Dcarr over strike question.
2 2

309 posts in this topic

9,083 posts
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.

 

 

The questions you posed would be require us to speculate, and even if we could give educated guesses as to some of the questions, the questions have no probative value whatsoever to either the original post or the side discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
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.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

Just to be honest. The majority of posts in this thread are speculative in nature, even the opening post, and several are less than courteous.

Edited by Afterword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
773 posts
... the questions have no probative value whatsoever ...

 

Well of course the questions I posed had no probative value, since they didn't consist of evidence in court proceedings. An absurd expectation for questions.

 

On the contrary I freely admitted they were leading questions. To hopefully lead anyone interested in the subject to delve into the implausible ramifications of their accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts
Mr. Carr has made it clear that everything is OK. Only a few will be swindled and it's all their fault. I feel much better knowing that.

 

Been away and looking at what I missed. I goes ta Africa for 10 days and see what happens? After perusing all of the posts since I left I think this terse post by Larry says it all and is the real point. One can argue fantasy vs. counterfeit all day, but really, one can't argue about what Larry says above - folks are going to be swindled into buying what they think is a rare US coin. I personally like the fantasy offerings by Mr. Carr, but I have a problem with the swindle issue which is why I brought it up. (tsk)

 

A side note, I saw lots and lots of diamonds - cut and raw, big and small, held fortunes in high pressure carbon crystals in my hands last Friday. But never managed to get to a coin shop to buy a Krugerrand to commemorate the visit even though there was one 2 blocks from my hotel. Looks like I will have to go back oh darn.......... ;)

 

Another side note (okay call me a troll I deserve it), looks like the boards are lit up in a McAfter sparring match. Carry on! :slapfight:

 

Best, HT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
... the questions have no probative value whatsoever ...

 

Well of course the questions I posed had no probative value, since they didn't consist of evidence in court proceedings. An absurd expectation for questions.

 

On the contrary I freely admitted they were leading questions. To hopefully lead anyone interested in the subject to delve into the implausible ramifications of their accusations.

 

So it is implausible that the United States would some day actually enforce its own laws as interpreted by federal appeals courts? If that is implausible, then this country has far more problems (legally) than just the HPA/18 USC 485-490 statutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
773 posts
... the questions have no probative value whatsoever ...

 

Well of course the questions I posed had no probative value, since they didn't consist of evidence in court proceedings. An absurd expectation for questions.

 

On the contrary I freely admitted they were leading questions. To hopefully lead anyone interested in the subject to delve into the implausible ramifications of their accusations.

 

So it is implausible that the United States would some day actually enforce its own laws as interpreted by federal appeals courts? If that is implausible, then this country has far more problems (legally) than just the HPA/18 USC 485-490 statutes.

 

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

Furthermore, the opinion of any particular lawyer or judge cannot be considered the final word in a case like this with differing interpretations. Decisions are frequently overturned, and panels of judges are often split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Mr. Carr has made it clear that everything is OK. Only a few will be swindled and it's all their fault. I feel much better knowing that.

 

Been away and looking at what I missed. I goes ta Africa for 10 days and see what happens? After perusing all of the posts since I left I think this terse post by Larry says it all and is the real point. One can argue fantasy vs. counterfeit all day, but really, one can't argue about what Larry says above - folks are going to be swindled into buying what they think is a rare US coin. I personally like the fantasy offerings by Mr. Carr, but I have a problem with the swindle issue which is why I brought it up. (tsk)

 

A side note, I saw lots and lots of diamonds - cut and raw, big and small, held fortunes in high pressure carbon crystals in my hands last Friday. But never managed to get to a coin shop to buy a Krugerrand to commemorate the visit even though there was one 2 blocks from my hotel. Looks like I will have to go back oh darn.......... ;)

 

Another side note (okay call me a troll I deserve it), looks like the boards are lit up in a McAfter sparring match. Carry on! :slapfight:

 

Best, HT

 

I'm glad you had a nice trip; it sounds like a lot of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

 

 

Have you found case law that exactly addresses Carr’s fantasies pieces? Created by someone who has been open about what they do and why they do it, both on their website and through their actions? Someone who has been in business for years creating such pieces?

 

Short of this, any case law presented would be less than compelling. Circumstances matter.

 

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You, RWB and others are the accusers, and bear that burden. However, there is no way you can prove what the verdict would be in a hypothetical trial punctuated by unknowns.

 

This leaves us with nothing but speculation on both sides of the argument, which is fine, has long as it is civil.

 

Edited by Afterword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

I have a feeling there may be an interesting presentation by you, shortly. It may or may not include Boggs and a few other interesting scenarios. Might you throw in a racketeer nickel or 2, just to lighten things up? I will throw in some Belize knockoff philatelic items, if it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

Generally speaking, charges for offences are not brought unless the prosecution has a pretty good certainty of conviction. As such, it is naturally expected that there would be some convictions and few, if any, acquittals.

 

But the court cases you mention are not applicable since none of them involve the non-fraudulent production of novelty items made from genuine US Coins.

 

My fantasy-date over-strikes essentially "incorporate" an original genuine US coin into each final product. The US Mint has guidelines posted concerning this activity:

US Mint info for businesses incorporating US Coins into products.

 

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

Generally speaking, charges for offences are not brought unless the prosecution has a pretty good certainty of conviction. As such, it is naturally expected that there would be some convictions and few, if any, acquittals.

 

But the court cases you mention are not applicable since none of them involve the non-fraudulent production of novelty items made from genuine US Coins.

 

My fantasy-date over-strikes essentially "incorporate" an original genuine US coin into each final product. The US Mint has guidelines posted concerning this activity:

US Mint info for businesses incorporating US Coins into products.

 

From your link:

 

"If you are going to modify the coins you are using in any way, you should be especially careful to consult with your attorneys on the applicability to your activities of criminal laws... While the United States Mint cannot issue interpretations of criminal statutes such as this, which fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice...."

 

Enough said.

 

Courts have also said that intent to defraud is not required for production of pieces in violation of 18 USC 485; thus, your attempt to distinguish based on intent is misguided. Courts have also said that overstriking genuine coins with unauthorized dies in the likeness of U.S. coinage can violate 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 331, or both. FYI: No one here has ever opined that you violated 18 U.S.C. 331 so your reliance on this statute is misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

 

I have a feeling there may be an interesting presentation by you, shortly. It may or may not include Boggs and a few other interesting scenarios. Might you throw in a racketeer nickel or 2, just to lighten things up? I will throw in some Belize knockoff philatelic items, if it helps.

 

I wonder if I could put together an interesting ANA exhibit of counterfeits and HPA violations throughout the years, with discussions of the law and its current evolution. I'm sure I would be labeled as the Grinch of numismatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
...is this the monthly D.Carr thread where the topic is foisted upon us to keep the fuel fed to the fires so we don't forget?

 

No. I think it's actually pretty relevant to both sides of the argument here. I think it's pretty telling that PCGS is grading these pieces. I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I highly doubt PCGS would touch these if they felt in any way they were counterfeit. That to me is worth a discussion.

 

Actually, from the thread ATS, it appears that PCGS is refusing to encapsulate Carr overstrikes at all. Do you still think the decision to slab or not is "telling"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts
...is this the monthly D.Carr thread where the topic is foisted upon us to keep the fuel fed to the fires so we don't forget?

 

No. I think it's actually pretty relevant to both sides of the argument here. I think it's pretty telling that PCGS is grading these pieces. I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I highly doubt PCGS would touch these if they felt in any way they were counterfeit. That to me is worth a discussion.

 

Actually, from the thread ATS, it appears that PCGS is refusing to encapsulate Carr overstrikes at all. Do you still think the decision to slab or not is "telling"?

 

 

 

The stance by PCGS to not grade and encapsulate Carr’s pieces is unfortunate. By doing so, they have missed an opportunity to make Carr’s pieces even less likely than they already are to be used as a means to defraud unsuspecting and gullible coin collectors.

 

If the attorney general does nothing, as has been the case so far, and with little reason to believe this will change any time soon, if ever, perhaps it is time for concerned and responsible collectors to recognize Carr’s work as legitimate collectibles - if for no other reason than to make more coin collectors aware of their existence and thereby less likely to fall for such a scam.

 

Acceptance of Carr’s work by the two top grading services would go a long way toward this end. Using these message boards as a means to make collectors aware of Carr’s pieces, in such a negative and slanderous fashion, does not. It achieves very little good when weighed against the ill-will, contempt and not-founded-in-fact accusations that it creates.

 

Considering the apparent lack of interest in the matter by the government, I see no other constructive and responsible avenue to pursue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Acceptance of Carr’s work by the two top grading services would go a long way toward this end. Using these message boards as a means to make collectors aware of Carr’s pieces, in such a negative and slanderous fashion, does not. It achieves very little good when weighed against the ill-will, contempt and not-founded-in-fact accusations that it creates.

 

It is not slander or libel; it's not even close.

 

(1) Truth is a good and absolute defense. If it is true, it is not slander or libel by definition.

(2) Sincerely held opinions are protected; note the distinction between representation of fact and expression of opinion.

(3) Even if wrong, voicing concern over questionable behavior that is of interest to the hobby lacks actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (especially in light of all of the case law) and Carr has placed himself in the numismatic lime light by producing the pieces...

 

I could go on, but why bore every one?

 

 

P.S. Here is another interesting legal question: Do Carr pieces infringe upon the copyrighted designs imparted on the planchets especially given the commercial use of the designs? Of course government works generally are in the public domain, but what if the Mint is only licensed to use the image and does not own the copyright? What other designs has Carr produced other than the Peace Dollars (the latter of which would be in the public domain)?

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
...is this the monthly D.Carr thread where the topic is foisted upon us to keep the fuel fed to the fires so we don't forget?

 

No. I think it's actually pretty relevant to both sides of the argument here. I think it's pretty telling that PCGS is grading these pieces. I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I highly doubt PCGS would touch these if they felt in any way they were counterfeit. That to me is worth a discussion.

 

Actually, from the thread ATS, it appears that PCGS is refusing to encapsulate Carr overstrikes at all. Do you still think the decision to slab or not is "telling"?

 

I absolutely do. Even though I don't agree with PCGS, it does matter. That's the whole reason I started this thread. If PCGS would have slabbed these I felt it would have been a huge plus for DCarr and those who collect his pieces. Since PCGS decided not to slab these my opinion is that from a collector stand point it's a blow to DCarr and those who collect his pieces. From a legal standpoint my opinion has not changed.

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts

PCGS currently certifies few, if any, modern privately-minted pieces.

So the "Carr" over-strikes are not treated any differently. It is still possible that the status might change at some point.

 

On the PCGS submission of one of my fantasy-date "1964" Peace Dollars, note that PCGS did NOT label it as "counterfeit" or "not genuine" or "questionable authenticity". They labeled it "ineligible for service".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,820 posts

Dcarr has accused me of libel in the past. I don't care. I'll call a spade a spade every time I see it. Let's be frank: Dcarr is a counterfeiter, and is trying to hide behind his misinterpretation of the law.

 

I really wish that someone with the knowledge and resources would actually bring this counterfeiter to justice instead of just talking about it on a message forum. I don't have the legal acumen or financial resources to bring suit against him... but I'd materially support anyone who did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
PCGS currently certifies few, if any, modern privately-minted pieces.

So the "Carr" over-strikes are not treated any differently. It is still possible that the status might change at some point.

 

On the PCGS submission of one of my fantasy-date "1964" Peace Dollars, note that PCGS did NOT label it as "counterfeit" or "not genuine" or "questionable authenticity". They labeled it "ineligible for service".

 

That was to protect themselves from a potential law suit.

 

Interestingly PCGS slabs these:

 

http://www.pcgs.com/cert/33847152

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,820 posts
PCGS currently certifies few, if any, modern privately-minted pieces.

So the "Carr" over-strikes are not treated any differently. It is still possible that the status might change at some point.

 

On the PCGS submission of one of my fantasy-date "1964" Peace Dollars, note that PCGS did NOT label it as "counterfeit" or "not genuine" or "questionable authenticity". They labeled it "ineligible for service".

 

That was to protect themselves from a potential law suit.

 

Interestingly PCGS slabs these:

 

http://www.pcgs.com/cert/33847152

 

I am similarly perplexed as to why they slab these pieces. However, these pieces bear absolutely zero resemblance to any official release, and are thus an entirely different subject from the counterfeits that Dcarr produces. The counterfeits have a strong legal case against their very existence... these other things Carr produces are nothing more than artistic medals. I don't understand why PCGS slabs them (and I would argue that they shouldn't), but to me, that is a very different discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts
Acceptance of Carr’s work by the two top grading services would go a long way toward this end. Using these message boards as a means to make collectors aware of Carr’s pieces, in such a negative and slanderous fashion, does not. It achieves very little good when weighed against the ill-will, contempt and not-founded-in-fact accusations that it creates.

 

It is not slander or libel; it's not even close.

 

(1) Truth is a good and absolute defense. If it is true, it is not slander or libel by definition.

(2) Sincerely held opinions are protected; note the distinction between representation of fact and expression of opinion.

(3) Even if wrong, voicing concern over questionable behavior that is of interest to the hobby lacks actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (especially in light of all of the case law) and Carr has placed himself in the numismatic lime light by producing the pieces...

 

I could go on, but why bore every one?

 

 

P.S. Here is another interesting legal question: Do Carr pieces infringe upon the copyrighted designs imparted on the planchets especially given the commercial use of the designs? Of course government works generally are in the public domain, but what if the Mint is only licensed to use the image and does not own the copyright? What other designs has Carr produced other than the Peace Dollars (the latter of which would be in the public domain)?

 

 

 

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

 

Fair enough, but if Carr would comply with the law, then his fantasy pieces would not exist (in my opinion, of course ;) ) so there would be no need to make collectors aware of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

 

Fair enough, but if Carr would comply with the law, then his fantasy pieces would not exist (in my opinion, of course ;) ) so there would be no need to make collectors aware of anything.

 

 

Yes, in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts

And I still haven't learned anything new in this thread

 

mark

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

 

Fair enough, but if Carr would comply with the law, then his fantasy pieces would not exist (in my opinion, of course ;) ) so there would be no need to make collectors aware of anything.

 

The premise of your entire statement is flawed.

You are neither a judge nor a jury. Your assertion that I am somehow not complying with the law amounts to a violation of "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts
PCGS currently certifies few, if any, modern privately-minted pieces.

So the "Carr" over-strikes are not treated any differently. It is still possible that the status might change at some point.

 

On the PCGS submission of one of my fantasy-date "1964" Peace Dollars, note that PCGS did NOT label it as "counterfeit" or "not genuine" or "questionable authenticity". They labeled it "ineligible for service".

 

That was to protect themselves from a potential law suit.

 

How do you know that ?

They apply the term "questionable authenticity" and the like to numerous coins all the time. On those coins they are stating their opinion that they are not genuine. In the case of the "no service" over-strike Peace Dollars, PCGS is basically saying that they have no opinion.

 

Interestingly PCGS slabs these:

 

http://www.pcgs.com/cert/33847152

 

Then perhaps PCGS would certify my Astronaut, Bessie Coleman, and Scacagawea concept dollars. They were minted for the same reasons, and are listed in the same catalog, as that Galley Mint concept dollar.

 

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts
... the United States Mint cannot issue interpretations of criminal statutes such as this, which fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice...."

 

If you are not a judge hearing such a case then neither can you.

 

Enough said.

 

Courts have also said that intent to defraud is not required for production of pieces in violation of 18 USC 485; thus, your attempt to distinguish based on intent is misguided. Courts have also said that overstriking genuine coins with unauthorized dies in the likeness of U.S. coinage can violate 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 331, or both. FYI: No one here has ever opined that you violated 18 U.S.C. 331 so your reliance on this statute is misplaced.

 

Fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331.

I think we both agree on that, and that there is not fraudulent intent with my activity.

 

Regarding 18 U.S.C. 485 -

 

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

 

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Perry REICH, Defendant-Appellant.

 

Docket No. 06-1445-cr.

 

Decided: March 2, 2007

We also note that of the provisions originally enacted in the 1948 Act, those requiring an intent to defraud were generally oriented toward a different purpose than those not requiring such an element.   Provisions in the first category frequently criminalized forgeries and counterfeits likely to be used to defraud private citizens out of their money or property-for example, the forgery of U.S. and foreign obligations and securities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 478.   Those in the second category, meanwhile-like § 505-criminalized activities likely to impugn the reputation or integrity of the federal government regardless of whether the perpetrator intended to defraud private citizens.   See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 497 (prohibiting forgery of letters patent);  18 U.S.C. § 498 (prohibiting forgery of military discharge papers);  18 U.S.C. § 506 (prohibiting forgery of the seal of any U.S. department or agency).   In those provisions enumerating separate but related crimes and assigning different intent requirements to each, those crimes most likely to defraud private citizens were the ones containing an intent-to-defraud element.   See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 485 (requiring an “intent to defraud” to “pass[ ], utter[ ], publish[ ], [or] sell[ ]” counterfeit coins or bars, but not to “falsely make[ ], forge[ ], or counterfeit[ ]” such coins or bars (emphasis added));  18 U.S.C. § 507 (prohibiting the forgery of ship's papers without an intent to defraud, but prohibiting the “utter[ing], publish[ing], or pass[ing]” of such papers only with “intent to defraud”).  Section 505's prohibition on forging a judge's signature, which is concerned with preserving the integrity of the courts, falls logically into the category of crimes Congress intended to penalize even when the actor did not intend to deprive others of money or property.   In light of this meaningful variation, we decline to read into § 505 an intent-to-defraud element Congress chose to omit.

 

According to this ruling, there are two categories of violations. Those that require an intent to defraud, and those that don't. For the latter, the Court decided that Congress intended this to be for offences which "impugn the reputation or integrity of the Federal Government", even when there was no intent to defraud.

 

If I were to strike fantasy-date coins on anonymous planchets, that could potentially degrade the integrity of the legal-tender circulating coinage base (and thus, the Federal Government by extension, but only by a miniscule amount).

 

However, my fantasy-date over-strikes are non-fraudulent alterations to existing legal-tender coins, and so the total quantity of apparent existing legal tender is not diluted. As such, the integrity of the coinage base and the integrity of the Federal Government is not impugned by my activity.

 

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2