Options
Tomorrow is my day in court - Final Settlement Approved by court, my muzzle removed
Tomthecoinguy
Posts: 849 ✭✭✭✭
I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds, and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible. I'm sure everyone on this forum can tell the difference, and understands the difference between a coin and a silver round. However I would often run into people who thought they had something made by an actual Government mint, and then they would show me some knock-off. Then I would have to break the bad news. Of course they are never marked copy, as required by law.
Earlier this year, I found a company the Westminster Mint, bases out of Plymouth MN, that was particularly bad in this regard.
Here is a copy of a real Proof Silver Eagle, next to a silver round being sold by the Westminster Mint.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]
[/URL]
Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Reverse_zps1db4781e.jpg.html]
[/URL]
Here is the front of a silver round they are selling that looks almost identical to the Timber wolf coin from the Canadian Wildlife series.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ObverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps409122f2.png.html]
[/URL]
Instead of the Queen opposite the timber wolf like they have on the real coin, these copies have a maple leaf.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ReverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps636a81cb.png.html]
[/URL]
When I ordered the coins, I confirmed that the coins were not marked as copies as required by the Hobby Protection act. It was time to take action.
I remembered that there was a hobby protection act case a number of years ago, so I did some research and found the lawyers that had represented the plaintiffs in that case. This worked out great, because they were already familiar with the law, so they knew I had a good case as soon as they saw pictures of the silver rounds. They also understood how the law has a provision that if we are successful, the defendants were responsible for all legal fees. It also fit well as a Class Action suit, since there were numerous people that likely bought these silver rounds.
The lawsuit was filled in March, and it named me as the lead plaintiff, and the Westminster Mint, and their fulfillment center the Highland Mint out of Florida as the defendants. Almost immediately after the defendants were served, they stopped selling the Timberwolf round, and they started marking the Silver Eagles with "copy." So I was pleased that my suit had an affect right away, but of course there are still issues that need to be resolved.
The Westminster Mint filled a motion to dismiss, saying that they are not the makers of the silver rounds, they are just the marketer of them. It is very interesting, because if you go to their website, you can see pictures of the rounds being made, and the website certainly gives the impression that they are the manufactures. I was also told by one of the employees at the Westminster Mint, that they make the rounds, but that was kind of a weird story about how the Westminster mint owned or leased the equipment but it was at the Highland mint facility. My lawyers are opposing the motion to dismiss. After all, they call themselves a mint, and we should be entitled to discovery to determine their involvement in this. Even in the unlikely event we lose that motion, the case still goes on with the other defendants.
My lawyer also filled a motion for class certification. I thought that motion was also going to be argued tomorrow, but the defendants decided not to oppose that motion. This was another good win for my team.
I don't need to go to court tomorrow, my lawyers will handle all the arguments and I will watch from the Gallery, but I thought it would be interesting. The hearing is scheduled tomorrow (8/19/14) at 9:30 AM in the Federal Court house in St. Paul, MN.
Update from August 19, 2014 -
First off I want to thank all the commenters so far, and I like that there is a good healthy discussion on the merits of my case. I did not expect there to be 100% agreement, because frankly if there is 100% agreement there is no need for a lawsuit.
This morning I attended the court hearing, and I am really glad that I did, I found the oral arguments very interesting. It was also great to meet my lawyers in person, since up until this point I had just talked with them over the phone. Since I am the lead plaintiff in the case I have an obvious bias, but in this post I will try to present both sides.
The purpose of today's hearing was to hear the defendants motion to dismiss the case. As pointed out by the judge, in this stage of the proceedings it is not a fact finding mission for her, she needs to make sure we present enough facts in our complaint to make our case plausible if we prove them to be true.
The Defense lawyer had 3 reason the case should be dismissed, he said because no one could possibly think the defendants products were imitation numismatic item, Westminster Mint was not the manufacturer of the round, so they should be excluded from the case, and the 3rd point was that I was not deceived and have no damages.
His first point is that there is no way that any reasonable person could be deceived into thinking that it was an imitation numismatic item. He pointed out that there is no denomination listed on the coin, and no date. In the case of the Canadian Timberwolf coin he also made the point that no actual coin exists with a Timberwolf on one side and a maple leaf on the other. The judge commented that this sounded like arguments that should be made at the next phase of the trial. When my lawyer talked, he pointed out that the Silver eagle copy had a lot of the same features compared to that of a coin, including "In God We Trust" and "United States of America." These were some of elements used previously by the judge in an earlier Hobby Protection Act case, when he ruled the item in that case was considered an imitation numismatic item.
The second point really had to do with just one of the two defendants, the Westminster Mint. The defendant's lawyer argued that there is no evidence that the Westminster Mint manufactured the coin, that they are just the marketers. He argued that the Hobby Protection Act only covers the importers and manufactures, not the sellers. My lawyer countered that Westminster Mint certainly holds itself out to be the manufacture, including calling themselves a "Mint" and having pictures of the manufacturing process on their website. He also said the only evidence the defense presented that they are not, was the word of his lawyer. No affidavit from the company or anything like that. My lawyer also said that if at a future date they did show they were not the manufacture of the rounds, he would agree to drop them from the case.
The third point was that even if all of this was true, I have not shown that I was deceived in anyway and that I did not have any damages since I got an ounce of silver and that was what I was expecting. My lawyer countered that this was not true, and that I was damaged because I got an item that was illegal, and I could not resell this at a trade show, I was just stuck with it. He also pointed out that the hobby protection act does not require me to be deceived in order to have a cause of action.
After both sides presented their cases, the judge said that she would take it under advisement. She also said that in all her years on the bench this was her first Hobby Protection Act case, so she had some studying to do on the law. This is not surprising since this is only the 3rd Hobby protection act case in the courts. I took her comments to mean that we would probably have to wait a while for her ruling.
I was very impressed with the whole procedure and how very professional everyone was. I was also pleased that the judge seemed very engaged and interested in all the arguments. Each side got a half hour each, but neither side took all of their time, I would say it lasted about 45 minutes total.
Update from November 14, 2014 - This was originally posted in a different thread titled (Motion to dismiss denied, class certified
I just received a call from my lawyer in the HPA case I filled against the Westminster Mint. Many of you, like me, have been anxiously awaiting the judge's ruling. If you need a refresher on the issues, here is a link to the original thread that I posted.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=924970
The judge denied the motion to dismiss on all three counts. So this was a ruling in my favor, and the case moves on to the next phase. Previously the defendant's stipulated to class certification so now we go on to class notification, and discovery. Of course settlement talks can happen at any point along the way.
It is important to keep in mind that this win is just a very early stage in the process. As the judge stated, "To overcome a motion to dismiss, a pleading must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
I started the original thread because I figure the case would be of interest to people on this board. I am glad I did, because it opened a lot of good discussion. I hope you understand that I will just be sticking to the facts in my posts, since the case is still in progress and I am a named plaintiff. Similarly, I will not be answering any factual questions that I might reasonably be asked in the discovery process. When the case is fully resolved, I hope to have a thread where I answer everyone's questions.
In the previous thread, there was a lot of discussions if the silver rounds in questions were "imitation Numismatic Items." Here is a section from todays ruling that addresses that issue. The bolding in the below quote was mine, I want to highlight the sections most relevant to the discussions in the previous thread.
B. “Imitation Numismatic Items”
Defendants assert that the American Silver Eagle and Canadian Timber Wolf rounds do not quality as “imitation numismatic items” within the purview of the HPA. (Id.). They claim that the Silver Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds are not exact replicas of any pre-existing currency and contend that there are “notable, striking, and significant design differences” between the rounds and the actual legal tender. (Defs.’ Mem. in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 3 [Doc. No. 21].) For example, Defendants note some differences with regard to each round’s size, weight, silver content, and graphic artistry relative to the original numismatic items detailed in the Complaint. (Id. at 3-4.) Because of these dissimilarities, Defendants claim that “no reasonable and unsuspecting purchaser could assume the rounds were original coins.” (Id. at 1.) Accordingly, Defendants argue that the rounds are not “imitation numismatic items” and need not be marked with the word “COPY,” as required by the HPA. (Defs.’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 19].)
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ narrow application of the HPA. See Demarco, 229 F.R.D. at 78 (discussing that under the HPA “imitation numismatic items” need not be exact reproductions of existing coins). Specifically, under the HPA, the term “imitation numismatic item” includes any item that “purports to be, but in fact is not” an original numismatic item, in addition to those items that are wholly “reproduction and counterfeits.” 16 C.F.R. § 304.1(d). In denying a motion to dismiss on similar grounds, the court in Demarco found that the commemorative Freedom Tower Silver Dollar (“FTSD”) coin, depicting the September 11th attacks, was an “imitation numismatic item” even though the coin did not resemble any previously minted or presently circulated United States coinage. 229 F.R.D. at 78. The FTSD was inscribed with the phrases “IN GOD WE TRUST” and “One Dollar.” Such phrases are required by law to appear on all United States legal tender. Id. The court concluded that “[while the] characteristics of the FTSD might not fool a sophisticated coin collector . . . they could lead an unsophisticated purchaser to believe the FTSD was indeed legal tender issued by the Government.” Id. Therefore the court in Demarco found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the FTSD purported to be “coinage used in exchange” and was subject to the regulations of the HPA. Id.
As in Demarco, Plaintiff here has alleged plausible violations of the HPA. The Complaint asserts that the Silver Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds are “imitation numismatic items” within the definition of the HPA. (Comp. ¶ 37 [Doc. No. 1-1].) The Complaint lists specific and numerous characteristics of each round that mimic characteristics of the authentic, government-minted coinage. (Id. ¶¶ 38-48). Among other similarities, the Silver Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds share artistry, written mottos, and markings in the exact locations as the original numismatic items to which they are compared in the Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff supports these allegations with detailed photographs of both the Defendants’ rounds and the authentic legal coinage. (Plaintiff Exhibits A-F [Doc. No. 1-1].) Just as the court noted in Demarco, 229 F.R.D. at 78, here, some of the inscriptions found on the Defendants’ Silver Eagle round are required by law to appear on all United States’ coinage. Further, the Complaint alleges that the American Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds were not marked “COPY” as required under the HPA. (Comp. ¶¶ 43, 51 [Doc. No. 1-1].) Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the allegations in the Complaint concerning “imitation numismatic items” sufficiently support a claim under the HPA.
Update from 2-27-2015
I got word from my lawyers that a settlement has been reached in my case against the Westminster Mint, and the settlement has been filed with the court. This is an agreement between my lawyers representing the class and the defendants, and it is still subject to court approval. Here are some of the elements as I understand them.
Update from 6-12-2015
Yesterday was the final Settlement fairness hearing in my hobby protection act case. The Hearing was at 4:00 PM. I was looking forward to attending, unfortunately I misjudged the time it would take me to get to the court house. It was raining and rush hour had started so the traffic was the main culprit. I arrived 15 minutes late, and when I came in my attorney was justifying his fee. I had missed the part where he was explaining why the settlement was fair, and I missed the part where he was defending my incentive award. I was their in time for my attorneys to point out that I was in the court room. It was also important to note that no class members attended to object to the settlement. Very shortly after the hearing was over, I think within an hour, the judge's final order approving the settlement was entered for the record. Stephen was impressed with the efficiency of the federal bench here in this district.
As I mentioned in another thread, as a stroke of luck the final settlement hearing was on the same day as our monthly coin club meeting. So after we grabbed a bit to eat, we headed over to the Kenwood community center in Minneapolis for the meeting.
The first half hour of the meeting was the typical club business, and we talk about our youth action, and getting more items for it next year. We also talked about a number of different subjects. I then introduced the speaker. Since this was my introduction I have that part of the presentation pretty much verbatim here is what I said in my introduction.
I would like to introduce to you today my attorney Stephen DeNittis, who is visiting us from his home in New Jersey. I could probably spend the next hour in a half just talking about all of Stephen's credential and the honors he has been given in the legal profession. However, instead I an going tell you about my experience with him.
When I discovered a violation of the Hobby Protection act, I went on line and looked for the most experienced attorney in that area of law. I found Stephen, and it was the smartest move I could make.
As the case went along, and the complaint and other fillings were made public. A number of different lawyers I know read through the filings Stephen made in the case. The first comments they made to me were all remarkably similar. The first thing they all told me was that I have a really good lawyer. I could not agree more.
I'm really excited to present to you Stephen DeNittis.
Stephen then spoke for about the next half hour. He started off by telling us about the DeMarco vs National Collector's mint case, which was the first private action brought under the hobby protection act. DeMarco came to Stephen in 2005 after he saw a notification from the US mint. The notice was an advisory from the US Mint that the freedom tower silver dollar was not a real coin. DeMarco did not know much about coins, but he wanted to have a commemorative coin, as a reminder of the event on that day. He had bought the Freedom tower coin, and was shocked when he found out it was not a real coin. DeMarco was from New York, and while they could bring a class action under the laws of NY, those law are not that consumer friendly, and it would also limited the class to NY residents. So then Stephen began to search for other possible causes of action. This is when he discovered the Hobby protection act.
There were three keys to the law that made this the perfect vehicle for the Demarco case. First it was a Federal law, so the class could consist of anyone in the country. Second, it allowed for a private right of action (anyone can sue under it, not just the Federal government). The third thing is it contained a fee shifting provision. Fee shifting means that if you sue under it, and you win the defendant has to pay your attorney's fees.
Stephen also said when the HPA was originally debated in congress, it was brought up that the HPA would work well as a class action suit. This is because an HPA case would likely have a lot of people defrauded by a little amount, which is exactly what a class action was designed to remedy. Another helpful factor is that it uses that standard of strict liability, which means if you make a coin and it is not marked as copy, you are responsible. You can not argue that the plaintiff was responsible for his or her own damages because of a mistake he or she made, or because he or she should have know better.
One thing that surprised Stephen in 2005, when he first discovered the HPA, was that it had been around since the 70's yet no one had brought a private action under the law. He search and search the legal databases but could not find any other action. That is becaue there was none, DeMarco was a case of first impressions for the court. Stephan also noted that two weeks after he filed suit, the Attorney General for NY, Eliot Spitzer, also filed suit against The National Collector's mint. Stephen said that while he cannot prove it, he suspects that his suit prompted the Attorney General's action. As further evidence of this, Spitzers filings had a lot of similar elements to his filings.
In the Demarco case, the argument was that the Freedom tower coins was purporting to be an original Numismatic item, but it was not and as such should have been marked copy. The National Collector's Mint claimed it was a coin, but it was not a legally authorized coin, and as such it was an imitation numismatic item. The key in that case was getting by a motion to dismiss. Once they got by that, The National Collector's Mint settled. The denial of the motion to dismiss became a publish opinion to be referenced by future HPA cases.
Then Stephen talked about my case a little bit. The size of my class was about 2600 people, and I believe he said there were about 100,000 silver rounds involved He also mentioned how he was surprised that there was a 9 year period between the first private HPA case and the second case which was mine. Although, their have been 5 or 6 actions by the Federal Trade commission in that time, but those are not considered private courses of action.
He also said that my case was a little different from DeMarco because in the DeMarco case the mint had not made a coin commemorating 9/11 (that came later.) but in my case the silver round was a replica of a coin the mint had actually made. In some ways this made my case easier than the DeMarco case.
He also talked about the recent updates to the HPA, and how the act has now been expanded. He said that you could now be in volition of the act, not just for making or importing them, but also if you sell them. This means an action could potentially be brought against an individual that bought one of these silver rounds, that looks like a coin, and sells it. Although he said an action against an individual would be unlikely, mainly because an attorney would likely go after the bigger sellers.
He then told us that while it took nine years between the first and second private HPA case, the third and four are already in the works (he may have said they have already been filed, but I am not sure on that). After seeing the National Magazine and Newspaper ads announcing the settlement in our case, an individual who had bought a couple of similar silver rounds contacted Stephen. Stephen said they will be two different cases, and he did mention the names of the new defendants. I do not remember exactly, so I did not want to list them here, in fears I may get the name wrong. As more attorney's become aware of this law with the private course of action, and the fee shifting, we will likely be seeing more of these cases.
The next half hour he spent answering questions, there were a lot of good questions from the club member. One of the questions was about what Stephen thought of a private attorney using this law to sue the Chinese counterfeiters that have become such a problem in this hobby. Stephen said that these foreign companies are really hard to sue and recover any kind of judgment against them. Most of them do not have any assets, or any kind of a presence in this country, so their would be no way to collect a judgment or enforce an injunction. However, you could potentially go after the importers, or seller of them in this country. He brought up the Lumber Liquidator case to illustrate how hard a case would be against a Chinese manufacture, but the US company that distributes it could be vulnerable to a suit.
He was also asked if he worried about the company's just folding up shop when he sues them. Stephen said that it is definitely a concern when he brings a lawsuit. He also mentioned that is one of the reasons they typically include the principles of the business (owners or people in control of the business) in the lawsuit, and the courts have allowed them to do that. This was done in my case.
After the meeting Stephen stayed around for a while and talked with a number of the club members. I could tell that the club members really enjoyed his talk. Stephen also told me how impressed he was with our club. He donated the speaking fee we gave him back to the club, to go into our fund for young numismatists that we had talked about in the business part of the meeting.
A personal note:
One of the reasons I started this thread is because I thought it might be fun for board members to follow along the case as it progressed. One of the problems this posed for me, was that doing it while the case was on going limited what I could say on the case. I was pretty much limited to "just the facts." I also avoided any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during discovery. I really think this caused the tread to go a little crazy, because I could not set the records straight on some of the crazy comments made. Not for one second did I wish that I had not started this thread, because I think the thread brought out some important issues.
Well, the case has been settle, the settlement has been approved, and my muzzle has been removed. So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
So ask away!
Earlier this year, I found a company the Westminster Mint, bases out of Plymouth MN, that was particularly bad in this regard.
Here is a copy of a real Proof Silver Eagle, next to a silver round being sold by the Westminster Mint.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]
![http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]](/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=http%3A%2F%2Fs1270.photobucket.com%2Fuser%2Ftomthecoinguy%2Fmedia%2FCoinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html%5D){kind=link}
[/URL]Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Reverse_zps1db4781e.jpg.html]
![http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Reverse_zps1db4781e.jpg.html]](/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=http%3A%2F%2Fs1270.photobucket.com%2Fuser%2Ftomthecoinguy%2Fmedia%2FCoinnexttoround-Reverse_zps1db4781e.jpg.html%5D){kind=link}
[/URL]Here is the front of a silver round they are selling that looks almost identical to the Timber wolf coin from the Canadian Wildlife series.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ObverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps409122f2.png.html]
![http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ObverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps409122f2.png.html]](/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=http%3A%2F%2Fs1270.photobucket.com%2Fuser%2Ftomthecoinguy%2Fmedia%2FObverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps409122f2.png.html%5D){kind=link}
[/URL]Instead of the Queen opposite the timber wolf like they have on the real coin, these copies have a maple leaf.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ReverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps636a81cb.png.html]
![http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ReverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps636a81cb.png.html]](/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=http%3A%2F%2Fs1270.photobucket.com%2Fuser%2Ftomthecoinguy%2Fmedia%2FReverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps636a81cb.png.html%5D){kind=link}
[/URL]When I ordered the coins, I confirmed that the coins were not marked as copies as required by the Hobby Protection act. It was time to take action.
I remembered that there was a hobby protection act case a number of years ago, so I did some research and found the lawyers that had represented the plaintiffs in that case. This worked out great, because they were already familiar with the law, so they knew I had a good case as soon as they saw pictures of the silver rounds. They also understood how the law has a provision that if we are successful, the defendants were responsible for all legal fees. It also fit well as a Class Action suit, since there were numerous people that likely bought these silver rounds.
The lawsuit was filled in March, and it named me as the lead plaintiff, and the Westminster Mint, and their fulfillment center the Highland Mint out of Florida as the defendants. Almost immediately after the defendants were served, they stopped selling the Timberwolf round, and they started marking the Silver Eagles with "copy." So I was pleased that my suit had an affect right away, but of course there are still issues that need to be resolved.
The Westminster Mint filled a motion to dismiss, saying that they are not the makers of the silver rounds, they are just the marketer of them. It is very interesting, because if you go to their website, you can see pictures of the rounds being made, and the website certainly gives the impression that they are the manufactures. I was also told by one of the employees at the Westminster Mint, that they make the rounds, but that was kind of a weird story about how the Westminster mint owned or leased the equipment but it was at the Highland mint facility. My lawyers are opposing the motion to dismiss. After all, they call themselves a mint, and we should be entitled to discovery to determine their involvement in this. Even in the unlikely event we lose that motion, the case still goes on with the other defendants.
My lawyer also filled a motion for class certification. I thought that motion was also going to be argued tomorrow, but the defendants decided not to oppose that motion. This was another good win for my team.
I don't need to go to court tomorrow, my lawyers will handle all the arguments and I will watch from the Gallery, but I thought it would be interesting. The hearing is scheduled tomorrow (8/19/14) at 9:30 AM in the Federal Court house in St. Paul, MN.
Update from August 19, 2014 -
First off I want to thank all the commenters so far, and I like that there is a good healthy discussion on the merits of my case. I did not expect there to be 100% agreement, because frankly if there is 100% agreement there is no need for a lawsuit.
This morning I attended the court hearing, and I am really glad that I did, I found the oral arguments very interesting. It was also great to meet my lawyers in person, since up until this point I had just talked with them over the phone. Since I am the lead plaintiff in the case I have an obvious bias, but in this post I will try to present both sides.
The purpose of today's hearing was to hear the defendants motion to dismiss the case. As pointed out by the judge, in this stage of the proceedings it is not a fact finding mission for her, she needs to make sure we present enough facts in our complaint to make our case plausible if we prove them to be true.
The Defense lawyer had 3 reason the case should be dismissed, he said because no one could possibly think the defendants products were imitation numismatic item, Westminster Mint was not the manufacturer of the round, so they should be excluded from the case, and the 3rd point was that I was not deceived and have no damages.
His first point is that there is no way that any reasonable person could be deceived into thinking that it was an imitation numismatic item. He pointed out that there is no denomination listed on the coin, and no date. In the case of the Canadian Timberwolf coin he also made the point that no actual coin exists with a Timberwolf on one side and a maple leaf on the other. The judge commented that this sounded like arguments that should be made at the next phase of the trial. When my lawyer talked, he pointed out that the Silver eagle copy had a lot of the same features compared to that of a coin, including "In God We Trust" and "United States of America." These were some of elements used previously by the judge in an earlier Hobby Protection Act case, when he ruled the item in that case was considered an imitation numismatic item.
The second point really had to do with just one of the two defendants, the Westminster Mint. The defendant's lawyer argued that there is no evidence that the Westminster Mint manufactured the coin, that they are just the marketers. He argued that the Hobby Protection Act only covers the importers and manufactures, not the sellers. My lawyer countered that Westminster Mint certainly holds itself out to be the manufacture, including calling themselves a "Mint" and having pictures of the manufacturing process on their website. He also said the only evidence the defense presented that they are not, was the word of his lawyer. No affidavit from the company or anything like that. My lawyer also said that if at a future date they did show they were not the manufacture of the rounds, he would agree to drop them from the case.
The third point was that even if all of this was true, I have not shown that I was deceived in anyway and that I did not have any damages since I got an ounce of silver and that was what I was expecting. My lawyer countered that this was not true, and that I was damaged because I got an item that was illegal, and I could not resell this at a trade show, I was just stuck with it. He also pointed out that the hobby protection act does not require me to be deceived in order to have a cause of action.
After both sides presented their cases, the judge said that she would take it under advisement. She also said that in all her years on the bench this was her first Hobby Protection Act case, so she had some studying to do on the law. This is not surprising since this is only the 3rd Hobby protection act case in the courts. I took her comments to mean that we would probably have to wait a while for her ruling.
I was very impressed with the whole procedure and how very professional everyone was. I was also pleased that the judge seemed very engaged and interested in all the arguments. Each side got a half hour each, but neither side took all of their time, I would say it lasted about 45 minutes total.
Update from November 14, 2014 - This was originally posted in a different thread titled (Motion to dismiss denied, class certified
I just received a call from my lawyer in the HPA case I filled against the Westminster Mint. Many of you, like me, have been anxiously awaiting the judge's ruling. If you need a refresher on the issues, here is a link to the original thread that I posted.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=924970
The judge denied the motion to dismiss on all three counts. So this was a ruling in my favor, and the case moves on to the next phase. Previously the defendant's stipulated to class certification so now we go on to class notification, and discovery. Of course settlement talks can happen at any point along the way.
It is important to keep in mind that this win is just a very early stage in the process. As the judge stated, "To overcome a motion to dismiss, a pleading must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
I started the original thread because I figure the case would be of interest to people on this board. I am glad I did, because it opened a lot of good discussion. I hope you understand that I will just be sticking to the facts in my posts, since the case is still in progress and I am a named plaintiff. Similarly, I will not be answering any factual questions that I might reasonably be asked in the discovery process. When the case is fully resolved, I hope to have a thread where I answer everyone's questions.
In the previous thread, there was a lot of discussions if the silver rounds in questions were "imitation Numismatic Items." Here is a section from todays ruling that addresses that issue. The bolding in the below quote was mine, I want to highlight the sections most relevant to the discussions in the previous thread.
B. “Imitation Numismatic Items”
Defendants assert that the American Silver Eagle and Canadian Timber Wolf rounds do not quality as “imitation numismatic items” within the purview of the HPA. (Id.). They claim that the Silver Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds are not exact replicas of any pre-existing currency and contend that there are “notable, striking, and significant design differences” between the rounds and the actual legal tender. (Defs.’ Mem. in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 3 [Doc. No. 21].) For example, Defendants note some differences with regard to each round’s size, weight, silver content, and graphic artistry relative to the original numismatic items detailed in the Complaint. (Id. at 3-4.) Because of these dissimilarities, Defendants claim that “no reasonable and unsuspecting purchaser could assume the rounds were original coins.” (Id. at 1.) Accordingly, Defendants argue that the rounds are not “imitation numismatic items” and need not be marked with the word “COPY,” as required by the HPA. (Defs.’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 19].)
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ narrow application of the HPA. See Demarco, 229 F.R.D. at 78 (discussing that under the HPA “imitation numismatic items” need not be exact reproductions of existing coins). Specifically, under the HPA, the term “imitation numismatic item” includes any item that “purports to be, but in fact is not” an original numismatic item, in addition to those items that are wholly “reproduction and counterfeits.” 16 C.F.R. § 304.1(d). In denying a motion to dismiss on similar grounds, the court in Demarco found that the commemorative Freedom Tower Silver Dollar (“FTSD”) coin, depicting the September 11th attacks, was an “imitation numismatic item” even though the coin did not resemble any previously minted or presently circulated United States coinage. 229 F.R.D. at 78. The FTSD was inscribed with the phrases “IN GOD WE TRUST” and “One Dollar.” Such phrases are required by law to appear on all United States legal tender. Id. The court concluded that “[while the] characteristics of the FTSD might not fool a sophisticated coin collector . . . they could lead an unsophisticated purchaser to believe the FTSD was indeed legal tender issued by the Government.” Id. Therefore the court in Demarco found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the FTSD purported to be “coinage used in exchange” and was subject to the regulations of the HPA. Id.
As in Demarco, Plaintiff here has alleged plausible violations of the HPA. The Complaint asserts that the Silver Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds are “imitation numismatic items” within the definition of the HPA. (Comp. ¶ 37 [Doc. No. 1-1].) The Complaint lists specific and numerous characteristics of each round that mimic characteristics of the authentic, government-minted coinage. (Id. ¶¶ 38-48). Among other similarities, the Silver Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds share artistry, written mottos, and markings in the exact locations as the original numismatic items to which they are compared in the Complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff supports these allegations with detailed photographs of both the Defendants’ rounds and the authentic legal coinage. (Plaintiff Exhibits A-F [Doc. No. 1-1].) Just as the court noted in Demarco, 229 F.R.D. at 78, here, some of the inscriptions found on the Defendants’ Silver Eagle round are required by law to appear on all United States’ coinage. Further, the Complaint alleges that the American Eagle and Timber Wolf rounds were not marked “COPY” as required under the HPA. (Comp. ¶¶ 43, 51 [Doc. No. 1-1].) Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the allegations in the Complaint concerning “imitation numismatic items” sufficiently support a claim under the HPA.
Update from 2-27-2015
I got word from my lawyers that a settlement has been reached in my case against the Westminster Mint, and the settlement has been filed with the court. This is an agreement between my lawyers representing the class and the defendants, and it is still subject to court approval. Here are some of the elements as I understand them.
- Going forward the defendants agree they will not sell either of the silver rounds in the suit, unless they are marked copy.
- Westminster Mint will send an e-mail with a class notification to all the people that purchased them from them, and the defendants will also take out ads in the USA Today, Coin World, Numismatist, and World Coin News.
- The class members will have the option of either sending in their rounds, and having the defendants replace them with rounds that are marked copy, or they have the option of returning the rounds and receiving a refund based on the closing spot price on the day it is received by the settlement agent.
- The defendant will pay for all shipping charges relating to the exchange or refunds.
- The defendant agrees to pay attorney fees.
Update from 6-12-2015
Yesterday was the final Settlement fairness hearing in my hobby protection act case. The Hearing was at 4:00 PM. I was looking forward to attending, unfortunately I misjudged the time it would take me to get to the court house. It was raining and rush hour had started so the traffic was the main culprit. I arrived 15 minutes late, and when I came in my attorney was justifying his fee. I had missed the part where he was explaining why the settlement was fair, and I missed the part where he was defending my incentive award. I was their in time for my attorneys to point out that I was in the court room. It was also important to note that no class members attended to object to the settlement. Very shortly after the hearing was over, I think within an hour, the judge's final order approving the settlement was entered for the record. Stephen was impressed with the efficiency of the federal bench here in this district.
As I mentioned in another thread, as a stroke of luck the final settlement hearing was on the same day as our monthly coin club meeting. So after we grabbed a bit to eat, we headed over to the Kenwood community center in Minneapolis for the meeting.
The first half hour of the meeting was the typical club business, and we talk about our youth action, and getting more items for it next year. We also talked about a number of different subjects. I then introduced the speaker. Since this was my introduction I have that part of the presentation pretty much verbatim here is what I said in my introduction.
I would like to introduce to you today my attorney Stephen DeNittis, who is visiting us from his home in New Jersey. I could probably spend the next hour in a half just talking about all of Stephen's credential and the honors he has been given in the legal profession. However, instead I an going tell you about my experience with him.
When I discovered a violation of the Hobby Protection act, I went on line and looked for the most experienced attorney in that area of law. I found Stephen, and it was the smartest move I could make.
As the case went along, and the complaint and other fillings were made public. A number of different lawyers I know read through the filings Stephen made in the case. The first comments they made to me were all remarkably similar. The first thing they all told me was that I have a really good lawyer. I could not agree more.
I'm really excited to present to you Stephen DeNittis.
Stephen then spoke for about the next half hour. He started off by telling us about the DeMarco vs National Collector's mint case, which was the first private action brought under the hobby protection act. DeMarco came to Stephen in 2005 after he saw a notification from the US mint. The notice was an advisory from the US Mint that the freedom tower silver dollar was not a real coin. DeMarco did not know much about coins, but he wanted to have a commemorative coin, as a reminder of the event on that day. He had bought the Freedom tower coin, and was shocked when he found out it was not a real coin. DeMarco was from New York, and while they could bring a class action under the laws of NY, those law are not that consumer friendly, and it would also limited the class to NY residents. So then Stephen began to search for other possible causes of action. This is when he discovered the Hobby protection act.
There were three keys to the law that made this the perfect vehicle for the Demarco case. First it was a Federal law, so the class could consist of anyone in the country. Second, it allowed for a private right of action (anyone can sue under it, not just the Federal government). The third thing is it contained a fee shifting provision. Fee shifting means that if you sue under it, and you win the defendant has to pay your attorney's fees.
Stephen also said when the HPA was originally debated in congress, it was brought up that the HPA would work well as a class action suit. This is because an HPA case would likely have a lot of people defrauded by a little amount, which is exactly what a class action was designed to remedy. Another helpful factor is that it uses that standard of strict liability, which means if you make a coin and it is not marked as copy, you are responsible. You can not argue that the plaintiff was responsible for his or her own damages because of a mistake he or she made, or because he or she should have know better.
One thing that surprised Stephen in 2005, when he first discovered the HPA, was that it had been around since the 70's yet no one had brought a private action under the law. He search and search the legal databases but could not find any other action. That is becaue there was none, DeMarco was a case of first impressions for the court. Stephan also noted that two weeks after he filed suit, the Attorney General for NY, Eliot Spitzer, also filed suit against The National Collector's mint. Stephen said that while he cannot prove it, he suspects that his suit prompted the Attorney General's action. As further evidence of this, Spitzers filings had a lot of similar elements to his filings.
In the Demarco case, the argument was that the Freedom tower coins was purporting to be an original Numismatic item, but it was not and as such should have been marked copy. The National Collector's Mint claimed it was a coin, but it was not a legally authorized coin, and as such it was an imitation numismatic item. The key in that case was getting by a motion to dismiss. Once they got by that, The National Collector's Mint settled. The denial of the motion to dismiss became a publish opinion to be referenced by future HPA cases.
Then Stephen talked about my case a little bit. The size of my class was about 2600 people, and I believe he said there were about 100,000 silver rounds involved He also mentioned how he was surprised that there was a 9 year period between the first private HPA case and the second case which was mine. Although, their have been 5 or 6 actions by the Federal Trade commission in that time, but those are not considered private courses of action.
He also said that my case was a little different from DeMarco because in the DeMarco case the mint had not made a coin commemorating 9/11 (that came later.) but in my case the silver round was a replica of a coin the mint had actually made. In some ways this made my case easier than the DeMarco case.
He also talked about the recent updates to the HPA, and how the act has now been expanded. He said that you could now be in volition of the act, not just for making or importing them, but also if you sell them. This means an action could potentially be brought against an individual that bought one of these silver rounds, that looks like a coin, and sells it. Although he said an action against an individual would be unlikely, mainly because an attorney would likely go after the bigger sellers.
He then told us that while it took nine years between the first and second private HPA case, the third and four are already in the works (he may have said they have already been filed, but I am not sure on that). After seeing the National Magazine and Newspaper ads announcing the settlement in our case, an individual who had bought a couple of similar silver rounds contacted Stephen. Stephen said they will be two different cases, and he did mention the names of the new defendants. I do not remember exactly, so I did not want to list them here, in fears I may get the name wrong. As more attorney's become aware of this law with the private course of action, and the fee shifting, we will likely be seeing more of these cases.
The next half hour he spent answering questions, there were a lot of good questions from the club member. One of the questions was about what Stephen thought of a private attorney using this law to sue the Chinese counterfeiters that have become such a problem in this hobby. Stephen said that these foreign companies are really hard to sue and recover any kind of judgment against them. Most of them do not have any assets, or any kind of a presence in this country, so their would be no way to collect a judgment or enforce an injunction. However, you could potentially go after the importers, or seller of them in this country. He brought up the Lumber Liquidator case to illustrate how hard a case would be against a Chinese manufacture, but the US company that distributes it could be vulnerable to a suit.
He was also asked if he worried about the company's just folding up shop when he sues them. Stephen said that it is definitely a concern when he brings a lawsuit. He also mentioned that is one of the reasons they typically include the principles of the business (owners or people in control of the business) in the lawsuit, and the courts have allowed them to do that. This was done in my case.
After the meeting Stephen stayed around for a while and talked with a number of the club members. I could tell that the club members really enjoyed his talk. Stephen also told me how impressed he was with our club. He donated the speaking fee we gave him back to the club, to go into our fund for young numismatists that we had talked about in the business part of the meeting.
A personal note:
One of the reasons I started this thread is because I thought it might be fun for board members to follow along the case as it progressed. One of the problems this posed for me, was that doing it while the case was on going limited what I could say on the case. I was pretty much limited to "just the facts." I also avoided any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during discovery. I really think this caused the tread to go a little crazy, because I could not set the records straight on some of the crazy comments made. Not for one second did I wish that I had not started this thread, because I think the thread brought out some important issues.
Well, the case has been settle, the settlement has been approved, and my muzzle has been removed. So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
So ask away! 0
Comments
shield (although it is too small by law). Can't comment on the Timberwolf as I don't know the coin/series.
Keep us informed, please.
bob
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>Interesting to see how far the law reaches. The ASE does not have a date that I can see and it does say copy on the
shield (although it is too small by law). Can't comment on the Timberwolf as I don't know the coin/series.
Keep us informed, please.
bob
Yes please keep us informed on the proceedings. Bob where do you see the word copy on the shield?
Go get em Tom!
Thanks for posting this and I hope most members of this forum read it.
OINK
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting to see how far the law reaches. The ASE does not have a date that I can see and it does say copy on the
shield (although it is too small by law). Can't comment on the Timberwolf as I don't know the coin/series.
Keep us informed, please.
bob
Yes please keep us informed on the proceedings. Bob where do you see the word copy on the shield? >>
I can confirm that the word copy is not on the silver round in the picture. In my complaint, my lawyers do point out the little square in the shield that looks like it may have been designed to have the word copy in it. We also point out as Bob did, that even if they did put the word copy in that little square, it would not be big enough to satisfy the FTC size requirement for the word "copy."
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Are you saying these are not .999 silver, one once in size? >>
No I do not say that they are not .999 fine silver, and one ounce in size. My lawsuit just says that they are not marked as copy like they should be.
I did have them tested with an XRF gun, and it said that it was .999 fine silver. Of course a thick silver plating will fool an XRF gun, melting it would be the only way to know for sure. I also weighed both on a state certified scale. One of them was right on, the other was off slightly. It was the Silver Eagle copy that was off weight slightly, the Timberwolf was right on.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds, and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible. I'm sure everyone on this forum can tell the difference, and understands the difference between a coin and a silver round. However I would often run into people who thought they had something made by an actual Government mint, and then they would show me some knock-off. Then I would have to break the bad news. Of course they are never marked copy, as required by law.
Earlier this year, I found a company the Westminster Mint, bases out of Plymouth MN, that was particularly bad in this regard.
Here is a copy of a real Proof Silver Eagle, next to a silver round being sold by the Westminster Mint.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]
Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Reverse_zps1db4781e.jpg.html]
Here is the front of a silver round they are selling that looks almost identical to the Timber wolf coin from the Canadian Wildlife series.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ObverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps409122f2.png.html]
Instead of the Queen opposite the timber wolf like they have on the real coin, these copies have a maple leaf.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/ReverseoffakeTimberwolf-cropped_zps636a81cb.png.html]
When I ordered the coins, I confirmed that the coins were not marked as copies as required by the Hobby Protection act. It was time to take action.
I remembered that there was a hobby protection act case a number of years ago, so I did some research and found the lawyers that had represented the plaintiffs in that case. This worked out great, because they were already familiar with the law, so they knew I had a good case as soon as they saw pictures of the silver rounds. They also understood how the law has a provision that if we are successful, the defendants were responsible for all legal fees. It also fit well as a Class Action suit, since there were numerous people that likely bought these silver rounds.
The lawsuit was filled in March, and it named me as the lead plaintiff, and the Westminster Mint, and their fulfillment center the Highland Mint out of Florida as the defendants. Almost immediately after the defendants were served, they stopped selling the Timberwolf round, and they started marking the Silver Eagles with "copy." So I was pleased that my suit had an affect right away, but of course there are still issues that need to be resolved.
The Westminster Mint filled a motion to dismiss, saying that they are not the makers of the silver rounds, they are just the marketer of them. It is very interesting, because if you go to their website, you can see pictures of the rounds being made, and the website certainly gives the impression that they are the manufactures. I was also told by one of the employees at the Westminster Mint, that they make the rounds, but that was kind of a weird story about how the Westminster mint owned or leased the equipment but it was at the Highland mint facility. My lawyers are opposing the motion to dismiss. After all, they call themselves a mint, and we should be entitled to discovery to determine their involvement in this. Even in the unlikely event we lose that motion, the case still goes on with the other defendants.
My lawyer also filled a motion for class certification. I thought that motion was also going to be argued tomorrow, but the defendants decided not to oppose that motion. This was another good win for my team.
I don't need to go to court tomorrow, my lawyers will handle all the arguments and I will watch from the Gallery, but I thought it would be interesting. The hearing is scheduled tomorrow (8/19/14) at 9:30 AM in the Federal Court house in St. Paul, MN. >>
First i would like to say thank you, you are doing a great job protecting people in the hobby from scum like these guys!! My main question for you is what made you want to take this on, surely this has been highly time consuming for you not to mention that I'm sure it has cost you a few bucks. Also were do you plan to take it from hear are you going to go after other companies or was it your goal just to hammer this company?? If you win on all charges who will get the money from this company will it go to the government ??
...your lawyer(s) would probably frown on you discussing the case publicly like this
and
....I don't expect a decision in your favor.....I think a <major> technicality is that the "copies" do not state a denomination on them.....hope I'm wrong
www.brunkauctions.com
On second though, anything's possible!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
www.brunkauctions.com
I'm no lawyer, but if you weren't harmed economically or some other way, you don't have a leg to stand on. Only the government can police its laws. Why not let them do it?
I commend you.
<< <i>and without bearing a date on them how can you prove they were not produced BEFORE the Hobby Protection Act? (of course, in reality, you and I know they were not) >>
The Hpa predates the ASE design
<< <i>I think your heart is in the right place, but....
...your lawyer(s) would probably frown on you discussing the case publicly like this
and
....I don't expect a decision in your favor.....I think a <major> technicality is that the "copies" do not state a denomination on them.....hope I'm wrong >>
The terms similitude and purports are used. They don't have to be exact.
>>
First i would like to say thank you, you are doing a great job protecting people in the hobby from scum like these guys!! My main question for you is what made you want to take this on, surely this has been highly time consuming for you not to mention that I'm sure it has cost you a few bucks. >>
There is more to the back story about how I found these guys, and why I started with this case in particular. That will come out more at a future date so stay tuned. As far as time and expense that has not been as bad as you might think. I have not had to pay my lawyers anything. The hobby protection Act has a provision, so if you win the defendants pay your legal fees. My lawyers feel the case is so strong that they took it on contingency.
>>
Also were do you plan to take it from hear are you going to go after other companies or was it your goal just to hammer this company?? >>
This is another good question, and only time will tell. I hope this sends a message to other makers of silver rounds that look a lot like coins. It would be nice if the whole industry cleaned up it's act and stopped selling silver rounds that look like coins.
If you win on all charges who will get the money from this company will it go to the government ?? >>
If I win on all charges, the defendants will have to pay my attorney's. As the lead plaintiff, I would typically get a larger part of any settlement. The rest (and majority of it) would go to other class members that bought the silver rounds during that period. Government should not get any of it, unless some of it is taxable as income.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I think your heart is in the right place, but....
...your lawyer(s) would probably frown on you discussing the case publicly like this
and
....I don't expect a decision in your favor.....I think a <major> technicality is that the "copies" do not state a denomination on them.....hope I'm wrong >>
Almost all of what I have said so far is included in the complaint that was filed with the court and it is public knowledge. This is a class action lawsuit and we are almost to the point of getting the list of class members and notifying them, so I don't think they will mind my posts.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>And you were harmed how by these knockoffs?
I'm no lawyer, but if you weren't harmed economically or some other way, you don't have a leg to stand on. Only the government can police its laws. Why not let them do it? >>
The hobby protection act has a provision that anyone can bring suit against a violator, and if you win the defendant has to pay the attorney's fees. It is called a private enforcement provision. As far as why not let the government do this, the simple answer is they haven't. Others have asked me this, and it is hard for me to imagine trying to get the government to take action of something like this. The point of a private enforcement provision is I don't have to convince the government, I can convince a private attorney who will move forward if they think I have a good case.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I've got fantasies of doing the same thing to some of the clowns doing the same thing.
<< <i>I wonder if Dan Carr is following this thread.
troublemaker...
Keep an open mind, or get financially repressed -Zoltan Pozsar
<< <i>maybe you can settle in silver. >>
Coupons for future silver rounds purchases
Since both the counterfeits and the "silver rounds" are designed to deceive, and fool people into buying something that is NOT as universally accepted, collectible, and of known quality as the SAE, they should be challenged. Anything that can be done to remove them is a GOOD thing.
I don't care if they really have the silver content advertized, or if the design has some insignificant modification. (Heck, the counterfeits were pretty easy to spot too). They are deceptive....they are designed to be deceptive from the moment they were planned.
Good on the OP for doing something. If it makes the next manufacturer think twice before following suit, then we all have won.
It kind of makes me sick that some seem to think this is a free enterprise issue, and the people at "fault" are the people who actually bought them instead of the people who manufactured and sold them.
<< <i>Given the warnings sent out on counterfeit SAE's bounced around here within the last few weeks, I'm not sure where the animosity towards this action is coming from.
>>
Some folks on this forum like nothing better than complaining about something. I applaud the poster and his actions and, sadly, am no longer amazed when the negativity crowd jumps in to go against good things.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
XXXXXXX v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al
Defendant: Bullion International, Inc., Westminster Mint, Inc., Ian Clay and Michael Kott
Plaintiff: Thomas J XXXXXXXX
Case Number: 0:2014cv00619
Filed: March 7, 2014
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Hennepin
Referring Judge: Jeanne J. Graham
Presiding Judge: Susan Richard Nelson
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
I remember buying one thing from the Westminster Mint - And one was more than enough -- thought I was getting screwed out of $700 ish dollars ... Ian Clay and his high pressure sales folks trying to push "ground floor investments" in modern 70s at "bargain prices" . .All the stuff about the warehouse in FLA is all the same crap I was hearing .. Major De ja vu reading this thread ....
I was heavily into bullion at the time and really was attracted to the RCM Wildlife Series .. with plans to eventually buy a tube of 25 of all 6 coins in the series ... Anyway - I ordered a roll of Timberwolves, back when they first came out, September 2010 or was it Sep. 2011? Came pretty close to getting screwed out of the money .. I had to make numerous emails and phone calls that eventually escalated into pressure and finally threats to involve the BBB and the AG if I didn't get my coins .... They finally came 8 weeks after promised date of delivery .. I vouched then - NEVER AGAIN
<< <i>is this your case?
XXXXXXX v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al
Defendant: Bullion International, Inc., Westminster Mint, Inc., Ian Clay and Michael Kott
Plaintiff: Thomas J XXXXXXXX
Case Number: 0:2014cv00619
Filed: March 7, 2014
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Hennepin
Referring Judge: Jeanne J. Graham
Presiding Judge: Susan Richard Nelson
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff >>
Yes, that is it.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>The only winners in class action suits are the lawyers. >>
I'll second that motion!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Great job on seeing this through. I havent seen either of those rounds before and knowing that they are coming out of MN is saddening. Living in ND just miles down the road I'm glad none of my customers have been fooled by these yet. >>
Define "fooled" please.
These are silver rounds sold as silver rounds that kinda look like Silver Eagles.
I'm failing to see a real problem here. I also fail to see a connection between collecting "silver rounds" and "collecting coins" such as what the HPA was written for.
Half of me is hoping you lose your case and end up having to pay not only your own attorney's fee's but the fee's of the defendants as well. But that's just me.
If the pieces contain 1 oz of .999 fine silver as they are advertised, then I'm ok with it.
Again, that's just me. I try to educate the stupid, not make it easier for them to be even stupider.
I mean, lets look at the reality of the situation.
In late 1985, the United States Government decided to go into the "silver round" business by selling off the Strategic Silver Stockpile so that the "little guys" could get into precious metal investing without having to invest $500,000 at a time. At that time, they chose a design which was exactly like the Adolph A. Weinman Walking Liberty Half Dollar. They even gave it a legal denomination which, according to some reports, has confused some people into spending them for $1.
Regardless, Silver Eagles are nothing more than government made Silver Rounds and their intrinsic value is based upon the price of silver.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>And you were harmed how by these knockoffs?
I'm no lawyer, but if you weren't harmed economically or some other way, you don't have a leg to stand on. Only the government can police its laws. Why not let them do it? >>
The hobby protection act has a provision that anyone can bring suit against a violator, and if you win the defendant has to pay the attorney's fees. It is called a private enforcement provision. As far as why not let the government do this, the simple answer is they haven't. Others have asked me this, and it is hard for me to imagine trying to get the government to take action of something like this. The point of a private enforcement provision is I don't have to convince the government, I can convince a private attorney who will move forward if they think I have a good case. >>
OK. Interesting. How will the judge fix damages? What if he doesn't award you your legal fees?
Too many unknowns for my liking.
<< <i>keep me and us posted on this suit.
I've got fantasies of doing the same thing to some of the clowns doing the same thing. >>
I know a good lawyer for this, PM sent.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds >>
Why ?
<< <i>..., and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible. >>
I think that if they [the Westminster Mint] had wanted to, they could have made the rounds look a lot more like coins than they did. For example, put a date on it, use an image of the Queen instead of the Maple Leaf, and put a denomination on it.
<< <i>I'm sure everyone on this forum can tell the difference, and understands the difference between a coin and a silver round. However I would often run into people who thought they had something made by an actual Government mint, and then they would show me some knock-off. Then I would have to break the bad news. Of course they are never marked copy, as required by law. >>
So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ?
<< <i>Here is a copy of a real Proof Silver Eagle, next to a silver round being sold by the Westminster Mint. >>
"A copy of a real Proof Silver Eagle". Strange choice of words - seems contradictory.
One of the first steps to valuing a coin is to determine the date of mintage. The date is a major focal point on the coin. Without a date, you can't even look up the value in a price guide. The lack of a date on the silver round in question is far more obvious than a "COPY" stamp hidden in the wing would ever be.
In other words, if a potential buyer is not going to do even the slightest amount of due diligence, and is determined to spend more than they should, a "COPY" stamp isn't going to stop that - especially if they can't even notice that there is no date or denomination on it.
As such, this silver round does not purport to be an original numismatic item.
The Hpa predates the ASE design
I know that, and you know that.....but will a judge who is a numismatic lay-person? I suppose my operative word in the above sentence is prove
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>I know that, and you know that.....but will a judge who is a numismatic lay-person? I suppose my operative word in the above sentence is prove >>
But it's not what the Judge knows, it's the evidence presented in court. Here is the design of a USMint produce from 199x and here is defendent's product purchased on such and such a date fro their web site. as you can see, not marked copy.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>
<< <i>Great job on seeing this through. I havent seen either of those rounds before and knowing that they are coming out of MN is saddening. Living in ND just miles down the road I'm glad none of my customers have been fooled by these yet. >>
Define "fooled" please.
These are silver rounds sold as silver rounds that kinda look like Silver Eagles.
I'm failing to see a real problem here. I also fail to see a connection between collecting "silver rounds" and "collecting coins" such as what the HPA was written for.
Half of me is hoping you lose your case and end up having to pay not only your own attorney's fee's but the fee's of the defendants as well. But that's just me.
If the pieces contain 1 oz of .999 fine silver as they are advertised, then I'm ok with it.
Again, that's just me. I try to educate the stupid, not make it easier for them to be even stupider.
I mean, lets look at the reality of the situation.
In late 1985, the United States Government decided to go into the "silver round" business by selling off the Strategic Silver Stockpile so that the "little guys" could get into precious metal investing without having to invest $500,000 at a time. At that time, they chose a design which was exactly like the Adolph A. Weinman Walking Liberty Half Dollar. They even gave it a legal denomination which, according to some reports, has confused some people into spending them for $1.
Regardless, Silver Eagles are nothing more than government made Silver Rounds and their intrinsic value is based upon the price of silver. >>
If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Great job on seeing this through. I havent seen either of those rounds before and knowing that they are coming out of MN is saddening. Living in ND just miles down the road I'm glad none of my customers have been fooled by these yet. >>
Define "fooled" please.
These are silver rounds sold as silver rounds that kinda look like Silver Eagles.
I'm failing to see a real problem here. I also fail to see a connection between collecting "silver rounds" and "collecting coins" such as what the HPA was written for.
Half of me is hoping you lose your case and end up having to pay not only your own attorney's fee's but the fee's of the defendants as well. But that's just me.
If the pieces contain 1 oz of .999 fine silver as they are advertised, then I'm ok with it.
Again, that's just me. I try to educate the stupid, not make it easier for them to be even stupider.
I mean, lets look at the reality of the situation.
In late 1985, the United States Government decided to go into the "silver round" business by selling off the Strategic Silver Stockpile so that the "little guys" could get into precious metal investing without having to invest $500,000 at a time. At that time, they chose a design which was exactly like the Adolph A. Weinman Walking Liberty Half Dollar. They even gave it a legal denomination which, according to some reports, has confused some people into spending them for $1.
Regardless, Silver Eagles are nothing more than government made Silver Rounds and their intrinsic value is based upon the price of silver. >>
If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it
I didn't realize these silver rounds were being sold as ASE's by the defendant.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Great job on seeing this through. I havent seen either of those rounds before and knowing that they are coming out of MN is saddening. Living in ND just miles down the road I'm glad none of my customers have been fooled by these yet. >>
Define "fooled" please.
These are silver rounds sold as silver rounds that kinda look like Silver Eagles.
I'm failing to see a real problem here. I also fail to see a connection between collecting "silver rounds" and "collecting coins" such as what the HPA was written for.
Half of me is hoping you lose your case and end up having to pay not only your own attorney's fee's but the fee's of the defendants as well. But that's just me.
If the pieces contain 1 oz of .999 fine silver as they are advertised, then I'm ok with it.
Again, that's just me. I try to educate the stupid, not make it easier for them to be even stupider.
I mean, lets look at the reality of the situation.
In late 1985, the United States Government decided to go into the "silver round" business by selling off the Strategic Silver Stockpile so that the "little guys" could get into precious metal investing without having to invest $500,000 at a time. At that time, they chose a design which was exactly like the Adolph A. Weinman Walking Liberty Half Dollar. They even gave it a legal denomination which, according to some reports, has confused some people into spending them for $1.
Regardless, Silver Eagles are nothing more than government made Silver Rounds and their intrinsic value is based upon the price of silver. >>
If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it
I didn't realize these silver rounds were being sold as ASE's by the defendant. >>
Good point. But does it matter?
So that would mean that I can go make something look like a rare coin and then just sell it without breaking a law as long as I don't "advertise" it as such?
So I can go cast a rare Morgan dollar and take it to a pawn shop and tell them I don't know what it is and I am not breaking a law because I didn't sell it as a rare Morgan dollar.
<< <i>So I can go cast a rare Morgan dollar and take it to a pawn shop and tell them I don't know what it is and I am not breaking a law because I didn't sell it as a rare Morgan dollar. >>
Making the thing in the first place isn't really the problem.
If you made it, then you know what it really is.
The violation occurs when you intentionally misrepresent it to a buyer.
<< <i>
So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't.