Numismatist on owning counterfeits

On Dec 6, 2:03 pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:
The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.

Nicely said. In criminology, we know two broad classes of
perpetrators: excusers and deniers. Excusers says (one way or
another) that the victim had it coming -or- that they themselves were
not (really) responsible for their actions. Deniers claim that they
did not really harm the victim, that there was no crime, that they
were not present, that they did not commit the act.

Famous in criminal justice circles is the theory of SYKES & MATZA
known as "techniques of neutralization." They developed this while
working with juvenile delinquents, but it applies broadly.
(*) Denial of responsibility. -- I did not intend to hurt anyone. It
wasn't my fault. (Contemporary counterfeits existed before I came
along.)
(*) Denial of injury.-- the victim was not really hurt. It's not a
big deal. (The Secret Service does not prosecute.)
(*) Denial of the victim. -- they deserved it (Chinese fakers feel
that US collectors have too much money. Cheating rich Americans is
not a crime.)
(*) Condemnation of the condemners. -- The cops are crooked, so this
arrest is unjust. ("Ever get a speeding ticket?" asks the importer of
counterfeit collectibles.)
(*) Appeal to higher loyalties. -- I won't squeal on my pals,
tradiitionally. but here we see an appeal to "numismatics" and to
"collectibility."

You can see all of that and each of those operating in the statements
of criminals who import, buy and sell counterfeit US currency and
other forgeries.

I have about a dozen good years left in my career and I'd like to see
Bogo The Clown behind bars before I retire.

Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Book 'em, Danno!"

Mike Marotta wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:03 pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:
The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.

Nicely said. In criminology, we know two broad classes of
perpetrators: excusers and deniers.

Do you really not have that wonderful feature of English Common Law,
the "lawful excuse" in the United States?

Peter.
--

Mike Marotta wrote:

You can see all of that and each of those operating in the statements
of criminals who import, buy and sell counterfeit US currency and
other forgeries.

You'd better go after Heritage, Stack's, Goldberg Coins, Bowers and
Merena, Superior ... jeepers, I could go on and on. They've all sold
contemporary counterfeits, unmarked copies, or altered coins to
collectors who find pieces like these, well, collectable. You know,
people like former ANA president and Red Book editor Ken Bressett. I
don't know if you know this, but he created a video on how forgeries are
collectable, which any ANA member can borrow. So you'd better go after
the ANA too. Oops, you can't. You write for an ANA publication. What a
terrible conflict this must be for you!

I have about a dozen good years left in my career and I'd like to see
Bogo The Clown behind bars before I retire.

Go get 'em, Dano. You can do this is a dozen years. I know you can! This
is your MISSION. It's the one good thing you can do with your life. What
else could you possible do that's as noble, that would benefit the
greatest number of people? Let us know how things go. There's a really
good story here too, with lots of background information that I've
already collected, and a great deal of material about motive. Really
incriminating stuff too, in case it goes in that direction.

On the other hand, you could go after those who have imported hundreds,
perhaps even thousands, of Chinese forgeries and then sell them as
authentic. Nah. That would be too sane. Instead of helping to fight the
biggest bane of the U.S. coin collecting market, you feel it's better to
go after those who collect the stuff as forgeries and who publish the
stuff as forgeries to help others avoid becoming victim of forgery
fraud. This, after all, is what makes you really angry. Right? It's not
the making of the forgeries or the selling of them as authentic that
gets your hair up, keeping you awake at night. It's those who enjoy
studying the forgeries. Right? Tell the truth now. That's what his is
about, right, truth vs. falsity. Or it it about something else, with you?

Me, I like going back as far as I can in time, focusing on ancients --
authentic, ancient derivatives, ancient imitatives, ancient
counterfeits, modern forgeries, modern replicas, and modern medals,
tokens, coins, commemorative coins, paper money, and stamps that are
based on the ancient coin design. I haven't bought a U.S. coin in some
years now except a few U.S. cents I bought for a set I've created
following the U.S. cent back in time to the English copper penny,
English silver penny, Anglo-Saxon silver penny, ancient Roman denarius,
and ancient Greek drachm.

Though I do have one more U.S. coin on my want list, which I've also
talked about there before, for a really whacky set I'm building. I know
if anybody can identify with whacky, you can. It's a type set of U.S.
coins that have had holes drilled, punched, or nailed into them at some
point in their lives, not coins holed just to create a holed coin but
coins meant to be used in jewelry, in clothing, as a home decoration,
etc., with the other criterion that they I must be able to pick them up
for less than $10 each. I look at myself as rescuing these poor coins.
Worth of some prize, maybe even a Nobel, who knows?

I have 41 holed U.S. type coins now, including believe it or not a few
Capped Bust and even Draped Bust specimens, some not all with decent eye
appeal despite their holes. I need just one more, a holed Presidential
dollar. Funny I haven't been able to find one in the several years now
I've been looking. Let me know if you come across one, OK?

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Dec 6, 2:03*pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:
On Dec 2, 5:44 pm, Reid Goldsborough wrote
in part:

Lawyer Michael Benveniste
previously pointed out here that at least two circuit courts have ruled
that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't
violate the U.S. counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708
F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]).

The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.

Try reading the cases.

I missed seeing earlier this enlightened post...

It seems you're playing lawyer again and trying to obfuscate.

Section 485 deals with counterfeit coins! Section 485 is titled "Coins
or Bars," and it's under Chapter 25, which is titled "Counterfeiting
and Forgery." Yes, there are other related sections in the U.S. Code,
but 485 is the first one, and the main one, dealing with counterfeit
coins.

You just said, "The cases pointed out that simple possession without
intent to defraud does not violate Section 485." Earlier you said,
over and over and over, that simple possession of counterfeits of
collectable coins is illegal. Further, you warned people that they
could have their car seized by the government if they carried a
counterfeit of a collectable coin in it, examples of this being
driving to and from and coin club meeting or coin show.

So I'll ask again, so there's no confusion, what's your legal opinion
about the legality of possessing counterfeits of collectable coins
without intent to defraud?

In , on
12/19/2009
at 07:10 PM, Reid Goldsborough said:

On Dec 6, 2:03 pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:

The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
does not violate Section 485

You just said, "The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent
to defraud does not violate Section 485." Earlier you said, over and over
and over, that simple possession of counterfeits of collectable coins is
illegal.

Yeah, I missed that one too!

Could it be that .... FINALLY .... he's tried "reading the cases" himself,
and logic is finally penetrating the thickness?

Say it ain't so! He did still try to pull a silly, illogical slant in his
brilliant follow-up. Oh well. Baby steps. Baby steps. Not that it
matters one bit.

Nick

On Dec 19, 10:10*pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:03*pm, Phil DeMayo wrote:

On Dec 2, 5:44 pm, Reid Goldsborough wrote
in part:

Lawyer Michael Benveniste
previously pointed out here that at least two circuit courts have ruled
that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't
violate the U.S. counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708
F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]).
The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.

Try reading the cases.

I missed seeing earlier this enlightened post...

It seems you're playing lawyer again and trying to obfuscate.

You are lying. Did you delete the response you made shortly after I
posted that so you could pretend that you "missed" it.

Section 485 deals with counterfeit coins!

No **** Sherlock, but it requires intent to defraud and carries severe
penalties. It does not cover simple possession.

It is section 492 (no intent to defraud required, forfeiture required,
no penalty unless you refuse upon request) that both Courts in the
Boggs case said prohibited possession of counterfeit coins and notes.

Now why don't you go and try to melt some metal with your Dremel...oh
wait, you've finally admitted that you were wrong on that one. That
only took a few years after both Jeff and I told you it couldn't
happen.

Phil DeMayo wrote:

It is section 492 (no intent to defraud required, forfeiture required,
no penalty unless you refuse upon request) that both Courts in the
Boggs case said prohibited possession of counterfeit coins and notes.

Section 485 deals with legality of possessing counterfeit coins without
intent to deceive. Section 492 deals with their seizure, which the
government is entitled to do, as Armen Vartian pointed out, as others
have pointed out. I know how hard it must be to get our mind around how
it's legal to possess something but legal as well for the government to
seize it if it desires. So hard.

Section 485 is the first and most relevant section and why these two
cases referred to it, why these cases said that simple possession
without intent to defraud doesn't violate Section 485.

You still haven't answered the question, so I'll try once mo What's
your legal opinion about the legality of possessing counterfeits of
collectable coins without intent to defraud? You've offered your legal
opinion so many other times, saying it was illegal. Do you still believe
this? Can't you offer your legal opinion once more?

Now why don't you go and try to melt some metal with your Dremel...oh
wait, you've finally admitted that you were wrong on that one. That
only took a few years after both Jeff and I told you it couldn't
happen.

The main issue, once again, was whether whizzing moves metal or removes
it. Once again. Write this down so you remember.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Nick Knight wrote:

Could it be that .... FINALLY .... he's tried "reading the cases" himself,
and logic is finally penetrating the thickness?

Say it ain't so! He did still try to pull a silly, illogical slant in his
brilliant follow-up. Oh well. Baby steps. Baby steps. Not that it
matters one bit.

It would indeed be something if Phil admitted he had been wrong. But I
don't think he has. I can't even get him to repeat what he said earlier,
over and over, his definitive pronouncements that simple possession of
counterfeits of collectable coins, without intent to deceive, is
illegal, based on his astute legal analysis connecting various cases.
Not to mention all of this dire warnings to collectors about how the
government can seize their cars if they drive, say, with a contemporary
counterfeit of a Bust half dollar to a coin club meeting.

Has the government ever seized your car for this? Better be careful.
LOL. I wonder if it has seized the car of the author of that book on
counterfeit Bust halves? He should be alerted too! Or maybe he hasn't
driven with any of them, having read Phil's warnings. I couldn't find
who this is just now -- don't have my Numismatist here. On Amazon.com I
found the book Contemporary Counterfeit Capped Bust Half Dollars by
Keith R. Davignon, but that was published in 1996. Maybe the same guy,
with an updated version, I don't know.

I did just find on Amazon.com what looks interesting: An eight-page
paper published in 1845 written by John Leonard Riddell that's titled "A
Monograph of the Silver Dollar: Good and bad." I see the ANS has a copy.
There's a later reprint too. It appears to deal not only with U.S.
dollar counterfeits known at the time but also Latin American and some
half dollar fakes as well. I don't believe I've seen a contemporary fake
of a Bust dollar. I'll try to look at this next time I'm at the ANS library.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

In , on 12/20/2009
at 03:34 PM, Reid Goldsborough said:

It would indeed be something if Phil admitted he had been wrong.

Yes, it would. I believe it's been obvious to everyone else for many years
now. Hardheads will be hardheads.

Has the government ever seized your car for this?

I know which one I'd give them!

I haven't referenced this page in years, but here's some history for anyone
that wants to understand the multiple-year "discussions" held he

http://rcc.servehttp.com/#bogophobe

Still works, although you might actually have to click on the "Hardheads and
Counterfeits (the Bogophobic)" link if you get to the table of contents. My
web redirector is ignoring the internal page reference for me. Most of the
other stuff on this page is dated and I assume not applicable anymore. Most
of the composters seem to be gone or back in their caves ... or my killfile
is working better than it used to. I'm off for most of the next 2 weeks;
I'll add reworking this page to my todo list. The bogophobic stuff is
obviously still pertinent. The rest of my rcc commentary will be retired in
the next few days. I still host a somewhat similar page for an OS/2-related
problem, but this hasn't been referenced by anyone since 2004, so I suppose
that can be retired also.

Nick

It is nice to see that, in an ever-changing world, some things remain
the same. Forever repeating themselves, yes, but never changing.