<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales - Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start.... >>
Finding something and thinking that is worth a lot of money is a LOT different than PAYING a lot of money for something. So somebody finds a "1975" quarter and they think it is worth a lot. No harm done if they found it. After finding it, they try to sell it. Who is going to pay a lot for it without knowing what it is ? Anybody with those tendencies will have probably already spent all their money on swamp land in Florida or late-night TV jewelry.
10 or 50 years from now, the Krause "Unusual World Coins" catalog may list reasonable market values for them (they already do for the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes and the "1975" Ike Dollar over-strikes). I just did an internet search for "1975 Washington Quarter", and 4 out of the top 14 sites listed were for information about my over-strikes. So information is readily available to anyone doing even a minimum amount of research.
reading this thread(or at least part of it) gives me a headache. it seems that anyone, including most respondents and the OP, should under no circumstances be fooled by any of this which is quite common in the marketplace. I would suggest everyone consider the opinion of DC as gospel and realize that there is no "copying" going on even if the word "COPY" isn't on these pieces of bullion.
get a grip already, over seven pages of drivel over this!!! we now return you to your regularly scheduled whatever it is.
<< <i>reading this thread(or at least part of it) gives me a headache. it seems that anyone, including most respondents and the OP, should under no circumstances be fooled by any of this which is quite common in the marketplace. I would suggest everyone consider the opinion of DC as gospel and realize that there is no "copying" going on even if the word "COPY" isn't on these pieces of bullion.
get a grip already, over seven pages of drivel over this!!! we now return you to your regularly scheduled whatever it is. >>
Drivel? as opposed to the Who, What, Where, etc drivel
Dcarr, by using your logic on fantasy pieces, all one would have to do is a little research on the web to see that no SAE were made without a date or lack of denomination, thus making these pieces a-ok. I mean, if all the buyer needs is research, why would anyone be taken in by them? Guess the op should have done minimal research before buying...
<< <i>Dcarr, by using your logic on fantasy pieces, all one would have to do is a little research on the web to see that no SAE were made without a date or lack of denomination, thus making these pieces a-ok. I mean, if all the buyer needs is research, why would anyone be taken in by them? Guess the op should have done minimal research before buying... >>
<< <i>Dcarr, by using your logic on fantasy pieces, all one would have to do is a little research on the web to see that no SAE were made without a date or lack of denomination, thus making these pieces a-ok. I mean, if all the buyer needs is research, why would anyone be taken in by them? Guess the op should have done minimal research before buying... >>
Very interesting thread. I have not bothered to read all of the posts and likely will not as the arcane details and debate gives me a headache.
With respect to class action lawsuits, I have never been involved in one (other than receiving notices that as member of a designated class in a class action lawsuit I am entitled to receive a discount coupon good towards a future purchase or that I am entitled to monetary compensation of "up to $50.00" provided that I fill out and send in an application form that is 10+ pages long of microscopic print that would take me hours to read and fill out). It is my understanding that class action lawsuits are designed to provide a mechanism through which a defendant (usually a large corporate defendant) that is doing something wrong to the customers it serves (i.e. overcharging its 500,000 customer accounts by $10.00 each month for the past 5 years [$600 for each customer] in violation of a consumer protection law [with the total overcharge being $300,000.000.00] can be punished and made to correct its misdeeds without requiring each victimized customer to file a separate lawsuit seeking to recover the overcharge. This type of mechanism does serve a useful purpose (punishing the bad guy and hopefully causing it to follow the law in the future). However this type of mechanism does not result in any significant relief being given to the members of the class who have theoretically suffered (if even a little) from the actions of the bad guy. To make the system work (and obtain the goal of punishing the bad guy and causing it to follow the law in the future) it requires lawyers who are willing to undertake the representation of the named Plaintiff and the class members he or she represents. To get lawyers to handle this type of work, they must have an incentive to do so. The incentive is dollars, usually BIG dollars. Some lawyers specialize in this type of work and are very good at it. More power to them IMO and if they are handsomely rewarded for their work, good for them. The named Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit is required to put in time and work and effort in the case. The named Plaintiff should get compensated in a manner that exceeds any compensation paid to the unnamed class members who get the discount coupon or a $50.00 check after filling out and submitting a 10 page application. Better to have this type of system that not have it.
So, according to the docket, two things occurred...
/1/ on 08/06/2014 #43
CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. Due to the retirement of Magistrate Judge Graham, this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham no longer assigned to the case.NOTE: the new case number is 14-cv-619 SRN/HB. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
and
/2/ on 08/19/2014 #44
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Motion Hearing held on 8/19/2014 re 19 MOTION to Dismiss/General filed by Westminster Mint, Inc., Bullion International, Inc. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
So it really wasn't your day in court, it was their day to try to convince the judge to dismiss before the trial. The order just says a written order will be issued...
OP, can you give us a "courtroom report" - what was said, what the thrust of the arguments were, etc.??
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <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. >>
Whether intentionally misrepresented or not, the rounds do not comply with the HPA.
If you are truly interested in stopping the sale of these rounds, ask your attorneys about 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 487, and 18 U.S.C. 489 and their applicability to the rounds, the latter of which specifically addresses possession and not mere manufacturing. Note that these are criminal statutes and likely won’t help your civil case, but if you are interested in fighting violations of the law and if you can convince a federal district attorney, this is the way to go. You won’t have to worry about legal fees if the government decides to prosecute the claim. I can’t guarantee that will happen though. Some district attorneys won’t care; maybe your local DA will.
If you are truly interested in stopping the sale of these rounds, ask your attorneys about 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 487, and 18 U.S.C. 489 and their applicability to the rounds, the latter of which specifically addresses possession and not mere manufacturing. Note that these are criminal statutes and likely won’t help your civil case, but if you are interested in fighting violations of the law and if you can convince a federal district attorney, this is the way to go. You won’t have to worry about legal fees if the government decides to prosecute the claim. I can’t guarantee that will happen though. Some district attorneys won’t care; maybe your local DA will. >>
18 U.S.C. 485: "Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
The rounds in question were not "falsely" made because they contain the advertised quantity of silver. Nobody is attempting to pass them as government issue or legal tender, nor has the manufacturer or marketer suggested that they are. As such, there is no violation of that statute.
18 U.S.C. 487: "Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing molds and dies in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 487.
18 U.S.C. 489: "Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489.
As a precedent to show that rounds like the ones in question have not been prohibited by the statutes above, I again point to the rounds that were licensed and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution (note that these even have an apparent face value):
<< <i>The plain meaning of unambiguous statutes and federal administrative regulations speak for themselves and require no further legal interpretation. >>
The HPA text does not define the criteria for "reasonably purport". So it definitely is ambiguous in that regard. You and I don't agree on what it means.
But what counts is, what does the government think it means ? A look at past legal action brought against round manufacturers and marketers by the US government is telling. Since the enactment of the HPA, the only such cases that I am aware of are:
Liberty Dollar: The government brought this case because the Liberty Dollar organization was attempting to insert their privately-minted rounds into commerce so as to circulate at their apparent face value.
Freedom Tower Dollar: NY Attorney Elliot Spitzer brought action against National Collectors Mint because of the deceptive advertising of their "government-issue Freedom Tower silver dollar" product.
Washington Mint: The Washington Mint sold big 3-inch replicas of Sacagawea dollars. The US Mint sued them to stop because the Sacagawea obverse design is one of the few US coin designs that is actually copyrighted.
That is basically it. There have been other dissimilar cases involving outright counterfeiting (usually photocopied paper money and the like) and fraud.
If you are truly interested in stopping the sale of these rounds, ask your attorneys about 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 487, and 18 U.S.C. 489 and their applicability to the rounds, the latter of which specifically addresses possession and not mere manufacturing. Note that these are criminal statutes and likely won’t help your civil case, but if you are interested in fighting violations of the law and if you can convince a federal district attorney, this is the way to go. You won’t have to worry about legal fees if the government decides to prosecute the claim. I can’t guarantee that will happen though. Some district attorneys won’t care; maybe your local DA will. >>
18 U.S.C. 485: "Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
The rounds in question were not "falsely" made because they contain the advertised quantity of silver. Nobody is attempting to pass them as government issue or legal tender, nor has the manufacturer or marketer suggested that they are. As such, there is no violation of that statute.
18 U.S.C. 487: "Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing molds and dies in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 487.
18 U.S.C. 489: "Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489.
As a precedent to show that rounds like the ones in question have not been prohibited by the statutes above, I again point to the rounds that were licensed and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution (note that these even have an apparent face value):
>>
Dan do you know what steps the Smithsonian had to go through to get these items produced? Did they ned special permissions etc?
<< <i>The plain meaning of unambiguous statutes and federal administrative regulations speak for themselves and require no further legal interpretation. >>
The HPA text does not define the criteria for "reasonably purport". So it definitely is ambiguous in that regard. You and I don't agree on what it means.
But what counts is, what does the government think it means ? A look at past legal action brought against round manufacturers and marketers by the US government is telling. Since the enactment of the HPA, the only such cases that I am aware of are:.... >>
The statue is not ambiguous (as applied to the case in the original post) and can be applied as is written. At best, your arguments create a question of fact for a jury which does not render a statute legally ambiguous. My comments were not meant to address factual findings per se, but legal interpretations for those trying to add an intent element to the manufacturers/sellers of these items under the Hobby Protection Act. There is no such provision that I can find that provides such an exception, and private parties cannot add and read provisions into statutes because they find it convenient. Moreover, such a provision would defeat the purpose of the Hobby Protection Act to prevent close reproductions, replicas, or whatever people call them these days, from infiltrating the public and becoming potential traps for the unweary in, including but not limited to, secondary markets.
With regards to the $100 Gold Union piece, that could be distinguished by having been approved or authorized by the government/government entity, but even if I agreed that the pieces are problematic (and I do), at best you make an argument for why those coins should not be permitted. The fact that "everyone else is doing it," is not a good legal defense.
<< <i>By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489. >>
I don't dispute that the HPA carved out exceptions to the criminal statutes cited. It absolutely did; however, to be classified as an exception within the HPA, one must comply with the provisions concerning having the word "COPY" placed on them. Put another way, items of this nature not expressly provided for in the HPA or in other federal statutes, are subject to attack under 18 U.S.C. 489 and the other criminal statutes. And if the HPA doesn't apply because of a failure to be considered "original numismatic items", then there is no statutory exception to 18 U.S.C. 489 for these pieces.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
No updates, still waiting for the judge to rule. Based on the judges comment at the end of the hearing, that it was her first Hobby Protection Act case and she needed to do some studying on that law, I am taking that to mean it will be a long wait.
No updates, still waiting for the judge to rule. Based on the judges comment at the end of the hearing, that it was her first Hobby Protection Act case and she needed to do some studying on that law, I am taking that to mean it will be a long wait. >>
Thanks Tom
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i> 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. >>
<< <i> 18 U.S.C. 489: "Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489. >>
That is interesting. According to a broad reading of 18 USC 489, Chuckie Cheese tokens would be illegal as they are gold tokens so they have a likeness in color to US gold coins.
Lots of interesting lively discussion, have enjoyed reading all the posts on all sides. One of the best threads lately.
Here's what I think: the HPA says put "COPY" on something that might be confused for an original. They didn't. All the nitpicking in the world won't change the fact that this is either sloppy or corrupt.
I think the different diameter of the round vs the ASE is sufficient. Drop an ASE in the judge's left hand, and the round in her right. That should end it pretty quick.
Here's what I think: the HPA says put "COPY" on something that might be confused for an original. They didn't. All the nitpicking in the world won't change the fact that this is either sloppy or corrupt.
The plaintiff is citing the case of the National Collectors Mint "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) as a precedent of a violation of the Hobby Protection Act. A rather strange choice for this case since the FTSD was in no way a violation of the HPA (although the marketing of it was found to be deceptive in other ways not related to the HPA).
I'm surprised that the defendants didn't request a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff clearly knew ahead of time that the "rounds" in question were not government-issue legal tender coins, and that the plaintiff essentially staged their own damages so as to achieve some apparent standing in the case. Maybe that comes later as a "summary judgment" in favor of the defendants ?
Yes, the judge ruled in November. I wasn't sure if it was best to start a new thread or update the old one. Since this original thread was getting so long, I though it would be better to start a new thread. Although it seems a lot of people missed that update thread, so going forward if there are any updates, I will just update this original thread.
As I said in the previous update thread, since the case is still on-going and I am the lead plaintiff, my posts will be limited. I will stick to just what the facts are and refrain from any opinion. I also won't be answering any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during the discovery process.
I do have an answer to some of the questions Daniel Carr had. Daniel said...
>>
Interesting...
The plaintiff is citing the case of the National Collectors Mint "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) as a precedent of a violation of the Hobby Protection Act. A rather poor choice for this case since the FTSD was in no way a violation of the HPA (although the marketing of it was found to be deceptive in other ways not related to the HPA). >>
I read the rulings in Demarco v. National Collector's Mint, and I am surprised you think that was not decided on the HPA. Also, from the November ruling denying the motion to dismiss in this case, the judge referenced Demarco, and said Demarco was a Hobby Protection Act case. Here is a section from her November ruling.
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.
Daniel also said...
>>
I'm surprised that the defendants didn't request a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff clearly knew ahead of time that the "rounds" in question were not government-issue legal tender coins, and that the plaintiff essentially staged their own damages so as to achieve some apparent standing in the case. Maybe that comes later as a "summary judgment" in favor of the defendants ? >>
That allegation was actually one of the three grounds the defendants used to request a dismissal, but it was denied. I'm not sure if that argument could be used going forward, because the class has been certified so I am no longer the only plaintiff.
<< <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. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt. >>
I already indicated that US Silver Eagles are worth about $2 more than "generic" rounds. If you want to buy silver, also keep in mind that "generic" rounds will usually cost you about $2 less per ounce. Some people want that option.
At the moment my friend pays a little over $19 for generic silver rounds and a little under $21 for US Silver Eagles.
The only way to know for sure that any coin (government-issue or not) contains the proper amount of metal is to melt it. Some government-issue coins have been hollowed out and filled with lead or tungsten. >>
proof SAEs have more than a $2 premium and I would be surprised if any are hollowed out and filled with lead and electroplated over (although in some countrys $1/day is quite a bit of money so it would not surprise me)
<< <i>Yes, the judge ruled in November. I wasn't sure if it was best to start a new thread or update the old one. Since this original thread was getting so long, I though it would be better to start a new thread. Although it seems a lot of people missed that update thread, so going forward if there are any updates, I will just update this original thread.
As I said in the previous update thread, since the case is still on-going and I am the lead plaintiff, my posts will be limited. I will stick to just what the facts are and refrain from any opinion. I also won't be answering any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during the discovery process.
I do have an answer to some of the questions Daniel Carr had. Daniel said...
>>
Interesting...
The plaintiff is citing the case of the National Collectors Mint "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) as a precedent of a violation of the Hobby Protection Act. A rather poor choice for this case since the FTSD was in no way a violation of the HPA (although the marketing of it was found to be deceptive in other ways not related to the HPA). >>
I read the rulings in Demarco v. National Collector's Mint, and I am surprised you think that was not decided on the HPA. Also, from the November ruling denying the motion to dismiss in this case, the judge referenced Demarco, and said Demarco was a Hobby Protection Act case. Here is a section from her November ruling.
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.
Daniel also said...
>>
I'm surprised that the defendants didn't request a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff clearly knew ahead of time that the "rounds" in question were not government-issue legal tender coins, and that the plaintiff essentially staged their own damages so as to achieve some apparent standing in the case. Maybe that comes later as a "summary judgment" in favor of the defendants ? >>
That allegation was actually one of the three grounds the defendants used to request a dismissal, but it was denied. I'm not sure if that argument could be used going forward, because the class has been certified so I am no longer the only plaintiff. >>
Interesting. The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS: Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way): Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
Interesting. The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS: Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way): Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item.
Interesting. The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS: Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way): Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
So the judge declares that the original (first) issue of the FTSD is an "imitation numismatic item". But the same basic design, reissued via a different surrogate country and advertised in a less deceptive manner, is ok. The first issue was not actually legal tender, although a CNMI official indicated that it was, and the "coin" was advertised as a legal tender "government-issue silver dollar". The second issue is Cook islands legal tender (although I bet you'd have a very hard time using it in that manner). So the judge apparently is putting a lot of weight on the legal tender status and on how the item was marketed. The emphasis on that criteria would seem favorable to my situation because my marketing/advertising of the fantasy-date over-strike coins was always very clear and accurate. I never made any legal tender status claims about my fantasy-date over-strikes (their legal tender status is unknown since there are no statutes which specify how much mutilation a coin can have while still retaining legal tender status).
Is this a class action suit now? What damages are being sought? The rounds weren't marketed or sold as coins, so the difference in cost is about $2.00 for the OP. He can't claim to have been fooled by false advertising or by a similar design, because his suit was obviously planned even before he ordered the rounds. He found a judge in Minnesota who doesn't know anything about coins or the bullion market, so the law can be read with no context.
One other comment. This is nothing like the counterfeits coming from China that are made to be identical to existing collectible coins. This is nothing like the bullion counterfeits from China that are plated and contain very little precious metal. This isn't false advertising, because there's no intention to deceive, so where's the injury?
My only thought is that one fine day the OP may find himself caught in a situation where some obtuse law that he didn't know about affects him with unintended consequences because some self-proclaimed advocate for the people attempts to make a legal case for his own notoriety. With 2,500 page bills that nobody reads before passage, combined with frivolous claims like this - it's become a garbage legal system full of garbage laws that serve no one except lawyers.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Is this a class action suit now? What damages are being sought? The rounds weren't marketed or sold as coins, so the difference in cost is about $2.00 for the OP. He can't claim to have been fooled by false advertising or by a similar design, because his suit was obviously planned even before he ordered the rounds. He found a judge in Minnesota who doesn't know anything about coins or the bullion market, so the law can be read with no context.
One other comment. This is nothing like the counterfeits coming from China that are made to be identical to existing collectible coins. This is nothing like the bullion counterfeits from China that are plated and contain very little precious metal. This isn't false advertising, because there's no intention to deceive, so where's the injury?
My only thought is that one fine day the OP may find himself caught in a situation where some obtuse law that he didn't know about affects him with unintended consequences because some self-proclaimed advocate for the people attempts to make a legal case for his own notoriety. With 2,500 page bills that nobody reads before passage, combined with frivolous claims like this - it's become a garbage legal system full of garbage laws that serve no one except lawyers. >>
Well stated. This case reeks.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I commend the original poster for attempting to improve the coin collecting hobby.
I just don't see any particular problem with making or selling these silver rounds. Compared to this, there are other things in the numismatic world that are far more concerning (actual fraud such as faked PCGS holders, for example).
And outside of numismatics there are things going on that are far worse than that, by several orders of magnitude. >>
I've really enjoyed Daniel Carr's comments on this thread, and those in general here, which have widely scoped out some of the major issues concerning private minters. Carr asked at one point, "Where will it stop?" or something. It seems to me, that in a way, this lawsuit would only appeal to those who would wish to give the impression that people are really too stupid to figure out what is going on and need to be protected from themselves. But there the burden would be placed on the private minters to alter their designs to fit regulations, to wit, creating a legal definition for the representation of designs. In that sense, it would be emblematic of an over-regulated society. Perhaps such things are already intruding in various aspects of life.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales
- Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start.... >>
Finding something and thinking that is worth a lot of money is a LOT different than PAYING a lot of money for something.
So somebody finds a "1975" quarter and they think it is worth a lot. No harm done if they found it. After finding it, they try to sell it. Who is going to pay a lot for it without knowing what it is ? Anybody with those tendencies will have probably already spent all their money on swamp land in Florida or late-night TV jewelry.
10 or 50 years from now, the Krause "Unusual World Coins" catalog may list reasonable market values for them (they already do for the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes and the "1975" Ike Dollar over-strikes).
I just did an internet search for "1975 Washington Quarter", and 4 out of the top 14 sites listed were for information about my over-strikes. So information is readily available to anyone doing even a minimum amount of research.
get a grip already, over seven pages of drivel over this!!!
<< <i>reading this thread(or at least part of it) gives me a headache. it seems that anyone, including most respondents and the OP, should under no circumstances be fooled by any of this which is quite common in the marketplace. I would suggest everyone consider the opinion of DC as gospel and realize that there is no "copying" going on even if the word "COPY" isn't on these pieces of bullion.
get a grip already, over seven pages of drivel over this!!!
Drivel? as opposed to the Who, What, Where, etc drivel
<< <i>Dcarr, by using your logic on fantasy pieces, all one would have to do is a little research on the web to see that no SAE were made without a date or lack of denomination, thus making these pieces a-ok. I mean, if all the buyer needs is research, why would anyone be taken in by them? Guess the op should have done minimal research before buying... >>
The OP already knew what they were before ordering them:
Collectors Universe forum thread
.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dcarr, by using your logic on fantasy pieces, all one would have to do is a little research on the web to see that no SAE were made without a date or lack of denomination, thus making these pieces a-ok. I mean, if all the buyer needs is research, why would anyone be taken in by them? Guess the op should have done minimal research before buying... >>
The OP already knew what they were before ordering them:
Collectors Universe forum thread
. >>
Daneil the only "research" I see in the linked post is a query on possible "class members" to the suit.
I have no doubt in my mind that the OP had this litigation planned before he ever hit the "Buy" Key.
The thing of it is, is that, because of this thread, I'm actually entertaining the thought of buying one of these!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>get a grip already, over seven pages of drivel over this!!!
Right, important topics like the gold Kennedy half are being neglected.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
With respect to class action lawsuits, I have never been involved in one (other than receiving notices that as member of a designated class in a class action lawsuit I am entitled to receive a discount coupon good towards a future purchase or that I am entitled to monetary compensation of "up to $50.00" provided that I fill out and send in an application form that is 10+ pages long of microscopic print that would take me hours to read and fill out). It is my understanding that class action lawsuits are designed to provide a mechanism through which a defendant (usually a large corporate defendant) that is doing something wrong to the customers it serves (i.e. overcharging its 500,000 customer accounts by $10.00 each month for the past 5 years [$600 for each customer] in violation of a consumer protection law [with the total overcharge being $300,000.000.00] can be punished and made to correct its misdeeds without requiring each victimized customer to file a separate lawsuit seeking to recover the overcharge. This type of mechanism does serve a useful purpose (punishing the bad guy and hopefully causing it to follow the law in the future). However this type of mechanism does not result in any significant relief being given to the members of the class who have theoretically suffered (if even a little) from the actions of the bad guy. To make the system work (and obtain the goal of punishing the bad guy and causing it to follow the law in the future) it requires lawyers who are willing to undertake the representation of the named Plaintiff and the class members he or she represents. To get lawyers to handle this type of work, they must have an incentive to do so. The incentive is dollars, usually BIG dollars. Some lawyers specialize in this type of work and are very good at it. More power to them IMO and if they are handsomely rewarded for their work, good for them. The named Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit is required to put in time and work and effort in the case. The named Plaintiff should get compensated in a manner that exceeds any compensation paid to the unnamed class members who get the discount coupon or a $50.00 check after filling out and submitting a 10 page application. Better to have this type of system that not have it.
/1/ on 08/06/2014 #43
CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. Due to the retirement of Magistrate Judge Graham, this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham no longer assigned to the case.NOTE: the new case number is 14-cv-619 SRN/HB. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
and
/2/ on 08/19/2014 #44
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Motion Hearing held on 8/19/2014 re 19 MOTION to Dismiss/General filed by Westminster Mint, Inc., Bullion International, Inc. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
So it really wasn't your day in court, it was their day to try to convince the judge to dismiss before the trial. The order just says a written order will be issued...
OP, can you give us a "courtroom report" - what was said, what the thrust of the arguments were, etc.??
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
What happened in court?
BHNC #203
<< <i>So, it is 5 days ago.
What happened in court? >>
I'm curious too.
<< <i>
<< <i>So, it is 5 days ago.
What happened in court? >>
I'm curious too. >>
OP already posted a fairly lengthy description of the day's proceedings. See post at: "Tuesday August 19, 2014 7:13 PM"
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Whether intentionally misrepresented or not, the rounds do not comply with the HPA.
If you are truly interested in stopping the sale of these rounds, ask your attorneys about 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 487, and 18 U.S.C. 489 and their applicability to the rounds, the latter of which specifically addresses possession and not mere manufacturing. Note that these are criminal statutes and likely won’t help your civil case, but if you are interested in fighting violations of the law and if you can convince a federal district attorney, this is the way to go. You won’t have to worry about legal fees if the government decides to prosecute the claim. I can’t guarantee that will happen though. Some district attorneys won’t care; maybe your local DA will.
<< <i>Whether intentionally misrepresented or not, the rounds do not comply with the HPA. >>
That has not been established.
If an item does not reasonably purport to be an "original numismatic item", then there is no violation of the HPA.
<< <i>
<< <i>Whether intentionally misrepresented or not, the rounds do not comply with the HPA. >>
That has not been established.
If an item does not reasonably purport to be an "original numismatic item", then there is no violation of the HPA. >>
The plain meaning of unambiguous statutes and federal administrative regulations speak for themselves and require no further legal interpretation.
<< <i>OP,
If you are truly interested in stopping the sale of these rounds, ask your attorneys about 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 487, and 18 U.S.C. 489 and their applicability to the rounds, the latter of which specifically addresses possession and not mere manufacturing. Note that these are criminal statutes and likely won’t help your civil case, but if you are interested in fighting violations of the law and if you can convince a federal district attorney, this is the way to go. You won’t have to worry about legal fees if the government decides to prosecute the claim. I can’t guarantee that will happen though. Some district attorneys won’t care; maybe your local DA will. >>
18 U.S.C. 485:
"Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
The rounds in question were not "falsely" made because they contain the advertised quantity of silver. Nobody is attempting to pass them as government issue or legal tender, nor has the manufacturer or marketer suggested that they are. As such, there is no violation of that statute.
18 U.S.C. 487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing molds and dies in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 487.
18 U.S.C. 489:
"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489.
As a precedent to show that rounds like the ones in question have not been prohibited by the statutes above, I again point to the rounds that were licensed and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution (note that these even have an apparent face value):
<< <i>The plain meaning of unambiguous statutes and federal administrative regulations speak for themselves and require no further legal interpretation. >>
The HPA text does not define the criteria for "reasonably purport". So it definitely is ambiguous in that regard. You and I don't agree on what it means.
But what counts is, what does the government think it means ?
A look at past legal action brought against round manufacturers and marketers by the US government is telling.
Since the enactment of the HPA, the only such cases that I am aware of are:
Liberty Dollar:
The government brought this case because the Liberty Dollar organization was attempting to insert their privately-minted rounds into commerce so as to circulate at their apparent face value.
Freedom Tower Dollar:
NY Attorney Elliot Spitzer brought action against National Collectors Mint because of the deceptive advertising of their "government-issue Freedom Tower silver dollar" product.
Washington Mint:
The Washington Mint sold big 3-inch replicas of Sacagawea dollars. The US Mint sued them to stop because the Sacagawea obverse design is one of the few US coin designs that is actually copyrighted.
That is basically it. There have been other dissimilar cases involving outright counterfeiting (usually photocopied paper money and the like) and fraud.
<< <i>
<< <i>OP,
If you are truly interested in stopping the sale of these rounds, ask your attorneys about 18 U.S.C. 485, 18 U.S.C. 487, and 18 U.S.C. 489 and their applicability to the rounds, the latter of which specifically addresses possession and not mere manufacturing. Note that these are criminal statutes and likely won’t help your civil case, but if you are interested in fighting violations of the law and if you can convince a federal district attorney, this is the way to go. You won’t have to worry about legal fees if the government decides to prosecute the claim. I can’t guarantee that will happen though. Some district attorneys won’t care; maybe your local DA will. >>
18 U.S.C. 485:
"Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
The rounds in question were not "falsely" made because they contain the advertised quantity of silver. Nobody is attempting to pass them as government issue or legal tender, nor has the manufacturer or marketer suggested that they are. As such, there is no violation of that statute.
18 U.S.C. 487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing molds and dies in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 487.
18 U.S.C. 489:
"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489.
As a precedent to show that rounds like the ones in question have not been prohibited by the statutes above, I again point to the rounds that were licensed and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution (note that these even have an apparent face value):
Dan do you know what steps the Smithsonian had to go through to get these items produced? Did they ned special permissions etc?
<< <i>
<< <i>The plain meaning of unambiguous statutes and federal administrative regulations speak for themselves and require no further legal interpretation. >>
The HPA text does not define the criteria for "reasonably purport". So it definitely is ambiguous in that regard. You and I don't agree on what it means.
But what counts is, what does the government think it means ?
A look at past legal action brought against round manufacturers and marketers by the US government is telling.
Since the enactment of the HPA, the only such cases that I am aware of are:.... >>
The statue is not ambiguous (as applied to the case in the original post) and can be applied as is written. At best, your arguments create a question of fact for a jury which does not render a statute legally ambiguous. My comments were not meant to address factual findings per se, but legal interpretations for those trying to add an intent element to the manufacturers/sellers of these items under the Hobby Protection Act. There is no such provision that I can find that provides such an exception, and private parties cannot add and read provisions into statutes because they find it convenient. Moreover, such a provision would defeat the purpose of the Hobby Protection Act to prevent close reproductions, replicas, or whatever people call them these days, from infiltrating the public and becoming potential traps for the unweary in, including but not limited to, secondary markets.
With regards to the $100 Gold Union piece, that could be distinguished by having been approved or authorized by the government/government entity, but even if I agreed that the pieces are problematic (and I do), at best you make an argument for why those coins should not be permitted. The fact that "everyone else is doing it," is not a good legal defense.
<< <i>By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489. >>
I don't dispute that the HPA carved out exceptions to the criminal statutes cited. It absolutely did; however, to be classified as an exception within the HPA, one must comply with the provisions concerning having the word "COPY" placed on them. Put another way, items of this nature not expressly provided for in the HPA or in other federal statutes, are subject to attack under 18 U.S.C. 489 and the other criminal statutes. And if the HPA doesn't apply because of a failure to be considered "original numismatic items", then there is no statutory exception to 18 U.S.C. 489 for these pieces.
Any updates or have you been censored?
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>OP
Any updates or have you been censored?
MJ >>
No updates, still waiting for the judge to rule. Based on the judges comment at the end of the hearing, that it was her first Hobby Protection Act case and she needed to do some studying on that law, I am taking that to mean it will be a long wait.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>OP
Any updates or have you been censored?
MJ >>
No updates, still waiting for the judge to rule. Based on the judges comment at the end of the hearing, that it was her first Hobby Protection Act case and she needed to do some studying on that law, I am taking that to mean it will be a long wait. >>
Thanks Tom
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm just toasting to the judge's retirement.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i> 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. >>
This will be the undoing for you v. WM.
<< <i>
18 U.S.C. 489:
"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title."
By specifically allowing replica coins to be made, the HPA is (by inference) allowing tokens, disks, and devices in the likeness of US coins to be manufactured. Note that the HPA was enacted after 18 U.S.C. 489. >>
That is interesting. According to a broad reading of 18 USC 489, Chuckie Cheese tokens would be illegal as they are gold tokens so they have a likeness in color to US gold coins.
Lots of interesting lively discussion, have enjoyed reading all the posts on all sides. One of the best threads lately.
Here's what I think: the HPA says put "COPY" on something that might be confused for an original. They didn't. All the nitpicking in the world won't change the fact that this is either sloppy or corrupt.
-KHayse
Keets has it right....
"What a waste of time, money and bandwidth. this ranks up there with the McDonald's coffee BS that mocks the US legal system."
edited....the OP sure seemed to have a 'can't lose' attitude. I wonder if he's feeling the same way, now.
COINS FOR SALE AT LINK BELOW (READ CAREFULLY)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oqym2YtcS7ZAZ73D6
BHNC #203
<< <i>Anything happen with this ? >>
there was/is another thread with update(s).
i think this is the original thread.?
.
<< <i>
<< <i>Anything happen with this ? >>
there was/is another thread with update(s).
i think this is the original thread.?
. >>
If there was another thread, I never saw it.
I knew it would happen.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2014cv00619/137157/45
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
<< <i>Nov 14th the judge ruled against dismissing the case.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2014cv00619/137157/45 >>
Interesting...
The plaintiff is citing the case of the National Collectors Mint "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) as a precedent of a violation of the Hobby Protection Act.
A rather strange choice for this case since the FTSD was in no way a violation of the HPA (although the marketing of it was found to be deceptive in other ways not related to the HPA).
I'm surprised that the defendants didn't request a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff clearly knew ahead of time that the "rounds" in question were not government-issue legal tender coins, and that the plaintiff essentially staged their own damages so as to achieve some apparent standing in the case. Maybe that comes later as a "summary judgment" in favor of the defendants ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Anything happen with this ? >>
there was/is another thread with update(s).
i think this is the original thread.?
. >>
If there was another thread, I never saw it. >>
since the op hasnt started a lot of threads in the past months. a search of the op's handle yielded the result vewwy quickry.
lingked
the other link may yield more effective results though.
.
Yes, the judge ruled in November. I wasn't sure if it was best to start a new thread or update the old one. Since this original thread was getting so long, I though it would be better to start a new thread. Although it seems a lot of people missed that update thread, so going forward if there are any updates, I will just update this original thread.
As I said in the previous update thread, since the case is still on-going and I am the lead plaintiff, my posts will be limited. I will stick to just what the facts are and refrain from any opinion. I also won't be answering any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during the discovery process.
I do have an answer to some of the questions Daniel Carr had. Daniel said...
>>
Interesting...
The plaintiff is citing the case of the National Collectors Mint "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) as a precedent of a violation of the Hobby Protection Act.
A rather poor choice for this case since the FTSD was in no way a violation of the HPA (although the marketing of it was found to be deceptive in other ways not related to the HPA). >>
I read the rulings in Demarco v. National Collector's Mint, and I am surprised you think that was not decided on the HPA. Also, from the November ruling denying the motion to dismiss in this case, the judge referenced Demarco, and said Demarco was a Hobby Protection Act case. Here is a section from her November ruling.
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.
Daniel also said...
>>
I'm surprised that the defendants didn't request a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff clearly knew ahead of time that the "rounds" in question were not government-issue legal tender coins, and that the plaintiff essentially staged their own damages so as to achieve some apparent standing in the case. Maybe that comes later as a "summary judgment" in favor of the defendants ? >>
That allegation was actually one of the three grounds the defendants used to request a dismissal, but it was denied. I'm not sure if that argument could be used going forward, because the class has been certified so I am no longer the only plaintiff.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt. >>
I already indicated that US Silver Eagles are worth about $2 more than "generic" rounds. If you want to buy silver, also keep in mind that "generic" rounds will usually cost you about $2 less per ounce. Some people want that option.
At the moment my friend pays a little over $19 for generic silver rounds and a little under $21 for US Silver Eagles.
The only way to know for sure that any coin (government-issue or not) contains the proper amount of metal is to melt it.
Some government-issue coins have been hollowed out and filled with lead or tungsten. >>
proof SAEs have more than a $2 premium and I would be surprised if any are hollowed out and filled with lead and electroplated over (although in some countrys $1/day is quite a bit of money so it would not surprise me)
They looked like big coins.
Am I in trouble ?
Where is this headed, and where will it end ?
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, the judge ruled in November. I wasn't sure if it was best to start a new thread or update the old one. Since this original thread was getting so long, I though it would be better to start a new thread. Although it seems a lot of people missed that update thread, so going forward if there are any updates, I will just update this original thread.
As I said in the previous update thread, since the case is still on-going and I am the lead plaintiff, my posts will be limited. I will stick to just what the facts are and refrain from any opinion. I also won't be answering any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during the discovery process.
I do have an answer to some of the questions Daniel Carr had. Daniel said...
>>
Interesting...
The plaintiff is citing the case of the National Collectors Mint "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) as a precedent of a violation of the Hobby Protection Act.
A rather poor choice for this case since the FTSD was in no way a violation of the HPA (although the marketing of it was found to be deceptive in other ways not related to the HPA). >>
I read the rulings in Demarco v. National Collector's Mint, and I am surprised you think that was not decided on the HPA. Also, from the November ruling denying the motion to dismiss in this case, the judge referenced Demarco, and said Demarco was a Hobby Protection Act case. Here is a section from her November ruling.
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.
Daniel also said...
>>
I'm surprised that the defendants didn't request a dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff clearly knew ahead of time that the "rounds" in question were not government-issue legal tender coins, and that the plaintiff essentially staged their own damages so as to achieve some apparent standing in the case. Maybe that comes later as a "summary judgment" in favor of the defendants ? >>
That allegation was actually one of the three grounds the defendants used to request a dismissal, but it was denied. I'm not sure if that argument could be used going forward, because the class has been certified so I am no longer the only plaintiff. >>
Interesting.
The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS:
Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way):
Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
>>
Interesting.
The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS:
Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way):
Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i> >>
Interesting.
The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS:
Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way):
Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
So the judge declares that the original (first) issue of the FTSD is an "imitation numismatic item". But the same basic design, reissued via a different surrogate country and advertised in a less deceptive manner, is ok.
The first issue was not actually legal tender, although a CNMI official indicated that it was, and the "coin" was advertised as a legal tender "government-issue silver dollar". The second issue is Cook islands legal tender (although I bet you'd have a very hard time using it in that manner).
So the judge apparently is putting a lot of weight on the legal tender status and on how the item was marketed. The emphasis on that criteria would seem favorable to my situation because my marketing/advertising of the fantasy-date over-strike coins was always very clear and accurate. I never made any legal tender status claims about my fantasy-date over-strikes (their legal tender status is unknown since there are no statutes which specify how much mutilation a coin can have while still retaining legal tender status).
One other comment. This is nothing like the counterfeits coming from China that are made to be identical to existing collectible coins. This is nothing like the bullion counterfeits from China that are plated and contain very little precious metal. This isn't false advertising, because there's no intention to deceive, so where's the injury?
My only thought is that one fine day the OP may find himself caught in a situation where some obtuse law that he didn't know about affects him with unintended consequences because some self-proclaimed advocate for the people attempts to make a legal case for his own notoriety. With 2,500 page bills that nobody reads before passage, combined with frivolous claims like this - it's become a garbage legal system full of garbage laws that serve no one except lawyers.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Is this a class action suit now? What damages are being sought? The rounds weren't marketed or sold as coins, so the difference in cost is about $2.00 for the OP. He can't claim to have been fooled by false advertising or by a similar design, because his suit was obviously planned even before he ordered the rounds. He found a judge in Minnesota who doesn't know anything about coins or the bullion market, so the law can be read with no context.
One other comment. This is nothing like the counterfeits coming from China that are made to be identical to existing collectible coins. This is nothing like the bullion counterfeits from China that are plated and contain very little precious metal. This isn't false advertising, because there's no intention to deceive, so where's the injury?
My only thought is that one fine day the OP may find himself caught in a situation where some obtuse law that he didn't know about affects him with unintended consequences because some self-proclaimed advocate for the people attempts to make a legal case for his own notoriety. With 2,500 page bills that nobody reads before passage, combined with frivolous claims like this - it's become a garbage legal system full of garbage laws that serve no one except lawyers. >>
Well stated. This case reeks.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I commend the original poster for attempting to improve the coin collecting hobby.
I just don't see any particular problem with making or selling these silver rounds.
Compared to this, there are other things in the numismatic world that are far more concerning (actual fraud such as faked PCGS holders, for example).
And outside of numismatics there are things going on that are far worse than that, by several orders of magnitude. >>
I've really enjoyed Daniel Carr's comments on this thread, and those in general here, which have widely scoped out some of the major issues concerning private minters.
Carr asked at one point, "Where will it stop?" or something. It seems to me, that in a way, this lawsuit would only appeal to those who would wish to give the impression that people are really too stupid to figure out what is going on and need to be protected from themselves. But there the burden would be placed on the private minters to alter their designs to fit regulations, to wit, creating a legal definition for the representation of designs. In that sense, it would be emblematic of an over-regulated society. Perhaps such things are already intruding in various aspects of life.