There are much easier ways to earn $1000.00 than what the OP has done to prosecute this suit. Until the final judgement is in most of the arguments are just unsupported opinion.
The Highland Mint used to be owned by a fellow by the name of Jim Pavlakos. Pretty sure he sold it and the new owners took the business into the sports thing etc but then again who knows .
Time, along with health, the most important of all. So many people waste both.
Keep up the pressure. I am sure with how easy this went your lawyers are already planning additional class actions. Once the complaint and motion to certify the class are done there really isnt much work to do to file additional lawsuits against other defendants. This is very cookie-cutter law. And with one settlement you are bound to convince others to do the same.
Dont let the naysayers bother you. If you werent correct this case would have 1) never have been certified and 2) settled.
Yesterday was the final Settlement fairness hearing in my hobby protection act case. The Hearing was at 4:00 PM. I was looking forward to attending, unfortunately I misjudged the time it would take me to get to the court house. It was raining and rush hour had started so the traffic was the main culprit. I arrived 15 minutes late, and when I came in my attorney was justifying his fee. I had missed the part where he was explaining why the settlement was fair, and I missed the part where he was defending my incentive award. I was their in time for my attorneys to point out that I was in the court room. It was also important to note that no class members attended to object to the settlement. Very shortly after the hearing was over, I think within an hour, the judge's final order approving the settlement was entered for the record. Stephen was impressed with the efficiency of the federal bench here in this district.
As I mentioned in another thread, as a stroke of luck the final settlement hearing was on the same day as our monthly coin club meeting. So after we grabbed a bit to eat, we headed over to the Kenwood community center in Minneapolis for the meeting.
The first half hour of the meeting was the typical club business, and we talk about our youth action, and getting more items for it next year. We also talked about a number of different subjects. I then introduced the speaker. Since this was my introduction I have that part of the presentation pretty much verbatim here is what I said in my introduction.
I would like to introduce to you today my attorney Stephen DeNittis, who is visiting us from his home in New Jersey. I could probably spend the next hour in a half just talking about all of Stephen's credential and the honors he has been given in the legal profession. However, instead I an going tell you about my experience with him.
When I discovered a violation of the Hobby Protection act, I went on line and looked for the most experienced attorney in that area of law. I found Stephen, and it was the smartest move I could make.
As the case went along, and the complaint and other fillings were made public. A number of different lawyers I know read through the filings Stephen made in the case. The first comments they made to me were all remarkably similar. The first thing they all told me was that I have a really good lawyer. I could not agree more.
I'm really excited to present to you Stephen DeNittis.
Stephen then spoke for about the next half hour. He started off by telling us about the DeMarco vs National Collector's mint case, which was the first private action brought under the hobby protection act. DeMarco came to Stephen in 2005 after he saw a notification from the US mint. The notice was an advisory from the US Mint that the freedom tower silver dollar was not a real coin. DeMarco did not know much about coins, but he wanted to have a commemorative coin, as a reminder of the event on that day. He had bought the Freedom tower coin, and was shocked when he found out it was not a real coin. DeMarco was from New York, and while they could bring a class action under the laws of NY, those law are not that consumer friendly, and it would also limited the class to NY residents. So then Stephen began to search for other possible causes of action. This is when he discovered the Hobby protection act.
There were three keys to the law that made this the perfect vehicle for the Demarco case. First it was a Federal law, so the class could consist of anyone in the country. Second, it allowed for a private right of action (anyone can sue under it, not just the Federal government). The third thing is it contained a fee shifting provision. Fee shifting means that if you sue under it, and you win the defendant has to pay your attorney's fees.
Stephen also said when the HPA was originally debated in congress, it was brought up that the HPA would work well as a class action suit. This is because an HPA case would likely have a lot of people defrauded by a little amount, which is exactly what a class action was designed to remedy. Another helpful factor is that it uses that standard of strict liability, which means if you make a coin and it is not marked as copy, you are responsible. You can not argue that the plaintiff was responsible for his or her own damages because of a mistake he or she made, or because he or she should have know better.
One thing that surprised Stephen in 2005, when he first discovered the HPA, was that it had been around since the 70's yet no one had brought a private action under the law. He search and search the legal databases but could not find any other action. That is becaue there was none, DeMarco was a case of first impressions for the court. Stephan also noted that two weeks after he filed suit, the Attorney General for NY, Eliot Spitzer, also filed suit against The National Collector's mint. Stephen said that while he cannot prove it, he suspects that his suit prompted the Attorney General's action. As further evidence of this, Spitzers filings had a lot of similar elements to his filings.
In the Demarco case, the argument was that the Freedom tower coins was purporting to be an original Numismatic item, but it was not and as such should have been marked copy. The National Collector's Mint claimed it was a coin, but it was not a legally authorized coin, and as such it was an imitation numismatic item. The key in that case was getting by a motion to dismiss. Once they got by that, The National Collector's Mint settled. The denial of the motion to dismiss became a publish opinion to be referenced by future HPA cases.
Then Stephen talked about my case a little bit. The size of my class was about 2600 people, and I believe he said there were about 100,000 silver rounds involved He also mentioned how he was surprised that there was a 9 year period between the first private HPA case and the second case which was mine. Although, their have been 5 or 6 actions by the Federal Trade commission in that time, but those are not considered private courses of action.
He also said that my case was a little different from DeMarco because in the DeMarco case the mint had not made a coin commemorating 9/11 (that came later.) but in my case the silver round was a replica of a coin the mint had actually made. In some ways this made my case easier than the DeMarco case.
He also talked about the recent updates to the HPA, and how the act has now been expanded. He said that you could now be in volition of the act, not just for making or importing them, but also if you sell them. This means an action could potentially be brought against an individual that bought one of these silver rounds, that looks like a coin, and sells it. Although he said an action against an individual would be unlikely, mainly because an attorney would likely go after the bigger sellers.
He then told us that while it took nine years between the first and second private HPA case, the third and four are already in the works (he may have said they have already been filed, but I am not sure on that). After seeing the National Magazine and Newspaper ads announcing the settlement in our case, an individual who had bought a couple of similar silver rounds contacted Stephen. Stephen said they will be two different cases, and he did mention the names of the new defendants. I do not remember exactly, so I did not want to list them here, in fears I may get the name wrong. As more attorney's become aware of this law with the private course of action, and the fee shifting, we will likely be seeing more of these cases.
The next half hour he spent answering questions, there were a lot of good questions from the club member. One of the questions was about what Stephen thought of a private attorney using this law to sue the Chinese counterfeiters that have become such a problem in this hobby. Stephen said that these foreign companies are really hard to sue and recover any kind of judgment against them. Most of them do not have any assets, or any kind of a presence in this country, so their would be no way to collect a judgment or enforce an injunction. However, you could potentially go after the importers, or seller of them in this country. He brought up the Lumber Liquidator case to illustrate how hard a case would be against a Chinese manufacture, but the US company that distributes it could be vulnerable to a suit.
He was also asked if he worried about the company's just folding up shop when he sues them. Stephen said that it is definitely a concern when he brings a lawsuit. He also mentioned that is one of the reasons they typically include the principles of the business (owners or people in control of the business) in the lawsuit, and the courts have allowed them to do that. This was done in my case.
After the meeting Stephen stayed around for a while and talked with a number of the club members. I could tell that the club members really enjoyed his talk. Stephen also told me how impressed he was with our club. He donated the speaking fee we gave him back to the club, to go into our fund for young numismatists that we had talked about in the business part of the meeting.
A personal note:
One of the reasons I started this thread is because I thought it might be fun for board members to follow along the case as it progressed. One of the problems this posed for me, was that doing it while the case was on going limited what I could say on the case. I was pretty much limited to "just the facts." I also avoided any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during discovery. I really think this caused the tread to go a little crazy, because I could not set the records straight on some of the crazy comments made. Not for one second did I wish that I had not started this thread, because I think the thread brought out some important issues.
Well, the case has been settle, the settlement has been approved, and my muzzle has been removed. So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away!
Same old same old... nothing new, exactly as previously reported and discussed.
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al - 0:14-cv-00619-SRN-HB docket items:
06/12/2015 76 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(JAM) (Entered: 06/12/2015) 06/11/2015 75 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/11/15. (SMD) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
From the order:
C. Class counsel’s Petition for Fees and Costs is GRANTED. An award of $110,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Class counsel DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The request for an incentive award of $1,000.00 to the named plaintiff is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As reported, the class members can either exchange their rounds for one stamped copy or sell it back at spot with shipping costs paid by the defendants. That's it. No admission of guilt, no precedent for the HPA, nothing.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>Same old same old... nothing new, exactly as previously reported and discussed.
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al - 0:14-cv-00619-SRN-HB docket items:
06/12/2015 76 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(JAM) (Entered: 06/12/2015) 06/11/2015 75 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/11/15. (SMD) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
From the order:
C. Class counsel’s Petition for Fees and Costs is GRANTED. An award of $110,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Class counsel DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The request for an incentive award of $1,000.00 to the named plaintiff is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As reported, the class members can either exchange their rounds for one stamped copy or sell it back at spot with shipping costs paid by the defendants. That's it. No admission of guilt, no precedent for the HPA, nothing. >>
So you didn't think there was anything new in my post??? How about the fact that we now have additional cases, and this could just be the beginning?
Seem like a real win for the lawyers, just like every other BS lawsuit like this. Not sure how it helped anyone else. Would love to know how many people are going to send back their 1 ounce silver round just to get another 1 ounce silver round that has a counter mark added.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
IF there actually ARE new cases, they have nothing to do with your case. Your case went away. The settlement includes the dismissal of your complaint. Poof. Nothing.
But here is the list of all cases, nation-wide filed by your attorney after yours and not a single one of them sounds like anybody minting silver rounds...
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-03255 890 05/08/2015 GALPERN v. NRDC EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC et al 2 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2015-cv-02516 890 05/07/2015 CAPO v. TOP RANK, INC. et al 3 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-03187 370 05/06/2015 BOBADILLA v. TOP RANK, INC. et al 4 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2015-cv-02117 190 04/21/2015 BROEDERDORF v. BACHELER 5 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-01829 370 03/11/2015 04/21/2015 NIEDERMAYER v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC. 6 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 2:2015-cv-01656 890 03/06/2015 ACKERMAN v. AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION et al 7 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-01524 190 02/27/2015 BLOCK v. RBS CITIZENS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC. 8 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 2:2015-cv-01115 371 02/11/2015 03/18/2015 STRICKLEN v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC 9 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2015-cv-00566 890 02/05/2015 04/20/2015 WRIGHT v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC. 10 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 3:2015-cv-00259 890 01/13/2015 MARCUS v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. 11 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) txwdce 1:2014-cv-01142 370 12/30/2014 Clemente et al v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. et al 12 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) txwdce 1:2014-mc-02588 190 12/12/2014 IN RE: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation 13 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) txwdce 1:2014-cv-00932 190 10/10/2014 Steeley v. Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountain/Southwest, L.P. et al 14 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2014-cv-05652 370 10/03/2014 12/29/2014 CLEMENTE et al v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. et al 15 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) flmdce 3:2014-cv-01021 710 08/26/2014 09/15/2014 Blackthorne v. The Salon People, Inc. et al 16 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2014-cv-03630 190 06/12/2014 09/09/2014 DEVINSKAYA v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL INC. et al 17 DeNittis, Stephen P (aty) mndce 0:2014-cv-00619 890 03/07/2014 06/11/2015 Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions I asked throughout this thread:
You said: "I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds, and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible." I asked: "why ?" By that I mean why do these silver rounds bother you to this level when there are more egregious instances of counterfeiting going on (like fakes of actual issued US coins in fake PCGS holders) ?
I'd be interested to hear more about the coin show you attend where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ? Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
Did you attempt to achieve any type of resolution with Westminster Mint prior to filing the legal action ?
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them [the fake coins] and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? Why bother going after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ?
I once made some small center hub caps for one of my cars. They looked like big coins. Am I in trouble ? Where is this headed, and where will it end ?
I wrote: "...I'm not here to defend Westminster Mint - I've never had any dealings with them and the only thing I know about them is what I've read in this thread." you wrote: "How about the other defendants in the case, have you had any dealings with Ian Clay, Michael Kott, or the Highland Mint?" Not that I know of. Should I know them ? What did they do (if anything) ? NOTE: One of my customers may have sent dies that I engraved for him to one of these people for striking. But I don't remember for sure who that was. As I remember it was for a Ron Paul silver round.
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow. I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ?
Several more questions in this post from a while ago:
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters. I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it. We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling. So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I think this falls into the category of things I should not answer right now. I will be happy to answer this after the case is resolved. >>
Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ?
Like the ANA for offering this:
Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Sarasota Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Liberty Seated Collectors Club for offering this:
Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this:
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this:
Or NGC and the Smithsonian Institution for licensing and offering this:
Or PCGS and the California Gold Group for offering this:
So where will it end ? Are you going to disrupt all these reputable activities which have an accepted place in numismatics ? >>
<< <i>IF there actually ARE new cases, they have nothing to do with your case. Your case went away. The settlement includes the dismissal of your complaint. Poof. Nothing. >>
You are just wrong, I said in my post that I was not sure if it was filled yet, so keep watching. Also, as I said the reason they contacted my attorney to start a new case, was because the saw the published settlement notice. You can stick your head in the sand and think this is not going to make a difference, but just you watch and see.
I will answer all of your questions. I will be doing it in multiple posts and as time permits, some of your questions deserve a rather long and detailed response, so I will do it as time permits.
<< <i>Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ? >>
I have no plans at this time to ever be a lead plaintiff in a Hobby protection act case again. Although, I may help and encourage others to file suits to help clean up the industry.
I will render my lay persons opinion on the images below, since you asked. But it will ultimately be the courts that decide I am not the arbiter of the law.
<< <i> Like the ANA for offering this: >>
I think this medal crosses the line, to be on the safe side, the makers and sellers should mark it as copy, or just use different design that do not look like a real coin.
<< <i>Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this: >>
I don't see a problem with one above, it doesn't look like a coin at all, I don't see anyone confusing that for a coin.
<< <i>Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this: >>
I don't see a problem with the one above, although I don't see the back of the medal either.
<< <i>Or the Sarasota Coin Club for offering this: >>
I don't see a problem with one above, it doesn't look like a coin at all, I don't see anyone confusing that for a coin.
<< <i>Or the Liberty Seated Collectors Club for offering this: >>
This is an interesting one above, because it has a lot of the eliminates that the courts used in DeMarco to determine if something looked like a coin. Although I don't see how anyone would confuse that for a coin. I am going to say, mark it with copy to be safe.
<< <i> Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this: >>
This is another interesting one above, because it doesn't really have any eliminates that the courts used in DeMarco to determine if something looked like a coin. Although it does use a classic image from coinage in the past. I am going to say, mark it with copy to be safe.
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this:
This is another interesting one above, because it has a few eliminates that the courts used in DeMarco to determine if something looked like a coin. Although I don't see how anyone would confuse that for a coin. I am going to say, mark it with copy to be safe.
<< <i>Or NGC and the Smithsonian Institution for licensing and offering this: >>
If anyone has bought the above "coin" let me know, I can refer you to a good HPA attorney.
<< <i>Or PCGS and the California Gold Group for offering this: >>
This could be problematic, it should be marked copy.
<< <i>So where will it end ? Are you going to disrupt all these reputable activities which have an accepted place in numismatics ? >>
Hard to say, but I suspect the industry is going to start paying more attention to the HPA, and will start marking things that might be confused for a coin with the word "copy."
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] I asked throughout this thread:
You said: "I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds, and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible." I asked: "why ?" By that I mean why do these silver rounds bother you to this level when there are more egregious instances of counterfeiting going on (like fakes of actual issued US coins in fake PCGS holders) ? >>
I have been troubled by these, because they are a violation of the Hobby Protection act, and people seemed to be ignoring it. I also have purchased coins from people that maybe don't know that much about coins, and I have seen a lot of people duped by unscrupulous operators.
Also, it is not fair for you to assume that just because I was troubled by one fake coin doesn't mean I wasn't troubled by other fake coins. It just so happens that the opportunity to do something about this particular case presented itself, so I took action.
In another instance a year and a half ago I was approached by someone that had purchased fake gold bullion coins that were in a fake holder from ATS. He came to me to authenticate the coins for him. I could tell right away that they were fake coins in fake holders. I think he was taken for about 5K. I got another authorized dealer I know involved, we referred them to ATS, and also got the local authorities involved. I do not know what happened to it, because I handed that off. I do know that the local authorities were taking it seriously and following up on it.
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I'd be interested to hear more about the coin show you attend where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ? Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ? >>
I was refereeing to a Monthly coin show I do in my home state. It is in the bourse contract that you are not allowed to sell any imitation Numismatic item that is not marked copy. I have never seen the bourse operator make a big deal of the provision. If you ask him about it, he may even have forgotten he put it in the contract.
I believe the point I was making is that I could not resell that round at that show as is because I would be in violation of my contract. However, if it was marked copy I would be able to sell it. The point was about damages.
The coin show contract is actually a moot point now, because the HPA was amended. It is now a violation of the HPA to resell an item that is not marked as copy. So now, contract or no, I cannot resell a silver round that looks like a coin, that is not marked copy without being in violation of the HPA.
I'm a merchant and someone tries to spend the "coin" above,they get a $.50 credit for it,maybe $1 if I'm having a good day.That is an outstanding design,one of the best that I've ever seen.It doesn't have "In God We Trust" on it so no confusion here about it being an actual US coin.
The Golden Bear conjures up dreams of California that i had long ago when i was closer to the beginning of my life than the end.I would dream of going to California,hanging out on the beaches all buffed out,kicking sand in other dude's faces....
Ah,what the hell,$2....Oh,it's got "COPY" on it. Copy of what? The California Grizzly bear is extinct you know. $1 is what i can give you for it... Unless it's made of silver...Give you $5 for it if it's made of silver...not silver...it should say ".999 Ag" or similar if made of silver...
i'm going to have the piece gold-plated...
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I once made some small center hub caps for one of my cars. They looked like big coins. Am I in trouble ? Where is this headed, and where will it end ? >>
I don't know, I have not seen your small center hubs, sounds cool. I say slap a "copy" mark on there, and keep on rolling with no worries.?
As far as where it is going, and when it will end, I don't have a crystal ball, but I will opine. I think we are going to see a big change in the bullion round industry as makers of these fake silver eagles realize how vulnerable they are to an HPA violation. We will see them going away from things that can be confused as coins, if they do make something that is a copy of an existing coin design, they will start marking them as such.
BTW- you may noticed I skipped a couple questions, I will get back to those. They were skipped because they require a long answer.
As I've said before I believe you had good intentions. But you refuse to acknowledge what really happened. It's your head in the sand or another orifice.
<< <i>Also, as I said the reason they contacted my attorney to start a new case, was because the saw the published settlement notice. >>
First rule of being an effective ambulance chaser - keep doing what works. In this situation they get to reuse the same complaint and brief, just change a few names and dates. Makes for efficiency, although it reduces the number of hours they can claim for the next extortion.
The period for people to take advantage of the result you 'won' ended 10Jun2015 and the Settlement Administrator will report the results to the court in due time.
Anybody want to bet on how many of the 2396 purchasers (of which 2223 had email addresses and were personally notified) take 'advantage' of the settlement. Other than Tom, of course...
Tom, I assume you made a claim, did you elect to receive the round marked "COPY" or did you request a refund?
The refund option doesn't seem very good - the spot price of Silver during the period to file a claim was between 15.91 and 17.75 which is among the lowest price in the period covered by the settlement, March 7, 2008 to March 9, 2015, unless you bought it between about August 2008 and August 2009, that would mean you lost money. Except for the $1,000 you received as lead plaintiff.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>As I've said before I believe you had good intentions. But you refuse to acknowledge what really happened. It's your head in the sand or another orifice.
<< <i>Also, as I said the reason they contacted my attorney to start a new case, was because the saw the published settlement notice. >>
First rule of being an effective ambulance chaser - keep doing what works. In this situation they get to reuse the same complaint and brief, just change a few names and dates. Makes for efficiency, although it reduces the number of hours they can claim for the next extortion.
The period for people to take advantage of the result you 'won' ended 10Jun2015 and the Settlement Administrator will report the results to the court in due time.
Anybody want to bet on how many of the 2396 purchasers (of which 2223 had email addresses and were personally notified) take 'advantage' of the settlement. Other than Tom, of course...
Tom, I assume you made a claim, did you elect to receive the round marked "COPY" or did you request a refund?
The refund option doesn't seem very good - the spot price of Silver during the period to file a claim was between 15.91 and 17.75 which is among the lowest price in the period covered by the settlement, March 7, 2008 to March 9, 2015, unless you bought it between about August 2008 and August 2009, that would mean you lost money. Except for the $1,000 you received as lead plaintiff. >>
Let's keep this respectful, and leave off the name calling, or talk of orifices.
To answer your question, I requested I get my rounds back marked "Copy." Also, keep in mind one of my main objects was to get them to stop selling them, or start marking them copy. This was accomplished as soon as they were served. I had other secondary objectives that I will get into later.
So let's get this straight. The people who were "harmed" by the horrible people making these rounds could actually go to a dealer and sell these horrible rounds for the price of silver.
Now after this wonderful victory for collectors, these people can send back their horrible rounds, and get new ones with a counter-stamp. If they took these to a dealer, they would get the price of silver for them.
So in the end, the victory results is nothing for those "harmed". Still trying to figure out how they were harmed.
But the lawyers made out with 6 figures, which was probably the only true reason the entire thing was done. As they say, follow the money.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow. I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ? >>
It was not a consideration, nor do I think it should have been. Just like if someone wanted to buy fake gold eagles (from china or anywhere else.) I don't thank that should be a product choice for them.
why not go after the fake coin makers and sellers haul them to court and get them in jail
and now they wonder why the coin hobby is in shambles cause people will not face the major issues facing the hobby
and no this isn't a major issue more like a very minor one >>
The private cause of action allowed in the HPA would allow you to go after a maker of a fake coin, you can get an injunction, damages, and attorney fees. A private right of action such as this can not get someone thrown in jail. Only the government can bring criminal charges against someone.
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Did you attempt to achieve any type of resolution with Westminster Mint prior to filing the legal action ? >>
No I did not, while getting them to stop producing this round was a primary objective I was also looking to make a point. More on this to come in an answer to one of your other questions.
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them [the fake coins] and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I did not let the race or national origin of any maker factor into my decision on who to pursue. If they are Chinese, British, Canadian, or even American, it doesn't matter. What matters is what they are doing, and the practicality of going after them.
Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark
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>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow. I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ? >>
It was not a consideration, nor do I think it should have been. Just like if someone wanted to buy fake gold eagles (from china or anywhere else.) I don't thank that should be a product choice for them. >>
Fake Gold Eagles are, well, not gold. I agree, those should not be allowed. Significant monetary damages can be suffered by someone because of them. These silver rounds, however, have the full metallic content they are supposed to have (correct ?).
I think it should have been a consideration that many of your fellow coin collectors may not agree and they may want the choice of being able to buy cheap silver rounds like these. AND, this case has potentially damaged the value of a multitude of silver rounds currently held by individuals (possibly including some that were not produced by Westminster Mint). If they can't be sold in their present form, the owners of them will have to get them melted at their expense, or stamped "COPY" which may reduce their resale value. Any financial hit for that would be relatively small, however.
Personally, I would not buy a silver round that has "COPY" on it because that would imply that it is a COPY of a silver round (not real silver ?).
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Why bother going after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ? >>
This is a very good questions, and for those that think this is already an interesting thread, it is time for an even more interesting twist. While these type of rounds have always bothered me, there is a reason I choose this particular case to start. I also found it interesting how people would criticize me and say I picked the wrong target, then I would see these same people in a different thread go on about how they hate the phone telemarketers. You will see the extreme irony in this in a future post when I answer D Carrs last group of questions. But for now here is the answer to this question.
The back story
It will probably surprise many of you, but I am a long time Republican activist with a libertarian bent. I understand the importance of consumer protection, but I also believe when the government get involved in regulating they usually mess things up.
I was really upset a couple of years ago when the Minnesota legislature passed the coin bullion dealer law. They just rammed it through and they seemed to treat anyone from the industry with suspicion, except for some of the big telemarketers. One of the biggest telemarketers even testified before the MN legislature that they helped write the bill. No wonder the thing was designed in such a terrible way that it nearly killed our local coin shows, drove honest dealers out of the state, and made national dealers refuse to do business with Minnesota residents.
One of the oddest provisions in the bill was that it did not cover silver and gold bars and rounds, it only covered coins. What an strange exception to have in the bullion dealer law. While someone is making a decision to buy a silver bar or round vs a coin they weigh the pros and cons. Do they want to pay a little extra and get the guarantee for weight and purity that they get with a coin, or do they want to save a little money and go with the round or bar. Either one is a valid choose, depending on what is best for that particular person. But to me it made no sense to require a license to sell the product that provides more consumer protections yet exclude the product that might be slightly riskier for a consumer. Of course my preference is that we have no law at all, and any problems should be taken care of with existing fraud statues. If you must regulate coin dealers it should be a uniform law throughout the country.
When testifying before the MN legislature, Gary Adkins asked the assistant MN Attorney General, why cover coins and not bars and rounds? The response the Assistant Attorney General gave was that all the recent complaints involved coins, and they wanted to narrowly focus the law to just address these recent problems. Of course this was total BS, because the Attorney General also admitted that all of the issues involved telemarketers and none involved in-person transactions. Yet the law covers in-person transactions. For a long time I remained puzzled as to why the law would exclude bar and only covered coins.
Then when I was doing some internet search's I ran across a press release from the Westminster Mint. The Westminster Mint was a company from Minnesota and they claimed to be makers and or Marketers of silver rounds. Wow, this was quit a eureka moment for me. This was a possible explanation as to why the MN Coin bullion dealer law exempted bars and rounds. There was a big manufacture and or marketer of these silver rounds based in Plymouth, MN. A law that made it more difficult to buy and sell coins in Minnesota, could potentially be a big boon for a company that makes/distributes silver rounds.
I went to there website and discovered that some of the silver rounds they sold appeared to look very much like a silver eagle. How ironic is that, you need a license in MN to sell a silver eagle, but you can sell this silver round that looks like a silver eagle from a company in MN, without a license. I did a little further research, and while correlation does not necessarily mean causation, I discovered that the Headquarters for the Westminter Mint was within a couple of blocks of the district of one of the authors of the legislation. Well that certainly was interesting.
As I stated a number of times in this thread, I had always been bothered by these silver rounds, that seem to be ignoring the Hobby protection act. Of course I did not know for sure there was a violating the act until I had one of their products in hand. Now had I ordered the rounds and they came back "copy" that would have been totally fine, and I never would have engaged an attorney. Of course I still would have used this silver round as an example of how stupid the MN coin bullion dealer law is.
The one on the left you need a license to sell in the state of Minnesota, but the one on right you can sell all you want. What is the difference the one on the left is an actual coin made by the US Mint, and guaranteed for weight and purity by the US Mint. The one on the right is a copy made and or marketed by a company in Plymouth, MN. This can be a vary powerful visual to explain one of my points about this legislation.
This back story should help you understand why I choose to start with this company, as opposed to any number of other companies that could be vulnerable to an HPA action. While the Westminster Mint could very well have nothing to do with the MN coin bullion dealer law, it really didn't matter to an HPA case. Keep in mind this is an answer to D Carr's question as to why the Westminster Mint, as opposed to some other potential violator.
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark
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......
Although you have many dissenters on this thread, many of us appreciate your effort. Your latest post is an excellent explanation of your rational. From someone who has seen the damage of the MN coin bullion dealer law first hand, well done! It is nice to see the "little guy" fight back and make a point no matter how small that point may be. I look forward to additional insight behind the lawsuit and your reasoning in the future.
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow. I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ? >>
It was not a consideration, nor do I think it should have been. Just like if someone wanted to buy fake gold eagles (from china or anywhere else.) I don't thank that should be a product choice for them. >>
Fake Gold Eagles are, well, not gold. I agree, those should not be allowed. Significant monetary damages can be suffered by someone because of them. These silver rounds, however, have the full metallic content they are supposed to have (correct ?). >>
The two coins I got I had shot with an XRF gun, they both came back .999 fine silver. Of the rounds had the exact correct weight, the other round was about 0.5% short. So, yes I would say both were within reasonable tolerances.
<< <i> I think it should have been a consideration that many of your fellow coin collectors may not agree and they may want the choice of being able to buy cheap silver rounds like these. AND, this case has potentially damaged the value of a multitude of silver rounds currently held by individuals (possibly including some that were not produced by Westminster Mint). If they can't be sold in their present form, the owners of them will have to get them melted at their expense, or stamped "COPY" which may reduce their resale value. Any financial hit for that would be relatively small, however. >>
I would agree that the value of these silver rounds were not damaged by my case, but were damage by the manufacturer when they made them and were out of compliance with the HPA. The whole point of the damages part of my suit, was to recover the very damages you described here.
<< <i>Personally, I would not buy a silver round that has "COPY" on it because that would imply that it is a COPY of a silver round (not real silver ?). >>
I totally get that, I would also add that I would not buy a silver round that looks like the replica of a real coin, but is not properly marked. I guess I will be stuck buying silver rounds with original designs on them. The Ron Paul silver round you mentioned sounded pretty cool.
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark
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>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I wrote: "...I'm not here to defend Westminster Mint - I've never had any dealings with them and the only thing I know about them is what I've read in this thread." you wrote: "How about the other defendants in the case, have you had any dealings with Ian Clay, Michael Kott, or the Highland Mint?" Not that I know of. Should I know them ? What did they do (if anything) ? NOTE: One of my customers may have sent dies that I engraved for him to one of these people for striking. But I don't remember for sure who that was. As I remember it was for a Ron Paul silver round.
<< <i>
I believe the last question I have left to answer is what did Ian Clay, Michael Kott, do? I take this as kind of an historical question, and really not related to my case. Irving Kott, the father of Michael Kott, was a well know convicted stock swindler. It is alleged that Ian Clay, and Irving Kott worked together at stock boiler rooms across Europe. There is also a story of them working together at JB Oxford.
Check out this Time Magazine article from June 24, 2001, Titled "The Seceret life of JB Oxford."
There was also a lawsuit where the original owner of the Highland mint alleged Irving Kott got the Highland mint by trading him pumped up stock that later became nearly worthless. Michael Kott, Irving Kott's son is now the owner of the Highland mint. Ian Clay is also mentioned in this story.
There is some good information on the history of the Highland mint, and Irving Kott in this story from Sharesleuths on February 4, 2014 titled "Trick Play: Memorabilia company peddled Patriots, Seahawks gear with forged player autographs."
<< <i>After reading the replies here, as I have said before, the rounds themselves were not a problem at all, as far as I'm concerned.
However, "pump and dump" boiler-room stock (and coin) promoters are, by definition, bad.
But perhaps the biggest villain of all in this situation is the Minnesota law. Any chance or progress in getting that changed ? >>
We certainly agree on the biggest villain, definitely the MN law. I know ITCA has organized some dealers, and have an effort underway to change the law. They seem to be more focused on a legislative fix. I have been around MN politics for a long time and I think seeking a legislative fix is wasted effort with the current Governor and the Democrats (we call them the DFL in MN) in control of the Minnesota Senate. I am currently on the hunt for a lawyer with a good understanding of the constitution, because I think the law is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. Stay tuned.
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation.
We certainly agree on the biggest villain, definitely the MN law. I know ITCA has organized some dealers, and have an effort underway to change the law. They seem to be more focused on a legislative fix. I have been around MN politics for a long time and I think seeking a legislative fix is wasted effort with the current Governor and the Democrats (we call them the DFL in MN) in control of the Minnesota Senate. I am currently on the hunt for a lawyer with a good understanding of the constitution, because I think the law is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. Stay tuned.
What is the most aggravating,most rankling thing about the MN bullion laws? Is not seeking a legislative fix the sensible way to go? After all,the legislature is where the laws are made? I admit to being mostly ignorant about MN laws,the sole exception being the law in Minnesota as it relates to a certain substance that the evidence has shown to have valid medicinal uses.I wish we had an open forum around here.I really do enjoy exchanging ideas on a host of subjects with intelligent people....anyways,is this what is pizzing people off?
"Effective July 1, 2014, in order to sell to buyers in Minnesota professional sellers of any coin with more than 1% content of silver, gold, platinum, or palladium, must register with the State of Minnesota, paying a surety bond of at least 10% of their gross sales. In response, numismatists are embargoing Minnesota. Some refuse to sell even face-to-face outside of Minnesota, with anyone from Minnesota."
Tomthecoinguy,please write a few words for us about the MN law so that us ignorant ones can put your cause into a better perspective.
I'm thinking that all law is vulnerable to constitutional challenge.Unlike perfect coins,there is no such thing as perfect law but it looks to me like MN bullion dealer law is draconian.There is no better word for it.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Same old same old... nothing new, exactly as previously reported and discussed.
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al - 0:14-cv-00619-SRN-HB docket items:
06/12/2015 76 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(JAM) (Entered: 06/12/2015) 06/11/2015 75 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/11/15. (SMD) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
From the order:
C. Class counsel’s Petition for Fees and Costs is GRANTED. An award of $110,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Class counsel DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The request for an incentive award of $1,000.00 to the named plaintiff is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As reported, the class members can either exchange their rounds for one stamped copy or sell it back at spot with shipping costs paid by the defendants. That's it. No admission of guilt, no precedent for the HPA, nothing. >>
So you didn't think there was anything new in my post??? How about the fact that we now have additional cases, and this could just be the beginning? >>
I can't let this one slide by.
It seems to me, that with the "settlement" (where the attorney gets $110,000 and YOU get $1,000), I could definitely see this attorney wanting more cases. Its a cash cow where he gets some serious money and the "plaintiff's" get a mere stipend.
If I were an attorney, I'd settle every freaking one of the cases just to keep the cases coming! It's a business with big returns yet, the outcomes have no affect on future "business"!
In simpler terms, the door has been opened for future actions where no legal claims get settled, no precedent gets set, and no action is resolved other than the attorney getting a big payment and the plaintiff gets a mild stipend.
A big thanks to ProfHaroldHill fro bringing some clarity to what actually occurred instead of what some folks would like to believe occurred.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions So ask away! >>
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I once made some small center hub caps for one of my cars. They looked like big coins. Am I in trouble ? Where is this headed, and where will it end ? >>
I don't know, I have not seen your small center hubs, sounds cool. I say slap a "copy" mark on there, and keep on rolling with no worries.?
As far as where it is going, and when it will end, I don't have a crystal ball, but I will opine. I think we are going to see a big change in the bullion round industry as makers of these fake silver eagles realize how vulnerable they are to an HPA violation. We will see them going away from things that can be confused as coins, if they do make something that is a copy of an existing coin design, they will start marking them as such.
BTW- you may noticed I skipped a couple questions, I will get back to those. They were skipped because they require a long answer. >>
Comments
Time, along with health, the most important of all. So many people waste both.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Invest your hard-earned capital and your time. Then wait for some yahoo to sue you.
<< <i>Just one more example of why business in this county is slowly grinding to a halt.
Invest your hard-earned capital and your time. Then wait for some yahoo to sue you. >>
Kind of crazy that everything is grinding to a halt. Guess my wife, myself and most of our friend are lucky as we all had a great 2014.
The positive attitude displayed here is amazingly underwhelming.
Keep up the pressure. I am sure with how easy this went your lawyers are already planning additional class actions. Once the complaint and motion to certify the class are done there really isnt much work to do to file additional lawsuits against other defendants. This is very cookie-cutter law. And with one settlement you are bound to convince others to do the same.
Dont let the naysayers bother you. If you werent correct this case would have 1) never have been certified and 2) settled.
Yesterday was the final Settlement fairness hearing in my hobby protection act case. The Hearing was at 4:00 PM. I was looking forward to attending, unfortunately I misjudged the time it would take me to get to the court house. It was raining and rush hour had started so the traffic was the main culprit. I arrived 15 minutes late, and when I came in my attorney was justifying his fee. I had missed the part where he was explaining why the settlement was fair, and I missed the part where he was defending my incentive award. I was their in time for my attorneys to point out that I was in the court room. It was also important to note that no class members attended to object to the settlement. Very shortly after the hearing was over, I think within an hour, the judge's final order approving the settlement was entered for the record. Stephen was impressed with the efficiency of the federal bench here in this district.
As I mentioned in another thread, as a stroke of luck the final settlement hearing was on the same day as our monthly coin club meeting. So after we grabbed a bit to eat, we headed over to the Kenwood community center in Minneapolis for the meeting.
The first half hour of the meeting was the typical club business, and we talk about our youth action, and getting more items for it next year. We also talked about a number of different subjects. I then introduced the speaker. Since this was my introduction I have that part of the presentation pretty much verbatim here is what I said in my introduction.
I would like to introduce to you today my attorney Stephen DeNittis, who is visiting us from his home in New Jersey. I could probably spend the next hour in a half just talking about all of Stephen's credential and the honors he has been given in the legal profession. However, instead I an going tell you about my experience with him.
When I discovered a violation of the Hobby Protection act, I went on line and looked for the most experienced attorney in that area of law. I found Stephen, and it was the smartest move I could make.
As the case went along, and the complaint and other fillings were made public. A number of different lawyers I know read through the filings Stephen made in the case. The first comments they made to me were all remarkably similar. The first thing they all told me was that I have a really good lawyer. I could not agree more.
I'm really excited to present to you Stephen DeNittis.
Stephen then spoke for about the next half hour. He started off by telling us about the DeMarco vs National Collector's mint case, which was the first private action brought under the hobby protection act. DeMarco came to Stephen in 2005 after he saw a notification from the US mint. The notice was an advisory from the US Mint that the freedom tower silver dollar was not a real coin. DeMarco did not know much about coins, but he wanted to have a commemorative coin, as a reminder of the event on that day. He had bought the Freedom tower coin, and was shocked when he found out it was not a real coin. DeMarco was from New York, and while they could bring a class action under the laws of NY, those law are not that consumer friendly, and it would also limited the class to NY residents. So then Stephen began to search for other possible causes of action. This is when he discovered the Hobby protection act.
There were three keys to the law that made this the perfect vehicle for the Demarco case. First it was a Federal law, so the class could consist of anyone in the country. Second, it allowed for a private right of action (anyone can sue under it, not just the Federal government). The third thing is it contained a fee shifting provision. Fee shifting means that if you sue under it, and you win the defendant has to pay your attorney's fees.
Stephen also said when the HPA was originally debated in congress, it was brought up that the HPA would work well as a class action suit. This is because an HPA case would likely have a lot of people defrauded by a little amount, which is exactly what a class action was designed to remedy. Another helpful factor is that it uses that standard of strict liability, which means if you make a coin and it is not marked as copy, you are responsible. You can not argue that the plaintiff was responsible for his or her own damages because of a mistake he or she made, or because he or she should have know better.
One thing that surprised Stephen in 2005, when he first discovered the HPA, was that it had been around since the 70's yet no one had brought a private action under the law. He search and search the legal databases but could not find any other action. That is becaue there was none, DeMarco was a case of first impressions for the court. Stephan also noted that two weeks after he filed suit, the Attorney General for NY, Eliot Spitzer, also filed suit against The National Collector's mint. Stephen said that while he cannot prove it, he suspects that his suit prompted the Attorney General's action. As further evidence of this, Spitzers filings had a lot of similar elements to his filings.
In the Demarco case, the argument was that the Freedom tower coins was purporting to be an original Numismatic item, but it was not and as such should have been marked copy. The National Collector's Mint claimed it was a coin, but it was not a legally authorized coin, and as such it was an imitation numismatic item. The key in that case was getting by a motion to dismiss. Once they got by that, The National Collector's Mint settled. The denial of the motion to dismiss became a publish opinion to be referenced by future HPA cases.
Then Stephen talked about my case a little bit. The size of my class was about 2600 people, and I believe he said there were about 100,000 silver rounds involved He also mentioned how he was surprised that there was a 9 year period between the first private HPA case and the second case which was mine. Although, their have been 5 or 6 actions by the Federal Trade commission in that time, but those are not considered private courses of action.
He also said that my case was a little different from DeMarco because in the DeMarco case the mint had not made a coin commemorating 9/11 (that came later.) but in my case the silver round was a replica of a coin the mint had actually made. In some ways this made my case easier than the DeMarco case.
He also talked about the recent updates to the HPA, and how the act has now been expanded. He said that you could now be in volition of the act, not just for making or importing them, but also if you sell them. This means an action could potentially be brought against an individual that bought one of these silver rounds, that looks like a coin, and sells it. Although he said an action against an individual would be unlikely, mainly because an attorney would likely go after the bigger sellers.
He then told us that while it took nine years between the first and second private HPA case, the third and four are already in the works (he may have said they have already been filed, but I am not sure on that). After seeing the National Magazine and Newspaper ads announcing the settlement in our case, an individual who had bought a couple of similar silver rounds contacted Stephen. Stephen said they will be two different cases, and he did mention the names of the new defendants. I do not remember exactly, so I did not want to list them here, in fears I may get the name wrong. As more attorney's become aware of this law with the private course of action, and the fee shifting, we will likely be seeing more of these cases.
The next half hour he spent answering questions, there were a lot of good questions from the club member. One of the questions was about what Stephen thought of a private attorney using this law to sue the Chinese counterfeiters that have become such a problem in this hobby. Stephen said that these foreign companies are really hard to sue and recover any kind of judgment against them. Most of them do not have any assets, or any kind of a presence in this country, so their would be no way to collect a judgment or enforce an injunction. However, you could potentially go after the importers, or seller of them in this country. He brought up the Lumber Liquidator case to illustrate how hard a case would be against a Chinese manufacture, but the US company that distributes it could be vulnerable to a suit.
He was also asked if he worried about the company's just folding up shop when he sues them. Stephen said that it is definitely a concern when he brings a lawsuit. He also mentioned that is one of the reasons they typically include the principles of the business (owners or people in control of the business) in the lawsuit, and the courts have allowed them to do that. This was done in my case.
After the meeting Stephen stayed around for a while and talked with a number of the club members. I could tell that the club members really enjoyed his talk. Stephen also told me how impressed he was with our club. He donated the speaking fee we gave him back to the club, to go into our fund for young numismatists that we had talked about in the business part of the meeting.
A personal note:
One of the reasons I started this thread is because I thought it might be fun for board members to follow along the case as it progressed. One of the problems this posed for me, was that doing it while the case was on going limited what I could say on the case. I was pretty much limited to "just the facts." I also avoided any questions that could reasonably be asked of me during discovery. I really think this caused the tread to go a little crazy, because I could not set the records straight on some of the crazy comments made. Not for one second did I wish that I had not started this thread, because I think the thread brought out some important issues.
Well, the case has been settle, the settlement has been approved, and my muzzle has been removed. So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al - 0:14-cv-00619-SRN-HB docket items:
06/12/2015 76 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(JAM) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
06/11/2015 75 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/11/15. (SMD) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
From the order:
C. Class counsel’s Petition for Fees and Costs is GRANTED. An award of $110,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Class counsel DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The request for an incentive award of $1,000.00 to the named plaintiff is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As for the settlement agreement? Here: http://www.denittislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Settlement-Agreement-Fully-Executed-with-Exhibits.pdf
As reported, the class members can either exchange their rounds for one stamped copy or sell it back at spot with shipping costs paid by the defendants. That's it. No admission of guilt, no precedent for the HPA, nothing.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>Same old same old... nothing new, exactly as previously reported and discussed.
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al - 0:14-cv-00619-SRN-HB docket items:
06/12/2015 76 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(JAM) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
06/11/2015 75 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/11/15. (SMD) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
From the order:
C. Class counsel’s Petition for Fees and Costs is GRANTED. An award of $110,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Class counsel DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The request for an incentive award of $1,000.00 to the named plaintiff is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As for the settlement agreement? Here: http://www.denittislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Settlement-Agreement-Fully-Executed-with-Exhibits.pdf
As reported, the class members can either exchange their rounds for one stamped copy or sell it back at spot with shipping costs paid by the defendants. That's it. No admission of guilt, no precedent for the HPA, nothing. >>
So you didn't think there was anything new in my post??? How about the fact that we now have additional cases, and this could just be the beginning?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
But here is the list of all cases, nation-wide filed by your attorney after yours and not a single one of them sounds like anybody minting silver rounds...
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
1 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-03255 890 05/08/2015
GALPERN v. NRDC EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC et al
2 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2015-cv-02516 890 05/07/2015
CAPO v. TOP RANK, INC. et al
3 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-03187 370 05/06/2015
BOBADILLA v. TOP RANK, INC. et al
4 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2015-cv-02117 190 04/21/2015
BROEDERDORF v. BACHELER
5 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-01829 370 03/11/2015 04/21/2015
NIEDERMAYER v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC.
6 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 2:2015-cv-01656 890 03/06/2015
ACKERMAN v. AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION et al
7 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 1:2015-cv-01524 190 02/27/2015
BLOCK v. RBS CITIZENS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
8 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 2:2015-cv-01115 371 02/11/2015 03/18/2015
STRICKLEN v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC
9 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2015-cv-00566 890 02/05/2015 04/20/2015
WRIGHT v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC.
10 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) njdce 3:2015-cv-00259 890 01/13/2015
MARCUS v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.
11 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) txwdce 1:2014-cv-01142 370 12/30/2014
Clemente et al v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. et al
12 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) txwdce 1:2014-mc-02588 190 12/12/2014
IN RE: Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
13 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) txwdce 1:2014-cv-00932 190 10/10/2014
Steeley v. Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountain/Southwest, L.P. et al
14 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2014-cv-05652 370 10/03/2014 12/29/2014
CLEMENTE et al v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. et al
15 DeNittis, Stephen P. (aty) flmdce 3:2014-cv-01021 710 08/26/2014 09/15/2014
Blackthorne v. The Salon People, Inc. et al
16 DENITTIS, STEPHEN P. (aty) paedce 2:2014-cv-03630 190 06/12/2014 09/09/2014
DEVINSKAYA v. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL INC. et al
17 DeNittis, Stephen P (aty) mndce 0:2014-cv-00619 890 03/07/2014 06/11/2015
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions I asked throughout this thread:
You said: "I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds, and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible."
I asked: "why ?" By that I mean why do these silver rounds bother you to this level when there are more egregious instances of counterfeiting going on (like fakes of actual issued US coins in fake PCGS holders) ?
I'd be interested to hear more about the coin show you attend where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ?
Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
Did you attempt to achieve any type of resolution with Westminster Mint prior to filing the legal action ?
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them [the fake coins] and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ?
Why bother going after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ?
I once made some small center hub caps for one of my cars. They looked like big coins. Am I in trouble ? Where is this headed, and where will it end ?
I wrote: "...I'm not here to defend Westminster Mint - I've never had any dealings with them and the only thing I know about them is what I've read in this thread."
you wrote: "How about the other defendants in the case, have you had any dealings with Ian Clay, Michael Kott, or the Highland Mint?"
Not that I know of. Should I know them ? What did they do (if anything) ?
NOTE: One of my customers may have sent dies that I engraved for him to one of these people for striking. But I don't remember for sure who that was. As I remember it was for a Ron Paul silver round.
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow.
I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters.
I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it.
We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling.
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I think this falls into the category of things I should not answer right now. I will be happy to answer this after the case is resolved. >>
Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ?
Like the ANA for offering this:
Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Sarasota Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Liberty Seated Collectors Club for offering this:
Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this:
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this:
Or NGC and the Smithsonian Institution for licensing and offering this:
Or PCGS and the California Gold Group for offering this:
So where will it end ?
Are you going to disrupt all these reputable activities which have an accepted place in numismatics ? >>
<< <i>IF there actually ARE new cases, they have nothing to do with your case. Your case went away. The settlement includes the dismissal of your complaint. Poof. Nothing. >>
You are just wrong, I said in my post that I was not sure if it was filled yet, so keep watching. Also, as I said the reason they contacted my attorney to start a new case, was because the saw the published settlement notice. You can stick your head in the sand and think this is not going to make a difference, but just you watch and see.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ? >>
I have no plans at this time to ever be a lead plaintiff in a Hobby protection act case again. Although, I may help and encourage others to file suits to help clean up the industry.
I will render my lay persons opinion on the images below, since you asked. But it will ultimately be the courts that decide I am not the arbiter of the law.
<< <i> Like the ANA for offering this:
I think this medal crosses the line, to be on the safe side, the makers and sellers should mark it as copy, or just use different design that do not look like a real coin.
<< <i>Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this:
I don't see a problem with one above, it doesn't look like a coin at all, I don't see anyone confusing that for a coin.
<< <i>Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this:
I don't see a problem with the one above, although I don't see the back of the medal either.
<< <i>Or the Sarasota Coin Club for offering this:
I don't see a problem with one above, it doesn't look like a coin at all, I don't see anyone confusing that for a coin.
<< <i>Or the Liberty Seated Collectors Club for offering this:
This is an interesting one above, because it has a lot of the eliminates that the courts used in DeMarco to determine if something looked like a coin. Although I don't see how anyone would confuse that for a coin. I am going to say, mark it with copy to be safe.
<< <i> Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this:
This is another interesting one above, because it doesn't really have any eliminates that the courts used in DeMarco to determine if something looked like a coin. Although it does use a classic image from coinage in the past. I am going to say, mark it with copy to be safe.
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this:
This is another interesting one above, because it has a few eliminates that the courts used in DeMarco to determine if something looked like a coin. Although I don't see how anyone would confuse that for a coin. I am going to say, mark it with copy to be safe.
<< <i>Or NGC and the Smithsonian Institution for licensing and offering this:
If anyone has bought the above "coin" let me know, I can refer you to a good HPA attorney.
<< <i>Or PCGS and the California Gold Group for offering this:
This could be problematic, it should be marked copy.
<< <i>So where will it end ?
Are you going to disrupt all these reputable activities which have an accepted place in numismatics ? >>
Hard to say, but I suspect the industry is going to start paying more attention to the HPA, and will start marking things that might be confused for a coin with the word "copy."
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] I asked throughout this thread:
You said: "I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds, and then they try to make them look as much like a real coin as possible."
I asked: "why ?" By that I mean why do these silver rounds bother you to this level when there are more egregious instances of counterfeiting going on (like fakes of actual issued US coins in fake PCGS holders) ?
>>
I have been troubled by these, because they are a violation of the Hobby Protection act, and people seemed to be ignoring it. I also have purchased coins from people that maybe don't know that much about coins, and I have seen a lot of people duped by unscrupulous operators.
Also, it is not fair for you to assume that just because I was troubled by one fake coin doesn't mean I wasn't troubled by other fake coins. It just so happens that the opportunity to do something about this particular case presented itself, so I took action.
In another instance a year and a half ago I was approached by someone that had purchased fake gold bullion coins that were in a fake holder from ATS. He came to me to authenticate the coins for him. I could tell right away that they were fake coins in fake holders. I think he was taken for about 5K. I got another authorized dealer I know involved, we referred them to ATS, and also got the local authorities involved. I do not know what happened to it, because I handed that off. I do know that the local authorities were taking it seriously and following up on it.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I'd be interested to hear more about the coin show you attend where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ?
Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ? >>
I was refereeing to a Monthly coin show I do in my home state. It is in the bourse contract that you are not allowed to sell any imitation Numismatic item that is not marked copy. I have never seen the bourse operator make a big deal of the provision. If you ask him about it, he may even have forgotten he put it in the contract.
I believe the point I was making is that I could not resell that round at that show as is because I would be in violation of my contract. However, if it was marked copy I would be able to sell it. The point was about damages.
The coin show contract is actually a moot point now, because the HPA was amended. It is now a violation of the HPA to resell an item that is not marked as copy. So now, contract or no, I cannot resell a silver round that looks like a coin, that is not marked copy without being in violation of the HPA.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
That's correct. Well spent.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I'm a merchant and someone tries to spend the "coin" above,they get a $.50 credit for it,maybe $1 if I'm having a good day.That is an outstanding design,one of the best that I've ever seen.It doesn't have "In God We Trust" on it so no confusion here about it being an actual US coin.
The Golden Bear conjures up dreams of California that i had long ago when i was closer to the beginning of my life than the end.I would dream of going to California,hanging out on the beaches all buffed out,kicking sand in other dude's faces....
Ah,what the hell,$2....Oh,it's got "COPY" on it. Copy of what? The California Grizzly bear is extinct you know. $1 is what i can give you for it... Unless it's made of silver...Give you $5 for it if it's made of silver...not silver...it should say ".999 Ag" or similar if made of silver...
i'm going to have the piece gold-plated...
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I once made some small center hub caps for one of my cars. They looked like big coins. Am I in trouble ? Where is this headed, and where will it end ? >>
I don't know, I have not seen your small center hubs, sounds cool. I say slap a "copy" mark on there, and keep on rolling with no worries.?
As far as where it is going, and when it will end, I don't have a crystal ball, but I will opine. I think we are going to see a big change in the bullion round industry as makers of these fake silver eagles realize how vulnerable they are to an HPA violation. We will see them going away from things that can be confused as coins, if they do make something that is a copy of an existing coin design, they will start marking them as such.
BTW- you may noticed I skipped a couple questions, I will get back to those. They were skipped because they require a long answer.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
A lot of us have ideas of what needs copy and what doesn't.
It almost seems as if it is round it needs copy to be safe?
I disagree with some of your advice.
It would have been better to have confirmation from a judge on where the line is
Now it seems things that aren't confusing need to be marked to be safe from a class action settlement.
counterfeits.
bob
<< <i>Also, as I said the reason they contacted my attorney to start a new case, was because the saw the published settlement notice. >>
First rule of being an effective ambulance chaser - keep doing what works. In this situation they get to reuse the same complaint and brief, just change a few names and dates. Makes for efficiency, although it reduces the number of hours they can claim for the next extortion.
The period for people to take advantage of the result you 'won' ended 10Jun2015 and the Settlement Administrator will report the results to the court in due time.
Anybody want to bet on how many of the 2396 purchasers (of which 2223 had email addresses and were personally notified) take 'advantage' of the settlement. Other than Tom, of course...
Tom, I assume you made a claim, did you elect to receive the round marked "COPY" or did you request a refund?
The refund option doesn't seem very good - the spot price of Silver during the period to file a claim was between 15.91 and 17.75 which is among the lowest price in the period covered by the settlement, March 7, 2008 to March 9, 2015, unless you bought it between about August 2008 and August 2009, that would mean you lost money. Except for the $1,000 you received as lead plaintiff.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>As I've said before I believe you had good intentions. But you refuse to acknowledge what really happened. It's your head in the sand or another orifice.
<< <i>Also, as I said the reason they contacted my attorney to start a new case, was because the saw the published settlement notice. >>
First rule of being an effective ambulance chaser - keep doing what works. In this situation they get to reuse the same complaint and brief, just change a few names and dates. Makes for efficiency, although it reduces the number of hours they can claim for the next extortion.
The period for people to take advantage of the result you 'won' ended 10Jun2015 and the Settlement Administrator will report the results to the court in due time.
Anybody want to bet on how many of the 2396 purchasers (of which 2223 had email addresses and were personally notified) take 'advantage' of the settlement. Other than Tom, of course...
Tom, I assume you made a claim, did you elect to receive the round marked "COPY" or did you request a refund?
The refund option doesn't seem very good - the spot price of Silver during the period to file a claim was between 15.91 and 17.75 which is among the lowest price in the period covered by the settlement, March 7, 2008 to March 9, 2015, unless you bought it between about August 2008 and August 2009, that would mean you lost money. Except for the $1,000 you received as lead plaintiff. >>
Let's keep this respectful, and leave off the name calling, or talk of orifices.
To answer your question, I requested I get my rounds back marked "Copy." Also, keep in mind one of my main objects was to get them to stop selling them, or start marking them copy. This was accomplished as soon as they were served. I had other secondary objectives that I will get into later.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Okay, now lets hope the OP's Attorney sues Alibaba or Aliexpress for acting as the facilitator for importing
counterfeits.
bob
If anyone has bought a fake from one of these places PM me, I know a really go HPA attorney.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Now after this wonderful victory for collectors, these people can send back their horrible rounds, and get new ones with a counter-stamp. If they took these to a dealer, they would get the price of silver for them.
So in the end, the victory results is nothing for those "harmed". Still trying to figure out how they were harmed.
But the lawyers made out with 6 figures, which was probably the only true reason the entire thing was done. As they say, follow the money.
why not go after the fake coin makers and sellers haul them to court and get them in jail
and now they wonder why the coin hobby is in shambles cause people will not face the major issues facing the hobby
and no this isn't a major issue more like a very minor one
Coins for Sale: Both Graded and Ungraded
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oqym2YtcS7ZAZ73D6
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow.
I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ? >>
It was not a consideration, nor do I think it should have been. Just like if someone wanted to buy fake gold eagles (from china or anywhere else.) I don't thank that should be a product choice for them.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>what a joke
why not go after the fake coin makers and sellers haul them to court and get them in jail
and now they wonder why the coin hobby is in shambles cause people will not face the major issues facing the hobby
and no this isn't a major issue more like a very minor one >>
The private cause of action allowed in the HPA would allow you to go after a maker of a fake coin, you can get an injunction, damages, and attorney fees. A private right of action such as this can not get someone thrown in jail. Only the government can bring criminal charges against someone.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Did you attempt to achieve any type of resolution with Westminster Mint prior to filing the legal action ? >>
No I did not, while getting them to stop producing this round was a primary objective I was also looking to make a point. More on this to come in an answer to one of your other questions.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them [the fake coins] and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I did not let the race or national origin of any maker factor into my decision on who to pursue. If they are Chinese, British, Canadian, or even American, it doesn't matter. What matters is what they are doing, and the practicality of going after them.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
mark
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>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow.
I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ? >>
It was not a consideration, nor do I think it should have been. Just like if someone wanted to buy fake gold eagles (from china or anywhere else.) I don't thank that should be a product choice for them. >>
Fake Gold Eagles are, well, not gold. I agree, those should not be allowed. Significant monetary damages can be suffered by someone because of them.
These silver rounds, however, have the full metallic content they are supposed to have (correct ?).
I think it should have been a consideration that many of your fellow coin collectors may not agree and they may want the choice of being able to buy cheap silver rounds like these.
AND, this case has potentially damaged the value of a multitude of silver rounds currently held by individuals (possibly including some that were not produced by Westminster Mint). If they can't be sold in their present form, the owners of them will have to get them melted at their expense, or stamped "COPY" which may reduce their resale value. Any financial hit for that would be relatively small, however.
Personally, I would not buy a silver round that has "COPY" on it because that would imply that it is a COPY of a silver round (not real silver ?).
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Why bother going after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ? >>
This is a very good questions, and for those that think this is already an interesting thread, it is time for an even more interesting twist. While these type of rounds have always bothered me, there is a reason I choose this particular case to start. I also found it interesting how people would criticize me and say I picked the wrong target, then I would see these same people in a different thread go on about how they hate the phone telemarketers. You will see the extreme irony in this in a future post when I answer D Carrs last group of questions. But for now here is the answer to this question.
The back story
It will probably surprise many of you, but I am a long time Republican activist with a libertarian bent. I understand the importance of consumer protection, but I also believe when the government get involved in regulating they usually mess things up.
I was really upset a couple of years ago when the Minnesota legislature passed the coin bullion dealer law. They just rammed it through and they seemed to treat anyone from the industry with suspicion, except for some of the big telemarketers. One of the biggest telemarketers even testified before the MN legislature that they helped write the bill. No wonder the thing was designed in such a terrible way that it nearly killed our local coin shows, drove honest dealers out of the state, and made national dealers refuse to do business with Minnesota residents.
One of the oddest provisions in the bill was that it did not cover silver and gold bars and rounds, it only covered coins. What an strange exception to have in the bullion dealer law. While someone is making a decision to buy a silver bar or round vs a coin they weigh the pros and cons. Do they want to pay a little extra and get the guarantee for weight and purity that they get with a coin, or do they want to save a little money and go with the round or bar. Either one is a valid choose, depending on what is best for that particular person. But to me it made no sense to require a license to sell the product that provides more consumer protections yet exclude the product that might be slightly riskier for a consumer. Of course my preference is that we have no law at all, and any problems should be taken care of with existing fraud statues. If you must regulate coin dealers it should be a uniform law throughout the country.
When testifying before the MN legislature, Gary Adkins asked the assistant MN Attorney General, why cover coins and not bars and rounds? The response the Assistant Attorney General gave was that all the recent complaints involved coins, and they wanted to narrowly focus the law to just address these recent problems. Of course this was total BS, because the Attorney General also admitted that all of the issues involved telemarketers and none involved in-person transactions. Yet the law covers in-person transactions. For a long time I remained puzzled as to why the law would exclude bar and only covered coins.
Then when I was doing some internet search's I ran across a press release from the Westminster Mint. The Westminster Mint was a company from Minnesota and they claimed to be makers and or Marketers of silver rounds. Wow, this was quit a eureka moment for me. This was a possible explanation as to why the MN Coin bullion dealer law exempted bars and rounds. There was a big manufacture and or marketer of these silver rounds based in Plymouth, MN. A law that made it more difficult to buy and sell coins in Minnesota, could potentially be a big boon for a company that makes/distributes silver rounds.
I went to there website and discovered that some of the silver rounds they sold appeared to look very much like a silver eagle. How ironic is that, you need a license in MN to sell a silver eagle, but you can sell this silver round that looks like a silver eagle from a company in MN, without a license. I did a little further research, and while correlation does not necessarily mean causation, I discovered that the Headquarters for the Westminter Mint was within a couple of blocks of the district of one of the authors of the legislation. Well that certainly was interesting.
As I stated a number of times in this thread, I had always been bothered by these silver rounds, that seem to be ignoring the Hobby protection act. Of course I did not know for sure there was a violating the act until I had one of their products in hand. Now had I ordered the rounds and they came back "copy" that would have been totally fine, and I never would have engaged an attorney. Of course I still would have used this silver round as an example of how stupid the MN coin bullion dealer law is.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]
Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Reverse_zps1db4781e.jpg.html]
The one on the left you need a license to sell in the state of Minnesota, but the one on right you can sell all you want. What is the difference the one on the left is an actual coin made by the US Mint, and guaranteed for weight and purity by the US Mint. The one on the right is a copy made and or marketed by a company in Plymouth, MN. This can be a vary powerful visual to explain one of my points about this legislation.
This back story should help you understand why I choose to start with this company, as opposed to any number of other companies that could be vulnerable to an HPA action. While the Westminster Mint could very well have nothing to do with the MN coin bullion dealer law, it really didn't matter to an HPA case. Keep in mind this is an answer to D Carr's question as to why the Westminster Mint, as opposed to some other potential violator.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
Obviously, you were bothered by these rounds somehow.
I'm just wondering, when deciding to file this lawsuit, did you consider that fact that some people might be disappointed at losing this product choice ? >>
It was not a consideration, nor do I think it should have been. Just like if someone wanted to buy fake gold eagles (from china or anywhere else.) I don't thank that should be a product choice for them. >>
Fake Gold Eagles are, well, not gold. I agree, those should not be allowed. Significant monetary damages can be suffered by someone because of them.
These silver rounds, however, have the full metallic content they are supposed to have (correct ?). >>
The two coins I got I had shot with an XRF gun, they both came back .999 fine silver. Of the rounds had the exact correct weight, the other round was about 0.5% short. So, yes I would say both were within reasonable tolerances.
<< <i> I think it should have been a consideration that many of your fellow coin collectors may not agree and they may want the choice of being able to buy cheap silver rounds like these.
AND, this case has potentially damaged the value of a multitude of silver rounds currently held by individuals (possibly including some that were not produced by Westminster Mint). If they can't be sold in their present form, the owners of them will have to get them melted at their expense, or stamped "COPY" which may reduce their resale value. Any financial hit for that would be relatively small, however. >>
I would agree that the value of these silver rounds were not damaged by my case, but were damage by the manufacturer when they made them and were out of compliance with the HPA. The whole point of the damages part of my suit, was to recover the very damages you described here.
<< <i>Personally, I would not buy a silver round that has "COPY" on it because that would imply that it is a COPY of a silver round (not real silver ?). >>
I totally get that, I would also add that I would not buy a silver round that looks like the replica of a real coin, but is not properly marked. I guess I will be stuck buying silver rounds with original designs on them. The Ron Paul silver round you mentioned sounded pretty cool.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark
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>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I wrote: "...I'm not here to defend Westminster Mint - I've never had any dealings with them and the only thing I know about them is what I've read in this thread."
you wrote: "How about the other defendants in the case, have you had any dealings with Ian Clay, Michael Kott, or the Highland Mint?"
Not that I know of. Should I know them ? What did they do (if anything) ?
NOTE: One of my customers may have sent dies that I engraved for him to one of these people for striking. But I don't remember for sure who that was. As I remember it was for a Ron Paul silver round.
<< <i>
I believe the last question I have left to answer is what did Ian Clay, Michael Kott, do? I take this as kind of an historical question, and really not related to my case. Irving Kott, the father of Michael Kott, was a well know convicted stock swindler. It is alleged that Ian Clay, and Irving Kott worked together at stock boiler rooms across Europe. There is also a story of them working together at JB Oxford.
Check out this Time Magazine article from June 24, 2001, Titled "The Seceret life of JB Oxford."
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,135156,00.html
There was also a lawsuit where the original owner of the Highland mint alleged Irving Kott got the Highland mint by trading him pumped up stock that later became nearly worthless. Michael Kott, Irving Kott's son is now the owner of the Highland mint. Ian Clay is also mentioned in this story.
There is some good information on the history of the Highland mint, and Irving Kott in this story from Sharesleuths on February 4, 2014 titled "Trick Play: Memorabilia company peddled Patriots, Seahawks gear with forged player autographs."
http://sharesleuth.com/short-takes/2015/02/trick-play-memorabilia-company-peddled-patriots-seahawks-gear-with-forged-player-autographs
If you don't want to read that whole article, check out the sections titled "Highland's Past" and "Michael Kott's Past."
BTW - Ian Clay is has been licensed to sell coins by the MN Department of Commerce.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
However, "pump and dump" boiler-room stock (and coin) promoters are, by definition, bad.
But perhaps the biggest villain of all in this situation is the Minnesota law.
Any chance or progress in getting that changed ?
<< <i>After reading the replies here, as I have said before, the rounds themselves were not a problem at all, as far as I'm concerned.
However, "pump and dump" boiler-room stock (and coin) promoters are, by definition, bad.
But perhaps the biggest villain of all in this situation is the Minnesota law.
Any chance or progress in getting that changed ? >>
We certainly agree on the biggest villain, definitely the MN law. I know ITCA has organized some dealers, and have an effort underway to change the law. They seem to be more focused on a legislative fix. I have been around MN politics for a long time and I think seeking a legislative fix is wasted effort with the current Governor and the Democrats (we call them the DFL in MN) in control of the Minnesota Senate. I am currently on the hunt for a lawyer with a good understanding of the constitution, because I think the law is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. Stay tuned.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation.
What is the most aggravating,most rankling thing about the MN bullion laws? Is not seeking a legislative fix the sensible way to go? After all,the legislature is where the laws are made? I admit to being mostly ignorant about MN laws,the sole exception being the law in Minnesota as it relates to a certain substance that the evidence has shown to have valid medicinal uses.I wish we had an open forum around here.I really do enjoy exchanging ideas on a host of subjects with intelligent people....anyways,is this what is pizzing people off?
"Effective July 1, 2014, in order to sell to buyers in Minnesota professional sellers of any coin with more than 1% content of silver, gold, platinum, or palladium, must register with the State of Minnesota, paying a surety bond of at least 10% of their gross sales. In response, numismatists are embargoing Minnesota. Some refuse to sell even face-to-face outside of Minnesota, with anyone from Minnesota."
rebirthofreason.com
Tomthecoinguy,please write a few words for us about the MN law so that us ignorant ones can put your cause into a better perspective.
I'm thinking that all law is vulnerable to constitutional challenge.Unlike perfect coins,there is no such thing as perfect law but it looks to me like MN bullion dealer law is draconian.There is no better word for it.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
<< <i>Same old same old... nothing new, exactly as previously reported and discussed.
Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc. et al - 0:14-cv-00619-SRN-HB docket items:
06/12/2015 76 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(JAM) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
06/11/2015 75 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/11/15. (SMD) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
From the order:
C. Class counsel’s Petition for Fees and Costs is GRANTED. An award of $110,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to Class counsel DeNittis Osefchen, P.C. is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The request for an incentive award of $1,000.00 to the named plaintiff is approved and is to be paid in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
As for the settlement agreement? Here: http://www.denittislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Settlement-Agreement-Fully-Executed-with-Exhibits.pdf
As reported, the class members can either exchange their rounds for one stamped copy or sell it back at spot with shipping costs paid by the defendants. That's it. No admission of guilt, no precedent for the HPA, nothing. >>
So you didn't think there was anything new in my post??? How about the fact that we now have additional cases, and this could just be the beginning? >>
I can't let this one slide by.
It seems to me, that with the "settlement" (where the attorney gets $110,000 and YOU get $1,000), I could definitely see this attorney wanting more cases. Its a cash cow where he gets some serious money and the "plaintiff's" get a mere stipend.
If I were an attorney, I'd settle every freaking one of the cases just to keep the cases coming! It's a business with big returns yet, the outcomes have no affect on future "business"!
In simpler terms, the door has been opened for future actions where no legal claims get settled, no precedent gets set, and no action is resolved other than the attorney getting a big payment and the plaintiff gets a mild stipend.
A big thanks to ProfHaroldHill fro bringing some clarity to what actually occurred instead of what some folks would like to believe occurred.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>... So I am happy to open up the thread to any questions you may have of me. I will even answer Daniel Carr's questions
Ok, here are some of the questions [D Carr] asked throughout this thread:
I once made some small center hub caps for one of my cars. They looked like big coins. Am I in trouble ? Where is this headed, and where will it end ? >>
I don't know, I have not seen your small center hubs, sounds cool. I say slap a "copy" mark on there, and keep on rolling with no worries.?
As far as where it is going, and when it will end, I don't have a crystal ball, but I will opine. I think we are going to see a big change in the bullion round industry as makers of these fake silver eagles realize how vulnerable they are to an HPA violation. We will see them going away from things that can be confused as coins, if they do make something that is a copy of an existing coin design, they will start marking them as such.
BTW- you may noticed I skipped a couple questions, I will get back to those. They were skipped because they require a long answer. >>
APMEX is calling you...........
One ringy-dingy
Two ringy-dingy
Three ringy-dingy
The name is LEE!