Essentially any coin containing precious metal (even a small percentage) is included in their definition.
Please realize that the legislative intent is to protect their constituents from shady and dishonest marketeers of Numismatic or bullion related items. The people that wrote this original law had virtually no knowledge of the industry. They just knew some of their citizens were getting ripped off.
Without a proper legal challenge which would cost several million $ the state of MN can do whatever they wish. If I as a NY dealer violate their statute they can serve me or my corporation a summons, at that point I would have to pay it or fight it in Federal Court at my expense. That is why our website states no orders accepted from MN other than copper or Nickels coinage.
The current law exempts dealers that do business at “occasional” coin shows, and it does not exclude out-of-state coin shows from the count. No one knows what “occasional” means, so no one knows whether they’re exempt. The Department of Commerce is left to decide what “occasional” means. Who wants that?
We pressed DOC to increase the number of shows allowed and to write that number into the law. HF 3309 raises the exemption to 12 shows a year and excludes out-of-state coin shows.
I think I am with Tom on this one. This sounds like a disaster. "Occasional" sounds just fine to me. A case where vague is good because it makes the law meaningless. Twelve shows is a ridiculously low number for a local dealer. And somehow the notion that the DOC and thugs writing this garbage as so kind as to "exempt" dealers from their onerous regulations and won't include out of state coin shows??? Who in the world do they think they are?
I thought there was some case where these goons went after a dealer in Texas for having the nerve to sell some PMs to a buyer in Minnesota. Supposedly they paid a large fine. What a total shame that they did not just ignore it or, better yet, goad the state of Minnesota into trying to enforce this "law".
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by: HarryM Essentially any coin containing precious metal (even a small percentage) is included in their definition.
Please realize that the legislative intent is to protect their constituents from shady and dishonest marketeers of Numismatic or bullion related items. The people that wrote this original law had virtually no knowledge of the industry. They just knew some of their citizens were getting ripped off.
Without a proper legal challenge which would cost several million $ the state of MN can do whatever they wish. If I as a NY dealer violate their statute they can serve me or my corporation a summons, at that point I would have to pay it or fight it in Federal Court at my expense. That is why our website states no orders accepted from MN other than copper or Nickels coinage.
Originally posted by: HarryM Essentially any coin containing precious metal (even a small percentage) is included in their definition.
Please realize that the legislative intent is to protect their constituents from shady and dishonest marketeers of Numismatic or bullion related items. The people that wrote this original law had virtually no knowledge of the industry. They just knew some of their citizens were getting ripped off.
Without a proper legal challenge which would cost several million $ the state of MN can do whatever they wish. If I as a NY dealer violate their statute they can serve me or my corporation a summons, at that point I would have to pay it or fight it in Federal Court at my expense. That is why our website states no orders accepted from MN other than copper or Nickels coinage.
I have a question for you, if HF3309 passed, would this be enough of a change for you to start selling to Minnesota customers?
Bottom line is the state of Minnesota can regulate commerce in the state of Minnesota. It sees a need to protect its bullion buyers so it is attempting to do so. Naturally, sellers of bullion, even the reputable ones do not want the added regulation of their business.
The only way this law will be eliminated is if so demanded by the bullion buyers of Minnesota. If enough of them cannot find a seller who will deliver to them, maybe they will speak out.
The gray area of this whole legislation is it applicability to bullion sellers who do not reside in or set up shop in Minnesota. You can't stop the state from regulating commerce in the state. What does need to be stopped before it spreads to the legislature of other states is the claim of jurisdiction over those who only ship to a customer in the state after the customer has placed an order with the out of state seller.
The question that needs to be legally answered is "is an out of state seller who fills a Minnesota order and ships to that Minnesota customer actually conducting business in the state of Minnesota?"
A yes answer is likely to result in many more states following Minnesota's lead.
Interestingly, The Texax state comptroller declares that "a seller is "engaged in business" in this state if they have a Texas outlet, office or location where they take orders for taxable items."
It is also important to note that the US Supreme Court prohibits states from making out of state sellers collect sales tax on behalf of a state unless that seller has a physical presence within the state. Good chance the highest court would favor out of state sellers when it also comes to jurisdiction in the area of licensing and fees.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Personally, I think the bill does not apply to out of state internet sellers of bullion or collector coins because the Federal Government per the Constitution has the right to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8) not the state of Minnesota. Since I don't live in Minnesota, I don't have to follow a Minnesota law that has not been passed by our Federal Government that relates to interstate commerce. Can someone explain to me how I am wrong on this?
I agree and would add that unless the out of state dealer had a headquarters or office in Minnesota or otherwise had sufficient contact with the state, that the Minnesota courts would lack personal jurisdiction over any would-be defendant. Whether the out of state dealers have the essential minimum contact is an open question, but I would lean towards no. I do not think an out of state dealer has a reasonable expectation of being hauled into court by the rogue laws of a foreign state where contact with the forum state is limited.
So if a Minnesota resident, be they a dealer or non-dealer wants to cross the border into Iowa, I can sell them all of the bullion I want to because the sale hasn't taken place in Minnesota?
Personally, I think the bill does not apply to out of state internet sellers of bullion or collector coins because the Federal Government per the Constitution has the right to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8) not the state of Minnesota. Since I don't live in Minnesota, I don't have to follow a Minnesota law that has not been passed by our Federal Government that relates to interstate commerce. Can someone explain to me how I am wrong on this?
I agree and would add that unless the out of state dealer had a headquarters or office in Minnesota or otherwise had sufficient contact with the state, that the Minnesota courts would lack personal jurisdiction over any would-be defendant. Whether the out of state dealers have the essential minimum contact is an open question, but I would lean towards no. I do not think an out of state dealer has a reasonable expectation of being hauled into court by the rogue laws of a foreign state where contact with the forum state is limited.
Minnesota claims that the moment you ship to a Minnesota address you are conducting business in Minnesota and are subject to this Minnesota law. Sounds like a stretch, but it's gonna take big money to challenge it in court.
How would you like to be pulled over for a traffic ticket in your home state and have the cop come back to the car window with, "sorry buddy, you have an outstanding warrant in Minnesota, gotta take you in"?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Originally posted by: BAJJERFAN So if a Minnesota resident, be they a dealer or non-dealer wants to cross the border into Iowa, I can sell them all of the bullion I want to because the sale hasn't taken place in Minnesota?
Yes, for now. Give them time to revise their law again.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Originally posted by: BAJJERFAN So if a Minnesota resident, be they a dealer or non-dealer wants to cross the border into Iowa, I can sell them all of the bullion I want to because the sale hasn't taken place in Minnesota?
Yes, for now. Give them time to revise their law again.
I think the thread should be LOCKED, with these revelations.
Round two is today in the Minnesota Senate, the companion bill number is SF3175. The hearing is at 12:30 PM CDT in the Senate Office building. I have been told video will be streamed live over the Internet.
It should be interesting because I have been told that former Mint Director during the Clinton Administration, Philip Diehl, will be testifying on behalf of ICTA.
Why do the lawmakers hate coin collectors in Minnesota? Weren't any of them coin collectors as kids or even as adults now. Pretty soon a Minnesota resident will be limited as to how much change and currency they can have in their pocket unless they are a lawmaker with a lobbyist putting money in their pocket.
internet seller of less than $25k in the past 12 months to anyone in Minnesota is exempt.
I believe, most of us "small time eBay sellers" in bullion related products, would fall into that category. As such, it is a moot issue to most of us. So called "consumer protection" laws are a popular issue in all categories. As such, I have my doubts, that Minnesota buyers coming to the rescue, thereby creating less competition for us small fries.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
It's a much better hobby than a business or industry. There are rules and regulations instituted for many who wish to endeavor in this Utopia (bullion) I'm a former ICTA member dealer. And I do support having their "input" before the House to keep the balance between THE state / Union, and it's People.
~the end~
AND our hobby is much better than it ever was for those who have an eye for coins. (as an aside)
Just wanted to update everyone on the board, that the changes to the MN coin bullion dealer law is on the verge of passing into law. The bill, SF3175, has already passed in the Senate and is scheduled for a vote tomorrow. Since I last posted it was discovered that the main person driving this bill has a history of fraud settlements in the coin industry. I have made the members of the MN House aware of this problem, I hope they do the right thing.
Here is a copy of my e-mail to members of the MN House.
Subject: SF3175 – Consumer Fraud Statute being rewritten by a company with a history of fraud
Dear Members of the MN House:
Philip Diehl, who is President of the US Money Reserve (a private company), testified before both the House and Senate Conference committees saying that he helped write SF3175. He said in his written testimony, “The bad actors who engage in these practices taint our industry and we want to see them out of the business. To that end, we have worked with the Department of Commerce to strengthen the law.” The problem is that Philip Diehl’s company has an ongoing history of consumer fraud settlements against it. I hope you will agree that if a company with an ongoing history of fraud says they helped strengthen a consumer fraud statute, there proposed changes deserve careful scrutiny.
This is an urgent matter because SF3175 is scheduled for a vote of the full House on Tuesday, May 17th.
US Money Reserve’s, history of fraud
November 15th, 2011 - the state of Texas reached a $5 million fraud settlement against the company. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/16144170/consumer-smart-beware-us-mon In this alleged fraud the company would advertise gold “at cost.” They used advertisements that would make them sound like an official government entity. For example, calling themselves the official sounding “US Money Reserve” and using Philip Diehl, a former director of the US Mint in the ads. They would get the customer to call a toll free number and then switch them to a higher priced coin.
August 8th, 2014 - the Minnesota Department of Commerce (DoC) issues a Cease and Desist order against US Money Reserve for violating MN consumer fraud statue 80G. They would be allowed to sell to MN customer again if they could get registered with the DoC.
November, 2014 - Philip Diehl, on behalf of an industry trade organization, approaches the Department of Commerce to make changes to Consumer Fraud statute 80G. Source: Philip Diehl’s written testimony before the House Commerce committee hearing on HF3309 (SF3175).
August 31, 2015 - the US Money Reserve was sued under the Federal RICO statute for false and misleading trade practices. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/08/prweb12918763.htm I contacted the plaintiff’s attorney in the above case and he said a confidential settlement agreement was reached with US Money Reserve. While he could not disclose the terms of the settlement, the attorney continues to stand by all the information in the original complaint. Today – US Money Reserve continues to advertise gold “at cost” here is a link to their advertisement as well as the date on when it last ran. http://www.ispot.tv/ad/AYXJ/united-states-gold-and-silver-reserve-uncertain-times I would encourage you to call their toll free number and find out what happens. The number is 855-506-4764. If you call that number, you get an answering machine. If you leave your name you will get a call back from a pre-screener, who will try to find out how much money you have to spend. Then I presume you will be contacted by an account Rep. based on your responses to the pre-screener.
How SF3175 will allow the US Money Reserve to start targeting MN consumers again
SF3175 creates a huge loophole for companies like US Money Reserve, so they no longer have to register all of their employees or contractors who have interactions with customers. It adds the line “This term does not mean a natural person who has interactions with consumers solely for administrative purposes.” to 80G Subd. 4. Dealer Representatives. This means the first person to talk to the customer, their pre-screeners, will not be required to register or undergo a criminal background check. It will also mean all the Supervisors and Senior management, someone who could pressure the direct sales people to hit their sales figures “at all costs,” will not need to register and have a background check done. This new wording also opens up a lot of ambiguity in the law because what “administrative purposes” means is not defined in the law.
A loophole is also created in the section dealing with background checks, 80G.05 Subd. 2. Initial screening. With this change, the company conducting the background check no longer has to be authorized to do business in Minnesota, instead they can be approved in “any state.” This means the company is free to choose the State with the lowest standards to authorize their background check provider. Since some states allow employers to conduct their own background checks, and other control what can be included in the check or how far back the check can go, this new language could allow other states to dictate compliance standards for Minnesota law.
The changes in background check requirements, and the loophole of who needs to have the background check done, could make it easier for US Money Reserve to register and do business in MN. Under the terms of the current Cease and Desist order, if US Money Reserve can get registered, they can start selling to MN customers again.
SF3175 will likely force the closing of most, if not all local coin shows; increasing market share for the large companies
This law puts a restriction of 12 on the number of coin shows that a hobbyist can do, before having to register. While previously it said transactions were exempt at "occasional trade shows" which meant there was no limit on the number of coins shows a hobbyist could attend or get a table at, so long as the coin show was not setup on a continuous basis.
In this state there are 3 different monthly coin shows, as well as a number of other coin shows sponsored by different non-profit coin clubs. If you put a limit of 12 on the number of coin shows a dealer can attend, it would effectively kill all shows. As small show-only dealers drop shows to get under the 12 show limit, the organizers of the shows will not be able to sell enough tables to break even. This would start a downward spiral that would result in no coin shows at all.
Shutting down local coin shows will benefit the big national dealers, like US Money Reserve, in a couple of ways. The first way is by reducing competition and increase their market share. The second way has to do with consumer education. The best defense against companies that commit fraud is an educated consumer base. Since coin shows educate the consumer, by providing multiple experts and a competitive environment among the dealers, it is an effective way for customers to learn the market value of their coins. Many times customers have come to a coin show and discovered that the coins they have been buying from companies like US Money Reserve, are massively overpriced. The companies like US Money Reserve loose a customer, and we have one less victim of fraud.
SF3175 Will not pass Constitutional Muster
As currently written, not only does SF3175 limit the number of coin shows a MN coin dealer can do without registering, it also mandates that the coin shows are in the state of Minnesota. In other words, even if a MN coin-show-only dealer does less the 12 total coins shows in the year, if even one of those shows is out of state he or she must register. This is a very clear violation of the Dormant Commerce clause, and the ban on extraterritorial effects of state law.
Conclusion
SF3175 has passed the MN Senate, and has been added to the Calendar for Tuesday’s floor session. Unless these issues are fixed with a simple amendment, I would ask that you please vote No on this bill. It will enable large companies to commit fraud against Minnesota consumers, and it will shut down the first line of defense against fraud, coin shows. I am more than happy to talk to any of you, if you have any questions.
Hope this plays out for the best. I have noticed that many of the Online Dealers have a disclaimer stating they will not do business with Minnesota customers.
valiant effort and well researched and written email to MN lawmakers. It is a more objective and less emotional argument than you presented in the start of this thread.
I was not aware of the history or the detailed involvement of US Money Reserve. While the newer version of the law shows some improvement, you did an excellent and objective job of pointing out the conflict of interest and the flaws in the changes.
At the same time kudos to ICTA for their fight for some improvement. I think your thread title does them an undeserved injustice. If they had approached this fight with the "all or nothing attitude," it is more than likely it would have been "nothing" for those doing business in MN, even those that actually aren't but are wrongfully considered to be doing business in the state of MN. A title of "ICTA is attempting to improve legislation that could have a devistating impact on coin shows in MN" would have been more accurate.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Originally posted by: derryb Yes, PITA for the volume coin dealers selling or shipping to anyone in Minnesota. However, the internet seller of less than $25k in the past 12 months to anyone in Minnesota is exempt. This is an improvement, thanks to ICTA, of the earlier version of $5k.
I never said I like the idea of this regulation. I only said that it appears ICTA, who apparently cannot help to make it go away, did manage to make it somewhat better.
My ebay auctions have and will continue to carry a notice that I do not ship gold or silver to any Minnesota address because of this regulation.
derryb, I am assuming you don't sell more than $25,000 to Minnesota so why won't you ship to Minnesota if you are exempt?
Primarily because I would still have to keep records to not only know what my cumulative sales to MN residents are but to be prepared to possibly fight with MN in court if they disagree with with those totals. I've never been to MN, have no desire to go there and do not want some court in MN telling me I better show up there.
Hopefully the consumers in MN will begin to feel the pain of less competition. The more painful, the more likely they will speak out. Unless they speak out other states are likely to follow this "model" in the future. I urge all "exempt" out of state sellers to continue to not only deny sales to MN but to clearly state why they are doing so. This is unfortunate for the MN consumer, but the battle is likely to go national, one state at a time. MN is where it could get nipped in the bud, but it is now up to the consumer there to fight this battle. Let's all contribute to proving it is not a "model" law by helping to motivate the MN bullion consumers to light their torches and lift their pitchforks.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I for 1 say come on down to Georgia Mn. Dumb*****s! You cannot push your crap on me if one of your residents decides they want to purchase a coin from me on ebay! Yes...I do sell on ebay to people in Minnesota!
Originally posted by: amwldcoin You cannot push your crap on me if one of your residents decides they want to purchase a coin from me on ebay! Yes...I do sell on ebay to people in Minnesota!
Maybe you should be the first test case. Report yourself.
I agree that they shouldn't have jurisdiction on such sellers. Unfortunately a MN judge will most likely decide.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
What is the ANA doing about this? I would think they would dedicate a lot of resources to fighting this. It would be nice if the TPGs also acted. (Maybe they all are, IDK).
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The dumbing of AMERICA continues as lawmakers try to help people protect from themselves.
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......
Originally posted by: Tomthecoinguy The bill passed by 8 votes. 68-60 Did better than I thought I was going to this morning.
I talked to a State Rep. last night, and she pointed out that the MN Constitution requires a majority of all legislator in order to pass legislation. This means I lost by only 1 vote.
But close does not count in the legislature, so I congratulate ICTA on there hard fought victory. However, I stand behind my disappointment in them. I believe they could have, but choose not to consider the consequences of their bill on small dealers and on collectors.
But in a free society, we decide by votes, and the MN House has spoken.
Originally posted by: hchcoin I just read the bill online along with the changes from the previous version. Unbelievable that ICTA is supporting this. I would love to hear their side of the story and how this is good for coin dealers. Please keep us posted. From the bill itself, they define bullion as any coin containing silver or gold which is a very broad definition.
Another Blue State liberals .....feel sorry for coin collectors ,small dealers in MN
Didn't know ex-Clinton mint director Phil Diehl was associated with US Money Reserve.
Hard to keep these company names straight when they sound the same. World Reserve Monetary Exchange was the outfit that pushed the rare "ballistic" rolls of Presidential dollars on consumers several years back via full page ads in big newspapers. They use the 40th Treasurer of the US (1994-2001 under Bill Clinton) as their executive advisor. The links just keep on coming.
Originally posted by: ms70 What is the ANA doing about this? I would think they would dedicate a lot of resources to fighting this. It would be nice if the TPGs also acted. (Maybe they all are, IDK).
As far as the ANA goes, Gary Adkins is VP of the ANA, and also on the ICTA board. He was testifying in favor of SF3175 along with Philip Diehl.
Originally posted by: hchcoin I just read the bill online along with the changes from the previous version. Unbelievable that ICTA is supporting this. I would love to hear their side of the story and how this is good for coin dealers. Please keep us posted. From the bill itself, they define bullion as any coin containing silver or gold which is a very broad definition.
I was really scratching my head as to why ICTA was pushing so hard on this bill, I thought maybe they had done a really bad job of negotiating, were left with about nothing, but did not want to abandon the changes and look like they wasted the money.
However, then I had a eureka moment. I talked to another dealer that called the US Money Reserve, 855-506-4764. He left a message and when they called him back it was a room full of phone operators, they took down the name and asked how much he wanted to spend. Then they said an account rep would get back to him. He said he could hear many operators in the background.
Then I remembered how an ITCA board member had said that the background check provisions were one of the big gets for them. The new language said that the background checks and registration would not be required for people that deal with customers for purely "administrative" purposes. This means that with the change in the law they would not need to run background check on that room full of prescreens.
So this is one of the reasons I have concluded they traded away things that were good for the small dealers/hobbyist, to get things that were good for the big dealers/telemarketers.
Originally posted by: ms70 What is the ANA doing about this? I would think they would dedicate a lot of resources to fighting this. It would be nice if the TPGs also acted. (Maybe they all are, IDK).
As far as the ANA goes, Gary Adkins is VP of the ANA, and also on the ICTA board. He was testifying in favor of SF3175 along with Philip Diehl.
It looks like they are trying to protect the 'high margin' operations. The US Money Reserve is based in Texas - why are they helping write MN law? The other big telescam operation I was thinking of is GovMint.com out of Burnsville.
Ironic that you mention GovMint.com, when the MN law originally was passed the President of Asset Marketing Services, owner of GovMint.com, testified that they helped write the law. To "get out the bad actors."
Originally posted by: roadrunner Didn't know ex-Clinton mint director Phil Diehl was associated with US Money Reserve.
Hard to keep these company names straight when they sound the same. World Reserve Monetary Exchange was the outfit that pushed the rare "ballistic" rolls of Presidential dollars on consumers several years back via full page ads in big newspapers. They use the 40th Treasurer of the US (1994-2001 under Bill Clinton) as their executive advisor. The links just keep on coming.
First Minnesota. Who's next?
That's very interesting, didn't know the 40th Treasurer, Mary Ellen Withrow, was affiliated with World Reserve Monetary Exchange.
This means that Diehl and Withrow's time in Treasury would have overlapped.
Now they are both are working in different companies, but the same type of company.
Originally posted by: roadrunner Didn't know ex-Clinton mint director Phil Diehl was associated with US Money Reserve.
Hard to keep these company names straight when they sound the same. World Reserve Monetary Exchange was the outfit that pushed the rare "ballistic" rolls of Presidential dollars on consumers several years back via full page ads in big newspapers. They use the 40th Treasurer of the US (1994-2001 under Bill Clinton) as their executive advisor. The links just keep on coming.
First Minnesota. Who's next?
That's very interesting, didn't know the 40th Treasurer, Mary Ellen Withrow, was affiliated with World Reserve Monetary Exchange.
This means that Diehl and Withrow's time in Treasury would have overlapped.
Now they are both are working in different companies, but the same type of company.
More likely, with no conscience, just selling their names to the high bidders. This is typical of leaving government "service." Just look at all those signed slabs.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Comments
Please realize that the legislative intent is to protect their constituents from shady and dishonest marketeers of Numismatic or bullion related items. The people that wrote this original law had virtually no knowledge of the industry. They just knew some of their citizens were getting ripped off.
Without a proper legal challenge which would cost several million $ the state of MN can do whatever they wish. If I as a NY dealer violate their statute they can serve me or my corporation a summons, at that point I would have to pay it or fight it in Federal Court at my expense. That is why our website states no orders accepted from MN other than copper or Nickels coinage.
We pressed DOC to increase the number of shows allowed and to write that number into the law. HF 3309 raises the exemption to 12 shows a year and excludes out-of-state coin shows.
I think I am with Tom on this one. This sounds like a disaster. "Occasional" sounds just fine to me. A case where vague is good because it makes the law meaningless. Twelve shows is a ridiculously low number for a local dealer. And somehow the notion that the DOC and thugs writing this garbage as so kind as to "exempt" dealers from their onerous regulations and won't include out of state coin shows??? Who in the world do they think they are?
I thought there was some case where these goons went after a dealer in Texas for having the nerve to sell some PMs to a buyer in Minnesota. Supposedly they paid a large fine. What a total shame that they did not just ignore it or, better yet, goad the state of Minnesota into trying to enforce this "law".
Essentially any coin containing precious metal (even a small percentage) is included in their definition.
Please realize that the legislative intent is to protect their constituents from shady and dishonest marketeers of Numismatic or bullion related items. The people that wrote this original law had virtually no knowledge of the industry. They just knew some of their citizens were getting ripped off.
Without a proper legal challenge which would cost several million $ the state of MN can do whatever they wish. If I as a NY dealer violate their statute they can serve me or my corporation a summons, at that point I would have to pay it or fight it in Federal Court at my expense. That is why our website states no orders accepted from MN other than copper or Nickels coinage.
Insanity
Essentially any coin containing precious metal (even a small percentage) is included in their definition.
Please realize that the legislative intent is to protect their constituents from shady and dishonest marketeers of Numismatic or bullion related items. The people that wrote this original law had virtually no knowledge of the industry. They just knew some of their citizens were getting ripped off.
Without a proper legal challenge which would cost several million $ the state of MN can do whatever they wish. If I as a NY dealer violate their statute they can serve me or my corporation a summons, at that point I would have to pay it or fight it in Federal Court at my expense. That is why our website states no orders accepted from MN other than copper or Nickels coinage.
I have a question for you, if HF3309 passed, would this be enough of a change for you to start selling to Minnesota customers?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
The only way this law will be eliminated is if so demanded by the bullion buyers of Minnesota. If enough of them cannot find a seller who will deliver to them, maybe they will speak out.
The gray area of this whole legislation is it applicability to bullion sellers who do not reside in or set up shop in Minnesota. You can't stop the state from regulating commerce in the state. What does need to be stopped before it spreads to the legislature of other states is the claim of jurisdiction over those who only ship to a customer in the state after the customer has placed an order with the out of state seller.
The Long-Arm Statute gives states limited jurisdiction over non-residents. Minnesota's Long-Arm statute gives the state jurisdiction over anyone who "transacts any business within the state."
The question that needs to be legally answered is "is an out of state seller who fills a Minnesota order and ships to that Minnesota customer actually conducting business in the state of Minnesota?"
A yes answer is likely to result in many more states following Minnesota's lead.
Interestingly, The Texax state comptroller declares that "a seller is "engaged in business" in this state if they have a Texas outlet, office or location where they take orders for taxable items."
It is also important to note that the US Supreme Court prohibits states from making out of state sellers collect sales tax on behalf of a state unless that seller has a physical presence within the state. Good chance the highest court would favor out of state sellers when it also comes to jurisdiction in the area of licensing and fees.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I agree and would add that unless the out of state dealer had a headquarters or office in Minnesota or otherwise had sufficient contact with the state, that the Minnesota courts would lack personal jurisdiction over any would-be defendant. Whether the out of state dealers have the essential minimum contact is an open question, but I would lean towards no. I do not think an out of state dealer has a reasonable expectation of being hauled into court by the rogue laws of a foreign state where contact with the forum state is limited.
I agree and would add that unless the out of state dealer had a headquarters or office in Minnesota or otherwise had sufficient contact with the state, that the Minnesota courts would lack personal jurisdiction over any would-be defendant. Whether the out of state dealers have the essential minimum contact is an open question, but I would lean towards no. I do not think an out of state dealer has a reasonable expectation of being hauled into court by the rogue laws of a foreign state where contact with the forum state is limited.
Minnesota claims that the moment you ship to a Minnesota address you are conducting business in Minnesota and are subject to this Minnesota law. Sounds like a stretch, but it's gonna take big money to challenge it in court.
How would you like to be pulled over for a traffic ticket in your home state and have the cop come back to the car window with, "sorry buddy, you have an outstanding warrant in Minnesota, gotta take you in"?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
So if a Minnesota resident, be they a dealer or non-dealer wants to cross the border into Iowa, I can sell them all of the bullion I want to because the sale hasn't taken place in Minnesota?
Yes, for now. Give them time to revise their law again.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
So if a Minnesota resident, be they a dealer or non-dealer wants to cross the border into Iowa, I can sell them all of the bullion I want to because the sale hasn't taken place in Minnesota?
Yes, for now. Give them time to revise their law again.
I think the thread should be LOCKED, with these revelations.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF3309&session=ls89&version=list&session_number=0&session_year=2016
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
It should be interesting because I have been told that former Mint Director during the Clinton Administration, Philip Diehl, will be testifying on behalf of ICTA.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Lafayette Grading Set
I believe, most of us "small time eBay sellers" in bullion related products, would fall into that category. As such, it is a moot issue to most of us. So called "consumer protection" laws are a popular issue in all categories. As such, I have my doubts, that Minnesota buyers coming to the rescue, thereby creating less competition for us small fries.
I'm a former ICTA member dealer. And I do support having their "input" before the House to keep the balance between THE state / Union, and it's People.
~the end~
AND our hobby is much better than it ever was for those who have an eye for coins. (as an aside)
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Here is a copy of my e-mail to members of the MN House.
Subject: SF3175 – Consumer Fraud Statute being rewritten by a company with a history of fraud
Dear Members of the MN House:
Philip Diehl, who is President of the US Money Reserve (a private company), testified before both the House and Senate Conference committees saying that he helped write SF3175. He said in his written testimony, “The bad actors who engage in these practices taint our industry and we want to see them out of the business. To that end, we have worked with the Department of Commerce to strengthen the law.” The problem is that Philip Diehl’s company has an ongoing history of consumer fraud settlements against it. I hope you will agree that if a company with an ongoing history of fraud says they helped strengthen a consumer fraud statute, there proposed changes deserve careful scrutiny.
This is an urgent matter because SF3175 is scheduled for a vote of the full House on Tuesday, May 17th.
US Money Reserve’s, history of fraud
November 15th, 2011 - the state of Texas reached a $5 million fraud settlement against the company. http://www.kiiitv.com/story/16144170/consumer-smart-beware-us-mon
In this alleged fraud the company would advertise gold “at cost.” They used advertisements that would make them sound like an official government entity. For example, calling themselves the official sounding “US Money Reserve” and using Philip Diehl, a former director of the US Mint in the ads. They would get the customer to call a toll free number and then switch them to a higher priced coin.
August 8th, 2014 - the Minnesota Department of Commerce (DoC) issues a Cease and Desist order against US Money Reserve for violating MN consumer fraud statue 80G. They would be allowed to sell to MN customer again if they could get registered with the DoC.
November, 2014 - Philip Diehl, on behalf of an industry trade organization, approaches the Department of Commerce to make changes to Consumer Fraud statute 80G. Source: Philip Diehl’s written testimony before the House Commerce committee hearing on HF3309 (SF3175).
August 31, 2015 - the US Money Reserve was sued under the Federal RICO statute for false and misleading trade practices. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/08/prweb12918763.htm I contacted the plaintiff’s attorney in the above case and he said a confidential settlement agreement was reached with US Money Reserve. While he could not disclose the terms of the settlement, the attorney continues to stand by all the information in the original complaint.
Today – US Money Reserve continues to advertise gold “at cost” here is a link to their advertisement as well as the date on when it last ran. http://www.ispot.tv/ad/AYXJ/united-states-gold-and-silver-reserve-uncertain-times I would encourage you to call their toll free number and find out what happens. The number is 855-506-4764. If you call that number, you get an answering machine. If you leave your name you will get a call back from a pre-screener, who will try to find out how much money you have to spend. Then I presume you will be contacted by an account Rep. based on your responses to the pre-screener.
How SF3175 will allow the US Money Reserve to start targeting MN consumers again
SF3175 creates a huge loophole for companies like US Money Reserve, so they no longer have to register all of their employees or contractors who have interactions with customers. It adds the line “This term does not mean a natural person who has interactions with consumers solely for administrative purposes.” to 80G Subd. 4. Dealer Representatives. This means the first person to talk to the customer, their pre-screeners, will not be required to register or undergo a criminal background check. It will also mean all the Supervisors and Senior management, someone who could pressure the direct sales people to hit their sales figures “at all costs,” will not need to register and have a background check done. This new wording also opens up a lot of ambiguity in the law because what “administrative purposes” means is not defined in the law.
A loophole is also created in the section dealing with background checks, 80G.05 Subd. 2. Initial screening. With this change, the company conducting the background check no longer has to be authorized to do business in Minnesota, instead they can be approved in “any state.” This means the company is free to choose the State with the lowest standards to authorize their background check provider. Since some states allow employers to conduct their own background checks, and other control what can be included in the check or how far back the check can go, this new language could allow other states to dictate compliance standards for Minnesota law.
The changes in background check requirements, and the loophole of who needs to have the background check done, could make it easier for US Money Reserve to register and do business in MN. Under the terms of the current Cease and Desist order, if US Money Reserve can get registered, they can start selling to MN customers again.
SF3175 will likely force the closing of most, if not all local coin shows; increasing market share for the large companies
This law puts a restriction of 12 on the number of coin shows that a hobbyist can do, before having to register. While previously it said transactions were exempt at "occasional trade shows" which meant there was no limit on the number of coins shows a hobbyist could attend or get a table at, so long as the coin show was not setup on a continuous basis.
In this state there are 3 different monthly coin shows, as well as a number of other coin shows sponsored by different non-profit coin clubs. If you put a limit of 12 on the number of coin shows a dealer can attend, it would effectively kill all shows. As small show-only dealers drop shows to get under the 12 show limit, the organizers of the shows will not be able to sell enough tables to break even. This would start a downward spiral that would result in no coin shows at all.
Shutting down local coin shows will benefit the big national dealers, like US Money Reserve, in a couple of ways. The first way is by reducing competition and increase their market share. The second way has to do with consumer education. The best defense against companies that commit fraud is an educated consumer base. Since coin shows educate the consumer, by providing multiple experts and a competitive environment among the dealers, it is an effective way for customers to learn the market value of their coins. Many times customers have come to a coin show and discovered that the coins they have been buying from companies like US Money Reserve, are massively overpriced. The companies like US Money Reserve loose a customer, and we have one less victim of fraud.
SF3175 Will not pass Constitutional Muster
As currently written, not only does SF3175 limit the number of coin shows a MN coin dealer can do without registering, it also mandates that the coin shows are in the state of Minnesota. In other words, even if a MN coin-show-only dealer does less the 12 total coins shows in the year, if even one of those shows is out of state he or she must register. This is a very clear violation of the Dormant Commerce clause, and the ban on extraterritorial effects of state law.
Conclusion
SF3175 has passed the MN Senate, and has been added to the Calendar for Tuesday’s floor session. Unless these issues are fixed with a simple amendment, I would ask that you please vote No on this bill. It will enable large companies to commit fraud against Minnesota consumers, and it will shut down the first line of defense against fraud, coin shows.
I am more than happy to talk to any of you, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom “the coin guy”
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I was not aware of the history or the detailed involvement of US Money Reserve. While the newer version of the law shows some improvement, you did an excellent and objective job of pointing out the conflict of interest and the flaws in the changes.
At the same time kudos to ICTA for their fight for some improvement. I think your thread title does them an undeserved injustice. If they had approached this fight with the "all or nothing attitude," it is more than likely it would have been "nothing" for those doing business in MN, even those that actually aren't but are wrongfully considered to be doing business in the state of MN. A title of "ICTA is attempting to improve legislation that could have a devistating impact on coin shows in MN" would have been more accurate.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Yes, PITA for the volume coin dealers selling or shipping to anyone in Minnesota. However, the internet seller of less than $25k in the past 12 months to anyone in Minnesota is exempt. This is an improvement, thanks to ICTA, of the earlier version of $5k.
I never said I like the idea of this regulation. I only said that it appears ICTA, who apparently cannot help to make it go away, did manage to make it somewhat better.
My ebay auctions have and will continue to carry a notice that I do not ship gold or silver to any Minnesota address because of this regulation.
derryb, I am assuming you don't sell more than $25,000 to Minnesota so why won't you ship to Minnesota if you are exempt?
Primarily because I would still have to keep records to not only know what my cumulative sales to MN residents are but to be prepared to possibly fight with MN in court if they disagree with with those totals. I've never been to MN, have no desire to go there and do not want some court in MN telling me I better show up there.
Hopefully the consumers in MN will begin to feel the pain of less competition. The more painful, the more likely they will speak out. Unless they speak out other states are likely to follow this "model" in the future. I urge all "exempt" out of state sellers to continue to not only deny sales to MN but to clearly state why they are doing so. This is unfortunate for the MN consumer, but the battle is likely to go national, one state at a time. MN is where it could get nipped in the bud, but it is now up to the consumer there to fight this battle. Let's all contribute to proving it is not a "model" law by helping to motivate the MN bullion consumers to light their torches and lift their pitchforks.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
You cannot push your crap on me if one of your residents decides they want to purchase a coin from me on ebay! Yes...I do sell on ebay to people in Minnesota!
Maybe you should be the first test case. Report yourself.
I agree that they shouldn't have jurisdiction on such sellers. Unfortunately a MN judge will most likely decide.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
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......
The bill passed by 8 votes. 68-60
I talked to a State Rep. last night, and she pointed out that the MN Constitution requires a majority of all legislator in order to pass legislation. This means I lost by only 1 vote.
But close does not count in the legislature, so I congratulate ICTA on there hard fought victory. However, I stand behind my disappointment in them. I believe they could have, but choose not to consider the consequences of their bill on small dealers and on collectors.
But in a free society, we decide by votes, and the MN House has spoken.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I just read the bill online along with the changes from the previous version. Unbelievable that ICTA is supporting this. I would love to hear their side of the story and how this is good for coin dealers. Please keep us posted. From the bill itself, they define bullion as any coin containing silver or gold which is a very broad definition.
Another Blue State liberals .....feel sorry for coin collectors ,small dealers in MN
Hard to keep these company names straight when they sound the same. World Reserve Monetary Exchange was the outfit that pushed the rare "ballistic" rolls of Presidential dollars on consumers several years back via full page ads in big newspapers. They use the 40th Treasurer of the US (1994-2001 under Bill Clinton) as their executive advisor. The links just keep on coming.
First Minnesota. Who's next?
What is the ANA doing about this? I would think they would dedicate a lot of resources to fighting this. It would be nice if the TPGs also acted. (Maybe they all are, IDK).
As far as the ANA goes, Gary Adkins is VP of the ANA, and also on the ICTA board. He was testifying in favor of SF3175 along with Philip Diehl.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I would ship to MN if somebody bought bullion coins from me on eBay.
I'm from California and California could kick Minnesota's butt if need be
I just read the bill online along with the changes from the previous version. Unbelievable that ICTA is supporting this. I would love to hear their side of the story and how this is good for coin dealers. Please keep us posted. From the bill itself, they define bullion as any coin containing silver or gold which is a very broad definition.
I was really scratching my head as to why ICTA was pushing so hard on this bill, I thought maybe they had done a really bad job of negotiating, were left with about nothing, but did not want to abandon the changes and look like they wasted the money.
However, then I had a eureka moment. I talked to another dealer that called the US Money Reserve, 855-506-4764. He left a message and when they called him back it was a room full of phone operators, they took down the name and asked how much he wanted to spend. Then they said an account rep would get back to him. He said he could hear many operators in the background.
Then I remembered how an ITCA board member had said that the background check provisions were one of the big gets for them. The new language said that the background checks and registration would not be required for people that deal with customers for purely "administrative" purposes. This means that with the change in the law they would not need to run background check on that room full of prescreens.
So this is one of the reasons I have concluded they traded away things that were good for the small dealers/hobbyist, to get things that were good for the big dealers/telemarketers.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
What is the ANA doing about this? I would think they would dedicate a lot of resources to fighting this. It would be nice if the TPGs also acted. (Maybe they all are, IDK).
As far as the ANA goes, Gary Adkins is VP of the ANA, and also on the ICTA board. He was testifying in favor of SF3175 along with Philip Diehl.
It looks like they are trying to protect the 'high margin' operations. The US Money Reserve is based in Texas - why are they helping write MN law? The other big telescam operation I was thinking of is GovMint.com out of Burnsville.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Didn't know ex-Clinton mint director Phil Diehl was associated with US Money Reserve.
Hard to keep these company names straight when they sound the same. World Reserve Monetary Exchange was the outfit that pushed the rare "ballistic" rolls of Presidential dollars on consumers several years back via full page ads in big newspapers. They use the 40th Treasurer of the US (1994-2001 under Bill Clinton) as their executive advisor. The links just keep on coming.
First Minnesota. Who's next?
That's very interesting, didn't know the 40th Treasurer, Mary Ellen Withrow, was affiliated with World Reserve Monetary Exchange.
This means that Diehl and Withrow's time in Treasury would have overlapped.
Now they are both are working in different companies, but the same type of company.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Didn't know ex-Clinton mint director Phil Diehl was associated with US Money Reserve.
Hard to keep these company names straight when they sound the same. World Reserve Monetary Exchange was the outfit that pushed the rare "ballistic" rolls of Presidential dollars on consumers several years back via full page ads in big newspapers. They use the 40th Treasurer of the US (1994-2001 under Bill Clinton) as their executive advisor. The links just keep on coming.
First Minnesota. Who's next?
That's very interesting, didn't know the 40th Treasurer, Mary Ellen Withrow, was affiliated with World Reserve Monetary Exchange.
This means that Diehl and Withrow's time in Treasury would have overlapped.
Now they are both are working in different companies, but the same type of company.
More likely, with no conscience, just selling their names to the high bidders. This is typical of leaving government "service." Just look at all those signed slabs.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left