Liberty Dollars seized in gov raid -- MERGED THREADS

[Harold Tuttle]

[Manedwolf]

Regarding that image:

"Twenty Dollars" with nothing in between like silly, fake, ronpaul, etc.. illegal.

Use of $ symbol with a denomination ...illegal.

Lack of disclaimer stating that it is not legal tender...illegal.

This is an open and shut case.

On every technical aspect, it's breaking the law. On intent to deceive and defraud, the "instructions" are a rope the guy wove himself.

[brer]

Maned Wolf

If that is illegal, with the exception of the dollar sign, so are the vast majority of the ingots I own.

Thus we are left with only the dollar sign making it illegal.

At no point in the image does it claim to be legal tender, it has a value written on it just like most items in a supermarket do.

Specifically it does show who created it. Nor does the entity that created it claim to be the US mint or claim the item to be legal tender.

This is not as open or shut as you may think.

Me personally, I like silver eagles.  While I do not think the liberty dollars rise to the level of a scam, I believe they have been overpriced historically.

[Len Budney]

If that is illegal, with the exception of the dollar sign, so are the vast majority of the ingots I own.

If you include the dollar sign, price tags are also illegal, as are various kinds of tokens all over the country. Maned needs to give back his law degree; they're at least arguably on the right side of the law. The only substantive question is whether users of the LDs are guilty of passing them as legal tender, which is a much fuzzier issue.

I do think that many of them probably are, simply because I disbelieve their claims to educate a cashier or waitress concerning barter tokens in the time it takes to complete a transaction. Call me elitist, but I think the average change-giver is lucky to remember their own phone number, and glazes over completely when someone starts into his LD pitch. When he finishes, she takes it because it looks like a coin and says $20 on it. She'd take a subway token just as easily, if it had a denomination.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Len, you're making yourself look more foolish and ignorant with every post, sorry.

READ THE LAWS.

[Len Budney]

Len, you're making yourself look more foolish and ignorant with every post, sorry.

Your usual level of argumentation is showing: a personal insult and a complete absence of any argument or evidence. Hint: "the laws" would fill tractor-trailer trucks if printed out in full. To count as "evidence," you must be considerably more specific.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Ah, yes, "show me the law", like that Ed Brown idiot.

If you're going to do something like mint coins, you sure as hell better know all the applicable laws!

[HankB]

That negates the fact that the word Liberty has been on other US coils since at least 1910 how?

Once again, it's a guess here as to what the rational was, but I could certainly see the use of the word Liberty as being a motivator for the gov't's actions.

"Liberty" is not a requirement or a unique feature of US coins, since legal-tender, circulating coins are being minted without it . . . so I don't see how the use of a word not used on all coinage would be evidence of counterfeiting; I personally think including "USA" is the only potentially deceptive feature of the coin, but then, I won't be the one deciding the outcome of the case.

Manedwolf, you've repeatedly asserted that the law makes use of the $ sign on private coinage illegal . . . that assertion implies you have personal familiarity with the specifics. If you were to cite the specific sections of the law establishing the government's exclusive right to use of the $ sign, you'd effectively shut down all arguments to the contrary.

(When one person claims "The law doesn't say this" and another person claims "The law DOES say this" . . . it's up to the second person to prove his point; demanding the first person show what the law doesn't say involves requiring someone to prove a negative.)

[yesitsloaded]

So what about all of the currency that is still bought and sold based on it's value instead of face value. How much are silver dollars worth today? What is the face value on them? I think it falls along the same lines more or less. I think you need to give up or show us the laws Maned. The question is the use, not the coins themselves.

[Len Budney]

Ah, yes, "show me the law", like that Ed Brown idiot.

Do you intend to say something germane sooner or later? Just curious.

[Manedwolf]

I'm not going to go quoting the various sections and titles of the Code of Federal Regulations, some of which date back past the 20th century. Back to when uniform currency was standardized following the Civil War.

Why? Because I don't have to. I'm not minting currency or trying to. I know the law exists.

If you doubt the law, babble "show the me the law" and such? Go ahead and mint your own currency without worrying about what the law says. And watch what the federal government does to you. Go ahead! I'll bring popcorn. 

Do you intend to say something germane sooner or later? Just curious.

How about "I can't wait for the primaries to be over, so the conspiracy nut Paulians will get the hell out of my state and go back to their basements and black-helicopter websites."

[HankB]

This . . . discussion . . . has about run its course.

I suspect thread lock is coming . . .

[Len Budney]

I'm not going to go quoting the various sections and titles of the Code of Federal Regulations...

That's your prerogative. But if you aren't going to put up, you have to shut up. You can't refuse the burden of proof but still pretend you've proven anything.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

This . . . discussion . . . has about run its course.

I suspect thread lock is coming . . .

I suspect you're right.

As per usual, Paulians are going "LA LA LA there is no law, show me the law, LA LA..."
How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?

If you don't believe there's a law, go ahead and break it. I'll stand by and watch.

"That's a minefield."

"Show me where it says that! I don't believe that!" *walks into minefield*

*BOOM!*

"Ooo...nice hangtime."

[Len Budney]

How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?

Sigh. BY CARRYING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. This isn't rocket science.

There is no law saying that metal tokens must explicitly state that they aren't legal tender; the laws state that such instruments can't claim to be legal tender. They may make a case against the LD people, but it won't be the facile one you're suggesting. Hint: the tokens have existed for years with $ signs and the word "dollar" on them. If that were illegal per se, they'd have been shut down and charged years ago. 

As an aside, (1) Ron Paul has nothing to do with Liberty Dollars, even though the LD people obviously support Ron Paul. (2) Many RP supporters, myself included, have nothing to do with LDs. (3) Anyone with half a brain knew that the feds would shut them down sooner or later, including their proponents. You don't muscle onto government turf without eventually facing imprisonment and/or death. To suggest that anyone had any doubts on the score is needless--though consistent with your persistent need to heap ridicule.

--Len.

[Sergeant Bob]

Under 18 U.S.C. ? 486, it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law. According to the NORFED website, "Liberty merchants" are encouraged to accept NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions and offer them as change in sales transactions of merchandise or services. Further, NORFED tells "Liberty associates" that they can earn money by obtaining NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions at a discount and then can "spend [them] into circulation." Therefore, NORFEDs "Liberty Dollar" medallions are specifically intended to be used as current money in order to limit reliance on, and to compete with the circulating coinage of the United States. Consequently, prosecutors with the United States Department of Justice have concluded that the use of NORFEDs "Liberty Dollar" medallions violates 18 U.S.C. ? 486.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 
PART I--CRIMES
 
CHAPTER 25--COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY

? 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

[yesitsloaded]

I've seen the light er law. So now I guess it becomes a question of whether it was "intended for use as current money" or simply a convenient way to trade silver for other items. Intent is the whole ballgame here. I agree it doesn't look good.

[Brad Johnson]

I've seen the light er law. So now I guess it becomes a question of whether it was "intended for use as current money" or simply a convenient way to trade silver for other items. Intent is the whole ballgame here. I agree it doesn't look good.

If intended as a convenient way to trade silver, it would have been at the metal content's spot market price.  That, or some type of non-recommended market rate set by open trade. 

Their recommendation was specifically intended to have the coins be used in lieu of government-minted money (coin or paper).  That is, to make them a direct competitor of circulating legal tender.  See Sargeant Bob's quote for 18 U.S.C. ? 486 for the rest of the story.

Brad

[yesitsloaded]

I still don't see how any trade would not compete with the dollar. I guess your right because the directly intended to compete with the FRN. Oh, and Maned, you have to take back the comment about

As per usual, Paulians are going "LA LA LA there is no law, show me the law, LA LA..."
How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?

I changed my opinion when I read the law. I admit it they are pretty much screwed at this point. You can still make fun of Len until he repents though

[Len Budney]

Sergeant Bob,

Good stuff. Maned should learn by your example.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 486, it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money...

NORFED will attempt the defense that they weren't issuing their "rounds" as "current money." To do so, they'll have to distinguish barter using silver from "currency." That's a slender defense under the best of circumstances, but in the American jury system it's practically guaranteed to fail regardless how well they argue it. Like the cashiers I mentioned above, their eyes will glaze over, and when time comes to vote they'll say, "Um, looks like coins to me!"

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and its a shame that the scammers further marginalize ron paul    gooooo team!

[Len Budney]

and its a shame that the scammers further marginalize ron paul    gooooo team!

Technically there's nothing wrong with private currency: if both parties agree to use it, that's their business. A government monopoly on the issuance of money is (arguably) constitutional, but it's unjust--and it makes eternal inflation inevitable. If folks don't understand that (and I'm sure most don't) then they need to be educated.

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

this is an old redneck joke and you may not get it so ask if so....  "boy you ain't here for the huntin are ya.....,"

[CAnnoneer]

Technically there's nothing wrong with private currency: if both parties agree to use it, that's their business.

It has already been established that these guys did intend to defraud. So, the "agreement" would not have been in good faith.

A government monopoly on the issuance of money is (arguably) constitutional, but it's unjust--and it makes eternal inflation inevitable.

What is wrong with steady, controlled inflation?

If folks don't understand that (and I'm sure most don't) then they need to be educated.

You got nothing to be smug about. It only makes you look bad.

[LAK]

Brad Johnson

Their recommendation was specifically intended to have the coins be used in lieu of government-minted money (coin or paper).  That is, to make them a direct competitor of circulating legal tender.

But that is what barter is all about to start with - one way or the other - inevitably.

We can say, "in lieu of", "instead of", "rather than", etc etc; regardless, barter is a de facto "direct competitor" if it is used.

------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org