "falsely" indicates a necessary element of deceptive intent. "False" is the opposite of "True". "Untrue" is equivalent to "False". By substitution, "Untruthfully Makes" also requires an element of deception, as in not being truthful concerning the origins of the coin. A fantasy date is not deceptive to collectors because the date is a focal point in determining the value of a coin.

"Forges": This requires forgery, an intentional deception, for their to be a violation. THIS is what Wilson was in violation of.

"Counterfeits": See "Falsely Makes" above.

The second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 485 clearly indicates that fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of that paragraph.

 

 

I simply cited Wilson for the proposition that using a planchet derived from a genuine coin does not render 18 U.S.C. 485 inoperable, which seems to be the basis on one of your key defenses. There is no question that the defendants in Wilson had a nefarious intent; I agree. The court never addressed in Wilson whether intent was required under 18 U.S.C. 485. My intent arguments were predicated on other cases that state that the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 485 (the production offenses) do not require intent for a conviction but that the second paragraph (the uttering offenses) do require an intent.

 

Notes:

In the Wilson case, the Judge wrote that once the coin was made into a blank, it ceased being a coin. It certainly seems logical that such an item would cease to be an acceptable coin, since no one is under the obligation to accept a form of legal tender that they don't want to accept. The judge did not indicate that the flattened [former] coin ceased to be legal tender, only that it ceased to be an acceptable "coin".

 

In other words:

A legal-tender coin will remain legal-tender for the original face value, no matter what has happened to it, but only so long as someone is willing to accept it as legal tender.

 

Not exactly. I cited a case in the last Carr thread (linked somewhere above) concerning when a coin loses legal tender status that would seem to apply to fantasy pieces and the coins in Wilson. I don't think your pieces are legally distinguishable from those in Wilson if a question of legal tender status comes into play.

 

I suppose the ultimate test of the legal tender status of a coin is whether or not the US Mint will redeem it at face value. The US Mint's mutilated coin redemption program is currently suspended for six months while new policies are being considered. It appears that the Mint was defrauded by large-scale redemption of mutilated Chinese counterfeits. Prior to this temporary suspension, the US Mint would redeem worn and mutilated coins. The latter by weight. Even fused (melted) lumps of coins would be redeemed if they could be determined to be of US Mint origin (total weight of lump, divided by average weight per coin, equals total number of coins). However, the US Mint only redeems current composition coins. Silver coins are excluded from this program. So what is the legal-tender status of silver coins if the US Mint won't redeem them ? They are legal tender only so far as someone is willing to accept them as legal tender.

 

As far as I know, there is no legal threshold of how much damage/mutilation a coin can endure and still remain legal tender. Is a carved "hobo" nickel still legal tender ? Is a "love token" legal tender ? Is an unrecognizable corroded zinc disk dug out of the ground still legal tender ? Yes, but only so far as someone is willing to accept it as legal tender.

 

In the Wilson case, the Judge wrote that the dime stopped being a "coin" once it was flattened. How much flattening would be required to cause it to cease being a coin ? A little bit ? Certainly, this is not much different than a little bit of wear, so it would still be a "coin". A lot ? How flattened were the Wilson dimes ? So flat that no design details at all were still visible ? What if the dime is flattened a moderate amount, pretty flat but the design detail outlines were still readily visible ?