Ok what's wrong with the article

[Famspear]

By the way, what is it with anti-government people and the word "strawman" (or "straw man")? They tend to pass this word around among themselves more frequently than a group of late 1960s teenagers would have passed a joint around (not that I ever knew anybody like that when I was a teenager and, if I did, of course I didn't inhale).

Straw man [as two words] - "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted [ . . . ]" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1150 (G.&C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976).

[SteveSy]

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government; more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties

As usual, Steve, you are not comprehending what you yourself posted. Whether Rahn is actually implying it or not, a reasonable reader could infer that Rahn is implying that the federal agents should have had the “wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing” and, by logical extension, that federal agents should consider the political significance -- instead of simply enforcing the law regardless of the politics.

They should consider the political significance of raiding a place that is doing harm to no one. Are they required to, of course not.

[SteveSy]

By the way, what is it with anti-government people and the word "strawman" (or "straw man")? They tend to pass this word around among themselves more frequently than a group of late 1960s teenagers would have passed a joint around (not that I ever knew anybody like that when I was a teenager and, if I did, of course I didn't inhale).

Straw man [as two words] - "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted [ . . . ]" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1150 (G.&C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976).

Yes, and that is what your group does on a regular basis. You make an argument based on something that did not happen or something someone did not say. For instance Nikki made the argument based on the fact that I said the FBI was required to operate based on politics and then asked for the law. I never said or anyone else I referred to said they were required to. That's constructing strawman to shoot it down, "Show me the law". Of course there isn't a law.

[SteveSy]

That is, show the government is being over zealous and taking away basic liberties and freedoms.

Minting coins as money is a "basic liberty or freedom"?

Minting or creating items for barter or exchange is a basic liberty. It is not a liberty to make money and claim the Federal Government approved the coins as legal money. That's what the law says, you can't make money and claim it's legal tender, or in other words approved by the government as legal money.

It was a politically bad move by the FBI.

Letting a group of Ron Paul supporters thumb their noses at federal law would have been a worse move.

That assumes the law was violated...no one has even been arrested yet little alone convicted.

You and the others on here have blown it completely out of proportion making yourselves look rather silly IMO.

You're the one obsessed with the article. You posted it, and you're defending it.

I'm arguing against the misrepresentation of what the writer wrote.

[Nikki]

Yes, and that is what your group does on a regular basis. You make an argument based on something that did not happen or something someone did not say. For instance Nikki made the argument based on the fact that I said the FBI was required to operate based on politics and then asked for the law. I never said or anyone else I referred to said they were required to. That's constructing strawman to shoot it down, "Show me the law". Of course there isn't a law.

No, I didn't.

You said "They made a move WITHOUT thinking of the political consequences."

All I did was point out that that's exactly how they're supposed to operate. Was I incorrect in saying that? Where's the straw man?

[SteveSy]

Yes, and that is what your group does on a regular basis. You make an argument based on something that did not happen or something someone did not say. For instance Nikki made the argument based on the fact that I said the FBI was required to operate based on politics and then asked for the law. I never said or anyone else I referred to said they were required to. That's constructing strawman to shoot it down, "Show me the law". Of course there isn't a law.

No, I didn't.

You said "They made a move WITHOUT thinking of the political consequences."

All I did was point out that that's exactly how they're supposed to operate. Was I incorrect in saying that? Where's the straw man?

You said:

I have checked the USC and the enabling documents for DoJ and the FBI thoroughly and I failed to find anything saying they're supposed to analyze political implications and repercussions when enforcing the law.

The USC is the law, it would be a requirement if it were in the law. Of course there is nothing in the law that states the FBI has to consider the politics.

The government has a weak case at best....considering they have to somehow carve out an exception for gift checks and bank checks using the same law. Each have dollars written on them, are backed up by the institution issuing them, and are used as money to buy things with.

[LPC]

By the way, what is it with anti-government people and the word "strawman" (or "straw man")? They tend to pass this word around among themselves more frequently than a group of late 1960s teenagers would have passed a joint around (not that I ever knew anybody like that when I was a teenager and, if I did, of course I didn't inhale).

Straw man [as two words] - "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted [ . . . ]" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1150 (G.&C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976).

That's one meaning. Another meaning is an agent for an undisclosed principal.

I think that's the meaning that the Matrix-obsessed love, because it is consistent with their desire to believe that things are not as they seem. It allows them to put a gloss of unreality on everything that looks real to us.

So, rather than believe that everyone who makes the same arguments they have made have been convicted, they convince themselves that only the "straw man" was convicted, and that they could win in court if they could just get rid of the "straw man" the court usually convicts and get the court to see the real, living, sui juris sovereign in front of the court.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

They [federal agents] should consider the political significance of raiding a place that is doing harm to no one. Are they required to, of course not.

OK, I respect your opinion on that.

I can't speak for federal agents, but I suspect that the agents' counter-argument might be that they should not consider the political significance -- even assuming arguendo that it's a raid of a place that is "doing harm to no one" -- but should instead simply enforce the law. (They might be wrong about whether laws have been broken or they might be right, but that's a separate issue.) Of course, I understand that there may sometimes be a calculation made by law enforcement people as to which laws are going to be enforced with priority.

By the way, I express no overall opinion pro or con on the article you posted (I'm not following this particular thread closely anyway). I also express no opinion on whether the making or use of any of Mr. von NotHaus's products (either paper or coin varieties) is ultimately a criminal offense. (See, e.g., my prior comments alluding to my uncertainty about the legal meaning of "coin" and "current money" as used in section 486.)

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Minting or creating items for barter or exchange is a basic liberty.

Oh, really? What do you mean by that? (Hint: This is a trick question.)

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Minting or creating items for barter or exchange is a basic liberty.

Oh, really? What do you mean by that? (Hint: This is a trick question.)

Hmmm not quite sure what you're asking for, its pretty plain as written. You have a right to barter in a free country without the government preventing. No this does not include nuclear weapons or any other things specifically denied in the constitution such as slaves.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Hmmm not quite sure what you're asking for, its pretty plain as written

Well, you must have some reason to be believe that bartering anything you want (other than slaves, etc.) is a basic liberty. In other words, where's your authority for that statement? And don't tell me it's your right to decide what the law is, as you once did. You cannot cite yourself as authority for the proposition.

I mean, suppose you're arrested for trying to buy a McDonald's meal with Liberty Coins, or whatever they're called (if you want, assume that they're not the Ron Paul ones, but the "regular" ones). You're accused of violating 18 USC 486, the statute we've talked about before.

How are you going to persuade the judge to throw out your case with your "basic liberty" argument?

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Hmmm not quite sure what you're asking for, its pretty plain as written

Well, you must have some reason to be believe that bartering anything you want (other than slaves, etc.) is a basic liberty. In other words, where's your authority for that statement? And don't tell me it's your right to decide what the law is, as you once did. You cannot cite yourself as authority for the proposition.

I mean, suppose you're arrested for trying to buy a McDonald's meal with Liberty Coins, or whatever they're called (if you want, assume that they're not the Ron Paul ones, but the "regular" ones). You're accused of violating 18 USC 486, the statute we've talked about before.

How are you going to persuade the judge to throw out your case with your "basic liberty" argument?

It has to be a mutual agreement. If you are misrepresenting what you're trading then of course that changes things. Are you trying to claim you are/can be free if you can't even trade?

[notorial dissent]

You can make money, you just can't make money and promote it as legal tender money, money approved by the Federal government. Companies make money all the time as do the States in commemorative "coins" and notes. Nothing prevents someone from also using them for barter.
And here we have a classic "SteveSy" 180̊. No, Steve, companies and states do not make “money” all the time. Some of them produce commemoratives and medallions and tokens, but they are not, and cannot be mistaken for “money”. They do not have the legal authority to make money and they do not do so. They do have the ability to make collectibles, and if they want to produce something that can be used for barter that too is fine, but it CANNOT have the look or appearance of real money.
Your interpretation of the law would make checks illegal. Yes checks are a representation of what you have in the account but it isn't a 1 to 1 exchange. To have that account most of the time you have to pay fees and if you write a check with overdraft protection you may have to pay up to $35 per check regardless if it's for $2.00 or $500.00. The bank can also honor or not honor the check, its completely up to them. I honestly see no difference. The government hasn't authorized banks to make money either.
More Stevian nonsense. In no wise do checks meet the criteria, they do not look like currency, and they do not have the same qualities or legal connotations. Very poor rationalization. Your back costs to writing a check are your problem, if you are writing rubber checks, that is your problem as well. The big problem in that you see no difference is that you do not look except to see what you want to see. The last statement is total nonsequitor.

The whole point that keep avoiding, is that there is no problem with someone minting something intended for barter or commemorative use. The problem is in minting it and putting the appearance of legal tender on it. My big problem with the Libbies is that the dollar amount on them is false. Plain and simple, they are not and never will be worth the amount stamped on them. If von Nuthouse had been honest, he would have issued a 1 oz coin stamped as such, and sold it as that, and sold it at the current cost of silver plus a seigniorage charge. He did not, he sold a 1 oz coin for more than it was worth, and marked it at a false value, and that is not only fraud, in the real world it is called a debased coin, and that is exactly what everything he has issued has been. In the real world, a govt that did such would generally be considered to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

So please quit trying to justify a con artist with your silly rationalizations. He was defrauding people, he wasn’t doing anyone any favors except himself.

With regard to the Ron Paul nonsense in the article, since it seems RP didn’t know anything about the coins, it is unlikely that anyone else did either, and it is unlikely that FBI did either. So the use of that as an excuse to claim the raid is even sillier than the rest of it. Far from being a RP supporter, the only thing von Nutbert was supporting was his own greed, and the hope of finding a whole new market amongst the dim and bewildered for his product. He figured if they were dumb enough to buy his other merchandise they should jump at these. Big whoop!!!!

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

It has to be a mutual agreement. If you are misrepresenting what you're trading then of course that changes things. Are you trying to claim you are/can be free if you can't even trade?

I’m not claiming anything. I’m asking you about something you said. You said “Minting or creating items for barter or exchange is a basic liberty”.

I’m saying, suppose you’re charged with violating 18 USC 486 (which relates to coins). How are you going to persuade the judge to throw out your case with your "basic liberty" argument? What authority are you going to cite in open court for the idea that your conduct involves a “basic liberty”? Are you just going to say to the judge, “Minting or creating items for barter exchange is a basic liberty, and that’s all I did, judge. Please dismiss my case.” ? Do you have support for that position, something you can cite to the judge?

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

It has to be a mutual agreement. If you are misrepresenting what you're trading then of course that changes things. Are you trying to claim you are/can be free if you can't even trade?

I’m not claiming anything. I’m asking you about something you said. You said “Minting or creating items for barter or exchange is a basic liberty”.

I’m saying, suppose you’re charged with violating 18 USC 486 (which relates to coins). How are you going to persuade the judge to throw out your case with your "basic liberty" argument? What authority are you going to cite in open court for the idea that your conduct involves a “basic liberty”? Are you just going to say to the judge, “Minting or creating items for barter exchange is a basic liberty, and that’s all I did, judge. Please dismiss my case.” ? Do you have support for that position, something you can cite to the judge?

I never said you could get away with breaking the law nor did I say you could persuade the judge of anything. I don't believe your liberty includes misrepresenting what you are using to barter with. The law at 18 USC 486 IMO is simply saying you can't misrepresent your coins as "current money" or in other words money authorized by the government. It is also my opinion that using the law to say bust NorFed would make it difficult to justify an exception for gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks or in particular for this law any exchange of commemorative coins or any round metal object for that matter.

Many on this board have interpreted "current money" to be money period, the word "current" is, I guess, meaningless and doesn't modify the meaning of the word money in any fashion.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I never said you could get away with breaking the law nor did I say you could persuade the judge of anything. I don't believe your liberty includes misrepresenting what you are using to barter with. The law at 18 USC 486 IMO is simply saying you can't misrepresent your coins as "current money" or in other words money authorized by the government. It is also my opinion that using the law to say bust NorFed would make it difficult to justify an exception for gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks.

Well, if you cannot persuade the judge that you have a basic liberty that will keep you out of jail in the face of a section 486 prosecution, then by definition your "basic liberty" argument is invalid.

As an aside, section 486 does not prohibit the use of "gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks" in the way those items are used in our economy. First, section 486 applies only to coins.

Second, section 486 applies only to something that is being used as "current money." "Current money" does not mean just anything that someone might use somewhere to pay for something. Lots of things are used to "pay for stuff" in a broad sense. That does not make them "current money."

I haven't researched this, but I am not convinced that "current money" necessarily means "authorized by the government." In other words, I'm not convinced that the government has to prove that the section 486 defendant misrepresented the coin as being "authorized by the government." I do know that under one definition, "current money" means "money which passes from hand to hand, from person to person, and circulates through the community, and is generally received." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 345 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added). Now, that's not a statutory definition, so it might or might not apply to the term "current money" as used in section 486. I don't know.

I do know that if bank checks, travelers checks, etc., were intended to be used, and were actually being used, as "current money," then by definition you would constantly see them in circulation. That means that they would be generally received -- not only in payment of services, but in making change in every day life. The fact that people use checks does not mean that they are "generally received" or that they "circulate" in the way that dimes and quarters are generally received and circulate.

Have you ever pulled into a convenience store, grabbed a soft drink, brought it to the register, plunked down a 20 dollar Federal Reserve note, and then had the register attendant try to give you change in the form of a gift check, bank check, or travelers check?

No, you haven't. Obviously, nobody in his or her right mind would assume that a gift check, bank check or travelers check could be used as "current money."

Thus, your opinion that "using the law to say bust NorFed would make it difficult to justify an exception for gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks" is completely off base. There is no "exception," and there is no need for there to be an exception. Checks are not "coins." And checks are not "current money." Further, no reasonable person is going to try to pass off a check as somehow being a "coin" or "current money." And no reasonable person receving a check is going to be fooled into thinking that a check could be either a "coin" or "current money."

In my understanding -- not having researched this area of law -- a section 486 prosecution might hinge in large measure on the terms "coin" and "current money." For the von NotHaus "medallions" or "coins," or whatever they are, I am not sure that the government would necessarily have an open and shut case. I would need a lot more information.

[LPC]

Have you ever pulled into a convenience store, grabbed a soft drink, brought it to the register, plunked down a 20 dollar Federal Reserve note, and then had the register attendant try to give you change in the form of a gift check, bank check, or travelers check?

No, you haven't. Obviously, nobody in his or her right mind would assume that a gift check, bank check or travelers check could be used as "current money."

Except SteveSy/Sybil/Cloepatra.

Oopps. I overlooked the "his or her right mind" qualification. SteveSy wouldn't qualify, so nevermind.

[notorial dissent]

The law at 18 USC 486 IMO is simply saying you can't misrepresent your coins as "current money" or in other words money authorized by the government. It is also my opinion that using the law to say bust NorFed would make it difficult to justify an exception for gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks or in particular for this law any exchange of commemorative coins or any round metal object for that matter.

Many on this board have interpreted "current money" to be money period, the word "current" is, I guess, meaningless and doesn't modify the meaning of the word money in any fashion.

Steve, your problem is that the term no one can agree on, "current money", means any and every legal tender coin and bill that the US has ever issued, from year dot. They were and are all still legal tender, with the possible exception of the antique gold ones, I have never seen a definitive answer there. They are all legal tender for face amount regardless of present numismatic value. So that covers a broad spectrum. Money when spoken of in this context MUST refer to legal tender.

Despite your opinion gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks do not come even close to the above mentioned criteria, that and the fact that they identify themselves for what they are belies your attempt at justification, and commemoratives, as long as they do not impersonate legal coins.

Big hint Steve, you leave off the dollar symbol, the numeral, and the words “Twenty Dollars” and golly gee, you have a medallion or a commemorative and that is perfectly legal. Not terribly difficult, unless you are trying to do something you shouldn’t. The Ron Paul atrocity would have been just fine as a campaign or political token if they had left the dollar amount and stuff off of them, but they didn’t did they.

The sum total of all this, is that had von Nuthouse done it legally, he would still be in business, although I suspect the moneylaundering charges might still be an inconvenience. It isn't a terribly difficult complicated thing to remember, but then it would have disrupted his little con.

Point of interest Steve, you might actually read 18 USC 486, specifically the underlined covers some of what von Nuthouse was doing.

18 USC 486
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.

[SteveSy]

The law at 18 USC 486 IMO is simply saying you can't misrepresent your coins as "current money" or in other words money authorized by the government. It is also my opinion that using the law to say bust NorFed would make it difficult to justify an exception for gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks or in particular for this law any exchange of commemorative coins or any round metal object for that matter.

Many on this board have interpreted "current money" to be money period, the word "current" is, I guess, meaningless and doesn't modify the meaning of the word money in any fashion.

Steve, your problem is that the term no one can agree on, "current money", means any and every legal tender coin and bill that the US has ever issued, from year dot. They were and are all still legal tender, with the possible exception of the antique gold ones, I have never seen a definitive answer there. They are all legal tender for face amount regardless of present numismatic value. So that covers a broad spectrum. Money when spoken of in this context MUST refer to legal tender.

Agreed...the phrase "legal tender" being the key.

Despite your opinion gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks do not come even close to the above mentioned criteria, that and the fact that they identify themselves for what they are belies your attempt at justification, and commemoratives, as long as they do not impersonate legal coins.

Big hint Steve, you leave off the dollar symbol, the numeral, and the words “Twenty Dollars” and golly gee, you have a medallion or a commemorative and that is perfectly legal. Not terribly difficult, unless you are trying to do something you shouldn’t. The Ron Paul atrocity would have been just fine as a campaign or political token if they had left the dollar amount and stuff off of them, but they didn’t did they.

What does the dollar amount have to do with anything?

The sum total of all this, is that had von Nuthouse done it legally, he would still be in business, although I suspect the moneylaundering charges might still be an inconvenience. It isn't a terribly difficult complicated thing to remember, but then it would have disrupted his little con.

What "con" are you talking about? Who was conned? Everyone involved in the liberty dollar deal knew what they were getting in to and knew from public posting what they would get if they traded the liberty dollars in. The only reason they were able to charge him with money laundering is because the coins were assumed illegal not for any other reason.

More importantly just because someone serves a warrant doesn't mean you're guilty, you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? He hasn't even been arrested yet, more to the point they didn't stop business by any legal authority they seized his means to do business huge difference there.

Point of interest Steve, you might actually read 18 USC 486, specifically the underlined covers some of what von Nuthouse was doing.

I've read it numerous times....you have to represent you medallions, coins etc as "current money" and you already agreed that means "leagl tender". He NEVER represented his money as legal tender. Legal tender is money authorized by the government. In fact he promotes the fact that it ISN'T government money as if that's a good thing.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

I never said you could get away with breaking the law nor did I say you could persuade the judge of anything. I don't believe your liberty includes misrepresenting what you are using to barter with. The law at 18 USC 486 IMO is simply saying you can't misrepresent your coins as "current money" or in other words money authorized by the government. It is also my opinion that using the law to say bust NorFed would make it difficult to justify an exception for gift checks, bank checks or travelers checks.

Well, if you cannot persuade the judge that you have a basic liberty that will keep you out of jail in the face of a section 486 prosecution, then by definition your "basic liberty" argument is invalid.

I give up , it's truly pointless discussing anything with people who ignore what is written or insist on commenting on arguments people did not make.

It's a basic liberty to barter not a basic liberty TO MISREPRESENT WHAT YOU ARE TRADING. Trading private minted coins misrepresented as "current money" or in other words "legal tender" to someone would be misrepresenting what they are, you don't have such a right. You have basic right and the liberty of freedom of speech doesn't mean you can lie about people in public or run around yelling BOMB in an airport.

I haven't researched this, but I am not convinced that "current money" necessarily means "authorized by the government." In other words, I'm not convinced that the government has to prove that the section 486 defendant misrepresented the coin as being "authorized by the government." I do know that under one definition, "current money" means "money which passes from hand to hand, from person to person, and circulates through the community, and is generally received." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 345 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added). Now, that's not a statutory definition, so it might or might not apply to the term "current money" as used in section 486. I don't know.

By that definition alone negates anything NorFed did to validate the law. Since when were liberty dollars "generally received" by the public.

I do know that if bank checks, travelers checks, etc., were intended to be used, and were actually being used, as "current money," then by definition you would constantly see them in circulation. That means that they would be generally received -- not only in payment of services, but in making change in every day life. The fact that people use checks does not mean that they are "generally received" or that they "circulate" in the way that dimes and quarters are generally received and circulate.

And liberty dollars are even less "generally received". Gift cards are far more "generally received" as change then liberty dollars. Many stores give you gift cards when exchanging items instead of cash, if you do not make the full purchase price or more then you receive the change back on the card.

Have you ever pulled into a convenience store, grabbed a soft drink, brought it to the register, plunked down a 20 dollar Federal Reserve note, and then had the register attendant try to give you change in the form of a gift check, bank check, or travelers check?

That assumes you gave a $20 bill.....I don't see where in the definition you provided you have to give FRN's for it to apply.

btw, I have never seen change provided in FRN's when using a gift card or check for that matter. It's always a credit back to a card as change.