Asset Marketing Services is suing JAM Products and Stephen Harris, under the Hobby Protection Act

Tomthecoinguy

Someone recently sent me a court decision, where a Federal Judge (Who has done a Hobby Protection Act Case before) ruled that the Asset Marketing Services (AMS) can sue JAM Products under the Hobby protection Act.

I think almost all of us are familiar with AMS the huge telemarketing coin firm, but I have not heard of JAM Products or Steven Harris. Is anyone familiar with JAM Products, inc. or Steven Harris?

Anyone know what the case is about? Does anyone have the ability to pull the case filings? All I know is what is in the recent decision, and there is nothing about the merits of the case.

amwldcoin

Here ya go if you want to pay for an account(I'm assuming)
https://pacermonitor.com/public/case/29423299/Asset_Marketing_Services,_LLC_v_JAM_Products,_Incet_al

Zoins

I've never heard of the parties involved but Steven Harris has a description of JAM Products dba S&A Partners on his LinkedIn profile.

CEO
Company Name: JAM Products Inc. dba S&A Partners
Dates Employed: Aug 2008 – Present
Employment Duration: 13 yrs
Location: Hong Kong, Tokyo, Scottsdale

S&A is an independent, creatively driven firm that develops provocative product and packaging for the Collectibles Industry. We partner with the biggest brands in the world to create consumer products that are engaging, cost-effective and fun.

He was previously VP Marketing at CSN:

VP Marketing, Licensing & Product Development
Company Name: Cable Shopping Network
Dates Employed: 2006 – Jun 2015
Employment Duration: 9 yrs
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

CSN is a Direct Response Retailer in the Collectibles Industry.

Jzyskowski1

CSN. Currently featuring Mr.Mezak ase coin program. He’s been nice to me. He’s a big player 😊

Tomthecoinguy

@amwldcoin said:
Here ya go if you want to pay for an account(I'm assuming)
https://pacermonitor.com/public/case/29423299/Asset_Marketing_Services,_LLC_v_JAM_Products,_Incet_al

Not curious enough to pay. Thanks for the link it did provide me some additional information about what was going on. There was a document talking about records being sealed, so maybe I cannot get what I want anyway.

Also, it looks like JAM Products counter sued AMS. The plot thickens!

BStrauss3

You can get a Pacer account (US government site) for free and if your usage is under $30/quarter they don't charge you. But the do bill per page.

Asset Marketing Services, LLC v. JAM Products, Inc.et al
0:2019cv02113
Minnesota District Court

Several of the filings are sealed, but there's an order on the subject... whatever is in there, neither party wants revealed, there is a joint motion to keep sealed.

The proposed jury instruction run 51 pages, but the jist of the case seems to be:

This is a civil case brought by plaintiff Asset Marketing Services, Inc. against defendants JAM Products Inc. and Steven Harris. The party who brings a lawsuit is called the plaintiff. For the claims that you will examine in this case, there is just one plaintiff, Asset Marketing Services. We will refer to them as AMS. The parties against whom a lawsuit is brought are called the defendants. The defendants in this case are Steven Harris and JAM Products Inc, d/b/a S&A Partners. We will refer to them as Harris and JAM Products. AMS alleges that JAM Products and Harris violated the Hobby Protection Act and breached a contract between JAM Products, Harris and AMS. The purpose of the Consulting Agreement was to develop, gain authorization for, and deliver several collectible coins. AMS claims that Harris, and his company JAM Products, imported into the United States several denominations of Fiji legal tender Coca-Cola® coins without authorization from Fiji, in violation of the law and the parties’ contract. It will be your duty to decide from the evidence if Harris and JAM Products imported these coins without authorization, therefore violating the Hobby Protection Act and the parties’ contract. If you decide either Defendant is liable on either claim, you will decide what amount of damages, if any, AMS has shown would fairly and adequately compensate it for any harm caused by Defendants’ breach of contract and violation of the Hobby Protection Act. It is also your duty to decide whether Defendants have proven certain defenses to these claims. Defendant JAM Products has brought counterclaims against AMS. First, JAM Products claims that AMS breached the parties’ contract. JAM Products claims AMS breached the contract by failing to pay a customs fee and by failing to pay JAM Products royalties for the coins. Next, JAM Products claim AMS tortiously interfered with a contract between JAM Products and a company called Shanghai Century New Minting. If you decide AMS is liable to JAM Products on either clam, it is your duty to decide what amount of damages, if any, JAM Products has shown would fairly and adequately compensate it for any harm caused by AMS’s breach and/or interference.

Tomthecoinguy

@BStrauss3 said:
You can get a Pacer account (US government site) for free and if your usage is under $30/quarter they don't charge you. But the do bill per page.

Asset Marketing Services, LLC v. JAM Products, Inc.et al
0:2019cv02113
Minnesota District Court

Several of the filings are sealed, but there's an order on the subject... whatever is in there, neither party wants revealed, there is a joint motion to keep sealed.

The proposed jury instruction run 51 pages, but the jist of the case seems to be:

This is a civil case brought by plaintiff Asset Marketing Services, Inc. against defendants JAM Products Inc. and Steven Harris. The party who brings a lawsuit is called the plaintiff. For the claims that you will examine in this case, there is just one plaintiff, Asset Marketing Services. We will refer to them as AMS. The parties against whom a lawsuit is brought are called the defendants. The defendants in this case are Steven Harris and JAM Products Inc, d/b/a S&A Partners. We will refer to them as Harris and JAM Products. AMS alleges that JAM Products and Harris violated the Hobby Protection Act and breached a contract between JAM Products, Harris and AMS. The purpose of the Consulting Agreement was to develop, gain authorization for, and deliver several collectible coins. AMS claims that Harris, and his company JAM Products, imported into the United States several denominations of Fiji legal tender Coca-Cola® coins without authorization from Fiji, in violation of the law and the parties’ contract. It will be your duty to decide from the evidence if Harris and JAM Products imported these coins without authorization, therefore violating the Hobby Protection Act and the parties’ contract. If you decide either Defendant is liable on either claim, you will decide what amount of damages, if any, AMS has shown would fairly and adequately compensate it for any harm caused by Defendants’ breach of contract and violation of the Hobby Protection Act. It is also your duty to decide whether Defendants have proven certain defenses to these claims. Defendant JAM Products has brought counterclaims against AMS. First, JAM Products claims that AMS breached the parties’ contract. JAM Products claims AMS breached the contract by failing to pay a customs fee and by failing to pay JAM Products royalties for the coins. Next, JAM Products claim AMS tortiously interfered with a contract between JAM Products and a company called Shanghai Century New Minting. If you decide AMS is liable to JAM Products on either clam, it is your duty to decide what amount of damages, if any, JAM Products has shown would fairly and adequately compensate it for any harm caused by AMS’s breach and/or interference.

Thanks Burton, this is very interesting. I will definitely be curious on how this one comes out.

BStrauss3

Yep. And frankly, the whole hobby protection act smells bogus.

The HPA keeps fakes out. Says nothing about contractual relationships.

Sure, if you & I sign an agreement that you'll help me with the marketing plan for this thing I'm going to import and you won't import it yourself... there could be a breach of contract if you go ahead and import it. But that doesn't change the definition of fake.

MsMorrisine

i'm not sure how the HPA fits into that lawsuit,

I'm guessing that the importing issue is from business X has a sole seller for USA agreement with the maker of the cap coins. and Y got them gray market style via buying them from a foreign seller Z and importing them into the USA.

but that's just a guess. I don't see what's in the lawsuit that might violate the HPA unless JAM made something similar to something AMS holds rights to. but that is another guess.

291fifth

Just be thankful you don't get called for jury duty on a case like this. They can drag on for weeks. 51 pages of jury instructions!!!!!!

MrEureka

I can't say I know what's going on here but I'm going to avoid all Fiji Coca-Cola issues until the dust settles. Not sure they belong in my collection anyway.

Tomthecoinguy

@MsMorrisine said:
i'm not sure how the HPA fits into that lawsuit,

I'm guessing that the importing issue is from business X has a sole seller for USA agreement with the maker of the cap coins. and Y got them gray market style via buying them from a foreign seller Z and importing them into the USA.

but that's just a guess. I don't see what's in the lawsuit that might violate the HPA unless JAM made something similar to something AMS holds rights to. but that is another guess.

Here is what I am reading into the lawsuit. I think that AMS is saying that the coins JAM has have not been officially authorized by FIJI as legal tender which makes them imitation numismatic items. Seems similar to "not Monetized" argument the US Government made on the 1933 Double eagles. Sounds like it will be up to a jury to see if the AMS claim has any merit.

BStrauss3

@MsMorrisine said:
i'm not sure how the HPA fits into that lawsuit,

I'm guessing that the importing issue is from business X has a sole seller for USA agreement with the maker of the cap coins. and Y got them gray market style via buying them from a foreign seller Z and importing them into the USA.

but that's just a guess. I don't see what's in the lawsuit that might violate the HPA unless JAM made something similar to something AMS holds rights to. but that is another guess.

There is nothing in the HPA concerning an authorized importer or grey market. It's purely about the reproduction numismatic items. If these are the genuine coins, then that's 0-for-2 in my score card. But I admit I'm too cheap to download the entire complaint and not bored enough to read it.

BStrauss3

Alright I lied. I downloaded the original complaint which is based on the Collectable Coin Protection Act not the Hobby Protection Act, although 15 U.S.C. § 2101 at b is the HPA

(b)Coins and other numismatic items
The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution in commerce, or the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked “copy”, is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

The CCPA: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2754/text

It still makes no sense (a) is the political items, (b) the HPA.

(c)Rules and regulations
The Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe rules for determining the manner and form in which items described in subsection (a) or (b) shall be permanently marked.

(d)Provision of assistance or support
It shall be a violation of subsection (a) or (b) for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any act or practice that violates subsection (a) or (b).

Unless they are alleging that JAM is importing FAKE Fiji Coke Bottle Cap coins? But that's straight forward HPA has nothing to do with any contract issues. The whole thing smells of a spaghetti complaint (throw at wall and see what sticks).

MsMorrisine

I think the importation part is one allegation and the HPA violation a separate one