Dcarr over strike question. 1 1

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Yeah sorry, I missed your response Mr.mcknowitall. These threads tend to be like the wheels of a school bus so I don't check in on them frequently. Plus any response I can give, Dan can, has and wiil, ad naseum, dish out much proper retorts than I could.

 

As to your last paragraph, if said person(s) can do it on Dans level of skill and uses authentic coins as planchet then more power to them. Nothing like compitition to spur greater advances. And I would defiantly be a buyer. That's like saying because I have a Banksey on my wall I wouldn't buy an Alec monopoly or Shepard Fairey. If their skill is on par with Dan's then bring it on but I doubt that's going to happen. The only caviot is that if they flooded the market I would probably pass as rarity is a big key, and Dan knows this. He could pound out gazillions and take the money and run but doesn't and for good reason.

 

This all boils down to one thing, Art. If you see him as an artist you're a fan, if you erroneously see him as a counterfiter you're not. What irks me though is the incessant vitriol being rehashed over and over by the "haters". I think Dan should bring defamation suits to all the ad naseum haters but then again that would be counter intuitive

 

Thank you for your response.

 

Try to leave room in your heart for the hobbyists that genuinely question the legality of the pieces, that are not, using your description, haters.

 

This issue should be discussed until resolved. Of course there may be persons that would not be entirely supportive of whatever the resolving of the issue is, but it would elevate the issue from questionable legality to settled legality (or settled illegality as the case may be).

 

Mr. Carr could very easily put this matter to rest. He has not decided to do so at this time.

 

Concerning your answer to my last paragraph question, you are indicating the copying of the work or using the pieces produced by Mr. Carr would not be illegal and would not warrant any civil action on the part of Mr. Carr if somebody uses his pieces and /or design and slightly modifies either and sells the pieces to the public. Is that a correct interpretation of your answer?

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Doesn't that first one "purport" to be a rare St. Gaudens nickel ?

 

No, the U.S. Mint never produced St. Gaudens five cent pieces.

 

Right. The St. Gaudens nickel was never originally produced. So the carved nickel can't reasonably purport to be one because they don't exist (other than the carving).

 

The same goes for all the various fantasy-date pieces. They can't reasonably purport to be originals of that date because the dates don't originally exist.

 

Moreover, the design does not closely mirror the design of the obverse of the Saint Gaudens Double Eagles. We do know, for a fact, that 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced by the Mint. You are restriking Peace Dollars that looks almost exactly the same to the untrained eye to an original Peace Dollar design (and imparted by unauthorized dies), and your coins carry the 1964 date and a "D" mint mark.

 

The Liberty figure on that example does closely follow the original Double Eagle.

 

We also know for a fact that the government has stated that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.

 

What is the threshold where modifications constitute "counterfeiting" ?

 

RWB posted the threshold for you and it is contained in the statute. It really isn't that difficult. Every time someone debunks one of your arguments, you move on to another argument that has been debunked. You repeatedly attempt to rewrite the statutes to add elements that are not there. This is beginning to become boring.

 

Here is the RWB post you referenced:

U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

Two points:

 

1)

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

2)

Long after the above statute was legislated, Congress passed the Hobby Protection Act, which allows (with some restrictions) the production of privately-minted pieces in similitude to US coins.

 

Note that RWB's one foray into the legal realm was a disaster for his "clients" (the Langbords). So consider that regarding any legal commentary.

 

More importantly, even if your pieces were legal to produce, doesn't it bother you that some elderly or uninformed person could be defrauded because of your pieces? Is it your position that it is their problem, and as long as you have your fun and make money then all is well?

 

First, I reject your implied premise that the fantasy-date over-strike coins are not legal to produce.

 

It is my position that if someone is intent on perpetrating a fraud, they will find some coin to do it with. Such as adding a "D" to a 1916 Mercury dime and selling it as a genuine rare 1916-D. Or substituting a 1995-P proof Silver Eagle for the rare 1995-W proof Silver Eagle in the 10th anniversary set and then selling the set to an unsuspecting buyer letting them assume the set has the proper coins in it.

 

Is the US Mint to blame for the latter example ? They enabled the scam by producing two different proof Silver Eagles in 1995, one of them being rare and issued only in the expensive set. Are you concerned that a senior citizen could be scammed by a 1995 Eagles proof set with a swapped "P" mint Silver Eagle in it ?

 

No, the Mint is not responsible of course. The person actually perpetrating the fraud is to blame.

 

With all the scams being perpetrated against senior citizens (of which I am technically one), I would like to see more action taken against boiler-room telemarketing scammers and the like.

 

.

 

What you reject is not the issue and is of course what you would state. That is not the issue.

 

It is an issue when someone words a statement in such a manner so as to seemingly present it as a forgone conclusion that wrongdoing has occurred.

 

The RWB foray is not the issue.

 

With all the legal opinions being tossed about here, the past legal experiences of the poster are noteworthy.

 

Your position on defining intent to perpetrate a fraud is interesting.

 

Could you please describe how your activity couldn't possibly be interpreted in any manner as an intent to perpetrate a fraud and/or is not fraudulent?

 

The actual fraudulent activity described in various scenarios in this thread all have one thing in common: an intent to deceive. Synonyms for "fraudulent" are: "deceitful"; "deceptive"; "crooked"; "underhanded".

 

I have been very clear in all my statements and marketing that my fantasy-date over-strikes are just that - genuine coins that I defaced for novelty purposes.

And, for example, when asked by the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors (SSDC) to write an article about the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-striking for their newsletter, I obliged of course because I'm always in favor of more information getting out there. I was awarded the A. George Mallis (of "VAM" fame) literary award for that article.

 

Thank you. The question is, is that the same definition of fraud that the law states. What has been described in this and other threads is not the issue. It is what the law states is fraud.

Stating publicly what a person is doing is not the test of compliance and/or non-compliance with the law. There can be honest intent and still be fraud under the law. There can be honest intent and still be counterfeiting under the law.

[MJ]

"Roger has a pebble in his shoe, mark"

Yes... but it's a counterfeit pebble...

 

 

Or you're wearing counterfeit shoes

 

mark

[Afterword]

I would think it likely that the Attorney General would not wish to answers questions regarding the legality of anything that would require a full investigation in order to make a comprehensive determination of same. I doubt very seriously that the Attorney General would offer a declaration of legal or illegal based on the information provided by Carr or one of his detractors.

 

However, he/she might initiate an investigation in to the matter based on said information, but the answer to the question of legality would likely not be forthcoming until after an official investigation was conducted, if indeed the information provided justified such action.

[PocketArt]

This is a bit of a segway here from the legal discourse by forum members in regards to Dan Carr's pieces. About that article that HT posted...

 

I didn't read any condemnation of Dan Carr's pieces, I didn't read any call to arms with pursuing a legal rendering with what he produces, and I didn't get the impression that the buyer of the '22 D Walker was harmed financially.

 

What I did read was Mr. Fahey's willingness to share Mr. Carr's work with the buyer, and to educate the buyer about modern fantasy coins.

 

Also, the many accolades Mr. Fahey wrote concerning Mr. Carr, that of which the managing editor of Coin World obviously cleared, were done to convey the legitimacy of the Moonlight Mint. Not to condemn.

 

I see these previous arguments as behind the curve, and seven years too late.

 

Rich

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by PocketArt

[numisport]

I like DCARR'S work and would like to see another run of high grade '64-D Peace Dollars.

[coinman_23885]

According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

 

I never liked Chuck-E- Cheese anyway. I knew the rat was trouble.

 

I hold Whack-A-Mole records in eight states

 

mark

 

Very impressive!

[coinman_23885]

I would think it likely that the Attorney General would not wish to answers questions regarding the legality of anything that would require a full investigation in order to make a comprehensive determination of same. I doubt very seriously that the Attorney General would offer a declaration of legal or illegal based on the information provided by Carr or one of his detractors.

 

However, he/she might initiate an investigation in to the matter based on said information, but the answer to the question of legality would likely not be forthcoming until after an official investigation was conducted, if indeed the information provided justified such action.

 

The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest. The AG should not issue advisory opinions to private citizens. The proper way to handle this would be to file a suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the pieces putatively are not in violation of the HPA, Title 18 statutes, or their progeny and analogs. He could also seek an injunction against prosecution. The result would be binding on all parties to the suit. This would be easy to do. In fact, regardless of your views on the issue, it is what he should have done prior to striking the pieces rather than sending generic emails to government entities that are not empowered to render binding interpretations of law.

 

This has been suggested to Carr in the past, and if he had any interest in addressing the issue of legality, he would have done so by now. I even gave him a reference case that he could pull in PACER to see where the process has been used in the past and where he would have access to all opinions, briefs, and official pleadings filed in the Boggs counterfeiting/fantasy money case (discussed in the other thread that I linked several pages ago) to give him a head start.

Edited August 30, 2016 by coinman_23885

[Afterword]

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

[coinman_23885]

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

Edited August 30, 2016 by coinman_23885

[dcarr]

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

 

At the time, I had already distributed some of the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars. That is why Coin World initiated the article on them. Also prior to my conversation with the US Attorney, my 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were already being offered as well. When I talked to him, I relayed the specific scenario of over-striking existing coins to give them non-existent fantasy dates and selling them as novelty items. After discussing and contemplating the situation for a couple minutes, the US Attorney stated that they would not provide an opinion on that.

 

[Afterword]

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

 

At the time, I had already distributed some of the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars. That is why Coin World initiated the article on them. Also prior to my conversation with the US Attorney, my 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were already being offered as well. When I talked to him, I relayed the specific scenario of over-striking existing coins to give them non-existent fantasy dates and selling them as novelty items. After discussing and contemplating the situation for a couple minutes, the US Attorney stated that they would not provide an opinion on that.

 

 

Did you give him information about your website or Moonlight Mint or any other means he could use to follow up on the matter? Did he ask for any of this information?

 

Not that you should disclose it here on this forum, but do you retain the name of this US Attorney in the unlikely event you should someday need proof of your attempt to determine the legality of your enterprise?

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Afterword

[dcarr]

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

 

At the time, I had already distributed some of the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars. That is why Coin World initiated the article on them. Also prior to my conversation with the US Attorney, my 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were already being offered as well. When I talked to him, I relayed the specific scenario of over-striking existing coins to give them non-existent fantasy dates and selling them as novelty items. After discussing and contemplating the situation for a couple minutes, the US Attorney stated that they would not provide an opinion on that.

 

 

Did you give him information about your website or Moonlight Press or any other means he could use to follow up on the matter? Did he ask for any of this information?

 

Not that you should disclose it here on this forum, but do you retain the name of this US Attorney in the unlikely event you should someday need proof of your attempt to determine the legality of your enterprise?

 

I'd have to look through my old notes to see if I wrote anything down.

He did not ask for any specific information beyond the scenarios I relayed to him. But I did provide my contact information.

 

[Afterword]

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

 

At the time, I had already distributed some of the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars. That is why Coin World initiated the article on them. Also prior to my conversation with the US Attorney, my 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were already being offered as well. When I talked to him, I relayed the specific scenario of over-striking existing coins to give them non-existent fantasy dates and selling them as novelty items. After discussing and contemplating the situation for a couple minutes, the US Attorney stated that they would not provide an opinion on that.

 

 

Did you give him information about your website or Moonlight Press or any other means he could use to follow up on the matter? Did he ask for any of this information?

 

Not that you should disclose it here on this forum, but do you retain the name of this US Attorney in the unlikely event you should someday need proof of your attempt to determine the legality of your enterprise?

 

I'd have to look through my old notes to see if I wrote anything down.

He did not ask for any specific information beyond the scenarios I relayed to him. But I did provide my contact information.

 

 

Your name and contact information would be sufficient to conduct an investigation if it were determined that there was a need to do so.

 

Take from that what you will.

 

The longevity and success of your enterprise, combined with the support of many, if not most of the numismatic community, and the full disclosure of exactly what it is that you do, and the fact that there has been not one reported instance of fraud related to your products in all of this time....

 

You can also take that for what it is worth.

 

As for me, if I were you, I would not give the time of day to a few detractors on a message board.

 

[dcarr]

Your name and contact information would be sufficient to conduct an investigation if it were determined that there was a need to do so.

 

Take from that what you will.

 

The longevity and success of your enterprise, combined with the support of many, if not most of the numismatic community, and the full disclosure of exactly what it is that you do, and the fact that there has been not one reported instance of fraud related to your products in all of this time....

 

You can also take that for what it is worth.

 

And even if I hadn't provided my contact information during that phone call, every major numismatic publication ran articles about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars in 2010. All of those articles included my name.

 

As for me, if I were you, I would not give the time of day to a few detractors on a message board.

 

I come to the message boards to look around anyway. So if I see what I think is misleading or incorrect information, I may as well set the record straight.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Your name and contact information would be sufficient to conduct an investigation if it were determined that there was a need to do so.

 

Take from that what you will.

 

The longevity and success of your enterprise, combined with the support of many, if not most of the numismatic community, and the full disclosure of exactly what it is that you do, and the fact that there has been not one reported instance of fraud related to your products in all of this time....

 

You can also take that for what it is worth.

 

And even if I hadn't provided my contact information during that phone call, every major numismatic publication ran articles about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars in 2010. All of those articles included my name.

 

As for me, if I were you, I would not give the time of day to a few detractors on a message board.

 

I come to the message boards to look around anyway. So if I see what I think is misleading or incorrect information, I may as well set the record straight.

 

That is a little bit disingenuous on your part. Are you implying that persons that have concerns about the legality of the pieces you produce and that is incorrect? You suggest this, yet have not formally presented the issue to the U.S. Government via your Attorney, and have continuously avoided the questions concerning whether your Attorney reviewed you business plan and activities and advised you your pursuits were in accordance with present U.S. law.

 

If your activities have not been adjudicated, how would an Attorney be able to advise you that you are in compliance?What is misleading or incorrect and what record has to be set straight, other than your formally approaching the U.S. Government via your Attorney to set the record straight?

 

Differences of opinions are one thing. Your declared Righteousness and implying that those with questions and different opinions are incorrect or wrong or misleading, without any proof of the correctness of your opinion, except your own declarations of correctness and statements of previous public awareness because of your activities is somehow indicative of the legality of your methods and pieces, is silly.

 

 

[numisport]

I like the comparison of DCARR's overstrikes to hobo nickels. Seems like both examples fill voids left open by too much blah, blah blah in the current scheme of our hobby.

[dcarr]

Your name and contact information would be sufficient to conduct an investigation if it were determined that there was a need to do so.

 

Take from that what you will.

 

The longevity and success of your enterprise, combined with the support of many, if not most of the numismatic community, and the full disclosure of exactly what it is that you do, and the fact that there has been not one reported instance of fraud related to your products in all of this time....

 

You can also take that for what it is worth.

 

And even if I hadn't provided my contact information during that phone call, every major numismatic publication ran articles about my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars in 2010. All of those articles included my name.

 

As for me, if I were you, I would not give the time of day to a few detractors on a message board.

 

I come to the message boards to look around anyway. So if I see what I think is misleading or incorrect information, I may as well set the record straight.

 

That is a little bit disingenuous on your part. Are you implying that persons that have concerns about the legality of the pieces you produce and that is incorrect? You suggest this, yet have not formally presented the issue to the U.S. Government via your Attorney, and have continuously avoided the questions concerning whether your Attorney reviewed you business plan and activities and advised you your pursuits were in accordance with present U.S. law.

 

If your activities have not been adjudicated, how would an Attorney be able to advise you that you are in compliance?What is misleading or incorrect and what record has to be set straight, other than your formally approaching the U.S. Government via your Attorney to set the record straight?

 

Differences of opinions are one thing. Your declared Righteousness and implying that those with questions and different opinions are incorrect or wrong or misleading, without any proof of the correctness of your opinion, except your own declarations of correctness and statements of previous public awareness because of your activities is somehow indicative of the legality of your methods and pieces, is silly.

 

 

You're going way overboard again.

Earlier in this thread there was a ridiculous comparison of my fantasy-date over-strikes to fake heart medicine. This is the type of example I was referring to, where I felt it was warranted to fully rebuff such claims:

 

Inserting pretend food into his cereal box or pretend pills into his heart medicine would be similar. Just like I can carry reference material with me and tell real from counterfeit coins he can carry around the scientific equipment needed to verify his cereal or blood pressure pills are real.

 

Not even remotely similar.

Non-essential novelty items like collectible coins are certainly not in the same class as essential items like food and medicine.

 

Regarding the production and sale of fake food and fake heart medicine, that is something that is already happening:

Deadly Fake Medicines

 

"The world’s medicine supply is under attack. From Pakistan, where 120 patients died after taking fake heart medicine, to the United States, where 32 patients died and hundreds were hospitalized because of contaminated steroids, regulators are finding their defenses overwhelmed by shoddy drug companies and organized criminal groups that make fake drugs containing no active ingredients. It is estimated that at least 100,000 people die every year from substandard and falsified medicines for cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases and other ailments."

 

People should order his product with pretend credit cards and see what he says.

 

I wouldn't even know it if they tried. All card processing is automatic and all I see is a email message for each successfully placed order.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by dcarr

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.

 

Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?

[CaptHenway]

I'll tee it up: #199

[coinman_23885]

I'll tee it up: #199

 

200

 

I couldn't resist. This thread does seem reminiscent of some from ATS several years ago.

[dcarr]

Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.

 

Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?

 

The essence of having an opinion:

"Contrasting opinions are wrong."

This applies to everyone and everything.

 

You imply that I am the only one that has an opinion in contrast to yours. That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the demand and resale value of the fantasy-date over-strikes. So your use of the term "singular" does not fit.

 

From the Random House Dictionary, the definition of "righteous":

"Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful."

That's cool.

 

My private discussions with attorneys are just that: private.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by dcarr

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.

 

Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?

 

The essence of having an opinion:

"Contrasting opinions are wrong."

This applies to everyone and everything.

 

You imply that I am the only one that has an opinion in contrast to yours. That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the demand and resale value of the fantasy-date over-strikes. So your use of the term "singular" does not fit.

 

From the Random House Dictionary, the definition of "righteous":

"Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful."

That's cool.

 

My private discussions with attorneys are just that: private.

 

Thanks.

Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.

 

As to the rest of your professorial musings, I don't mean this to be harsh, but I do not have any idea what the point is that you are attempting to convey. I do understand the deflection, though.

 

[dcarr]

Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.

 

Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?

 

The essence of having an opinion:

"Contrasting opinions are wrong."

This applies to everyone and everything.

 

You imply that I am the only one that has an opinion in contrast to yours. That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the demand and resale value of the fantasy-date over-strikes. So your use of the term "singular" does not fit.

 

From the Random House Dictionary, the definition of "righteous":

"Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful."

That's cool.

 

My private discussions with attorneys are just that: private.

 

Thanks.

Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.

 

As to the rest of your professorial musings, I don't mean this to be harsh, but I do not have any idea what the point is that you are attempting to convey. I do understand the deflection, though.

 

68% of the time I have no idea what the point is of your posts. I'm not sure if anyone else knows much of the time either (or if you even know yourself). They do seem to me that they stray into the muck a lot.

 

Getting back on course to the original intended question and topic of this thread:

 

I do not know if NGC will ever certify my fantasy-date over-strikes. They have, in the past, certified private mint issues that are seemingly legal tender (but aren't). Like this (that I've posted before):

 

[nk1nk]

Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.

 

Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?

 

The essence of having an opinion:

"Contrasting opinions are wrong."

This applies to everyone and everything.

 

You imply that I am the only one that has an opinion in contrast to yours. That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the demand and resale value of the fantasy-date over-strikes. So your use of the term "singular" does not fit.

 

From the Random House Dictionary, the definition of "righteous":

"Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful."

That's cool.

 

My private discussions with attorneys are just that: private.

 

Thanks.

Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.

 

As to the rest of your professorial musings, I don't mean this to be harsh, but I do not have any idea what the point is that you are attempting to convey. I do understand the deflection, though.

 

If you ever fall off your high horse that's going to be one hell of a fall!

[coinman_23885]

Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.

 

That is nice. I still find it hard to believe that an attorney would give him the green light on his "fantasy" strikes. At best, as even some of his supporters concede, it is a very fine line that he is attempting to walk with no room for error. Any error could have profound consequences, and any benefits that Mr. Carr receives from the striking of these pieces would seemingly be de minimis compared to the consequences of error. You would think that an attorney would recommend seeking an adjucation prior to the production and dissemination of the pieces... Oh well; I guess some attorneys (like the general population) have higher risk tolerances unless Carr omitted relevant details to his lawyer or acts against advice...

Edited September 1, 2016 by coinman_23885

[Afterword]

"If you ever fall off your high horse that's going to be one hell of a fall!"

 

 

 

A straw horse might be more appropriate, but Mr.Mcknowitall is one of the more interesting posters on these message boards - although I do miss the dancing hotdogs.

[delta]

Yet another question:

4. How will the aftermarket value of the DC fantasies be affected by a judgement they were made illegally?

 

Questions, please, for anyone who believes the Dan Carr fantasy pieces are counterfeit:

 

1. When do you predict Dan Carr will be indicted, what year, will it for example be 2017, 2020, 2025, 2050, or never?

 

2. If he's convicted, what punishment or penalties do you foresee? What do you think he really deserves?

 

3. Regarding the fantasy pieces already distributed, if declared counterfeit, do you think confiscation will be attempted by the government, and if so, under what terms?

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

All of the questions are useless speculation and designed to encourage and foment discourtesy.

 

They are excellent though, for a scandal magazine.

 

IMHO, of course.

[delta]

All of the questions are ... designed to ... foment discourtesy.

 

The only discourtesy the questions so far have elicited is from you Mr.Mcknowitall.

 

And you're wrong. The questions were designed to try injecting a little levity into the discussion, as did one poster claiming that as judge he'd sentence DC to life without parole, and also to hopefully not keep flogging the same dead horse on this topic, as several posters previously complained about, plus I had an additional motive.

 

As a patron of and advocate for DC, I hoped the questions would help people realize it's almost inconceivable he will be indicted, and practically impossible he would then be convicted, and any punishment whatsoever would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The government can never realistically confiscate his past products. Furthermore, there is already a substantial aftermarket premium for Moonlight Mint fantasies, and the publicity for them being generated by the critics has increased interest in them.