Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[Afterword]

Opinions are just that, opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread is authorized by the Federal government to interpret the laws of the land for others.

 

Back in 2014, Roger took action against Dan to have him expelled from the ANA. While the ANA may not be authorized to interpret Federal law, they can evaluate members against the ANA Bylaws and Code of Ethics. After review at the time, the ANA decided to take no action. For those interested in attempting to apply this new ruling, should another action be taken?

 

I bring this up because I'm not sure minds will be changed based on opinion. Additionally, Dan has stated his believes in his rights strong enough that he will defend them as he did in the ANA case linked above. Would it not be better to have the officials address this instead of seemingly never ending, never resolved discussions?

 

 

I doubt we will see a resolution.

[Afterword]

It would seem that the FTC does a pretty good job of ignoring Carr's productions, as well - supposing that his activities require their attention and action.

[coinman_23885]

Opinions are just that, opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread is authorized by the Federal government to interpret the laws of the land for others.

 

Back in 2014, Roger took action against Dan in the context of the ANA. While the ANA may not be authorized to interpret Federal law, they can evaluate members against the ANA Bylaws and Code of Ethics. After review at the time, the ANA decided to take no action. For those interested in attempting to apply this new ruling, should another test be taken?

 

You use the phrase "new ruling" which implies that you believe it has some sort of precedential value. It does not. The ANA can barely even handle its own legal affairs, and we are expected to blindly rely on their judgment? The issue before them was merely whether he violated the ANA Code of Ethics (or whatever they call it). If it doesn't want to enforce its bylaws, it is free to ignore them. Federal courts are not given the same leniency with respect to the law.

 

P.S. Mr. Carr: Isn't one of your family members an attorney? If so, why haven't you had your family member file a declaratory judgment action for you if you are convinced that you are correct and that no reasonable judge or jury would adopt my legal interpretation? I PMed you long ago the case information for Boggs that you could use as a head start. The filing fee for federal district court is only $400 (less than the cost of four of your newest pieces), and I am sure your family member would be more than happy to cut you a deal on legal fees.

 

To have a declaratory judgement, doesn't there need to be a legal action? Since you appear to feel strongly enough to try to influence others on this, why don't you take Dan to court? Dan has stated that he is willing and able to defend his position.

 

A declaratory judgment action would be a lawsuit filed that would name the U.S. Secret Service, Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, etc., that would make a legal declaration as to the status of the pieces. It would be a final decision on the law as applied to all parties and would end this controversy. If he is absolutely confident of the legality, then his costs would be minimal, and he would have everything to gain.

 

If, on the other hand, I pursued a private suit under the HPA as you have suggested, there would be additional costs to me that Dan would not have in filing a declaratory judgment action in Colorado that could easily amount to a few grand or more. Even though I think the personal jurisdiction issue is clear, for instance, I could see him being successful in having the venue transferred to Colorado. That would be time off, airfare, and lodging for depositions, trial, and oral arguments on appeal. Alternatively, I would need to hire a Colorado attorney. The HPA says that a federal judge may award attorney's fees and costs, but this is not a given. I have nothing to gain by filing a private lawsuit. There are less expensive options that should be pursued.

[Zoins]

Opinions are just that, opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread is authorized by the Federal government to interpret the laws of the land for others.

 

Back in 2014, Roger took action against Dan in the context of the ANA. While the ANA may not be authorized to interpret Federal law, they can evaluate members against the ANA Bylaws and Code of Ethics. After review at the time, the ANA decided to take no action. For those interested in attempting to apply this new ruling, should another test be taken?

 

You use the phrase "new ruling" which implies that you believe it has some sort of precedential value. It does not. The ANA can barely even handle its own legal affairs, and we are expected to blindly rely on their judgment? The issue before them was merely whether he violated the ANA Code of Ethics (or whatever they call it). If it doesn't want to enforce its bylaws, it is free to ignore them. Federal courts are not given the same leniency with respect to the law.

 

P.S. Mr. Carr: Isn't one of your family members an attorney? If so, why haven't you had your family member file a declaratory judgment action for you if you are convinced that you are correct and that no reasonable judge or jury would adopt my legal interpretation? I PMed you long ago the case information for Boggs that you could use as a head start. The filing fee for federal district court is only $400 (less than the cost of four of your newest pieces), and I am sure your family member would be more than happy to cut you a deal on legal fees.

 

To have a declaratory judgement, doesn't there need to be a legal action? Since you appear to feel strongly enough to try to influence others on this, why don't you take Dan to court? Dan has stated that he is willing and able to defend his position.

 

A declaratory judgment action would be a lawsuit filed that would name the U.S. Secret Service, Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, etc., that would make a legal declaration as to the status of the pieces. It would be a final decision on the law as applied to all parties and would end this controversy. If he is absolutely confident of the legality, then his costs would be minimal, and he would have everything to gain.

 

If, on the other hand, I pursued a private suit under the HPA as you have suggested, there would be additional costs to me that Dan would not have in filing a declaratory judgment action in Colorado that could easily amount to a few grand or more. Even though I think the personal jurisdiction issue is clear, for instance, I could see him being successful in having the venue transferred to Colorado. That would be time off, airfare, and lodging for depositions, trial, and oral arguments on appeal. Alternatively, I would need to hire a Colorado attorney. The HPA says that a federal judge may award attorney's fees and costs, but this is not a given. I have nothing to gain by filing a private lawsuit. There are less expensive options that should be pursued.

 

If you are not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking Dan to file a lawsuit (which seems very strange to me), what are other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

Who would be the defendants in the scenario you are envisioning? If it's the U.S. Secret Service, Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, etc., can you yourself not initiate action against those entities?

[coinman_23885]

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

 

Apparently not!

[comicdonna]

[coinman_23885]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

[Zoins]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate.

 

Yes, there are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private lawsuit to enforce the HPA. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Regarding the civil nature of this debate, please reference the 2014 ANA complaint which includes forum quotes. This is a very long discussion that has spanned multiple years across multiple forums, including many discussions that are not always civil. Per the 2014 complaint, related discussions have already been escalated once. If they were not resolved then, more discussion may not lead to the conclusion you appear to desire.

[Zoins]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

 

Asking someone to litigate the Federal government in that way doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would do. Can you point to situations where this has happened?

 

Since Dan appears to be satisfied with the situation as is, it seems like action would need to be initiated by some of the people on the thread wishing for a change.

[coinman_23885]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

 

Asking someone to litigate the Federal government in that way doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would do. Can you point to situations where this has happened?

 

Sure, Boggs v. Bowron, 842 F. Supp. 542 (D.D.C. 1993), affirmed 67 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1995). A declaratory judgment action and injunction should have been filed prior to striking any pieces as it would have resolved any issues prior to striking. At this point, nothing would stop him from seeking a declaration as to future pieces. I am in no way encouraging him to admit to his existing pieces - that would be stupid.

 

FYI - Boggs lost his case. My point is that if Dan is so convinced that his pieces are legal and he has made representations on his website concerning the legality of the pieces (including the incredulous claim that the coins need not comply with the HPA) then you would think he would want a judicial declaration to protect him. If not and he is wrong (which he is), then he is disseminating false and misleading information adding icing to the cupcake.

 

P.S. If you read through the threads (there are probably 5 or 6 of them now), you will see a complete discussion.

[nk1nk]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

 

It's HIGHLY unlikely that one if not several posters here have not filed FTC complaints.

[MarkFeld]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

 

It's HIGHLY unlikely that one if not several posters here have not filed FTC complaints.

 

I'll take the other side of your (double negative) assertion. I believe it's highly unlikely that any, much less, several, posters here have filed FTC complaints. In fact, I don't even think that "several" posters here have expressed negative sentiments with respect to the coins under discussion.

[Hard Times]

No posts from Mr. McK today? I am a little worried........

 

Best, HT

[Zoins]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

 

Asking someone to litigate the Federal government in that way doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would do. Can you point to situations where this has happened?

 

Sure, Boggs v. Bowron, 842 F. Supp. 542 (D.D.C. 1993), affirmed 67 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1995). A declaratory judgment action and injunction should have been filed prior to striking any pieces as it would have resolved any issues prior to striking. At this point, nothing would stop him from seeking a declaration as to future pieces. I am in no way encouraging him to admit to his existing pieces - that would be stupid.

 

FYI - Boggs lost his case. My point is that if Dan is so convinced that his pieces are legal and he has made representations on his website concerning the legality of the pieces (including the incredulous claim that the coins need not comply with the HPA) then you would think he would want a judicial declaration to protect him. If not and he is wrong (which he is), then he is disseminating false and misleading information adding icing to the cupcake.

 

P.S. If you read through the threads (there are probably 5 or 6 of them now), you will see a complete discussion.

 

Boggs v. Bowron is very different in that the US Secret Service was already stopping efforts by Boggs before Boggs initiated litigation. No government agency is engaged in any dealings with Dan Carr from my understanding.

 

I can't think of a single business that sues the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are conducting their business in an uninterrupted manner. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

[coinman_23885]

If you're not willing to file a lawsuit, short of asking someone else to file a lawsuit, are there other less expensive options that should be pursued?

 

There are other ways to obtain an adjudication without filing a private suit to enforce the HPA. Of course, invoking those methods is very serious and would immediately escalate this to a very personal issue and would destroy the civil nature of our debate. One mechanism is to file a FTC complaint.

 

Edit: It looks like you edited your original post. I would only have standing under the HPA private enforcement mechanism statute and not the declaratory judgment statute, but we still have the cost issues I mentioned. Dan could absolutely name the United States and the relevant federal agencies as defendants with little downside financially to him (unless his pieces are adjudicated to be counterfeits). To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

 

Asking someone to litigate the Federal government in that way doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would do. Can you point to situations where this has happened?

 

Sure, Boggs v. Bowron, 842 F. Supp. 542 (D.D.C. 1993), affirmed 67 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1995). A declaratory judgment action and injunction should have been filed prior to striking any pieces as it would have resolved any issues prior to striking. At this point, nothing would stop him from seeking a declaration as to future pieces. I am in no way encouraging him to admit to his existing pieces - that would be stupid.

 

FYI - Boggs lost his case. My point is that if Dan is so convinced that his pieces are legal and he has made representations on his website concerning the legality of the pieces (including the incredulous claim that the coins need not comply with the HPA) then you would think he would want a judicial declaration to protect him. If not and he is wrong (which he is), then he is disseminating false and misleading information adding icing to the cupcake.

 

P.S. If you read through the threads (there are probably 5 or 6 of them now), you will see a complete discussion.

 

Boggs v. Bowron is very different in that the US Secret Service was already stopping efforts by Boggs before Boggs initiated litigation. The US Secret Service is not currently engaged in any dealings with Dan Carr from my understanding.

 

I really can't think of any known businesses that sue the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are just conducting their business. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

 

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway. I think that is brazen and begging for problems, but if he wants to roll the dice with his business and his future, he can go for it. He has much to lose and little to gain.

[Zoins]

 

I really can't think of any known businesses that sue the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are just conducting their business. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

 

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway.

 

Actually, it's quite common for companies to pursue business where the legal area is debated. For example, some TPGs have published inserts that have been accused of being misleading, even to the point of being listed and discussed on the US Mint website. However, even with that Federal discussion, the TPGs are still running profitable, uninterrupted businesses without proactively suing the Federal government. Additionally, Uber is one example of a company that is not only operating in a debated legal area, but litigating as well. So, instead of being odd, it seems to be common for businesses to operate in areas where others question their legality.

 

As mentioned, I don't know of any business that proactively sues the Federal government for going into / engaging in what they believe is a legal business, which is documented and where the government has not taken action against the firm. I don't believe this can be a serious recommendation. Do you have any other recommendations?

[coinman_23885]

 

I really can't think of any known businesses that sue the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are just conducting their business. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

 

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway.

 

Actually, it's quite common for companies to pursue business where the legal area is debated. For example, some TPGs have published inserts that have been accused of being misleading, even to the point of being listed and discussed on the US Mint website. However, even with that Federal discussion, the TPGs are still running profitable, uninterrupted businesses without proactively suing the Federal government. Additionally, Uber is one example of a company that is not only operating in a debated legal area, but litigating as well. So, instead of being odd, it seems to be common for businesses to operate in areas where others question their legality.

 

As mentioned, I don't know of any business that proactively sues the Federal government for going into / engaging in what they believe is a legal business, which is documented and where the government has not taken action against the firm. I don't believe this can be a serious recommendation. Do you have any other recommendations?

 

The examples you cite are also distinguishable in that there may be a small civil fine if the matter is adjudicated against them at a later date. Large banks do this all the time because they make more money breaking the law than the nominal amount of the fine. If his coins are counterfeits, then there are potential criminal ramifications. There is a big difference between civil and criminal liability.

[Zoins]

 

I really can't think of any known businesses that sue the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are just conducting their business. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

 

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway.

 

Actually, it's quite common for companies to pursue business where the legal area is debated. For example, some TPGs have published inserts that have been accused of being misleading, even to the point of being listed and discussed on the US Mint website. However, even with that Federal discussion, the TPGs are still running profitable, uninterrupted businesses without proactively suing the Federal government. Additionally, Uber is one example of a company that is not only operating in a debated legal area, but litigating as well. So, instead of being odd, it seems to be common for businesses to operate in areas where others question their legality.

 

As mentioned, I don't know of any business that proactively sues the Federal government for going into / engaging in what they believe is a legal business, which is documented and where the government has not taken action against the firm. I don't believe this can be a serious recommendation. Do you have any other recommendations?

 

The examples you cite are also distinguishable in that there may be a small civil fine if the matter is adjudicated against them at a later date. Large banks do this all the time because they make more money breaking the law than the nominal amount of the fine. If his coins are counterfeits, then there are potential criminal ramifications. There is a big difference between civil and criminal liability.

 

The difference in my examples and yours is that in mine, there is debate about legality. In your example, you are highlighting cases where the organization is breaking the law.

 

Regarding liability, isn't that a matter for Dan to address, not you or others?

 

Dan has already said he's researched and willing to defend his position.

 

If you don't like Dan's handling of the matter, you can, of course, take action yourself.

[dcarr]

In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

But a "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar is an (altered/defaced) Peace Dollar type.

 

And thus it represents an original numismatic item. Under your reasoning, why couldn't you do the same with a Lincoln cent and change the date to a 1914-D?

 

Because 1914-D cents were actually issued, and they are well-known in the numismatic field as a rare premium-value date.

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, so they can not be "part of a coinage or issue used in commerce".

 

You implied that in the case of your 1964-D dollars, over-strikes are exceptions to "represents an original numismatic item" (because they were actual over struck Peace dollars). Now your justification is because 1964-D's weren't issued. But they were produced. Can you point me to language which allows that issued vs. produced distinction?

 

One section of the HPA contains a definition:

"Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals."

 

Consider the case of an ordinary Peace Dollar with date digits re-carved to look like "1964".The coin is still a Peace Dollar type. But 1964 Peace Dollars were never issued. So such an alteration does not purport to be an original numismatic item other than being a generic Peace Dollar type (which it actually is).

 

Consider a 1944-D cent with the "4" re-carved to look like a "1914-D" cent. Although the coin is still a genuine Lincoln cent type, the "1914-D" date on it might purport to be an actual issued coin date other than the date that the coin had originally. It is debatable whether or not the act of re-carving the "4" into a "1" is illegal by itself. However, it is certainly a violation to knowingly try and sell the coin as a genuine original 1914-D cent.

 

[dcarr]

The FTC recognizes that there may still be questions on whether their rules apply in specific cases and they propose to address these as the needs arise. So, if there are still questions, they can be brought up with the FTC for further clarification.

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises.

 

Absolutely, although I am not sure that there are any issues that the FTC has not already addressed. Did you read the Federal Register page in its entirety that you linked? It states that "fantasy coins" are already required to be marked. The decision cited says that date variations to imaginary dates is not sufficient to remove it from the purview of the HPA or counterfeiting statutes. How much clearer can this issue be?

 

From the FTC commentary:

 

Notably, the Commission has already 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.

 

"coins resembling government-issued coins":

 

In the GBI case, German Wilhelm coins were privately fabricated using anonymous blanks and they utilized dates not previously utilized for genuine coins of that type. So, date aside, these were copies of the German Wilhelm gold coin type. These were also deceptively marketed by the maker as genuine German Mint re-strikes.

 

A "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar (for example), IS a government-issued coin that has been altered or defaced. They are not copies of a Peace Dollar type. They are genuine Peace Dollar type coins that have been altered. And the alteration does not purport to be of a date that was actually issued for that coin type.

 

We have been over this, and this argument was rejected by a federals appeals courts (the Wilson case that was discussed in other threads). Of course this wasn't decided under the HPA, but the court did find the resulting coins were counterfeits. The HPA, however, covers all reproductions, copies, and counterfeits per the plain meaning of the language in the statute.

 

Yes, we have been over this. The Wilson case did not involve fantasy coins at all. It involved over-striking of coins to apply known scarce dates. It also involved the addition of false mint marks on other coins (1932 quarters with an added "D"). All of the activities in question were for decidedly fraudulent purposes.

[dcarr]

 

I really can't think of any known businesses that sue the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are just conducting their business. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

 

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway.

 

Actually, it's quite common for companies to pursue business where the legal area is debated. For example, some TPGs have published inserts that have been accused of being misleading, even to the point of being listed and discussed on the US Mint website. However, even with that Federal discussion, the TPGs are still running profitable, uninterrupted businesses without proactively suing the Federal government. Additionally, Uber is one example of a company that is not only operating in a debated legal area, but litigating as well. So, instead of being odd, it seems to be common for businesses to operate in areas where others question their legality.

 

As mentioned, I don't know of any business that proactively sues the Federal government for going into / engaging in what they believe is a legal business, which is documented and where the government has not taken action against the firm. I don't believe this can be a serious recommendation. Do you have any other recommendations?

 

The examples you cite are also distinguishable in that there may be a small civil fine if the matter is adjudicated against them at a later date. Large banks do this all the time because they make more money breaking the law than the nominal amount of the fine. If his coins are counterfeits, then there are potential criminal ramifications. There is a big difference between civil and criminal liability.

 

The difference in my examples and yours is that in mine, there is debate about legality. In your example, you are highlighting cases where the organization is breaking the law.

 

Regarding liability, isn't that a matter for Dan to address, not you or others?

 

Dan has already said he's researched and willing to defend his position.

 

If you don't like Dan's handling of the matter, you can, of course, take action yourself.

 

I would certainly defend myself to the fullest extent possible, if things ever came to that. This could potentially include counter-litigation regarding defamation.

 

[coinman_23885]

I would certainly defend myself to the fullest extent possible, if things ever came to that. This could potentially include counter-litigation regarding defamation.

 

Yawn. Truth is a good and absolute defense.

[dcarr]

Boggs v. Bowron is very different in that the US Secret Service was already stopping efforts by Boggs before Boggs initiated litigation. No government agency is engaged in any dealings with Dan Carr from my understanding.

 

I have no negative dealings or contacts with any government agency, and I have never had any.

 

Yes, Boggs had a quantity of his currency drawings confiscated by the Secret Service, even though he was never formally charged of any crime related to currency or counterfeiting. Boggs sued to get his items back, but lost.

 

I can't think of a single business that sues the Federal government out of the blue when they think they haven't done anything wrong and are conducting their business in an uninterrupted manner. I really can't recommend businesses do that and I think it's a bit odd that anyone would.

 

I generally agree with that.

 

[dcarr]

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway. I think that is brazen and begging for problems, but if he wants to roll the dice with his business and his future, he can go for it. He has much to lose and little to gain.

 

You are making false assumptions here, and presenting them as fact.

What actually happened is significantly different than what you describe.

 

[RWB]

Lies and more lies from Mr. Carr. Nothing but lies.

[dcarr]

Lies and more lies from Mr. Carr. Nothing but lies.

 

You are mistaken (again).

 

I post this link again, for good measure (see section 3.1):

Burdette vs. Carr

 

The stupid things you write on internet forums are your own worst enemy.

 

[coinman_23885]

I find it odd that someone would embark on a business venture of questionable legality when the person starting the business questioned the legality of the operation enough to write the Secret Service, U.S. Mint, and U.S. District Attorney to seek legal advice at the beginning. Of course, Carr ignored the admonition from those federal agencies that the government and its employees cannot give legal advice to citizens. Rather than seeking legal advice from a private attorney or actually acquiring the adjudication that he himself initially thought was necessary, he strikes the coins anyway. I think that is brazen and begging for problems, but if he wants to roll the dice with his business and his future, he can go for it. He has much to lose and little to gain.

 

You are making false assumptions here, and presenting them as fact.

What actually happened is significantly different than what you describe.

 

How so? I based my comments on things you have said throughout the years on forums concerning contacting various federal agencies, and receiving a response that the government cannot and will not give advisory opinions or otherwise provide legal advice.

 

P.S. Here is a fun bit of trivia: Did you know that Bernard Von NotHaus ran his entire operation by a private attorney that approved of his idea? Silly, huh? The federal district court in North Carolina didn't care. That's why I made the comments that I would have wanted a binding adjudication prior to doing anything or prior to producing anything new. Apparently, that makes me odd or eccentric to many of the posters here.

[MJ]

Lies and more lies from Mr. Carr. Nothing but lies.

 

You are mistaken (again).

 

I post this link again, for good measure (see section 3.1):

Burdette vs. Carr

 

The stupid things you write on internet forums are your own worst enemy.

 

It's the first time I ever really read all these comments presented like this . Those are some effed up comments on cats made by RWB. I don't even like cats but geez......twisted

 

mark

[comicdonna]

It's also twisted to think one is above the law, by not marking these "pieces" with the word COPY.

[mark]

I think I'd like to petition NGC to create a separate DCarr forum. That way this apparently eternal battle can be more easily joined by all the combatants because they will not need to waste time sorting through other threads.

 

Mark